Millionaire Matchmaker: Ok, I already knew Patti Stanger was an excitable nutbag, but now she's hectoring one of her millionairesses to get her 'Chakras' aligned with 'crystal healing', as if something was wrong with her client's personality AND as if this wacknut new age woo woo could remotely do anything about it.
The woman is a millionaire you stupid dolt, she doesn't need your crackerjack bullshit! Go back to being a Madame for gold-diggers and giving your mixed-metaphor nutball advice as your brain struggles to keep up with your mouth. ;)
Real Housewives of Atlanta: Amazing. Cigarette-sucking Kim Zolciak still doesn't know she can't sing, and to top it off, Kandi is saying Kim screwed her out of the earnings promised from her production work on 'Tardy for the Party', even though Kandi graciously let it go. Now, Kim's saying she doesn't like Kandi's new song written for her, but the reality is, there's no way in Hell Kim can sing it even with AuToTuNe hard at work. Hmmm, maybe Kandi is giving Kim a little public payback for her lack of appreciation? 'Sing this, bitch!' LOL.
Kim, I Googled you, and I guess the song didn't mean a thing eh? You should pay Kandi what you owe her for making you famous. I guess money can't buy you talent (or a work ethic).
Meanwhile, Kandi had Sheree's hairdresser Lawrence in for a production session and despite those 'grown lady bills', the man can sing! I see great things for them to come. Kandi, for all her grammy-winning talent deserves someone who actually likes to sing and puts the effort in.
Sheree's dancing is bad as Kim's singing, and I think she's just as delusional about how good she is. Ugh, it was painful to watch....and judging from her partner's face, he seemed to agree.
-dB-
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Point of Inquiry: PZ Myers vs. Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney
Point of Inquiry's latest podcast featured biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers discussing accomodationism with host Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney. It quickly turned into a two-on-one debate with PZ holding his own (and his apparent temper) quite well.
Here's the link: http://pointofinquiry.libsyn.com/rss
The core of the issue is this: Should atheists be nicer to theists about their incorrect ideas, simply because they might be liberal, progressive, or even scientists advancing some of the same causes in the realm of science education and critical-thinking?
For example, does Dr. Francis Collins, the former head of the human genome project and now head of the National Institute for Science get a 'free pass' from is nutball brand of theism?
PZ was totally right on the money essentially saying that no idea is exempt from scrutiny.
Simply because we're in majority agreement with someone is no 'free pass' for bad ideas. I may think highly of someone, but if he/she claims to be psychic or sincerely advances some other woo, the skeptical boxing gloves come out and my opponent better be ready. I don't see god claims as any different or less erroneous than claims about homeopathy, acupuncture, Autism-vaccine stupidity, moon-hoax claims and the Chupacabra.
Jennifer Michael Hecht made a vague accusation to PZ that 'you might be a little wrong', but this is a statement that doesn't make any specific claim against PZ. Instead, she is defending a straw-audience of people she has deemed too delicate to handle the scrutiny of claims that she herself has rejected.
Despite the lighter tone of accomodationist atheists, they've rejected Biblical claims as much as PZ or Richard Dawkins and according to many Bibles, are going to a Hell that's just as hot. After all, Psalms 14:1 does not just call the 'aggressive atheists' fools, it deems us all fools and claims we've done abominable works and that none of us has done good.
Why would someone who rejects religious claims fret about the tone of another atheist who openly rejects the same claims, for an unspecified audience? In my view, it's a gross underestimation of the resilience of people who CAN handle hearing a tone she thinks is too much for them. So, while PZ might seem too harsh to some, Chris Mooney and Jennifer Michael Hecht simply underestimate people and their ability to deal with dissent, but they're all atheists who probably arrived at their conclusions in different ways.
It's like me strongly rejecting racist claims, and then some fellow-racist-denier says, 'hey, don't you think you're being a little harsh on the racists?'. Yes, because racism is wrong, and it needs to be resisted, but the racists would likely take offense to either of our arguments. Style be damned, the message is the same, and some styles work better for some than others.
This issue here is not being 'a little wrong', it's about specific claims and how no erroneous idea is exempt from scrutiny. Why all the fuss about tone between people who agree that no religion they've heard to date is worth believing?
How do the memes of religion spread in the first place? Why are so many people currently infected with bad cases of religion? Most people were simply told to believe the religious ideas they're infected with, and often at a young age where these bad ideas bypass their undeveloped logic.
The voices which might object to these claims have either been silenced, excluded, drowned-out by the masses and sometimes outright killed. Why on Earth in 2010 should theists expect any special treatment when religion brought us hundreds of years of Dark Ages, and continues to be a blight on progress?
While Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney on Point of Inquiry are both atheists, they seem to somehow want to avoid 'offending' theists, especially those who are 'on our side' when it comes key issues such as reproductive rights, evolution, science in general, etc.
The mistake Jennifer and Chris make is that they wrongly assume that most theists (or people) necessarily shut down when 'offended', assuming they're offended at all by mere skepticism.
Some people can handle direct confrontation of even their most sacred ideas, and others want to kill us for merely drawing cartoons or even just admitting to being insufficiently pious, let alone an atheist. If we encourage logical accomodation, then we dim the voices of dissent, and I think that's an exceedingly bad idea when unchecked religion can inspire such suffering.
The Christian Bible even says that atheists are 'fools' and that there are 'none that doeth good' in Psalms 14:1, and some christians actually call this the 'good book'! Sorry, what was that about tone again? Islam recommends death for any who leave Islam and has a practice where women are oppressed, worth half of a man and sometimes killed to 'restore honor' if they get raped, date the wrong person or not properly covered with the Hijab, Abaya and Burqa. Sorry, what was that about tone?
As we've seen, Islam motivates its adherents to 'slay the Infidel', and people such as Kurt Westergaard or Molly Norris are threatened with death for drawing the 'offensive' cartoons about Mohammad, and there's already been an attempt on Kurt Westergaard's life...good thing he had a special saferoom installed in his house. Theo Van Gogh wasn't so lucky, he was murdered for his movie about Islam called 'Submission', and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, his partner, is still under armed guard.
Historically, there's a common theme with religion: It likes to silence its opposition. The answer is not less skepticism or 'nicer' skepticism but to stay the course. What we're seeing is two different worlds: Islam is how the world is when religion has too much power. Unchecked dogma leads not just hurt feelings but outright suppression of dissent.
While Christianity is more reformed, its adherents often encourage dissenters to be silent either because they consider it rude, impious, blasphemous and otherwise uncomfortable to deal with...but there was a time when Christianity's answer to 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' was oppression or death....kind of where Islam is now. We can thank skeptics and science for the reform forced on Christianity, and that same skeptical fortitude will eventually tame Islam but it won't go quietly into the night.
Skepticism and critical-thinking should be employed early and often, regardless of who it offends. The fact is, sometimes you get through to people whether its the more aggressive forms of atheism from Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or PZ Myers, or the accomodationist styles of Jennifer Michael Hecht or Chris Mooney. Reason works, but only if someone has agreed to honor reason over dogma. Failing that, ridicule is often a good counter for those being dishonest with their foundational assumptions or who refuse to acknowledge a lost point.
There will *always* be those offended by atheists or even skeptics whether we simply identify as such, wear a Darwin shirt or bring scathing critique in full-length, best-selling books. We need to encourage critical-thought and not further foster the silly idea that beliefs have merit just because they're sincerely held. Beliefs have to be justified, and nobody and more importantly, *no idea* is exempt from this. No belief should be respected merely because it's sincerely-held, just as we wouldn't respect the sincere beliefs of racists, sexists, homophobes, Creationists, anti-vaxxers, birthers, moon-hoaxers or those who claim to have a private audience with space-pixies.
Personally, I am very grateful for the person who openly-questioned my sincere Christian beliefs when I was 20. A month later, I was an atheist. My de-conversion was exceedingly fast (with some emotional upheaval), but I know others who I've personally helped de-convert who also became atheists rather quickly once the logic set-in. I have an aggressive skeptical style which doesn't tolerate logical inconsistency that well since I tend to see it as dishonesty.
If that person many years ago hadn't had the intestinal fortitude to question my beliefs, I might be posting a Christian blog entry today. I'd have much less respect for someone who lets me languish in the land of delusion simply because he or she didn't want to hurt my feelings...and put his/her personal comfort over facts.
Those who sacrifice personal comfort to question your assumptions are actually doing you a favor. The proper tack here is not to suppress critical-review, but to embrace it, check your assumptions, and be glad we can actually have a conversation without being burned at the stake for heresy.
