Mergan_the_Dragon
"You shall know the truth....and the truth shall make you mad" - Neil Boortz
Profile
I am a 30 year old trainer from sunny St Petersburg, FL. I love to debate about religion, politics, and philosophy. I am also the moderator of a debate group on Myspace. Check it out at http://groups.myspace.com/dadebate
Age: 31
Age: 31
Gender: M
Location: St Pete, FL
Friends
|
enchantedfairyjj
nickelpickel
LLCOOLWSR
live4life
jamieiez81
Noel
Lazybones
ali21
moongreenstar
cynic
lyricalmystique
Katiegirl
shellie2284
Blesavco
SmokedSilly
sunriseangel
sweetlou
Categories
Archives
Life: The Evils of the Gordon Rule
Posted 5/12/2007 1:24:24 PM
Anyone who has experienced life as a college student in Florida has experienced the "joy" of living by the Gordon Rule. It's a standard that requires college students to write a minimum number of words during their classes.
However, even if you haven't had the pleasure of running into the Gordon Rule in your life, most everyone has had assigned papers with a minimum word count that must be met in order to receive a passing grade. Therefore, I think you'll all be able to relate to what I'm about to say.
While the Gordon Rule IS beneficial in it's intention - that is, to have students actually practice using the English language in it's written form - it also has a not so beneficial result. It not only teaches us to write - it teaches us to bull sh*t. We quickly learn how to add worthless fluff to papers in order to make the minimum number of words that are required. In essence, we have learned to be verbose to the point of naseum.
The impact in our day to day lives is quite profound. Take me for example - a professional trainer for a national payroll company. In the business world, you don't get credit for writing copious amounts. In fact, quite the opposite is true. We want our information to be brief and to the point. We want the most amount of impact crammed into the least amount of words. It's really the Golden Rule if you think about it. I don't want to read a book just for you to tell me something that could be summarized into two short paragraphs - so shouldn't I treat you with the same courtesy.
However, my college experience has taught me to b.s. the hell out of everything I write - and if you've read my blog, you can see the impact it's had on me!
Therefore, while I find encouraging writing to be beneficial, I'd like to ask you, my fellow bloggers, is it really worthwhile to teach people to just b.s.?
Posted 5/12/2007 1:24:24 PM
Anyone who has experienced life as a college student in Florida has experienced the "joy" of living by the Gordon Rule. It's a standard that requires college students to write a minimum number of words during their classes.
However, even if you haven't had the pleasure of running into the Gordon Rule in your life, most everyone has had assigned papers with a minimum word count that must be met in order to receive a passing grade. Therefore, I think you'll all be able to relate to what I'm about to say.
While the Gordon Rule IS beneficial in it's intention - that is, to have students actually practice using the English language in it's written form - it also has a not so beneficial result. It not only teaches us to write - it teaches us to bull sh*t. We quickly learn how to add worthless fluff to papers in order to make the minimum number of words that are required. In essence, we have learned to be verbose to the point of naseum.
The impact in our day to day lives is quite profound. Take me for example - a professional trainer for a national payroll company. In the business world, you don't get credit for writing copious amounts. In fact, quite the opposite is true. We want our information to be brief and to the point. We want the most amount of impact crammed into the least amount of words. It's really the Golden Rule if you think about it. I don't want to read a book just for you to tell me something that could be summarized into two short paragraphs - so shouldn't I treat you with the same courtesy.
However, my college experience has taught me to b.s. the hell out of everything I write - and if you've read my blog, you can see the impact it's had on me!
Therefore, while I find encouraging writing to be beneficial, I'd like to ask you, my fellow bloggers, is it really worthwhile to teach people to just b.s.?
Life: The Perfect Drug?
Posted 5/10/2007 6:16:46 PM
I'm a big fan of Nine Inch Nails. I really like their song "The Perfect Drug". It's lyrics are haunting and terrifying as Reznor describes an unknown individual as the perfect drug. The music, video, and lyrics all take us on a roller coaster ride that details the ecstatic high to the crashing low. It made me think...is love itself like a drug?
I know that my romantic readers will be appalled by even the cursory thought of love being compared to a narcotic. However, when you think about it, love has very much the same effects as some of the legal and illegal drugs that are out there today. In the throws of love we can become irrational, euphoric, and oblivious to other worries. It can send us into a jealous rage, causing us to do things we normally wouldn't dream of. When we have love taken away, it is much like a period of "cold turkey" withdrawal for some. Depression, despair, and feelings of worthlessness assault us.
Yet, we are addicted are we not? It is a high that we need and that we will do just about anything for. We can't imagine living without it and even the best 12 step programs probably couldn't help us permanently kick our "habit"
Yes, perhaps love is...the perfect drug
Posted 5/10/2007 6:16:46 PM
I'm a big fan of Nine Inch Nails. I really like their song "The Perfect Drug". It's lyrics are haunting and terrifying as Reznor describes an unknown individual as the perfect drug. The music, video, and lyrics all take us on a roller coaster ride that details the ecstatic high to the crashing low. It made me think...is love itself like a drug?
I know that my romantic readers will be appalled by even the cursory thought of love being compared to a narcotic. However, when you think about it, love has very much the same effects as some of the legal and illegal drugs that are out there today. In the throws of love we can become irrational, euphoric, and oblivious to other worries. It can send us into a jealous rage, causing us to do things we normally wouldn't dream of. When we have love taken away, it is much like a period of "cold turkey" withdrawal for some. Depression, despair, and feelings of worthlessness assault us.
Yet, we are addicted are we not? It is a high that we need and that we will do just about anything for. We can't imagine living without it and even the best 12 step programs probably couldn't help us permanently kick our "habit"
Yes, perhaps love is...the perfect drug
Where's Mergan
Posted 5/5/2007 1:03:40 AM
No, I'm not about to post one of those little cartoons where I am wearing a silly hat and a red and white stripe shirt and you must find me among a throng of other people. I am merely posting this for the few (very few) who have missed my blogging on here and have wondered where I have been as of late.
I recently had to pick up a second job for financial reasons and the extra hours have given me much less play time. Therefore, I have to make more critical choices about what I will spend my limited amount of play time doing. While I normally love blogging, I find that activities that require mental exertion are not as appealing to me anymore lol! Mainly because after working two jobs, you want to just come home and veg (and since I have no children, I have that wonderful luxury).
I guess I am blogging now because I received a significant ego bruise when only two of my blog buddies even seemed to notice I was gone. No, I didn't expect New Blog to grind to a halt in my absence. Lord knows there are far more proficient bloggers than I - my nephew JK being one of them. I guess I just hoped that I would get a comment or two inquiring about my absence, and since I didn't, I have come to publicly pout about it and hope that I get some sort of sympathy comments thereby.
Anyhow, for now I will sign off. I am on my way to more mind numbing fun (specifically, Xbox). I will check back later to see if anyone noticed, so I can pull an Eeyore and say "Thanks for noticing me"
Posted 5/5/2007 1:03:40 AM
No, I'm not about to post one of those little cartoons where I am wearing a silly hat and a red and white stripe shirt and you must find me among a throng of other people. I am merely posting this for the few (very few) who have missed my blogging on here and have wondered where I have been as of late.
I recently had to pick up a second job for financial reasons and the extra hours have given me much less play time. Therefore, I have to make more critical choices about what I will spend my limited amount of play time doing. While I normally love blogging, I find that activities that require mental exertion are not as appealing to me anymore lol! Mainly because after working two jobs, you want to just come home and veg (and since I have no children, I have that wonderful luxury).
