problem

in the preceeding post, I realise I am falling into a common error: saying it, but not proving it.

This will be corrected, expect further, more thought out ramblings on the topic to be forthcoming. Read More...

The Anti-Theist

Fuck the fourth wall, for a minute.

I'm not sure who, if anyone, really reads this. I don't know what each of you think about science, religion, society, et cetera. What I can assume, unless this is the first time you're reading my blog, is that you know my thoughts on many things. Particularly about religion. The short of it is: I am a militant anti-theist.

Why "militant"? Because the whole idea of religion grates on me, and anywhere it crops up, I have an (impossibly) hard time not attacking it. That's not to say I support, advocate, or encourage such things as genocide, church burning, or other equally offensive attitudes: I most certainly do not. However, I am a very (physically) large, very loud, voice who refuses to be silent about how I feel. I refuse to remain silent about the hypocrisy, childishness, insanity, idiocy, and generally reprehensible nature of religion; and due to my insane need to always point out the fallibility of religion, I say "militant".

I am anti-theist because I believe the world would be better off without religion. That's not to say I think that there should be thought-crimes, that personal private beliefs should be banned, or anything so draconian. That is to say, that I believe the whole of humanity would be far better served if no one "fell" for the con that is religion- and supernatural belief. I know this will never happen; but I also know that it is worth working towards. If 1% of 1% of the entire population of the Earth, today, would put away the nonsense and start living rationally that's an additional 650,000 people (roughly); and that's a worthwhile goal.

Okay, and?

There's a lot of chatter about being "good", "kind", "friendly" atheists. This is an aspect of an outreach initiative championed by many non-theistic communities. Huh? There's been studies that show, given an otherwise satisfactory voting record, people in the US are most likely to NOT vote for someone if they are an atheist. Atheists are the least trusted minority in the US, yet we make up something like 10%- or more- of the population. This is, partially, why words like Brights, Secular, Humanists, Non-theists, and others are thrown around. The atheist community is trying to re-brand itself, a la the Homosexual community that adopted the word "Gay" and made itself less frightening to Heterosexuals.

What happens, is groups like The Atheist Alliance, Minnesota Atheists, CSI (formerly CSICOP), and others talk about being generally less aggressive. The consensus being that we're misunderstood, and people of faith are scared we're out to kill their children and rape their farm implements. Which isn't totally wrong, of course; though, we prefer consenting relations with shovels, obviously. The idea is: "let them see you're a friendly face, and basically just like them", with the hope/faith/hypothesis this will engender understanding and less fear. And the assumption that such things would cause more listening to our points of view.

The opposing side- which I sit on- says "Fuck you, and fuck that!" (Feel free to insert comment about guiding atheists being similar to herding cats). This is, in my opinion, partially due to a need for revenge. Revenge for what? Wasted time/lives, hatred, discrimination, lost opportunity (see time/lives), so on and so on. In other words, the usual human motivations for oppressing the oppressor.

Which side is "right"?

Obviously there's no 100%, black or white, solution. Neither side is right, neither side is wrong. The Kinder Gentler Post-religion-ists make very valid points about inclusion, etc, etc. My side is viscerally appealing, very human and sympathetic for that, etc, etc. We're wrong because of ethics/morals. They're wrong because not "sitting down" and "taking it" are always wrong. Notice how easily these things can be argued for/against? Notice, also, that neither side has much objective proof for their position? That's a good indication that both sides are wrong/right.

And let's get something straight: They are right. The Kindler Gentler Side is absolutely correct about most of their points, but especially about the effects such positive, kind, gentle, thoughtful outreach would/could/does have. We're absolutely wrong, we on the side of yelling and throwing shit.

But we're punk rock, so fuck them.

The problem is that both things are needed, and they need to remain separate. The KG's, as I will henceforth call them, will win more hearts and minds, and further the goals of all of us; but there are assholes out there on the side of religion who will continue to rant, lie, rave, lie, scream, lie, accuse, lie, and generally annoy the shit out of me- most often by blatantly lying.

Here's the solution:
The KG's and Us represent extreme viewpoints. Extremes NEVER work, if they did statistics wouldn't be NEARLY as important when discussing society(s). A moderate viewpoint is needed, and- according to the statistics- is expressed/held by the majority of people already. So, we're good there, anyway. But, there's more.

I promise- and I can only speak for myself (if you think that atheists in general are hard to herd, try my side of the moral divide)- to focus my vitriol at those who obviously deserve it. I will not walk up to someone and start yelling at them for no reason because 90% of the time they will be religious and therefore deserving of my anger. I will, however, aggressively attack anyone who even slightly deserves it. (I am militant, remember?) In return for this, KG's, I will not interfere should you be talking kindly and gently to people I'm not currently yelling at; and I will (sometimes) accept it if enough of you tell me I'm wrong to yell at a certain person.