-dB-
Here's the link: http://pointofinquiry.libsyn.com/rss
The core of the issue is this: Should atheists be nicer to theists about their incorrect ideas, simply because they might be liberal, progressive, or even scientists advancing some of the same causes in the realm of science education and critical-thinking?
For example, does Dr. Francis Collins, the former head of the human genome project and now head of the National Institute for Science get a 'free pass' from is nutball brand of theism?
PZ was totally right on the money essentially saying that no idea is exempt from scrutiny.
Simply because we're in majority agreement with someone is no 'free pass' for bad ideas. I may think highly of someone, but if he/she claims to be psychic or sincerely advances some other woo, the skeptical boxing gloves come out and my opponent better be ready. I don't see god claims as any different or less erroneous than claims about homeopathy, acupuncture, Autism-vaccine stupidity, moon-hoax claims and the Chupacabra.
Jennifer Michael Hecht made a vague accusation to PZ that 'you might be a little wrong', but this is a statement that doesn't make any specific claim against PZ. Instead, she is defending a straw-audience of people she has deemed too delicate to handle the scrutiny of claims that she herself has rejected.
Despite the lighter tone of accomodationist atheists, they've rejected Biblical claims as much as PZ or Richard Dawkins and according to many Bibles, are going to a Hell that's just as hot. After all, Psalms 14:1 does not just call the 'aggressive atheists' fools, it deems us all fools and claims we've done abominable works and that none of us has done good.
Why would someone who rejects religious claims fret about the tone of another atheist who openly rejects the same claims, for an unspecified audience? In my view, it's a gross underestimation of the resilience of people who CAN handle hearing a tone she thinks is too much for them. So, while PZ might seem too harsh to some, Chris Mooney and Jennifer Michael Hecht simply underestimate people and their ability to deal with dissent, but they're all atheists who probably arrived at their conclusions in different ways.
It's like me strongly rejecting racist claims, and then some fellow-racist-denier says, 'hey, don't you think you're being a little harsh on the racists?'. Yes, because racism is wrong, and it needs to be resisted, but the racists would likely take offense to either of our arguments. Style be damned, the message is the same, and some styles work better for some than others.
This issue here is not being 'a little wrong', it's about specific claims and how no erroneous idea is exempt from scrutiny. Why all the fuss about tone between people who agree that no religion they've heard to date is worth believing?
How do the memes of religion spread in the first place? Why are so many people currently infected with bad cases of religion? Most people were simply told to believe the religious ideas they're infected with, and often at a young age where these bad ideas bypass their undeveloped logic.
The voices which might object to these claims have either been silenced, excluded, drowned-out by the masses and sometimes outright killed. Why on Earth in 2010 should theists expect any special treatment when religion brought us hundreds of years of Dark Ages, and continues to be a blight on progress?
While Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney on Point of Inquiry are both atheists, they seem to somehow want to avoid 'offending' theists, especially those who are 'on our side' when it comes key issues such as reproductive rights, evolution, science in general, etc.
The mistake Jennifer and Chris make is that they wrongly assume that most theists (or people) necessarily shut down when 'offended', assuming they're offended at all by mere skepticism.
Some people can handle direct confrontation of even their most sacred ideas, and others want to kill us for merely drawing cartoons or even just admitting to being insufficiently pious, let alone an atheist. If we encourage logical accomodation, then we dim the voices of dissent, and I think that's an exceedingly bad idea when unchecked religion can inspire such suffering.
The Christian Bible even says that atheists are 'fools' and that there are 'none that doeth good' in Psalms 14:1, and some christians actually call this the 'good book'! Sorry, what was that about tone again? Islam recommends death for any who leave Islam and has a practice where women are oppressed, worth half of a man and sometimes killed to 'restore honor' if they get raped, date the wrong person or not properly covered with the Hijab, Abaya and Burqa. Sorry, what was that about tone?
As we've seen, Islam motivates its adherents to 'slay the Infidel', and people such as Kurt Westergaard or Molly Norris are threatened with death for drawing the 'offensive' cartoons about Mohammad, and there's already been an attempt on Kurt Westergaard's life...good thing he had a special saferoom installed in his house. Theo Van Gogh wasn't so lucky, he was murdered for his movie about Islam called 'Submission', and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, his partner, is still under armed guard.
Historically, there's a common theme with religion: It likes to silence its opposition. The answer is not less skepticism or 'nicer' skepticism but to stay the course. What we're seeing is two different worlds: Islam is how the world is when religion has too much power. Unchecked dogma leads not just hurt feelings but outright suppression of dissent.
While Christianity is more reformed, its adherents often encourage dissenters to be silent either because they consider it rude, impious, blasphemous and otherwise uncomfortable to deal with...but there was a time when Christianity's answer to 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' was oppression or death....kind of where Islam is now. We can thank skeptics and science for the reform forced on Christianity, and that same skeptical fortitude will eventually tame Islam but it won't go quietly into the night.
Skepticism and critical-thinking should be employed early and often, regardless of who it offends. The fact is, sometimes you get through to people whether its the more aggressive forms of atheism from Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or PZ Myers, or the accomodationist styles of Jennifer Michael Hecht or Chris Mooney. Reason works, but only if someone has agreed to honor reason over dogma. Failing that, ridicule is often a good counter for those being dishonest with their foundational assumptions or who refuse to acknowledge a lost point.
There will *always* be those offended by atheists or even skeptics whether we simply identify as such, wear a Darwin shirt or bring scathing critique in full-length, best-selling books. We need to encourage critical-thought and not further foster the silly idea that beliefs have merit just because they're sincerely held. Beliefs have to be justified, and nobody and more importantly, *no idea* is exempt from this. No belief should be respected merely because it's sincerely-held, just as we wouldn't respect the sincere beliefs of racists, sexists, homophobes, Creationists, anti-vaxxers, birthers, moon-hoaxers or those who claim to have a private audience with space-pixies.
Personally, I am very grateful for the person who openly-questioned my sincere Christian beliefs when I was 20. A month later, I was an atheist. My de-conversion was exceedingly fast (with some emotional upheaval), but I know others who I've personally helped de-convert who also became atheists rather quickly once the logic set-in. I have an aggressive skeptical style which doesn't tolerate logical inconsistency that well since I tend to see it as dishonesty.
If that person many years ago hadn't had the intestinal fortitude to question my beliefs, I might be posting a Christian blog entry today. I'd have much less respect for someone who lets me languish in the land of delusion simply because he or she didn't want to hurt my feelings...and put his/her personal comfort over facts.
Those who sacrifice personal comfort to question your assumptions are actually doing you a favor. The proper tack here is not to suppress critical-review, but to embrace it, check your assumptions, and be glad we can actually have a conversation without being burned at the stake for heresy.
-dB-
Monday, September 13, 2010
The 'Mosque' at 'Ground Zero'. Yay or Nay?
There's been lots of talk surrounding the issue of the proposed Cultural Center two blocks away from Ground Zero, which is the site of the World Trade Center twin-towers destroyed in the 2001 9/11 attacks. The proposed center would have a Muslim prayer area inside (with other religions represented), and is explained as something intended to 'heal wounds'.
Despite this seemingly-innocent proclamation, the idea of a Muslim-proposed center two blocks from Ground Zero (actually on Ground Zero, if we count all areas damaged in the attacks), is going to make things *worse* for many, and it appears about 64% of New Yorkers are against the proposed construction.
To me, the religious Cultural Center doesn't come across as a means to heal or unite, but as an Islamic exclamation point on a site they directly destroyed, inspired by beliefs in the Koran and cheered on by massed of Muslims in the Middle East (just watch some of the footage shown after the 9/11 attacks).
Whether we know it or not and whether we like it or not, America's motivation after 9/11 was a response to a declared holy war. It doesn't mean that all Muslims are equally culpable, but those who represent the idealogues who seek our destruction should not expect the same rights as everyone else during wartime. If nothing else, it's a good reason to delay or declare a moratorium on new construction for mosques near areas destroyed by the motivations of Islam. If nothing else, it's a security measure, or an attempt to prevent Americans from being demoralized during an active war with militarized factions of Islam.
Furthermore, if we understand correctly that Islam is part of the problem and not the solution to a problem it created, erecting any Muslim 'interfaith' structure so close to Ground Zero should be a repugnant idea to Muslim moderates and Americans, who were also injured in the 9/11 attacks. Strangely, we don't hear much from the Muslim 'moderates' regarding this.