I guess I am blogging now because I received a significant ego bruise when only two of my blog buddies even seemed to notice I was gone. No, I didn't expect New Blog to grind to a halt in my absence. Lord knows there are far more proficient bloggers than I - my nephew JK being one of them. I guess I just hoped that I would get a comment or two inquiring about my absence, and since I didn't, I have come to publicly pout about it and hope that I get some sort of sympathy comments thereby.
Anyhow, for now I will sign off. I am on my way to more mind numbing fun (specifically, Xbox). I will check back later to see if anyone noticed, so I can pull an Eeyore and say "Thanks for noticing me"
The Ant and the Grasshopper
Posted 4/15/2007 7:01:06 PM
I only wish I could lay claim to writing this - it's pure genius. I laughed, then had to cry at the end of it because it is sad, but true:
The Ant & the Grasshopper
An old tale with some new additions.
Nevertheless, take note.
Subject: Fw: The Ant & the Grasshopper *OLD VERSION*:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and
plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
************************************************************
*UPDATED VERSION:*
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks
the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor
grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah
with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not
Easy Being Green." Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a
press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and
well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the
shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable
home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp
contrast.
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where
the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse
then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's
sake.
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that
the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call
for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act
retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for
failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having
nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by
the government.
Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a
defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel
of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-
parent welfare recipients.
The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of
the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens
to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't
maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is
found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is
taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful
neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote
Posted 4/15/2007 7:01:06 PM
I only wish I could lay claim to writing this - it's pure genius. I laughed, then had to cry at the end of it because it is sad, but true:
The Ant & the Grasshopper
An old tale with some new additions.
Nevertheless, take note.
Subject: Fw: The Ant & the Grasshopper *OLD VERSION*:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and
plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
************************************************************
*UPDATED VERSION:*
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks
the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor
grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah
with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not
Easy Being Green." Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a
press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and
well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the
shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable
home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp
contrast.
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where
the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse
then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's
sake.
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that
the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call
for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act
retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for
failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having
nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by
the government.
Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a
defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel
of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-
parent welfare recipients.
The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of
the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens
to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't
maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is
found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is
taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful
neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote
Marriage Rights - an interesting use of satire
Posted 4/2/2007 5:46:46 PM
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/opinion/a-fundamental-wrong-in-letting-some-marry/2007/03/30/1174761750887.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A fundamental wrong in letting some marry
Lisa Pryor | March 31, 2007
The views I am about to express are not very fashionable. They are certainly not politically correct. But I believe what I am about to say must be expressed to protect the institution of marriage.
Too often in the media, currency is given to the theory that everyone should be allowed to marry regardless of gender, outlook and whether the two people are creating a suitable family environment in which to bring up children.
Well, it is time to ask some hard questions about this attitude. The only way we will save marriage is to reclaim the institution for the mainstream. Marriage is for normal people who want to raise children in a healthy and secure environment. This is why we should ban religious fundamentalists from marrying.
Fundamentalists of all religions engage in unnatural practices. The unconventional views they hold inevitably lead to their children being teased in the playground and, no matter what studies may show, there is surely a greater risk they will grow up to be fundamentalist themselves if they are exposed to dangerous ideas from a tender age.
No matter what fundamentalist propaganda may claim, fundamentalism is not sanctioned by nature. There is not a single species in the animal kingdom which stresses the infallibility of the Bible or adheres to the teachings of the Koran. Even in the higher orders of primate, no species has conclusively shown faith in the virgin birth or the second coming. Animals tend to be atheist, pagan or animist, which shows that these views are surely instinctive, normal, natural and right.
Maybe you think it is OK for humans to differ from animals. Maybe you think consenting adults should be able to do what they like regardless of whether the average person agrees with their views.
Such a liberal approach is a slippery slope. When we allow fundamentalists to marry it says that fundamentalism is OK. It encourages these people to foist the fundamentalist agenda on the rest of the community. Before long they will be trying to "convert" people to their "religions". Should we risk this? Fundamentalists are a small minority of the population, so only a small number of people would be inconvenienced by a ban. It would not even be discriminatory as fundamentalists would still have the right to marry - so long as they renounced their religion.
Let's not forget that we are not just talking about consenting adults. When you allow fundamentalists to marry it encourages them to have children. Sure, they might still have kids even if they cannot marry in the eyes of the law, but why legitimise it? Children are the true victims of fundamentalist marriages. Children don't get a say when they are born into a household practising a fundamentalist lifestyle. Tiny children should not be subjected to cultural experiments and social engineering. Imagine how confused and guilty children would feel when they were indoctrinated with the bizarre idea that they were born with the stain of original sin and were in fact so inherently bad that a man had to bleed to death to make it all OK.
Imagine also the teasing that children who have grown up in these "families" would be subjected to in the playground when other kids find out about their unusual views and practices. What are normal parents supposed to do when their children arrive home asking uncomfortable questions because they have been exposed to these groups at an age when they are too young to understand?
Before you know it, fundamentalist parents will be insisting preschool children read storybooks about the fundamentalist lifestyle in order to better understand it. There will be colouring books directed at four-year-olds showing Jesus turning water into wine and walking on water, as if it were gospel.
What hope does a child indoctrinated with this sort of propaganda have of growing up to be normal? Can you really tell me they will not be more likely to grow up fundamentalist themselves?
Before you accuse me of hate speech, I should point out that I bear no grudge against fundamentalists personally. "Love the fundamentalist, hate the fundamentalism" is my policy.
I suppose one chink in this argument is that banning a minority from marrying is utterly unfair, inhumane and intolerant. Kind of like the ban on gay marriage.
Posted 4/2/2007 5:46:46 PM
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/opinion/a-fundamental-wrong-in-letting-some-marry/2007/03/30/1174761750887.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A fundamental wrong in letting some marry
Lisa Pryor | March 31, 2007
The views I am about to express are not very fashionable. They are certainly not politically correct. But I believe what I am about to say must be expressed to protect the institution of marriage.
Too often in the media, currency is given to the theory that everyone should be allowed to marry regardless of gender, outlook and whether the two people are creating a suitable family environment in which to bring up children.
Well, it is time to ask some hard questions about this attitude. The only way we will save marriage is to reclaim the institution for the mainstream. Marriage is for normal people who want to raise children in a healthy and secure environment. This is why we should ban religious fundamentalists from marrying.
Fundamentalists of all religions engage in unnatural practices. The unconventional views they hold inevitably lead to their children being teased in the playground and, no matter what studies may show, there is surely a greater risk they will grow up to be fundamentalist themselves if they are exposed to dangerous ideas from a tender age.
No matter what fundamentalist propaganda may claim, fundamentalism is not sanctioned by nature. There is not a single species in the animal kingdom which stresses the infallibility of the Bible or adheres to the teachings of the Koran. Even in the higher orders of primate, no species has conclusively shown faith in the virgin birth or the second coming. Animals tend to be atheist, pagan or animist, which shows that these views are surely instinctive, normal, natural and right.
Maybe you think it is OK for humans to differ from animals. Maybe you think consenting adults should be able to do what they like regardless of whether the average person agrees with their views.
Such a liberal approach is a slippery slope. When we allow fundamentalists to marry it says that fundamentalism is OK. It encourages these people to foist the fundamentalist agenda on the rest of the community. Before long they will be trying to "convert" people to their "religions". Should we risk this? Fundamentalists are a small minority of the population, so only a small number of people would be inconvenienced by a ban. It would not even be discriminatory as fundamentalists would still have the right to marry - so long as they renounced their religion.