I will continue to rail against tax-exempt churchs, christian day care facilities, the 700 club, anyone who doesn't sarcastically refer to themselves while using the title "Reverend" (or similar), the fuckstick priest who is saying Catholics shouldn't get communion if they voted for Obama, and the like.

Aggression actually does have its uses. Meekly "turning the other cheek" is a bunch of bullshit that has never worked for ANYONE. (Not even Ghandi, and you probably want to do a little research that doesn't involve drinking the kool-aid before you try thinking next time). Meekly turning the other cheek while there is an obvious, demonstrative, threat of violence/aggression has worked for nearly everyone- most especially anyone generally named as "non-violent".

And no, violence doesn't always have to be physical. In fact, I particularly enjoy inflicting psychological violence upon people, where the scars are far less obvious and far more debilitating.

So, I agree to do my best to only assault those who, in the parlance of Louisiana, "Need [Assaulting]". And you should simply ignore me, saying only "The views of a minority of radical and extreme elements, obviously, do not represent the sophisticated bullshit we're totally prepared to massage between your asscheeks should you just turn around and spread 'em for us..." Read More...

The Bloody Undies

Ignore the video, it's the only one I could find with the song. This is "Zombie Girl", and it's catchy, and addictive- even if this is cut off in the middle. Watch it anyway, and try not to catch yourself humming it the rest of the day.

Read More...

Enough Said, I think.

found via Warren Ellis, who said:

A deeply peculiar piece of video, I’m guessing clipped from a British tv documentary, purporting to be a record of an Italian priest abusing a disturbed child conducting an "exorcism."

A word to the credulous: Satan was a literary invention to give Jesus a villain. There’s no such thing as Satan. There’s no such thing as God. Jesus, like Barack Obama, was a politician.

Read More...

Micheal Crichton

Micheal Crichton- author of Jurassic Park, Swarm, Sphere, Congo, Andromeda Strain, The Great Train Robbery, etc etc- died yesterday (Tuesday November 4, 2008) at 66 of cancer. His books, their movies, and ER kept science and science fiction in the popular consciousness and inspired many to further their knowledge in such subjects.

Though he was sometimes controversial- State of Fear and Rising Sun- he was vastly popular and a master storyteller. Also, he was 6'9".

I remember Jurassic Park furthered my own interest in biology, genetics, and cloning.

Though I wasn't overly impressed with the trends I saw in State of Fear and Next, I still admired anyone capable of writing such densely packed scientific thrillers.

This is a loss for future readers, who will no longer get the exciting prose of one of America's best authors.

And tall people. Read More...

What I'm Seeing

I know everyone has to work, and do dishes, and pay taxes, and die; and all the other things that keeps them from reading and hearing all the different valid opinions out there; so I thought I'd compile a listing of some things about Obama that I'm seeing today.

(And why the hell is the embedded spell-checking hitting Obama as misspelled?)

Charlie Stross- English SF author- on Obama is a conservative and California's Prop 8, and why HE would have voted for him. (I'll note, because he took pains to make sure it happened this way, that he did not announce who he would have voted for until after the polls were closed).

PZ Meyers- noted atheist, biologist, professor, and blogger- on Obama's real challenge (and that he's conservative/centrist), and further context explanation of the original.

And, the ever present reality- punctuated by booing McCain supporters during the concession speech (maybe?): (via ModBlog by way of Warren Ellis)


I almost want to say that the things to do/focus on are watching who is picked as what for the admin; seeing if any bullshit comes from the Obama Camp like when Bush's admin accused the Clintons and their staff of stealing valuable pieces of art and furniture; relaxing because it's all over until Jan 20, 2009; and/or that the elections went smoothly, it was all very professional- and quick- and that McCain made a great speech as did Obama, neither deviating from basically expected prose.

However, I'm not that "bright and cheery message" guy. Instead, go look at Suburban Panic, Fafblog!, and WarrenEllis.com they all have funny, irreverent, or intentionally worrisome shite for you to waste away your days upon... Read More...

Done

West Wing Did It First. A very junior member of congress, a minority, a death, a moderate republican who must pick a staunch conservative whacko for VP (who decides to run for pres 4 years later), etc etc...

Also, looks like Alabama's Black Belt went to Obama- which is something I figured.

Happy. Anxious. Really want to talk to me-in-4-years to compare notes and see if some of the things I suspect about Obama's re-election are true. (knowing me I'll have forgotten all this stuff by then, and I don't feel like writing it down).

By the by: Howard Dean = Genius; and it's unsurprising to those of us who watched him with interest 4 years ago. Read More...