A Mosque or 'Islamic Cultural Center' two blocks from Ground Zero would be like a proposed Shinto/Japanese shrine near the destroyed battleships in Pearl Harbor, or a Nazi community center near Auschwitz, Treblinka or Birkenau. While there may be a Constitutional provision for those who seek to build religious structures near sites destroyed by religious extremists, the city itself can simply disallow it under zoning laws, much the same way they'd prevent a Harley mechanic from setting up shop downtown between two fine-dining establishments.
If a city can zone for new construction based on noise, pollution and other concerns, why can't they make a case for those who represent enemy combatants which we're still at war with?
If nothing else, the community center would inflame and/or demoralize Americans, and serve as a 'victory' flag for Islam near a site which isn't even restored. Osama Bin Laden is still at-large and the stated endgame of Islam is to dominate all non-Muslims. The Koran instructs its adherents to treat Infidels roughly, and 'slay them wherever you find them'.
There's no reason to allow proponents of an unreformed 7th-century death-cult to build so close to Ground Zero during wartime, even if they're only apologists who might not be actively be at war, but are still preaching the same dogma which inspired the 19 terrorists and countless others who seek to destroy or dominate the free world.
The U.S. in the past has gone to great lengths to keep up morale during wartime, and yes, unfortunately, the U.S. is at war with militarized factions of Islam, and those who would support them. How did the 19 terrorists (sometimes called the 'Magnificent 19') have so much financial and moral support in the first place, and why did their own families celebrate their martyrdom? Why does the Middle East suffer no shortage of suicide bombers? It's not something peculiar to the location, but to Islam itself.
In the shadow of the site destroyed by the forces of Islam, do we allow Muslims to build their 'community' center, when religion was precisely the cause of the as yet unrestored World Trade Center, with Osama Bin Laden still at large during a time of war? I say, no, at least, not yet, and perhaps, not there or both.
I think this is why so many Americans are conflicted about this proposed community center. They understand that Constitutionally, there's no reason to disallow it. However, we're at war with militarized factions of radical Islam. We weren't attacked by Mormons, swedes, stamp collectors or people who hate cauliflower. We were attacked and continue to be attacked by those directly-inspired by Islam, with support from others who aren't actively fighting the war.
During war-time, not every citizen is in battle carrying a gun or driving a tank, but as a nation, we aim to win wars, not lose them. If we're going to fight a war, whether we agree with it or not, we should aim to win or not fight at all.
As long as Islam has declared war on the U.S. and the west, and since 9/11 already happened, and with Osama Bin Laden still at large, I say, all bets are off.
During war-time, we don't always have the same rights we'd expect during peacetime, and this would apply to those trying to build a Shinto Shrine in 1948 near the destruction of Pearl Harbor. This proposal would be made more repugnant if the area still hadn't been restored and Japan still hadn't surrendered, and we were still at war as a response to the Pearl Harbor attacks on December 7th, 1941, with enemy number one still at large.
We can consider Ground Zero to be somewhat of a crime scene. Just like any crime scene which is taped-off barring entry as a matter of security and investigation, America can decide where those boundaries are with regard to Ground Zero, and the zoning which is enacted with regard to new construction should fall under the purview of national security and American morale.
This is not to say that mosques shouldn't be built anywhere, just that it's up to the city where to draw the 'crime' scene tape, and this might apply to all new religious construction in that area. Since religion got us in this mess, it would make sense during a time of war to have a moratorium on new religious construction in the area, at least till the war is over, Osama is captured and Ground Zero is restored. If nothing else, the timing is all wrong, and the location is suspect.
If there's to be any new structure built, I would recommend not a religious community center, but a secular museum *for everyone* which pays tribute to those who died (and survived). This museum could demonstrate the danger of religious dogma and irrational hatred, similar to Holocaust museums which remind us of the dangers of our own human frailties, ignorance, and capability for destruction.
This would help heal wounds, and wouldn't be perceived as a flag planted by Islam on the soil of their destruction.
-dB-
Despite this seemingly-innocent proclamation, the idea of a Muslim-proposed center two blocks from Ground Zero (actually on Ground Zero, if we count all areas damaged in the attacks), is going to make things *worse* for many, and it appears about 64% of New Yorkers are against the proposed construction.
To me, the religious Cultural Center doesn't come across as a means to heal or unite, but as an Islamic exclamation point on a site they directly destroyed, inspired by beliefs in the Koran and cheered on by massed of Muslims in the Middle East (just watch some of the footage shown after the 9/11 attacks).
Whether we know it or not and whether we like it or not, America's motivation after 9/11 was a response to a declared holy war. It doesn't mean that all Muslims are equally culpable, but those who represent the idealogues who seek our destruction should not expect the same rights as everyone else during wartime. If nothing else, it's a good reason to delay or declare a moratorium on new construction for mosques near areas destroyed by the motivations of Islam. If nothing else, it's a security measure, or an attempt to prevent Americans from being demoralized during an active war with militarized factions of Islam.
Furthermore, if we understand correctly that Islam is part of the problem and not the solution to a problem it created, erecting any Muslim 'interfaith' structure so close to Ground Zero should be a repugnant idea to Muslim moderates and Americans, who were also injured in the 9/11 attacks. Strangely, we don't hear much from the Muslim 'moderates' regarding this.
A Mosque or 'Islamic Cultural Center' two blocks from Ground Zero would be like a proposed Shinto/Japanese shrine near the destroyed battleships in Pearl Harbor, or a Nazi community center near Auschwitz, Treblinka or Birkenau. While there may be a Constitutional provision for those who seek to build religious structures near sites destroyed by religious extremists, the city itself can simply disallow it under zoning laws, much the same way they'd prevent a Harley mechanic from setting up shop downtown between two fine-dining establishments.
If a city can zone for new construction based on noise, pollution and other concerns, why can't they make a case for those who represent enemy combatants which we're still at war with?
If nothing else, the community center would inflame and/or demoralize Americans, and serve as a 'victory' flag for Islam near a site which isn't even restored. Osama Bin Laden is still at-large and the stated endgame of Islam is to dominate all non-Muslims. The Koran instructs its adherents to treat Infidels roughly, and 'slay them wherever you find them'.
There's no reason to allow proponents of an unreformed 7th-century death-cult to build so close to Ground Zero during wartime, even if they're only apologists who might not be actively be at war, but are still preaching the same dogma which inspired the 19 terrorists and countless others who seek to destroy or dominate the free world.
The U.S. in the past has gone to great lengths to keep up morale during wartime, and yes, unfortunately, the U.S. is at war with militarized factions of Islam, and those who would support them. How did the 19 terrorists (sometimes called the 'Magnificent 19') have so much financial and moral support in the first place, and why did their own families celebrate their martyrdom? Why does the Middle East suffer no shortage of suicide bombers? It's not something peculiar to the location, but to Islam itself.
In the shadow of the site destroyed by the forces of Islam, do we allow Muslims to build their 'community' center, when religion was precisely the cause of the as yet unrestored World Trade Center, with Osama Bin Laden still at large during a time of war? I say, no, at least, not yet, and perhaps, not there or both.
I think this is why so many Americans are conflicted about this proposed community center. They understand that Constitutionally, there's no reason to disallow it. However, we're at war with militarized factions of radical Islam. We weren't attacked by Mormons, swedes, stamp collectors or people who hate cauliflower. We were attacked and continue to be attacked by those directly-inspired by Islam, with support from others who aren't actively fighting the war.
During war-time, not every citizen is in battle carrying a gun or driving a tank, but as a nation, we aim to win wars, not lose them. If we're going to fight a war, whether we agree with it or not, we should aim to win or not fight at all.
As long as Islam has declared war on the U.S. and the west, and since 9/11 already happened, and with Osama Bin Laden still at large, I say, all bets are off.
During war-time, we don't always have the same rights we'd expect during peacetime, and this would apply to those trying to build a Shinto Shrine in 1948 near the destruction of Pearl Harbor. This proposal would be made more repugnant if the area still hadn't been restored and Japan still hadn't surrendered, and we were still at war as a response to the Pearl Harbor attacks on December 7th, 1941, with enemy number one still at large.
We can consider Ground Zero to be somewhat of a crime scene. Just like any crime scene which is taped-off barring entry as a matter of security and investigation, America can decide where those boundaries are with regard to Ground Zero, and the zoning which is enacted with regard to new construction should fall under the purview of national security and American morale.
This is not to say that mosques shouldn't be built anywhere, just that it's up to the city where to draw the 'crime' scene tape, and this might apply to all new religious construction in that area. Since religion got us in this mess, it would make sense during a time of war to have a moratorium on new religious construction in the area, at least till the war is over, Osama is captured and Ground Zero is restored. If nothing else, the timing is all wrong, and the location is suspect.