Let's not forget that we are not just talking about consenting adults. When you allow fundamentalists to marry it encourages them to have children. Sure, they might still have kids even if they cannot marry in the eyes of the law, but why legitimise it? Children are the true victims of fundamentalist marriages. Children don't get a say when they are born into a household practising a fundamentalist lifestyle. Tiny children should not be subjected to cultural experiments and social engineering. Imagine how confused and guilty children would feel when they were indoctrinated with the bizarre idea that they were born with the stain of original sin and were in fact so inherently bad that a man had to bleed to death to make it all OK.
Imagine also the teasing that children who have grown up in these "families" would be subjected to in the playground when other kids find out about their unusual views and practices. What are normal parents supposed to do when their children arrive home asking uncomfortable questions because they have been exposed to these groups at an age when they are too young to understand?
Before you know it, fundamentalist parents will be insisting preschool children read storybooks about the fundamentalist lifestyle in order to better understand it. There will be colouring books directed at four-year-olds showing Jesus turning water into wine and walking on water, as if it were gospel.
What hope does a child indoctrinated with this sort of propaganda have of growing up to be normal? Can you really tell me they will not be more likely to grow up fundamentalist themselves?
Before you accuse me of hate speech, I should point out that I bear no grudge against fundamentalists personally. "Love the fundamentalist, hate the fundamentalism" is my policy.
I suppose one chink in this argument is that banning a minority from marrying is utterly unfair, inhumane and intolerant. Kind of like the ban on gay marriage.
Ex-wife becomes a man; ex-husband seeks end to alimony
Posted 3/28/2007 9:49:49 PM
See the following article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/03/27/sexchange.alimony.ap/
Last time I checked, there was nothing in the marriage vows, the marriage contract, or (I would assume) in most divorce agreements that stipulates anything in regard to the one spouse have a sex change. What I do know is that you agree to love the person for better or worse - till death do you part - regardless of the changes (physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually) that that person may go through.
This is clearly just a ploy this man is using in order to break his divorce agreement. I sincerely hope he is not successful.
Posted 3/28/2007 9:49:49 PM
See the following article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/03/27/sexchange.alimony.ap/
Last time I checked, there was nothing in the marriage vows, the marriage contract, or (I would assume) in most divorce agreements that stipulates anything in regard to the one spouse have a sex change. What I do know is that you agree to love the person for better or worse - till death do you part - regardless of the changes (physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually) that that person may go through.
This is clearly just a ploy this man is using in order to break his divorce agreement. I sincerely hope he is not successful.
Life: Critical Thinking - It Does a Body Good
Posted 3/27/2007 9:06:21 PM
Critical Thinking - the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion. (definition courtesy of dictionary.com)
You can tell when someone is applying critical thinking skills because it's such a rarity, you may be shocked at the intellectual capacity of the individual who is utilizing them. Yes, common sense isn't so common after all is it?
I am amazed at how often I run across people who have strongly held beliefs that, when critical thinking is applied to them, make absolutely no sense whatsoever...and yet, they believe anyway - despite all the evidence to the contrary. They selectively pick and choose the data that they want to embrace - usually the data that supports their claims - and then plug their ears while la-la-la-ing when contrary evidence is presented.
And is it any wonder that if the liberal left does not destroy us that the radical right will? I am surrounded by extremes of thought and opinion - most of which leave no room for open and intelligent debate. You are simply branded an idiot if you disagree and are advised to plant your head firmly up your a$$ hole so you can be more like them.
One need look no further than the liberal left's Global Warming alarmism or the radical rights views on issues such as homosexuality to understand that we are in a world that is on the brink.
Liberals and Christians and Muslims...OH MY!
Pray that we somehow find moderation of thought in the midst of all the extreme, radical, and completely idiotic ideas that bombard us without mercy!
Posted 3/27/2007 9:06:21 PM
Critical Thinking - the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion. (definition courtesy of dictionary.com)
You can tell when someone is applying critical thinking skills because it's such a rarity, you may be shocked at the intellectual capacity of the individual who is utilizing them. Yes, common sense isn't so common after all is it?
I am amazed at how often I run across people who have strongly held beliefs that, when critical thinking is applied to them, make absolutely no sense whatsoever...and yet, they believe anyway - despite all the evidence to the contrary. They selectively pick and choose the data that they want to embrace - usually the data that supports their claims - and then plug their ears while la-la-la-ing when contrary evidence is presented.
And is it any wonder that if the liberal left does not destroy us that the radical right will? I am surrounded by extremes of thought and opinion - most of which leave no room for open and intelligent debate. You are simply branded an idiot if you disagree and are advised to plant your head firmly up your a$$ hole so you can be more like them.
One need look no further than the liberal left's Global Warming alarmism or the radical rights views on issues such as homosexuality to understand that we are in a world that is on the brink.
Liberals and Christians and Muslims...OH MY!
Pray that we somehow find moderation of thought in the midst of all the extreme, radical, and completely idiotic ideas that bombard us without mercy!
Insanity Defined
Posted 3/14/2007 4:27:59 PM
Perhaps many of you have heard the oft referenced definition of insanity - "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". By that definition, it is only a matter of time before the little men in white coats come to take me away - because I have completely lost it.
Let me explain...
As you may know, I love to debate religion, politics, and philosophy in general. Two of my favorite people to engage in debate with are my mom and my nephew - both Christians, both conservative republicans. However, no matter how hard each of us may try, we all still walk away believing strongly that, "I am right, they are wrong, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph how in the hell are they not getting what I'm saying??"
Now, as my nephew will remind you, one of us is right and the other is wrong. However, in certain matters, there is no way to conclusively determine who that person is. AND when arguing politics and religion, one thing is clear - they are emotional topics and emotions get involved...AND emotions may blur the critical thinking process.
Granted, I STILL think I'm right...but...why am I bothering to try to convince them of that? Why are they bothering to try to convince me that they are? Actually, I know why they do it - they fear for my "eternal soul". I have no such fears for them. So why is it so important to me that they come to the same understanding I have? I don't know. One thing is clear though - it's a complete and utter waste of my time and energy. And, furthermore, it's insane (at least by the definition given above).
There's a saying that goes something like this..."You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". I'm not sure about horses, water, and when and under what circumstances they drink - however, it is definitely a good metaphor for people and their beliefs. People don't change their beliefs because someone else convinces them to. People change their beliefs because they convince themselves to. It's not until they realize the truth (or untruth) of any given argument for themselves that they change their thinking one iota.
With that in mind, I give up - or at least, I'm going to try to give up. If even my most well thought out arguments are incapable of convincing the opposition, then I will let them to continue to be wrong :-) Hopefully, they will grant me the same respect.
Posted 3/14/2007 4:27:59 PM
Perhaps many of you have heard the oft referenced definition of insanity - "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". By that definition, it is only a matter of time before the little men in white coats come to take me away - because I have completely lost it.
Let me explain...
As you may know, I love to debate religion, politics, and philosophy in general. Two of my favorite people to engage in debate with are my mom and my nephew - both Christians, both conservative republicans. However, no matter how hard each of us may try, we all still walk away believing strongly that, "I am right, they are wrong, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph how in the hell are they not getting what I'm saying??"
Now, as my nephew will remind you, one of us is right and the other is wrong. However, in certain matters, there is no way to conclusively determine who that person is. AND when arguing politics and religion, one thing is clear - they are emotional topics and emotions get involved...AND emotions may blur the critical thinking process.