Sessions Did It

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, recently, that the republican party is in a mess. This seems adequate. He says the Republicans were too interested in state and special interest concerns and not in a national plan. This seems true- though it also seems ambiguous enough to apply to almost any elected federal politician. Then he lost his fucking marbles, got re-infected with the Republican-Party-Lie-Till-You-Die infection that makes them not admit Sarah Palin should be forced to change her name to Sarah Pander. He said the republicans were not in trouble because they were too conservative.

Well, in a country with two political parties that have a shot at most/any elected office, that would mean they were too liberal, right? I mean, the Republicans are all conservative. The Democrats are all liberals- unless they're from Alabama where they're pro-NRA, pro-Life, federal reductionists, who never oppose tax cuts. So if the Republicans didn't get themselves in trouble by being conservative, they must have gotten into trouble being liberal. Because legislating to ban the freedoms of minorities too small/disliked to effect national elections is too pussy-ass-faggy-liberal-San-Francisco. Because lying about what "life" means, and not being able to talk about Roe v Wade without bringing up myth, superstition, and "Religion", all while keeping poor women from getting safe abortions, is too effeminate-anti-security-take-it-in-the-ass-(from-another-man)-liberal. Because de-regulating every big business supporter so they don't even have to disclose, after the fact, what bullshit they're doing; all while fucking the environment to spare polluters another 3 cents on the dollar, and dissolving the SUPERFUND ( it having been by far one of the smartest, fairest, and understandable things ever done in the name of environmental policy) is too pro-terrorist-if-you-vote-for-them-we-all-die-gay-and-communist-because-that's-even-possible-and-they're-all-gay-and-hate-jebus-and-gay-liberal.

Makes sense.

Douche. Read More...

The Perfect Solution

(Godwin be appeased, I did not say FINAL)...

Hi there. I want to talk to you, instead of at you, for a second. No worries, it's not to address differences in opinions of right/wrong, politics, religion, how science is the only rational approach to understanding the real world we live in, or any of the other things I usually address.

No, today, right now, just between you and me- here alone (in the cold)- I'd like to talk about something I think we all know; but that we overlook FAR too often: There are no PERFECT Solutions. Everything benefits one group more than another; and most things hurt some group.

Do you enjoy the fact that you've probably never had malaria? It's because we changed the way sanitation works, and we killed an ass ton of mosquitoes. The mosquitoes lost out, and we won, hands down.

When there's a solution that negatively effects a group- like banks, automobile makers, or the airports/airlines- but positively effects another- usually consumers- it's not the right time to start trumpeting the cause of corporations. Case in point, the 250bn Stock Injection Plan that banks and bankers oppose(d). The VAST majority of economists, the world over, support the idea AND the idea that the banks want (where we buy up toxic sub-prime mortgage backed debts) is HORRIBLE- in every way- for the consumers. Trickle down economics didn't work under Ronny Ray-gun and they don't work now.

When the airports and airlines decree auctioning off runway slots, and the arguments run into how it will hurt local business in the future because investors don't want to invest in a place without direct-to-NYC flights, take a look at the facts. (1) It doesn't hurt the vast majority of consumers in any way, form, or fashion {Aren't flights with lay overs cheaper?}. (2) The groups decrying the measures are airports and airlines. (3) Nothing is perfect.

This simple, logical approach to issues will mean we can stop spending hours repeating sob stories of the people who get hurt, and start looking at the actual issues: Does this HELP the most people, Is there a feasible way of helping MORE people?

Prognosticating on uncertain futures by espousing WHAT IF and IT COULD (as well as similarly vague terms) is pointless. When you're in the store you don't debate whether to buy toothpaste because WHAT IF or IT COULD, you buy the toothpaste and brush your teeth because it's a fact that brushing your teeth means less trouble down the road.

In economics and politics it's much harder to know for sure what will or won't work. However, it's INCREDIBLY easy to see what DOESN'T WORK. For instance, I don't know how to get the world out of the financial crisis; but I do know that de-regulation, lack of transparency, and self-oversight all helped cause the problem. Which means anything that includes those, or tries to limit how much of that can be changed, is BAD.

Yes, that means more work for banks, and more work means more workers and more stuff. That means less profits for the companies. But does it matter if a company goes from making 5 trillion in a world market valued at 60 trillion, to making 1 trillion in a world market valued at 12 trillion? Does it matter if it means they make 4 trillion in a market worth 63 trillion? What if the changes guarantee no future crisis, like this?

The point is, nothing will satisfy everyone, there's no way and we both know it. So, stop bitching about something that doesn't work for everyone, and legitimately provide a better solution, or point out flaws in the current one and how to fix them, or shut the fuck up. But, for fuck's sake, stop championing the cause of the industries and groups that fucked themselves because the solutions don't benefit them!

Thanks for listening- News Media, Bloggers, Bitchers, Moaners, Whiners, and Fuckheads.

I hope you have a nice day, before burning to death in a slow and pain-filled manner on the morrow.

-Tom Read More...