If there's to be any new structure built, I would recommend not a religious community center, but a secular museum *for everyone* which pays tribute to those who died (and survived). This museum could demonstrate the danger of religious dogma and irrational hatred, similar to Holocaust museums which remind us of the dangers of our own human frailties, ignorance, and capability for destruction.
This would help heal wounds, and wouldn't be perceived as a flag planted by Islam on the soil of their destruction.
-dB-
Friday, September 10, 2010
Koran Cookout
Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville Florida had planned a Koranic cookout on Saturday, 9/11, which would be the 9th anniversary of the September 11 attacks by Muslim extremists.
All Terry Jones wants to do is burn some privately-owned Korans as a form of protest, a protected-right in America. It's destructive, but it's also powerful symbolism.
Let's keep things in perspective here. On 9/11/2001, 19 members of an Islamic death cult, driven by their religious ideas and with religious rituals the night before (including shaving their body hair to enter Islamic paradise) used our own American civilian-filled planes as missiles, taking out important symbolic targets such as the World Trade Center, damaging the Pentagon (our seat of national security), were probably going to attempt to take out the White House, and killed thousands of Americans and started what is effectively a holy war. Cheering crowds in the middle east celebrated their 'victory' over the west, including members of the marty's families, as the death of a martyr in Islam helps secure a spot in Paradise for his family. If this was just a group of rogue extremists, how were they so well funded, celebrated so widely, and where were the outcries from Muslim 'moderates' afterward?
Are people actually concerned about the symbolic and *legal* Koran-burning by some Pastor on the 9th anniversary of 9/11?
Again, this is powerful symbolism, but the reason we need to allow this freedom of speech and protest is because while I may not exactly with Pastor Jones's reasoning (or his own wacky faith), I do feel Islam needs to be reminded that their laws don't apply to secular America, nor do they apply to individuals who disagree with them.
The fact that Muslims often will kill to intimidate others into submission is all the more reason to never back down to their threats. You can't make an army of those who follow a death cult happier by submitting to their Draconian laws, and they're already plenty motivated to destroy those who oppose them.
A symbolic protest-burning of the Koran 9 years after the 9/11 attacks is by no means going to fuel any more fires than are already fueled by the ongoing war. What do we care if our enemy combatants are offended? We're already at war with the militarized forces of Islam *because* of the 9/11 attacks, and let's not forget, they tried to take out the World Trade Center in 1993...it was just lucky for us that they failed. A legal protest by one American and his church-group is little to be concerned about.
9/11 already happened and we've been at war for years, and Osama Bin Laden remains at large. We are currently in a holy war with Islam (even if people wish it weren't the case). While not all Muslims are extremists, moderate Muslims should understand the symbolism behind Paster Jones's upcoming Koranic BBQ, and American Muslims who understand our rights as Americans known that book or flag burning (of your own private property) is protected 'speech'. Any reasonable Muslim should understand the situation we're in as a nation....and should be more concerned about reforming Islam than trying to silence its critics.
If someone wants to burn their own copies of the Bible, I say, go for it. If you want to burn your own copies of Darwin's 'Origin of Species', you have that right, even if I disagree with you.
While I generally disagree with this form of protest simply because I think it's a waste of paper and materials, I do understand the power of symbolism. Muslims are fond of burning effigies of Bush or Obama or the American flag. Desecration or symbolism is something they *understand*, perhaps this is why there's such an uproar.
The very fact that Muslims go ape-nuts crazy when their 7th century ideals are offended is all the more reason to never relent, lest they actually get what they want: Submission. This is what Islam literally means, 'Submission'. This was explained by Ibn Warraq, author of 'Why I am not a Muslim' and Parvin Darabi in her book, 'Rage Behind the Veil'. Both are former Muslims and who shed much-needed light on the real goings-on in Islam, which is the inside look at Islam the west often doesn't see (though we see the destruction inspired by it).
What is first a protest against book burning symbolism, a protected right in America, can easily become the protest against women not wearing Hijab, or any kind of Muslim criticism in books or other media. It is somewhat of a slippery slope, but modern day people with free-speech rights will *always* offend Islam. We have to understand that there's simply no way to avoid offending some radical Muslims, especially since we're at war with some of them and still trying to find Osama Bin Laden (unfinished business). To focus on minor offenses via free-speech is to miss the point. Islam needs to change and reform and join the rest of us in the 21st century. Like a spoiled child who finally receives discipline, it's ill-advised to refrain from discipline simply because they make a loud noise.
That said, let's remember that Muslims killed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for merely making a critical movie about Islam entitled 'Submission'. Van Gogh was stabbed through his chest and shot in the streets by a Muslim extremist. Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote about this in her book, 'Infidel', and she is still under threat of death if certain Muslims find her due to her friendship and work with Mr. Van Gogh.
Some Muslims wanted to kill Salman Rushdie for writing 'Satanic Verses', and I am sure there are those who are still seeking to end his life, for merely believing enough in Islam to fulfill the fatwah for his death issued by Muslim leaders.
Cartoonists such as Danish Kurt Westergaard who dared portray the prophet Mohammed were threatened with death as well. Should we never dare draw Mohammed again? No.
The best way to combat this ridiculous extremism is to respond in large numbers and insist on defending our rights to free-expression....Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims...especially those in free, secular countries like America.
While some people like Pastor Terry Jones seek to use their Constitutional rights to hold a Koran-burning in protest on 9/11, something I think many would understand, Muslims often seek to silence and kill those who offend them.
Muslims do not get to abridge the rights of non-Muslims, especially in a secular nation, simply because they're offended. As long as Islam is unreformed and killing people for merely expressing ideas, it's all the more reason to offend them early and often, and challenge their barbaric ideas and oppression at every turn.
All Terry Jones wants to do is burn some privately-owned Korans as a form of protest, a protected-right in America. It's destructive, but it's also powerful symbolism.
Let's keep things in perspective here. On 9/11/2001, 19 members of an Islamic death cult, driven by their religious ideas and with religious rituals the night before (including shaving their body hair to enter Islamic paradise) used our own American civilian-filled planes as missiles, taking out important symbolic targets such as the World Trade Center, damaging the Pentagon (our seat of national security), were probably going to attempt to take out the White House, and killed thousands of Americans and started what is effectively a holy war. Cheering crowds in the middle east celebrated their 'victory' over the west, including members of the marty's families, as the death of a martyr in Islam helps secure a spot in Paradise for his family. If this was just a group of rogue extremists, how were they so well funded, celebrated so widely, and where were the outcries from Muslim 'moderates' afterward?
Are people actually concerned about the symbolic and *legal* Koran-burning by some Pastor on the 9th anniversary of 9/11?
Again, this is powerful symbolism, but the reason we need to allow this freedom of speech and protest is because while I may not exactly with Pastor Jones's reasoning (or his own wacky faith), I do feel Islam needs to be reminded that their laws don't apply to secular America, nor do they apply to individuals who disagree with them.
The fact that Muslims often will kill to intimidate others into submission is all the more reason to never back down to their threats. You can't make an army of those who follow a death cult happier by submitting to their Draconian laws, and they're already plenty motivated to destroy those who oppose them.
A symbolic protest-burning of the Koran 9 years after the 9/11 attacks is by no means going to fuel any more fires than are already fueled by the ongoing war. What do we care if our enemy combatants are offended? We're already at war with the militarized forces of Islam *because* of the 9/11 attacks, and let's not forget, they tried to take out the World Trade Center in 1993...it was just lucky for us that they failed. A legal protest by one American and his church-group is little to be concerned about.
9/11 already happened and we've been at war for years, and Osama Bin Laden remains at large. We are currently in a holy war with Islam (even if people wish it weren't the case). While not all Muslims are extremists, moderate Muslims should understand the symbolism behind Paster Jones's upcoming Koranic BBQ, and American Muslims who understand our rights as Americans known that book or flag burning (of your own private property) is protected 'speech'. Any reasonable Muslim should understand the situation we're in as a nation....and should be more concerned about reforming Islam than trying to silence its critics.
If someone wants to burn their own copies of the Bible, I say, go for it. If you want to burn your own copies of Darwin's 'Origin of Species', you have that right, even if I disagree with you.
While I generally disagree with this form of protest simply because I think it's a waste of paper and materials, I do understand the power of symbolism. Muslims are fond of burning effigies of Bush or Obama or the American flag. Desecration or symbolism is something they *understand*, perhaps this is why there's such an uproar.