Granted, I STILL think I'm right...but...why am I bothering to try to convince them of that? Why are they bothering to try to convince me that they are? Actually, I know why they do it - they fear for my "eternal soul". I have no such fears for them. So why is it so important to me that they come to the same understanding I have? I don't know. One thing is clear though - it's a complete and utter waste of my time and energy. And, furthermore, it's insane (at least by the definition given above).
There's a saying that goes something like this..."You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". I'm not sure about horses, water, and when and under what circumstances they drink - however, it is definitely a good metaphor for people and their beliefs. People don't change their beliefs because someone else convinces them to. People change their beliefs because they convince themselves to. It's not until they realize the truth (or untruth) of any given argument for themselves that they change their thinking one iota.
With that in mind, I give up - or at least, I'm going to try to give up. If even my most well thought out arguments are incapable of convincing the opposition, then I will let them to continue to be wrong :-) Hopefully, they will grant me the same respect.
Life: The Agony of Defeat
Posted 3/10/2007 2:14:16 PM
I always wondered what Faith Hill must have felt like that night she lost to Carrie Underwood at the Country Music Awards. Today I found out first hand. It wasn't Carrie Underwood who handed me my defeat though, it was a guy by the name of Jeff Thomas.
I've known Jeff for a little over a year now. He's a member of the Toastmasters club I joined here in St Pete - and he was assigned to be my mentor. However, Jeff and I haven't really worked together all that much. It's as much my choice as anything else.
However, it wasn't until the Summer of last year that I really started to build my rivalry with Jeff Thomas. The club was having their annual Humorous Speech Contest. The winner would go on to compete at Area, the winner from there would go on to division, then district. I had done some really good humorous speeches in the past, and I felt this was my chance to shine. Jeff also entered the contest. I couldn't tell you the name of any of the other contestants - that doesn't really matter to me much now - because I came in second place to Jeff. Jeff went all the way to District, but didn't win that final round.
I knew I could do better - and when the International Speech Contest came up, I was putting my name in the hat - because I knew Jeff would be putting his name in; AND because International Speech Contest goes beyond district - it goes to region, and then (as the name would imply) International.
While I'd never heard of a single one of the World Champions before I joined Toastmasters, I found out they all do very well for themselves. Most of them are motivational speakers and trainers working with some of the big names from the Fortune 500 companies. Can we say "lucrative career opportunity"??
I busted my ass on my contest speech. I worked harder on it than any other speech I had written - I knew I had to to beat Jeff.
The day of the club contest came. I presented my speech pretty much flawlessly. After hearing Jeff's speech, I thought I had him - I would defeat Jeff and go onto the Area Contest...and then...who knows?? But, much to my chagrin, I came in second place to Jeff...again.
Yet, I had one more chance to defeat Jeff and prove that I was a true contender. I had started my own club only a few months ago at my job. I was told I could come to Area and represent MY club! ALLLLLLRIGHT! Jeff had not seen the last of me yet! I would work on my speech even more and come back to defeat him at the Area Contest.
Today was that day - my would-be shining moment. I presented my speech and sat down more than satisfied with myself. I had done my best, and by god, that better count for something. I knew I had to be in the top 3 - and furthermore, I probably had a really good shot at taking first.
During the break, everyone commented on my speech. They loved it - thought it was very original, inspiring and funny. Jeff came up to me and we exchanged the usual political good sportsman talk saying how tough the competition was (there were 5 other contestants besides Jeff and I). But in my mind, I knew I had him - this was it Jeff Thomas...this was the moment you see me take first.
I sat in anticipation as I heard them announce the awards. 3rd place - not me - good! 2nd place - not me either! - good! That left 1st and that had to be me. Even though Jeff had not been called for the two prior awards, I knew that must have just meant he didn't place. Sorry Jeff, so sorry bout your luck brotha. First place.............."JEFF THOMAS!"
DAMMIT
And it took every ounce of gentlman within me to smile and clap and not stand up and say "THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!"
Some people consoled me afterwards. A good friend, who always shoots me straight said "You got robbed man." "Yes," I said, "I did get robbed"
It was the agony of defeat
Part of me wanted to quit right there - never compete again. That was the pity party side of me...and admittedly, there's still a good piece of that here. However, Jeff isn't getting off that easy. I'll be back this year for Humorous Speech and next year for International. No more second place, no more embarassing defeats....no more reigning champ.
From defeat the Phoenix will rise...from defeat, I will find my victory.
Posted 3/10/2007 2:14:16 PM
I always wondered what Faith Hill must have felt like that night she lost to Carrie Underwood at the Country Music Awards. Today I found out first hand. It wasn't Carrie Underwood who handed me my defeat though, it was a guy by the name of Jeff Thomas.
I've known Jeff for a little over a year now. He's a member of the Toastmasters club I joined here in St Pete - and he was assigned to be my mentor. However, Jeff and I haven't really worked together all that much. It's as much my choice as anything else.
However, it wasn't until the Summer of last year that I really started to build my rivalry with Jeff Thomas. The club was having their annual Humorous Speech Contest. The winner would go on to compete at Area, the winner from there would go on to division, then district. I had done some really good humorous speeches in the past, and I felt this was my chance to shine. Jeff also entered the contest. I couldn't tell you the name of any of the other contestants - that doesn't really matter to me much now - because I came in second place to Jeff. Jeff went all the way to District, but didn't win that final round.
I knew I could do better - and when the International Speech Contest came up, I was putting my name in the hat - because I knew Jeff would be putting his name in; AND because International Speech Contest goes beyond district - it goes to region, and then (as the name would imply) International.
While I'd never heard of a single one of the World Champions before I joined Toastmasters, I found out they all do very well for themselves. Most of them are motivational speakers and trainers working with some of the big names from the Fortune 500 companies. Can we say "lucrative career opportunity"??
I busted my ass on my contest speech. I worked harder on it than any other speech I had written - I knew I had to to beat Jeff.
The day of the club contest came. I presented my speech pretty much flawlessly. After hearing Jeff's speech, I thought I had him - I would defeat Jeff and go onto the Area Contest...and then...who knows?? But, much to my chagrin, I came in second place to Jeff...again.
Yet, I had one more chance to defeat Jeff and prove that I was a true contender. I had started my own club only a few months ago at my job. I was told I could come to Area and represent MY club! ALLLLLLRIGHT! Jeff had not seen the last of me yet! I would work on my speech even more and come back to defeat him at the Area Contest.
Today was that day - my would-be shining moment. I presented my speech and sat down more than satisfied with myself. I had done my best, and by god, that better count for something. I knew I had to be in the top 3 - and furthermore, I probably had a really good shot at taking first.
During the break, everyone commented on my speech. They loved it - thought it was very original, inspiring and funny. Jeff came up to me and we exchanged the usual political good sportsman talk saying how tough the competition was (there were 5 other contestants besides Jeff and I). But in my mind, I knew I had him - this was it Jeff Thomas...this was the moment you see me take first.
I sat in anticipation as I heard them announce the awards. 3rd place - not me - good! 2nd place - not me either! - good! That left 1st and that had to be me. Even though Jeff had not been called for the two prior awards, I knew that must have just meant he didn't place. Sorry Jeff, so sorry bout your luck brotha. First place.............."JEFF THOMAS!"
DAMMIT
And it took every ounce of gentlman within me to smile and clap and not stand up and say "THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!"
Some people consoled me afterwards. A good friend, who always shoots me straight said "You got robbed man." "Yes," I said, "I did get robbed"
It was the agony of defeat
Part of me wanted to quit right there - never compete again. That was the pity party side of me...and admittedly, there's still a good piece of that here. However, Jeff isn't getting off that easy. I'll be back this year for Humorous Speech and next year for International. No more second place, no more embarassing defeats....no more reigning champ.