Politics in Sub-saharan Afribama

Shut-up.

Because the best way to entice the reader is by insulting them until they are COWED into submission and read to appease their betters!

Also, your voice annoys me- not the quality; but the fact that you have one, and aren't solely hear to provide me an audience- ready, able, and willing!

So: shut-up.

Full Disclosure: I have family members who work at Huntsville Hospital's only rival (in Huntsville), Crestwood Hospital.

Huntsville Hospital is fucking scary: A Case Study.

Like the fucking Janjawid, they have slowly expanded their way into local domination, and like a metastasizing cancer they will eventually spread to the rest of the world! This is a story of ethnic cleansing, if that were an accurate representation of highly suspect business practices, corporate greed, conflict of interest, and evil hospitals.

Huntsville Hospital is located near downtown Huntsville, and over the past 20 years has slowly bought up many of the units in the government housing projects located around it. For many years, the government opposed this; but recently Loretta Spencer- the idiot fuck who lost the Mayorial Election to Tommy Battle (the new potential Idiot Fuck)- put into effect a change to move all those horribly ugly and crime ridden projects away from the places they've been forever, and off to what it currently the furthest outskirts of town. Furthest, of course, if you live on the richest sides of town (southside, and near madison/research park/bridge street).

Why? 1, crime was bad in their parking garages. Cars were getting broken into a lot, despite security improvments it was "unacceptable". 2, for years there was a different hospital only two or three blocks over; which meant HH could expand into where the ghetto was or not at all- and one of THOSE was NOT an option. And even though HH finally bought up the site of the other hospital and expanded all over what was once a different facility, it still needed more room to grow and tumor out into- and it already owned significant portions of the projects nearby.

Okay, so this is predatory; but not really horrible. Agreed.

It's important to note that Huntsville Hospital is a CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION! They are not a business, they are here for the community, offering services; not running a business. This makes those predatory practices (understandable from a business) a bit more nefarious, don't you think? It also means they can ask for donations in the form of advertising, and provide their sponsors huge tax write-offs. This puts their competitors at serious disadvantage. Normally, this wouldn't matter to me; but HH has a bunch of shady/nefarious aspects and the free market works best when there is competition. One Hospital in 200 miles is a bit FAR from a competitive market place, and it seems to be exactly what HH wants.

Next Up: The curious case of the Little Hospital That Thought It Could, But Really Couldn't - Decatur General.

So, Decatur General couldn't afford a cardiac unit. For one, cardiac units are EXPENSIVE, for two they didn't have the docs for it. So DG makes a deal with HH to get some Cardiac specialists on loan. That way they save some money and provide residents of Decatur and other areas with cardiac care closer than Huntsville- 45 minutes or further away (down I-565). This deal REALLY pisses off DG's Obstetrics, and the OB's leave because DG can't afford to pay them enough to keep them because of how much the cardiac rental is costing. So, DG is up one Cardiac Unit, but can't deliver babies. So then, HH pulls it's docs back. DG now has no Obstetrics and no Cardiac Unit. DG was already financially strapped before the economic crisis; it's gone from being about to collapse to being held up by little more than a stubborn insistence to not admit it's already crumbled...

HH negotiated a sweet deal to supply another hospital (a hospital in an area HH has been restricted from going because it would endanger that SAME hospital and further reduce HH's competition in the local area). That hospital took the sweet deal, and lost out on a whole department. Then, reeling from the loss of a whole unit, HH pulls it's people at the first opportunity, effectively castrating DG.

Predatory? Yes, big time.

Add to it that Loretta Spencer and friends have sat, or do sit, on HH's board of directors/trustees. The local government (for the past 8 or more years, the same time coincidentally that HH has gone from one of three hospitals to owning one of the others and vastly dwarfing the remaining one) has been doing whatever it can to accomodate and appease the voracious appetite of the beast.

Seriously, Cthulhu-ian- I mean, the motherfucker spread out from it's original site to encompass about 4 square blocks worth of formerly independent medical institutions. Lovecraft would be pleased- especially with how they mistreated the poor black community that once lived in the projects.

All the doctors have big houses on southside (really the SE), while the projects are getting thrown out into the north. Zoning changed, road improvements came down the line, yadda yadda yadda. Either HH is one lucky fucking hospital, or it's needs are being met at the expense of all others.

Look at what happened to Athens-Limestone Hospital... Guess who owns it, now...

Decatur General is next.

If they can force Crestwood out- which would likely start by keeping Crestwood from getting the rights to put a small extension inside Madison City (also a tactic HH has successfull employed in the on-going Madison Hospital bruhaha)- Huntsville Hospital would be the only hospital in 100 miles.

It's a bit fucked.

Huntsville, despite it's size and prestige, is really just a small town- especially politically. And Huntsville Hospital is definitely part of the good ol' boy network, here. Read More...