The very fact that Muslims go ape-nuts crazy when their 7th century ideals are offended is all the more reason to never relent, lest they actually get what they want: Submission. This is what Islam literally means, 'Submission'. This was explained by Ibn Warraq, author of 'Why I am not a Muslim' and Parvin Darabi in her book, 'Rage Behind the Veil'. Both are former Muslims and who shed much-needed light on the real goings-on in Islam, which is the inside look at Islam the west often doesn't see (though we see the destruction inspired by it).
What is first a protest against book burning symbolism, a protected right in America, can easily become the protest against women not wearing Hijab, or any kind of Muslim criticism in books or other media. It is somewhat of a slippery slope, but modern day people with free-speech rights will *always* offend Islam. We have to understand that there's simply no way to avoid offending some radical Muslims, especially since we're at war with some of them and still trying to find Osama Bin Laden (unfinished business). To focus on minor offenses via free-speech is to miss the point. Islam needs to change and reform and join the rest of us in the 21st century. Like a spoiled child who finally receives discipline, it's ill-advised to refrain from discipline simply because they make a loud noise.
That said, let's remember that Muslims killed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for merely making a critical movie about Islam entitled 'Submission'. Van Gogh was stabbed through his chest and shot in the streets by a Muslim extremist. Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote about this in her book, 'Infidel', and she is still under threat of death if certain Muslims find her due to her friendship and work with Mr. Van Gogh.
Some Muslims wanted to kill Salman Rushdie for writing 'Satanic Verses', and I am sure there are those who are still seeking to end his life, for merely believing enough in Islam to fulfill the fatwah for his death issued by Muslim leaders.
Cartoonists such as Danish Kurt Westergaard who dared portray the prophet Mohammed were threatened with death as well. Should we never dare draw Mohammed again? No.
The best way to combat this ridiculous extremism is to respond in large numbers and insist on defending our rights to free-expression....Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims...especially those in free, secular countries like America.
While some people like Pastor Terry Jones seek to use their Constitutional rights to hold a Koran-burning in protest on 9/11, something I think many would understand, Muslims often seek to silence and kill those who offend them.
Muslims do not get to abridge the rights of non-Muslims, especially in a secular nation, simply because they're offended. As long as Islam is unreformed and killing people for merely expressing ideas, it's all the more reason to offend them early and often, and challenge their barbaric ideas and oppression at every turn.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
California Prop H8 Overturned Today!
Today, from the U.S. District Court of San Francisco, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California's ban on same sex marriage in a 136-page decision. This ban was better known as Proposition 8 and was fiercely contested in the November 2008 presidential election.
While the victory is not yet complete (the legal process takes time), this is a serious blow to Prop 8, and a step toward homosexual couples finally having equal-rights with regard to marriage.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
'Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'
As it plainly states in Section 1, a State cannot abridge the rights of citizens, and U.S. Citizens who happen to be gay are still entitled to fair treatment under the law, despite the outdated 'moral' sensibilities of the religious or those who seek to suppress equal-rights for other reasons.
California's infamous Prop 8, aka 'Prop H8' was funded largely by the Mormon church out of Utah and other religious groups, raising nearly 40 million dollars to affect laws in California. It's no surprise that powerful forces representing various religions were once again, on the wrong side of civil rights as they have been throughout history.
Despite the fact that Judge Vaughn Walker was a Bush Sr. appointee, he made the right decision in overturning this unconstitutional ban on equal rights under the law for gay people. Apparently, a Republican-appointed judge can make socially progressive decisions, but more importantly, decisions which remain loyal to the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.
This is similar to Bush appointee Judge John E. Jones III's ruling against Creationists yet again trying to force their agenda into public schools (disguised as Intelligent Design), against the expectations of some Bush constituents. Jones decisively ruled against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, in the landmark 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. This was yet another devastating loss for religious idealogues seeking to force their narrow brand of religious interpretation into law, at the expense of science and the American educational system.
There is simply no argument FOR Prop 8, banning same-sex marriage. The ban on same-sex marriage is a clear, unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment.
Here is what Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich had to say about the ruling,
“To address the issues raised by the courts, Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot after Proposition 22 was deemed unconstitutional by the courts. It is clear that the Judge’s political correctness agenda prevailed at the expense of the will of the people. Ultimately, it will be up to the United States Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Thomas Jefferson warned that radical judicial activism would undermine the will of the people. He said, ‘When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.’ Today’s ruling was a direct assault to the over 4.5 million voters in 2000, and the over 7 million who turned out in 2008 to vote on this vital issue.”
What Antonovich is forgetting, is that Jefferson established church-state separation with his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and the arguments for Prop 8 have been almost entirely religious. There is no good, secular argument for the state to abridge the rights of a U.S. Citizen on the basis of sexual orientation, which isn't even something homosexuals can control any more than heterosexuals can. Since America enjoys church-state separation per the 1st Amendment to the first ever secular Constitution, religion has no weight in matters of law and is easily discarded as irrelevant.
Antonovich also fails to mention that America is not simple 'majority rule', as it once was the 'will of the people' to have slaves or abridge the rights of black Americans with Jim Crow laws in force from 1876 to 1965. It was once the will of the people to suppress women's rights, including the right to vote or even travel freely. It was the will of the majority to suppress the teaching of certain sciences, namely evolution, due to massive religious indoctrination and a majority representation.
Historically, the will of the majority has often been wrong about civil rights issues.
This is why we have three branches of government for checks and balances: the executive, judicial and legislative branch. What we saw in Judge Walker's decision was an upholding of the Constitution through the judicial system in order to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Issues of civil rights should not be up for popular vote in the first place.
Imagine a law banning black people from marrying white people. Actually, this used to be law and it had majority support, but it's no less unconstitutional than Prop 8.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free excercise thereof'.
Few ideas make a government more fearsome than a commingling of religion and government, where Bronze-age superstition is allowed to affect all Americans as law, and religious ideas about marriage (and funding) have been the driving force behind Prop 8.
Religion, driven in large part by a religious temperance movement, caused the colossal failure known as Prohibition, which only served to make the alcohol trade highly-profitable and replete with organized crime.
We saw how ill-treated women have been due to religious ideas, and this happens today in unreformed Islam where women are routinely abused for nothing other than religious ideas. First, religion might seek to ban gay marriage, and next thing you know, moral police a la Islam are telling you who you can hold hands with, and where. Yes, this really happens in some theocracies around the world (including parts of Utah), and it's a stern reminder why America is a secular nation which does not, and should not, honor religious arguments which attempt to govern the lives of others.
Majority religion in America has interfered directly with science and progress, and has been on the wrong side of nearly every issue in living memory; civil rights (including slavery), women's rights, the rights of non-believers and gay rights, to name a few.
I believe that if any consenting-age citizen can marry, then all consenting-age citizens should necessarily enjoy this privilege. If any citizen can be a domestic partner, then any citizen should enjoy this right. The government has no business discriminating against variant consenting sexual relationships, even if it offends the sensibilities of the majority or the religious.
As a heterosexual male in a domestic-partnership for 12 years, I currently cannot enjoy domestic partner benefits recognized for same-sex partnerships under state law, and which would allow the sharing of health benefits. This is nothing less than unmarried couple discrimination (CA law only allows heterosexual domestic partnerships if one partner is 62 or older).
I don't like the idea of marriage, nor do I want to be railroaded into an unwieldy and legally-cumbersome tradition simply because the law discriminates against the type of consensual relationship I choose to have.
Thank you, Judge Vaughn Walker, for respecting the U.S. Constitution, and congratulations to all my GBLT friends who've made progress attaining equal-rights today.
There is a lot more work to do, and the wheels of justice turn slowly. These legal victories for civil rights and social progress set legal precedence for future victories, so this decision is an important one not to be dismissed simply because the process isn't yet complete.
Civil rights for those outside our immediate identification aren't just progress for others, it's progress for ALL of us.
-dB-
While the victory is not yet complete (the legal process takes time), this is a serious blow to Prop 8, and a step toward homosexual couples finally having equal-rights with regard to marriage.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
'Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'
As it plainly states in Section 1, a State cannot abridge the rights of citizens, and U.S. Citizens who happen to be gay are still entitled to fair treatment under the law, despite the outdated 'moral' sensibilities of the religious or those who seek to suppress equal-rights for other reasons.
California's infamous Prop 8, aka 'Prop H8' was funded largely by the Mormon church out of Utah and other religious groups, raising nearly 40 million dollars to affect laws in California. It's no surprise that powerful forces representing various religions were once again, on the wrong side of civil rights as they have been throughout history.