From defeat the Phoenix will rise...from defeat, I will find my victory.
Transexual City Manager Fired
Posted 3/6/2007 11:00:25 PM
If you hadn't heard about the Largo, FL city manager who got fired because he announced that he was a transexual and was going to go through surgery to become a woman, you can read about it here:
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/breaking_news/16803763.htm
I think this is a travesty. There is no legitimate reason why this man should have been fired simply because he wished to change his sex.
Posted 3/6/2007 11:00:25 PM
If you hadn't heard about the Largo, FL city manager who got fired because he announced that he was a transexual and was going to go through surgery to become a woman, you can read about it here:
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/breaking_news/16803763.htm
I think this is a travesty. There is no legitimate reason why this man should have been fired simply because he wished to change his sex.
Religion: The Lost Tomb of Jesus" - A Skeptics Review
Posted 3/5/2007 10:08:09 PM
For those of you know me, you should know there was no way in hell I was going to miss seeing the Discovery channel's airing of the controversial James Cameron film, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus".
In a word, I was disappointed - thought not surprised. While the film made great strides to try to demonstrate the possibility that the tomb in question was the "Jesus Family Tomb" there was still much left to doubt at the end of the day. For all it's hype and all the ire of the Christian right, the show did little more than point to an interesting possibility without providing any substantial evidence.
While the show itself may have at least possessed a minor level of credibility when the credits rolled, it didn't take much time after that for any such faith (pardon the pun) in their findings to be eroded.
Enter Ted Koppel - along with two experts challenging the findings in "The Lost Tomb of Jesus". I couldn't help but feel like I was watching two teen kids who had been caught with a bag of marijuana by their parents when I saw two of the key people involved with the film being interviewed. Their body language expressed an unnerving discomfort. Their answers to Ted's drilling questions, defensive and weakly argued. In short, I could have done a better job defending the film than these two.
Thus, the impression I left with was that the film makers started with an assumption (that this is the tomb of Jesus) and then doggedly assembled any evidence they could to support that theory while ignoring any evidence to the contrary and never fully exploring all the possibilities.
If you're going to attack one of the central tenets of Christendom (and no matter what they say their intentions were - or for that matter, whatever their intentions truly were - they were in fact attempting to pull the rug right out from under the Christian faith), you had better come armed with a the evidenciary equivalent of a H-Bomb, not a squirt pistol from the dollar store.
Sadly, the Lost Tomb of Jesus is now officially a lost cause. The radical Christian right will call out their experts in full force with the order to rip apart the Lost Tomb movie - which they will with exceeding joy in much the same way a pack of lions would tear apart a wounded gazelle left behind from the pack.
I say "sadly" because if we ever do come up with more conclusive evidence, it will quickly be compared to the half assed attempt made by James Cameron and friends and it will be that assertion that will quickly let the wind out of any sails it may have billowed.
To the Christian right, I have only this to say, "See, I told you so". You all got all fired up over what is essentially nothing. I'm sure none of you actually watched the program for fear that (gasp) you might be led to doubt your faith, but fear not, you would not even have come close (heck, from the conversations I've had with other Christians, God Himself could come down from heaven and say Jesus wasn't His son and you wouldn't believe Him). So good news - you can sleep easy tonight without the use of prescription medication.
I, on the other hand, will need a beer or two to take the edge off of my immense aggravation over this whole circus which turned out to be nothing more than a dog and pony show.
Posted 3/5/2007 10:08:09 PM
For those of you know me, you should know there was no way in hell I was going to miss seeing the Discovery channel's airing of the controversial James Cameron film, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus".
In a word, I was disappointed - thought not surprised. While the film made great strides to try to demonstrate the possibility that the tomb in question was the "Jesus Family Tomb" there was still much left to doubt at the end of the day. For all it's hype and all the ire of the Christian right, the show did little more than point to an interesting possibility without providing any substantial evidence.
While the show itself may have at least possessed a minor level of credibility when the credits rolled, it didn't take much time after that for any such faith (pardon the pun) in their findings to be eroded.
Enter Ted Koppel - along with two experts challenging the findings in "The Lost Tomb of Jesus". I couldn't help but feel like I was watching two teen kids who had been caught with a bag of marijuana by their parents when I saw two of the key people involved with the film being interviewed. Their body language expressed an unnerving discomfort. Their answers to Ted's drilling questions, defensive and weakly argued. In short, I could have done a better job defending the film than these two.
Thus, the impression I left with was that the film makers started with an assumption (that this is the tomb of Jesus) and then doggedly assembled any evidence they could to support that theory while ignoring any evidence to the contrary and never fully exploring all the possibilities.
If you're going to attack one of the central tenets of Christendom (and no matter what they say their intentions were - or for that matter, whatever their intentions truly were - they were in fact attempting to pull the rug right out from under the Christian faith), you had better come armed with a the evidenciary equivalent of a H-Bomb, not a squirt pistol from the dollar store.
Sadly, the Lost Tomb of Jesus is now officially a lost cause. The radical Christian right will call out their experts in full force with the order to rip apart the Lost Tomb movie - which they will with exceeding joy in much the same way a pack of lions would tear apart a wounded gazelle left behind from the pack.
I say "sadly" because if we ever do come up with more conclusive evidence, it will quickly be compared to the half assed attempt made by James Cameron and friends and it will be that assertion that will quickly let the wind out of any sails it may have billowed.
To the Christian right, I have only this to say, "See, I told you so". You all got all fired up over what is essentially nothing. I'm sure none of you actually watched the program for fear that (gasp) you might be led to doubt your faith, but fear not, you would not even have come close (heck, from the conversations I've had with other Christians, God Himself could come down from heaven and say Jesus wasn't His son and you wouldn't believe Him). So good news - you can sleep easy tonight without the use of prescription medication.
I, on the other hand, will need a beer or two to take the edge off of my immense aggravation over this whole circus which turned out to be nothing more than a dog and pony show.
Your Opinion Counts
Posted 3/4/2007 4:56:00 PM
Since I've been on New Blog, I've experimented with different subjects - some light, some heavy. As you may have already figured out, I'm big into debating - especially theology, sociology, and spirituality.
I've occasionally done a silly blog here and there just to break things up, but, I'll admit that my main goal with this is to increase and diversify my readership.
So, my fellow blog masters, I am letting you know that your opinion counts. I am a man of the people - and especially so when it comes to those of you who are on my newblog friends list :-). The question is, what would YOU like me to blog about? The serious, deep philosophical questions that I wrestle with or the lighter side of life - the silly, non-sensical, blogging just for the hell of it sorta stuff.
Vote now - my blog's destiny is in your capable hands!
Posted 3/4/2007 4:56:00 PM
Since I've been on New Blog, I've experimented with different subjects - some light, some heavy. As you may have already figured out, I'm big into debating - especially theology, sociology, and spirituality.
I've occasionally done a silly blog here and there just to break things up, but, I'll admit that my main goal with this is to increase and diversify my readership.
So, my fellow blog masters, I am letting you know that your opinion counts. I am a man of the people - and especially so when it comes to those of you who are on my newblog friends list :-). The question is, what would YOU like me to blog about? The serious, deep philosophical questions that I wrestle with or the lighter side of life - the silly, non-sensical, blogging just for the hell of it sorta stuff.
Vote now - my blog's destiny is in your capable hands!
The 500lb Gorilla in the Environmentalist's Room
Posted 2/28/2007 6:40:42 PM
I'd like to preface this article by saying I'm all about conservation and trying to do what we can (where economically possible and reasonable) to protect the environment.
That said, there seems to be a few key issues with the arguments of some of our environmentalist friends, and I'd like to point them out:
1) ALL YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET - it would seem we have heard both sides of the global warming argument ad nauseum. Yet, the really amusing part is that the environmentalists are claiming victory...after silencing or discrediting anyone who stands up and attempts to present evidence that contradicts their claims. It bears all the signs of a new world religion - faith in the unproven doctrine of global warming, condemnation of all those who do not believe in the coming apocalypse, the refusal to accept Al Gore as our environmental messiah, and efforts to force their morality on everyone - oh, with the exception of THEMSELVES (see point two). Yet in all their fervent extasy, they seem to have forgotten one fatal weakness - if global warming IS discredited, their whole entire rhetoric falls flat on it's face (kind of like if James Cameron were able to prove he found the tomb of Jesus and Mary Magdalene). Why aren't they talking about other major points of environmental conservation (see point 3)?
2) PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH - I'm surprised JK has not blogged on the hypocrisy of Al Gore and other prominent members of the Church of Global Warming. While they preach hellfire and brimstone to those who don't convert, they themselves live high on the hog - residing in residences far larger than one person could possibly need and flying in private jets. Oh sure, Al's house is being renovated to be more "eco-friendly" and yet, it still is using up scads of energy. What's his excuse? He's "offsetting" his carbon footprint by buying up other's unused pollution portion.
Truly, this is nothing new. While liberal democrats cry that the rich must be taxed in order to help equalize economic disparaties, they seem reluctant to give up the dough in their own pocket. Why not set the example by taking a more moderate paycheck and giving the rest to Uncle Sam in order to help our nation's "less fortunate". Don't hold your breath.
3) FORGET ABOUT CARBON FOOTPRINTS - how about actual human footprints - and the fact that this planet has room for only so many pairs of feet on it? I haven't heard a single environmentalist talk about population control - perhaps because of how taboo the subject is. Then again, their not afraid to jump all over global warming. In reality, the quickest and most effective way to save the environment is to reduce the number of people on the planet. Again, fat chance of anyone instituting policies that would limit the number of children a given individual could have.
So there you have it. Sorry that it was quite a novel, but I hope to get your thoughts on the subject. JK - do we have a subject that we can actually agree on here? lol
Posted 2/28/2007 6:40:42 PM
I'd like to preface this article by saying I'm all about conservation and trying to do what we can (where economically possible and reasonable) to protect the environment.
That said, there seems to be a few key issues with the arguments of some of our environmentalist friends, and I'd like to point them out:
1) ALL YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET - it would seem we have heard both sides of the global warming argument ad nauseum. Yet, the really amusing part is that the environmentalists are claiming victory...after silencing or discrediting anyone who stands up and attempts to present evidence that contradicts their claims. It bears all the signs of a new world religion - faith in the unproven doctrine of global warming, condemnation of all those who do not believe in the coming apocalypse, the refusal to accept Al Gore as our environmental messiah, and efforts to force their morality on everyone - oh, with the exception of THEMSELVES (see point two). Yet in all their fervent extasy, they seem to have forgotten one fatal weakness - if global warming IS discredited, their whole entire rhetoric falls flat on it's face (kind of like if James Cameron were able to prove he found the tomb of Jesus and Mary Magdalene). Why aren't they talking about other major points of environmental conservation (see point 3)?
2) PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH - I'm surprised JK has not blogged on the hypocrisy of Al Gore and other prominent members of the Church of Global Warming. While they preach hellfire and brimstone to those who don't convert, they themselves live high on the hog - residing in residences far larger than one person could possibly need and flying in private jets. Oh sure, Al's house is being renovated to be more "eco-friendly" and yet, it still is using up scads of energy. What's his excuse? He's "offsetting" his carbon footprint by buying up other's unused pollution portion.
Truly, this is nothing new. While liberal democrats cry that the rich must be taxed in order to help equalize economic disparaties, they seem reluctant to give up the dough in their own pocket. Why not set the example by taking a more moderate paycheck and giving the rest to Uncle Sam in order to help our nation's "less fortunate". Don't hold your breath.
3) FORGET ABOUT CARBON FOOTPRINTS - how about actual human footprints - and the fact that this planet has room for only so many pairs of feet on it? I haven't heard a single environmentalist talk about population control - perhaps because of how taboo the subject is. Then again, their not afraid to jump all over global warming. In reality, the quickest and most effective way to save the environment is to reduce the number of people on the planet. Again, fat chance of anyone instituting policies that would limit the number of children a given individual could have.
So there you have it. Sorry that it was quite a novel, but I hope to get your thoughts on the subject. JK - do we have a subject that we can actually agree on here? lol
How do we know right from wrong?
Posted 2/26/2007 5:00:00 PM
I have heard a lot of Christians say that there is no way of being able to know right and wrong apart from God revealing it to us. Without God, right and wrong becomes arbitrary and simply a matter of perception. I entirely disagree.
We are all born with a conscience - that is, the innate ability to rationalize what is right and what is wrong. There are a few instances where conscience fails us, and I'd like to address those:
1) Religion vs Rational Thinking - if you read the OT, you'll find that apparently there were a lot of things that were entirely justified under god's laws that we would offend the conscience of any rational thinking person. However, we see horrible and violent acts committed in the OT with a free pass from God - or oft times, upon direct order. It was also religious thought that led to the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, and (indirectly) the Holocaust. Some Muslims have no moral qualms strapping bombs to themselves and killing mass quantities of innocent civilians in the name of Allah. So when you turn off your thinking cap in favor of going with your favorite religous text it can actually lead to immoral behavior. Shocking, huh?
2) Mental handicap - we cannot expect those who suffer from myriad psychological disorders to think about life in a rational way. Those such as Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Hitler, Sadaam Hussein, and others cannot be taken seriously due to their obvious lack of the ability to think in a rational manner.
3) Denial - we are very good at justifying our own behaviors when it makes us look like the victim instead of the villain. The man who cheats on his wife might justify his behavior by the fact that she did it first or that she wasn't satisfying him in bed. However, any rational thinking person would point out he is still in the wrong.
With the exception of these cases, I believe that human beings are entirely capable of determing what is right and wrong. It is not just my perception that murder is wrong - you and I can sit down and discuss the matter and I think I'll be able to show that taking another person's life is quite immoral. If you have any arguments for why taking a person's life would be ok outside of documentation from the Bible, I'd love to hear it.
So what do you all think - is religion are only source for a moral compass, or does humankind have the ability to rationally determine right and wrong with or without the existence of God?
Posted 2/26/2007 5:00:00 PM
I have heard a lot of Christians say that there is no way of being able to know right and wrong apart from God revealing it to us. Without God, right and wrong becomes arbitrary and simply a matter of perception. I entirely disagree.
We are all born with a conscience - that is, the innate ability to rationalize what is right and what is wrong. There are a few instances where conscience fails us, and I'd like to address those:
1) Religion vs Rational Thinking - if you read the OT, you'll find that apparently there were a lot of things that were entirely justified under god's laws that we would offend the conscience of any rational thinking person. However, we see horrible and violent acts committed in the OT with a free pass from God - or oft times, upon direct order. It was also religious thought that led to the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, and (indirectly) the Holocaust. Some Muslims have no moral qualms strapping bombs to themselves and killing mass quantities of innocent civilians in the name of Allah. So when you turn off your thinking cap in favor of going with your favorite religous text it can actually lead to immoral behavior. Shocking, huh?