Despite the fact that Judge Vaughn Walker was a Bush Sr. appointee, he made the right decision in overturning this unconstitutional ban on equal rights under the law for gay people. Apparently, a Republican-appointed judge can make socially progressive decisions, but more importantly, decisions which remain loyal to the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.
This is similar to Bush appointee Judge John E. Jones III's ruling against Creationists yet again trying to force their agenda into public schools (disguised as Intelligent Design), against the expectations of some Bush constituents. Jones decisively ruled against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, in the landmark 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. This was yet another devastating loss for religious idealogues seeking to force their narrow brand of religious interpretation into law, at the expense of science and the American educational system.
There is simply no argument FOR Prop 8, banning same-sex marriage. The ban on same-sex marriage is a clear, unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment.
Here is what Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich had to say about the ruling,
“To address the issues raised by the courts, Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot after Proposition 22 was deemed unconstitutional by the courts. It is clear that the Judge’s political correctness agenda prevailed at the expense of the will of the people. Ultimately, it will be up to the United States Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Thomas Jefferson warned that radical judicial activism would undermine the will of the people. He said, ‘When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.’ Today’s ruling was a direct assault to the over 4.5 million voters in 2000, and the over 7 million who turned out in 2008 to vote on this vital issue.”
What Antonovich is forgetting, is that Jefferson established church-state separation with his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and the arguments for Prop 8 have been almost entirely religious. There is no good, secular argument for the state to abridge the rights of a U.S. Citizen on the basis of sexual orientation, which isn't even something homosexuals can control any more than heterosexuals can. Since America enjoys church-state separation per the 1st Amendment to the first ever secular Constitution, religion has no weight in matters of law and is easily discarded as irrelevant.
Antonovich also fails to mention that America is not simple 'majority rule', as it once was the 'will of the people' to have slaves or abridge the rights of black Americans with Jim Crow laws in force from 1876 to 1965. It was once the will of the people to suppress women's rights, including the right to vote or even travel freely. It was the will of the majority to suppress the teaching of certain sciences, namely evolution, due to massive religious indoctrination and a majority representation.
Historically, the will of the majority has often been wrong about civil rights issues.
This is why we have three branches of government for checks and balances: the executive, judicial and legislative branch. What we saw in Judge Walker's decision was an upholding of the Constitution through the judicial system in order to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Issues of civil rights should not be up for popular vote in the first place.
Imagine a law banning black people from marrying white people. Actually, this used to be law and it had majority support, but it's no less unconstitutional than Prop 8.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free excercise thereof'.
Few ideas make a government more fearsome than a commingling of religion and government, where Bronze-age superstition is allowed to affect all Americans as law, and religious ideas about marriage (and funding) have been the driving force behind Prop 8.
Religion, driven in large part by a religious temperance movement, caused the colossal failure known as Prohibition, which only served to make the alcohol trade highly-profitable and replete with organized crime.
We saw how ill-treated women have been due to religious ideas, and this happens today in unreformed Islam where women are routinely abused for nothing other than religious ideas. First, religion might seek to ban gay marriage, and next thing you know, moral police a la Islam are telling you who you can hold hands with, and where. Yes, this really happens in some theocracies around the world (including parts of Utah), and it's a stern reminder why America is a secular nation which does not, and should not, honor religious arguments which attempt to govern the lives of others.
Majority religion in America has interfered directly with science and progress, and has been on the wrong side of nearly every issue in living memory; civil rights (including slavery), women's rights, the rights of non-believers and gay rights, to name a few.
I believe that if any consenting-age citizen can marry, then all consenting-age citizens should necessarily enjoy this privilege. If any citizen can be a domestic partner, then any citizen should enjoy this right. The government has no business discriminating against variant consenting sexual relationships, even if it offends the sensibilities of the majority or the religious.
As a heterosexual male in a domestic-partnership for 12 years, I currently cannot enjoy domestic partner benefits recognized for same-sex partnerships under state law, and which would allow the sharing of health benefits. This is nothing less than unmarried couple discrimination (CA law only allows heterosexual domestic partnerships if one partner is 62 or older).
I don't like the idea of marriage, nor do I want to be railroaded into an unwieldy and legally-cumbersome tradition simply because the law discriminates against the type of consensual relationship I choose to have.
Thank you, Judge Vaughn Walker, for respecting the U.S. Constitution, and congratulations to all my GBLT friends who've made progress attaining equal-rights today.
There is a lot more work to do, and the wheels of justice turn slowly. These legal victories for civil rights and social progress set legal precedence for future victories, so this decision is an important one not to be dismissed simply because the process isn't yet complete.
Civil rights for those outside our immediate identification aren't just progress for others, it's progress for ALL of us.
-dB-
Friday, July 2, 2010
Vegas: Smoker's Paradise.
Here's a question, why the flying fuck in 2010 do I still gotta breathe some asstard's cigarette smoke inside a Las Vegas casino?
Ok, I know it's Vegas. Booze. Gambling. Smokers. Sin City, yeah, I got it. I can already hear people making the argument that if you're going to gamble and drink, why not allow smokers? Why not just allow heroin addicts and self-mutilators too, and pass out themed purge bowls for the anorexics while we're at it? I mean where does it stop?
Here's the thing, my money is worth just as much as a smoker's. Actually, my long-term business is worth more than most smokers because I will probably live longer, all else being equal. Hotels should be working harder to secure my business.
I can't believe nobody in Vegas has the forsight to make a non-smoking hotel WITH drinking and gambling. That is, exactly like any other hotel, just remove the smoking. The MGM Grand Signature and Rennaisance are non-smoking, but they've also removed the gambling! That is not the right solution for people like myself who actually like to gamble, and where gambling is one of the main attractions in Vegas.
Having a non-smoking hotel is great, and it's a step in the right direction, but don't remove the gambling you tardwits! That completely defeats the purpose! Without the gambling, I am not even setting foot in your hotel other than a quick tour if I happen to be nearby, so the MGM Grand Signature needs to re-think their strategy. That's like making a non-smoking strip club without any strippers...what is the god damned point? Developers, ignore the MGM Grand Signature's silly concept.
The niche here is to make a hotel exactly like any other, WITH drinking and WITH gambling, but without some god-damned smoker stinking up my area and destroying my health, forcing me to do 'smoker scans' before securing my place at a machine. Sure enough though, if some jacktard decides to light up, I get to play the 'find a smoke-free area' game again. We may as well just let the smokers run the place and force non-smokers to jump through hoops with David Copperfield while we're at it.
Smokers have the choice of every other casino in Vegas to pollute, so there should be a haven for those who aren't addicted to cigarettes. Imagine, if there was a non-smoking hotel, every non-smoker who hates breathing smoke would give them business at some point, and perhaps often. As a point of protest, I would even boycott the other hotels if ONE single developer had the sack (or ovaries) to make a non-smoking hotel WITH gambling and booze. I would stay at the non-smoking hotel and do the bulk of my gambling there and consider that a long-term home base for any future Vegas visits. In effect, I would be showing my approval with my Vegas dollars, and I believe others would do the same.
Think about it, whole states have banned smoking indoors. Smokers stil find their way to any establishment you can name. The smokers are the ones with the addiction, and THEY should be forced to deal with the discomfort of having to stop sucking on tar sticks long enough to lose a few bucks in a Wheel of Fortune machine.
One thing a non-smoking hotel could do is offer plush/themed smoking rooms for gamblers who need a smoke break. We're talking about rooms with separate air conditioning, separate air intakes/exhaust/ double-paned glass and a means to let the addicts get their fix without forcing the non-smokers into unwilling participation. Perhaps the entrances to these places would be secured too so smoke doesn't spill out into the casino proper. This way, a non-smoking hotel could be healthy and still allow the addicts to get their fix without forcing everyone else to be captive, unwitting secondhand smokers.
In November of 2006, Nevada voters passed the Clean Indoor Air Act, banning smoking in restaurants and wherever food is served. This also includes most indoor establishments apart from casino floors, oddly enough. Seeing this trend, developers need to be planning new, themed hotels on the strip with gambling and booze, but no smoking. It's going to happen, and Vegas developers may as well embrace it and make it happen now.
From now on, I am going to only stay at hotels which offer non-smoking gaming sections. When a non-smoking hotel opens up, I am going to show my approval with my dollars. I'll do my little part to support anyone with the foresight to open a non-smoking hotel, on the strip, while retaining the gambling and booze (I am not a big drinker, but I want the option).
Let's face it, smoking is fucking stupid and many smokers wish they could quit (as well as their friends and families). Cigarettes have known carcinogens and are responsible for more deaths than all other diseases combined and still cause hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths every year according to the CDC (Center for Disease Control).
Some of us come to Vegas because of the legal gambling, but that doesn't mean we want to gamble with our lives.
-dB-
Ok, I know it's Vegas. Booze. Gambling. Smokers. Sin City, yeah, I got it. I can already hear people making the argument that if you're going to gamble and drink, why not allow smokers? Why not just allow heroin addicts and self-mutilators too, and pass out themed purge bowls for the anorexics while we're at it? I mean where does it stop?
Here's the thing, my money is worth just as much as a smoker's. Actually, my long-term business is worth more than most smokers because I will probably live longer, all else being equal. Hotels should be working harder to secure my business.
I can't believe nobody in Vegas has the forsight to make a non-smoking hotel WITH drinking and gambling. That is, exactly like any other hotel, just remove the smoking. The MGM Grand Signature and Rennaisance are non-smoking, but they've also removed the gambling! That is not the right solution for people like myself who actually like to gamble, and where gambling is one of the main attractions in Vegas.
Having a non-smoking hotel is great, and it's a step in the right direction, but don't remove the gambling you tardwits! That completely defeats the purpose! Without the gambling, I am not even setting foot in your hotel other than a quick tour if I happen to be nearby, so the MGM Grand Signature needs to re-think their strategy. That's like making a non-smoking strip club without any strippers...what is the god damned point? Developers, ignore the MGM Grand Signature's silly concept.
The niche here is to make a hotel exactly like any other, WITH drinking and WITH gambling, but without some god-damned smoker stinking up my area and destroying my health, forcing me to do 'smoker scans' before securing my place at a machine. Sure enough though, if some jacktard decides to light up, I get to play the 'find a smoke-free area' game again. We may as well just let the smokers run the place and force non-smokers to jump through hoops with David Copperfield while we're at it.
Smokers have the choice of every other casino in Vegas to pollute, so there should be a haven for those who aren't addicted to cigarettes. Imagine, if there was a non-smoking hotel, every non-smoker who hates breathing smoke would give them business at some point, and perhaps often. As a point of protest, I would even boycott the other hotels if ONE single developer had the sack (or ovaries) to make a non-smoking hotel WITH gambling and booze. I would stay at the non-smoking hotel and do the bulk of my gambling there and consider that a long-term home base for any future Vegas visits. In effect, I would be showing my approval with my Vegas dollars, and I believe others would do the same.
Think about it, whole states have banned smoking indoors. Smokers stil find their way to any establishment you can name. The smokers are the ones with the addiction, and THEY should be forced to deal with the discomfort of having to stop sucking on tar sticks long enough to lose a few bucks in a Wheel of Fortune machine.
One thing a non-smoking hotel could do is offer plush/themed smoking rooms for gamblers who need a smoke break. We're talking about rooms with separate air conditioning, separate air intakes/exhaust/ double-paned glass and a means to let the addicts get their fix without forcing the non-smokers into unwilling participation. Perhaps the entrances to these places would be secured too so smoke doesn't spill out into the casino proper. This way, a non-smoking hotel could be healthy and still allow the addicts to get their fix without forcing everyone else to be captive, unwitting secondhand smokers.
In November of 2006, Nevada voters passed the Clean Indoor Air Act, banning smoking in restaurants and wherever food is served. This also includes most indoor establishments apart from casino floors, oddly enough. Seeing this trend, developers need to be planning new, themed hotels on the strip with gambling and booze, but no smoking. It's going to happen, and Vegas developers may as well embrace it and make it happen now.
From now on, I am going to only stay at hotels which offer non-smoking gaming sections. When a non-smoking hotel opens up, I am going to show my approval with my dollars. I'll do my little part to support anyone with the foresight to open a non-smoking hotel, on the strip, while retaining the gambling and booze (I am not a big drinker, but I want the option).
Let's face it, smoking is fucking stupid and many smokers wish they could quit (as well as their friends and families). Cigarettes have known carcinogens and are responsible for more deaths than all other diseases combined and still cause hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths every year according to the CDC (Center for Disease Control).
Some of us come to Vegas because of the legal gambling, but that doesn't mean we want to gamble with our lives.
-dB-
Thursday, July 1, 2010
My Girlfriend's a Catholic
The topic of religion often comes up when couples are dating, often as an important criteria for pursuing a relationship further. How do two people with different ideas about religion agree on their different faiths, traditions, families and their opinons, marriage ceremonies, child-rearing and everything else that is affected by religion?
For instance, when a Jew is dating a Christian and the chemistry is otherwise good, how do they resolve that one believes Jesus to be their lord and savior, and the other doesn't even believe Jesus is the son of their common God? Sure, some people will ditch their earnestly-held faith and convert (which I find hilarious), but generally, I suspect if the differences are strong enough this becomes a dealbreaker for the relationship, or a source of unending argument, especially if the couple have kids. Do we send him to Hebrew school or Jesus Camp?
While I was raised a Catholic, I am an atheist who views religion like an anthropologist views the rituals of African Zulu or Maori ritual dance. I see all religion as erroneous inventions of fallible men trying to explain the unknown, and I understand that most people are religious. Personally, I'm no more offended by the Scientologist, the Jew, the Christian or the Muslim (ok I am more offended by Islam, generally). But you get the point, I think it's all nutty, and I don't really believe their stories, I just worry that THEY believe them...a little too much sometimes.
My girlfriend of 12 years, you may be surprised to learn, is a Catholic, having been raised exhaustively as a Catholic, attending Catholic girl's schools all the way till college (also Catholic).
How is it that one of the most atheist guys on the planet like me can be with a nice Catholic girl for that long without issue?
Well, the simple answer is, she's a terrible Catholic, but a great person (proving once again that ethics and religion are not one and the same).
Yes, she's a bloody-gawd-awful Catholic, and she'd be ex-communicated for any number of reasons, not the least of which is being with an atheist in an unmarried live-in relationship for 12+ years, and I am not her first atheist boyfriend. If that wasn't enough, we don't go to church on Sundays (and I work on Sunday as often as possible), we eat meat on good Friday, never give up anything for Lent (or his brother Larry) and did I mention she lives with an outspoken atheist with an ascerbic atheist blog?
She's also the biggest fag-hag ever...having grown-up in Hollywood and is well acclimated to gay people. Sure, I have gay friends too (one dear friend who I've known since 6th grade) and I understand the possible evolutionary reasons why straight people keep making gay people, but as a Catholic she technically claims belief in a Bible which condems gays to death in Leviticus. However, like most Christians, she simply ignores the Draconian parts of the Bible or the parts she doesn't know about. In large part, she is a product of her environment (progressive, liberal L.A.). She is personally modern and reasonable enough to understand why being gay is a normal part of the human experience, and it's yet another reason we get along great, since I am socially progressive myself.
If we were to have kids, I already mentioned that there would be no way in Hell I would raise them religious. That's a dealbreaker to me. The thing is, neither of us want kids. Things are hard enough at times, and I think neither of us really wants that kind of responsibility since we want to keep our freedom and financial flexibility, especially in this economy. There are simply enough kids in the world already. I've already had the vasectomy, and after 25+ years of birth control she can finally quit that. It worked out for both of us.
As for marriage, I'm very up front about not getting married, and I've written at length about it here in this blog. I've never married anyone and don't plan to. I find marriage to be a sloppy conflation of government and a private relationship, and I boycott marriage since not everyone enjoys this privilege....I want my gay friends to be able to get married too. I also hate the fact that straight couples under 62 cannot be domestic partners and are railroaded into marriage as an only option. Gay couples can be domestic partners but can't get married in CA. Marriage sucks, and I am not going to partake in this silly ritual....especially considering the ridiculous alimony laws. That said, there's no conflict about 'what kind of wedding to have' since we're not getting married. Also, we're living proof that we don't need to be married. Our 12+ year relationship has lasted longer than many married couples. If you're going to stay together, you don't need marriage, and if you're going to separate you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. All logical roads lead to the fact that not getting married is the most flexible option. The only downside is that there is still discrimination against unmarried couples, which will change, eventually.
Speaking of marriage, I doubt you would have an atheist 'convert' to any religion just to be with a person, and chances are anyone with an atheist for enough time will lose their religion, as religion stands no chance against honest review. Religion only survives with the white noise of distraction, or simply running away from the argument and attempting to keep dissent silent.