2) Mental handicap - we cannot expect those who suffer from myriad psychological disorders to think about life in a rational way. Those such as Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Hitler, Sadaam Hussein, and others cannot be taken seriously due to their obvious lack of the ability to think in a rational manner.
3) Denial - we are very good at justifying our own behaviors when it makes us look like the victim instead of the villain. The man who cheats on his wife might justify his behavior by the fact that she did it first or that she wasn't satisfying him in bed. However, any rational thinking person would point out he is still in the wrong.
With the exception of these cases, I believe that human beings are entirely capable of determing what is right and wrong. It is not just my perception that murder is wrong - you and I can sit down and discuss the matter and I think I'll be able to show that taking another person's life is quite immoral. If you have any arguments for why taking a person's life would be ok outside of documentation from the Bible, I'd love to hear it.
So what do you all think - is religion are only source for a moral compass, or does humankind have the ability to rationally determine right and wrong with or without the existence of God?
God in a Box
Posted 2/24/2007 12:34:15 PM
IMHO, our understanding of the spiritual nature of life and of the divine is a constantly evolving process. If we look at history, we can see how ancient religions were savage and over time they have become more humanitarian. This, to me, is no accident. It signifies the evolution of thought. The further we go along, the greater our understanding of the spiritual world becomes.
Once upon a time we thought that religion and science were juxtaposed. Now we find that their paths may intertwine. The study of quantum physics has started to reveal vast amounts of information - along with vast amounts of deeper questions (If you have not seen the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" please go out and rent it - it's really interesting).
However, there are certain schools of religious thought among us who have historically condemned the progress of human thinking and have instead relegated us to be frozen in time - to continue in outdated beliefs and old fashioned systems of thought.
Islam is probably the biggest culprit. One only need to look at the culture, economics, and politics of the Middle East to understand that their outdated beliefs have kept them stagnate in all other areas of their lives. This was an area of the world that at one time led the charge in mathematical and linguistic progress, but they now find themselves unable to keep pace with the modern world.
Christianity also wishes to hang on to ancient teachings, no matter how impractical, because of the belief of their timelessness (It is God's Word and God does not ever change, therefore His Word is timeless and always applicable).
This is not to say that we need to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. There are some Christian principles that are highly noble and noteworthy. However, there are also many outdated ideas and principles that need to evolve along with the rest of society.
Religion seeks to put god in a box. Modern day spirituality seeks to expand our thinking - to allow us to question, explore, and recreate our concept of god based on our current understanding of the world - both physical and spiritual. This is not to say we CREATE god in the literal sense. Instead, it is allowing us to free ourselves from being concretely fixed on the perception of god from 1000 years ago.
Our search for god should be balanced with critical thinking, logic, and reason. We should not deny the existence of god, but look for clues- outside an ancient holy book - as to who he/she/it is.
Posted 2/24/2007 12:34:15 PM
IMHO, our understanding of the spiritual nature of life and of the divine is a constantly evolving process. If we look at history, we can see how ancient religions were savage and over time they have become more humanitarian. This, to me, is no accident. It signifies the evolution of thought. The further we go along, the greater our understanding of the spiritual world becomes.
Once upon a time we thought that religion and science were juxtaposed. Now we find that their paths may intertwine. The study of quantum physics has started to reveal vast amounts of information - along with vast amounts of deeper questions (If you have not seen the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" please go out and rent it - it's really interesting).
However, there are certain schools of religious thought among us who have historically condemned the progress of human thinking and have instead relegated us to be frozen in time - to continue in outdated beliefs and old fashioned systems of thought.
Islam is probably the biggest culprit. One only need to look at the culture, economics, and politics of the Middle East to understand that their outdated beliefs have kept them stagnate in all other areas of their lives. This was an area of the world that at one time led the charge in mathematical and linguistic progress, but they now find themselves unable to keep pace with the modern world.
Christianity also wishes to hang on to ancient teachings, no matter how impractical, because of the belief of their timelessness (It is God's Word and God does not ever change, therefore His Word is timeless and always applicable).
This is not to say that we need to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. There are some Christian principles that are highly noble and noteworthy. However, there are also many outdated ideas and principles that need to evolve along with the rest of society.
Religion seeks to put god in a box. Modern day spirituality seeks to expand our thinking - to allow us to question, explore, and recreate our concept of god based on our current understanding of the world - both physical and spiritual. This is not to say we CREATE god in the literal sense. Instead, it is allowing us to free ourselves from being concretely fixed on the perception of god from 1000 years ago.
Our search for god should be balanced with critical thinking, logic, and reason. We should not deny the existence of god, but look for clues- outside an ancient holy book - as to who he/she/it is.
Religion: Rapture Insurance
Posted 2/23/2007 7:53:13 PM
I believe I've just stumbled on a way to make my millions - Rapture Insurance.
You see, I was thinking today about all the Christians who are convinced that Jesus' Second Coming is near (well, of course! It has to be doesn't it?) even though people have been convinced he's coming back soon since the day he left.
But, what about your pets, your unsaved children, or others who depend on you? What will they do when you mysteriously disappear...oh...any day now?
Well, that's where I come in. You pay me premiums and in return I will offer you an insurance plan which will provide for the care of your loved ones, personal belongings, and pets in the case of the rapture coming in your lifetime.
Of course, if it doesn't occur, I pocket the premiums and relax at my mansion on South Beach with my brand new friends - while you, in turn, are left with the definitive security that you're in good hands with Mergan State.
Posted 2/23/2007 7:53:13 PM
I believe I've just stumbled on a way to make my millions - Rapture Insurance.
You see, I was thinking today about all the Christians who are convinced that Jesus' Second Coming is near (well, of course! It has to be doesn't it?) even though people have been convinced he's coming back soon since the day he left.
But, what about your pets, your unsaved children, or others who depend on you? What will they do when you mysteriously disappear...oh...any day now?
Well, that's where I come in. You pay me premiums and in return I will offer you an insurance plan which will provide for the care of your loved ones, personal belongings, and pets in the case of the rapture coming in your lifetime.
Of course, if it doesn't occur, I pocket the premiums and relax at my mansion on South Beach with my brand new friends - while you, in turn, are left with the definitive security that you're in good hands with Mergan State.
Life: Can't You Act Mature??
Posted 2/20/2007 8:14:46 PM
I was talking with a friend of mine at work yesterday. It seems her son's fiancee has called off the wedding due to his apparent lack of maturity. OUCH! That's gotta hurt!
It got me thinking though - do guys ever really mature or do we just learn to act mature? I'll be honest - I can turn the maturity on and off like a water faucet. What's my age again? lol
But then again, don't women do the same thing? Don't we all still have that giddy, child-like side to us that we let sneak out every once in a while? Oh true, there are people who never seem to be able to loosen up at all, but how happy are those people? Not very.
So truly I think the key to life is being able to act mature when the situation calls for it yet still being able to have a little "immature" fun every now and again.
Posted 2/20/2007 8:14:46 PM
I was talking with a friend of mine at work yesterday. It seems her son's fiancee has called off the wedding due to his apparent lack of maturity. OUCH! That's gotta hurt!
It got me thinking though - do guys ever really mature or do we just learn to act mature? I'll be honest - I can turn the maturity on and off like a water faucet. What's my age again? lol
But then again, don't women do the same thing? Don't we all still have that giddy, child-like side to us that we let sneak out every once in a while? Oh true, there are people who never seem to be able to loosen up at all, but how happy are those people? Not very.