We get along because while she labels herself as a Catholic (I call her an awful Catholic), we share the same ethical standards. Both of us are democrats, we're both socially progressive and are cool with the gays. We both enjoy sleeping in on Sundays and she doesn't get weirded out by my atheism...in fact, I think we agree on a lot of points, but she's not emotionally ready to totally give up her Catholicism, and I am ok with that too. Everyone deals with challenges to their religion in their own time. It took me a month to dump my religion when challenged, but our personalities are very different when it comes to confrontation.
Now, when quizzed on science, I can see where her Catholic education failed her. She had very little understanding of science and evolution, and thought the Sun went around the Earth! I've fixed all that, and she's a bright woman...she accepts evolution and I'm helping fix some of the holes in her religious-centric education. Some of that education comes during the holidays, when I explain the real Pagan origins of Christmas and Easter, and it's fun conversation on the way to family gatherings.
It was really funny when her family found out I was atheist. Her dad asked me to lead the prayer one Thanksgiving, and I said, 'you're asking the wrong guy' haha, but I refrained from explicitly stating my atheism at that moment, in front of everyone. There were no follow-up questions, and no more prayer requests. Once the alcohol was flowing, a crazy Englishman I didn't know raised a toast to atheism...I don't remember how it came up, but it was hilarious when three of us at the table outed ourselves and joined in on the toast. One of those toasters was the father-in-law of my girlfriend's sister! The look of shock was priceless (from me as well, to be sure), but we were all sufficiently imbued to make it a funny coming-out party.
After that point, when her parents were ok with with my non-belief, I think she understood that even if she lost her faith, things would be ok. People are people, and no matter what they label themselves, you can only really judge them based on what they say and what they do. Ethics, in the end, is what matters. Her parents never grilled me on my atheism, and never even brought it up. Sometimes I wonder if they truly absorbed what happened that Thanksgiving night, but I see no need to press the issue.
Ethical people don't need religion, and someone who is sufficiently irreligious is tantamount to an atheist, in practice. Like my girlfriend...she's such a bad Catholic that we agree on almost any ethical or social issue. It seems the more people ignore their religion, the more they're free to be truly ethical humans, considering moral dilemmas with compassion and logic, not the dictates of Bronze-Age shepherds.
I'm very glad my girlfiend is a terrible Catholic. Maybe someday she'll be a baby atheist, but I am not going to rush her. <3
-dB-
For instance, when a Jew is dating a Christian and the chemistry is otherwise good, how do they resolve that one believes Jesus to be their lord and savior, and the other doesn't even believe Jesus is the son of their common God? Sure, some people will ditch their earnestly-held faith and convert (which I find hilarious), but generally, I suspect if the differences are strong enough this becomes a dealbreaker for the relationship, or a source of unending argument, especially if the couple have kids. Do we send him to Hebrew school or Jesus Camp?
While I was raised a Catholic, I am an atheist who views religion like an anthropologist views the rituals of African Zulu or Maori ritual dance. I see all religion as erroneous inventions of fallible men trying to explain the unknown, and I understand that most people are religious. Personally, I'm no more offended by the Scientologist, the Jew, the Christian or the Muslim (ok I am more offended by Islam, generally). But you get the point, I think it's all nutty, and I don't really believe their stories, I just worry that THEY believe them...a little too much sometimes.
My girlfriend of 12 years, you may be surprised to learn, is a Catholic, having been raised exhaustively as a Catholic, attending Catholic girl's schools all the way till college (also Catholic).
How is it that one of the most atheist guys on the planet like me can be with a nice Catholic girl for that long without issue?
Well, the simple answer is, she's a terrible Catholic, but a great person (proving once again that ethics and religion are not one and the same).
Yes, she's a bloody-gawd-awful Catholic, and she'd be ex-communicated for any number of reasons, not the least of which is being with an atheist in an unmarried live-in relationship for 12+ years, and I am not her first atheist boyfriend. If that wasn't enough, we don't go to church on Sundays (and I work on Sunday as often as possible), we eat meat on good Friday, never give up anything for Lent (or his brother Larry) and did I mention she lives with an outspoken atheist with an ascerbic atheist blog?
She's also the biggest fag-hag ever...having grown-up in Hollywood and is well acclimated to gay people. Sure, I have gay friends too (one dear friend who I've known since 6th grade) and I understand the possible evolutionary reasons why straight people keep making gay people, but as a Catholic she technically claims belief in a Bible which condems gays to death in Leviticus. However, like most Christians, she simply ignores the Draconian parts of the Bible or the parts she doesn't know about. In large part, she is a product of her environment (progressive, liberal L.A.). She is personally modern and reasonable enough to understand why being gay is a normal part of the human experience, and it's yet another reason we get along great, since I am socially progressive myself.
If we were to have kids, I already mentioned that there would be no way in Hell I would raise them religious. That's a dealbreaker to me. The thing is, neither of us want kids. Things are hard enough at times, and I think neither of us really wants that kind of responsibility since we want to keep our freedom and financial flexibility, especially in this economy. There are simply enough kids in the world already. I've already had the vasectomy, and after 25+ years of birth control she can finally quit that. It worked out for both of us.
As for marriage, I'm very up front about not getting married, and I've written at length about it here in this blog. I've never married anyone and don't plan to. I find marriage to be a sloppy conflation of government and a private relationship, and I boycott marriage since not everyone enjoys this privilege....I want my gay friends to be able to get married too. I also hate the fact that straight couples under 62 cannot be domestic partners and are railroaded into marriage as an only option. Gay couples can be domestic partners but can't get married in CA. Marriage sucks, and I am not going to partake in this silly ritual....especially considering the ridiculous alimony laws. That said, there's no conflict about 'what kind of wedding to have' since we're not getting married. Also, we're living proof that we don't need to be married. Our 12+ year relationship has lasted longer than many married couples. If you're going to stay together, you don't need marriage, and if you're going to separate you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. All logical roads lead to the fact that not getting married is the most flexible option. The only downside is that there is still discrimination against unmarried couples, which will change, eventually.
Speaking of marriage, I doubt you would have an atheist 'convert' to any religion just to be with a person, and chances are anyone with an atheist for enough time will lose their religion, as religion stands no chance against honest review. Religion only survives with the white noise of distraction, or simply running away from the argument and attempting to keep dissent silent.
We get along because while she labels herself as a Catholic (I call her an awful Catholic), we share the same ethical standards. Both of us are democrats, we're both socially progressive and are cool with the gays. We both enjoy sleeping in on Sundays and she doesn't get weirded out by my atheism...in fact, I think we agree on a lot of points, but she's not emotionally ready to totally give up her Catholicism, and I am ok with that too. Everyone deals with challenges to their religion in their own time. It took me a month to dump my religion when challenged, but our personalities are very different when it comes to confrontation.
Now, when quizzed on science, I can see where her Catholic education failed her. She had very little understanding of science and evolution, and thought the Sun went around the Earth! I've fixed all that, and she's a bright woman...she accepts evolution and I'm helping fix some of the holes in her religious-centric education. Some of that education comes during the holidays, when I explain the real Pagan origins of Christmas and Easter, and it's fun conversation on the way to family gatherings.
It was really funny when her family found out I was atheist. Her dad asked me to lead the prayer one Thanksgiving, and I said, 'you're asking the wrong guy' haha, but I refrained from explicitly stating my atheism at that moment, in front of everyone. There were no follow-up questions, and no more prayer requests. Once the alcohol was flowing, a crazy Englishman I didn't know raised a toast to atheism...I don't remember how it came up, but it was hilarious when three of us at the table outed ourselves and joined in on the toast. One of those toasters was the father-in-law of my girlfriend's sister! The look of shock was priceless (from me as well, to be sure), but we were all sufficiently imbued to make it a funny coming-out party.
After that point, when her parents were ok with with my non-belief, I think she understood that even if she lost her faith, things would be ok. People are people, and no matter what they label themselves, you can only really judge them based on what they say and what they do. Ethics, in the end, is what matters. Her parents never grilled me on my atheism, and never even brought it up. Sometimes I wonder if they truly absorbed what happened that Thanksgiving night, but I see no need to press the issue.
Ethical people don't need religion, and someone who is sufficiently irreligious is tantamount to an atheist, in practice. Like my girlfriend...she's such a bad Catholic that we agree on almost any ethical or social issue. It seems the more people ignore their religion, the more they're free to be truly ethical humans, considering moral dilemmas with compassion and logic, not the dictates of Bronze-Age shepherds.
I'm very glad my girlfiend is a terrible Catholic. Maybe someday she'll be a baby atheist, but I am not going to rush her. <3
-dB-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atheist Angle RSS Feed