So truly I think the key to life is being able to act mature when the situation calls for it yet still being able to have a little "immature" fun every now and again.
Religion: Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner?
Posted 2/19/2007 8:25:48 PM
Tonight I am tired, so I'll make my argument brief - lest I fall asleep at the keyboard.
Christians often tout the idea of hating the sin, not the sinner. My question is, is it possible to separate out the action from the actor? Is it not accurate to say that actions speak louder than words when defining who we are?
I think many find it difficult to make this separation between the person and their deeds. What do you think?
Posted 2/19/2007 8:25:48 PM
Tonight I am tired, so I'll make my argument brief - lest I fall asleep at the keyboard.
Christians often tout the idea of hating the sin, not the sinner. My question is, is it possible to separate out the action from the actor? Is it not accurate to say that actions speak louder than words when defining who we are?
I think many find it difficult to make this separation between the person and their deeds. What do you think?
Life: Blogging Our Lives Away
Posted 2/17/2007 4:13:00 PM
It wasn't all that long ago that I started the Devil's Advocate - a MySpace debate group - with my nephew, Jesse. I love to debate politics, religion, and philosophy, so I figured it would be a great outlet.
What I didn't realize is what a time sucker it would be. I found myself spending much of my free time in the evening in a duel or words with Jesse and a few other subscribers over topics such as abortion, religion, and the War in Iraq.
Now I'm on NewBlog, even more inundated than before, and I'm thinking, "Seriously, don't I have anything else better to do??" I could be reading, working with my Tarot cards, rehearsing my next speech for Toastmasters, or taking my dog for a walk.
Instead, I'm here, tossing out blog comments for anyone or no one to read.
Perhaps there is solace in this. Is it therapy? Does it make us feel better when our blogs are read and resonded to? Do we enjoy the engagement of our minds in debate or in the sharing of our life adventures?
I guess for me, it's a love of writing, critical thinking, and debate.
Heck, maybe it's worth the time we spend. What do you think?
Posted 2/17/2007 4:13:00 PM
It wasn't all that long ago that I started the Devil's Advocate - a MySpace debate group - with my nephew, Jesse. I love to debate politics, religion, and philosophy, so I figured it would be a great outlet.
What I didn't realize is what a time sucker it would be. I found myself spending much of my free time in the evening in a duel or words with Jesse and a few other subscribers over topics such as abortion, religion, and the War in Iraq.
Now I'm on NewBlog, even more inundated than before, and I'm thinking, "Seriously, don't I have anything else better to do??" I could be reading, working with my Tarot cards, rehearsing my next speech for Toastmasters, or taking my dog for a walk.
Instead, I'm here, tossing out blog comments for anyone or no one to read.
Perhaps there is solace in this. Is it therapy? Does it make us feel better when our blogs are read and resonded to? Do we enjoy the engagement of our minds in debate or in the sharing of our life adventures?
I guess for me, it's a love of writing, critical thinking, and debate.
Heck, maybe it's worth the time we spend. What do you think?
Religion: Freedom & Democracy
Posted 2/16/2007 6:14:03 PM
I'd like to take an excerpt from one of my other blogs and run with it. The reason why is the ideas stated below by my nephew bring up some interesting dilemmas. And while I'd like to get my nephew's take (since he's the one who wrote the excerpt below), I'd like other's input as well:
"Yes according to the old testament, these wars were waged under direct order of God himself, now maybe they were fooled, but if God ordered you to go to war, I think you are justified at going to war.
God does not delegate to us what to do or not to do anymore, we have only his word if you believe or not. That is the only source one would have.
Don't give me that 'taking our freedoms away' spin. Lets take away the law the prohibits murder lets take away the law that prohibits harmful narcotics. They limit freedom too. Lets face it, all law exists today due to democracy. Some of those laws came from the Bible. Maybe more laws one day will as well.
Freedom is still preserved, now to some degree legislation of morality might have gone to far, but what can you do about it, when the people rule the land. You want to enslave all Christians and make their vote not count. If they want to elect pro life advocates, who are you to get in the way. (just an example)"
The main question here is where do we draw the line? Do we not live in a dangerous world when we make decisions based on what we believe God wants? What if GW thought that God was telling him to invade Africa? Should we invade on that principle? Is this not what the Arabs are currently doing?
Now, I know that Jesse is saying that God doesn't provide orders like that any more - but why not? And why would you not listen if you thought he was! Therewithin lies the danger.
Sure, none of us have freedom in the truest sense of the word. I can't go out and chop your head off just because you piss me off. But would it be alright to reinstitute slavery if the democratic majority said it was the right thing to do? There was a time when that's what the majority DID believe in! My point here is that just because a large number of people support an idea doesn't make it moral or right.
Posted 2/16/2007 6:14:03 PM
I'd like to take an excerpt from one of my other blogs and run with it. The reason why is the ideas stated below by my nephew bring up some interesting dilemmas. And while I'd like to get my nephew's take (since he's the one who wrote the excerpt below), I'd like other's input as well:
"Yes according to the old testament, these wars were waged under direct order of God himself, now maybe they were fooled, but if God ordered you to go to war, I think you are justified at going to war.
God does not delegate to us what to do or not to do anymore, we have only his word if you believe or not. That is the only source one would have.
Don't give me that 'taking our freedoms away' spin. Lets take away the law the prohibits murder lets take away the law that prohibits harmful narcotics. They limit freedom too. Lets face it, all law exists today due to democracy. Some of those laws came from the Bible. Maybe more laws one day will as well.
Freedom is still preserved, now to some degree legislation of morality might have gone to far, but what can you do about it, when the people rule the land. You want to enslave all Christians and make their vote not count. If they want to elect pro life advocates, who are you to get in the way. (just an example)"
The main question here is where do we draw the line? Do we not live in a dangerous world when we make decisions based on what we believe God wants? What if GW thought that God was telling him to invade Africa? Should we invade on that principle? Is this not what the Arabs are currently doing?
Now, I know that Jesse is saying that God doesn't provide orders like that any more - but why not? And why would you not listen if you thought he was! Therewithin lies the danger.
Sure, none of us have freedom in the truest sense of the word. I can't go out and chop your head off just because you piss me off. But would it be alright to reinstitute slavery if the democratic majority said it was the right thing to do? There was a time when that's what the majority DID believe in! My point here is that just because a large number of people support an idea doesn't make it moral or right.
Genesis Revisited
Posted 2/16/2007 5:58:03 PM
Genesis Revisited
Michael Shermer
Why Darwin Matters
In the beginning - specifically on 23 October 4004 BC, at noon - out of quantum foam fluctuation God created the Big Bang, followed by cosmological inflation and an expanding universe. Darkness was upon the face of the deep, so He created quarks and therefrom He created hydrogen atoms and thence He commanded the hydrogen atoms to fuse and become helium atoms and in the process to release energy in the form of light. The light maker He called the sun, and the process He called fusion. He saw the light was good because now He could see what he was doing, so he created Earth. The evening and the morning were the first day.
God said, let there be lots of fusion light makers in the sky. Some of these fusion makers He grouped into collections He called galaxies, and these appeared to be millions and even billions of light-years from Earth, which would mean that they were created before the first creation in 4004 BC. This was confusing, so God created tired light, and the creation story was preserved. He created many wondrous splendors such as Red GIants, White Dwarfs, Quasars, Pulsars, Supernovas, Worm Holes, and even Black Holes out of which nothing can escape. Since God cannot be constrained by nothing, He created Hawking radiation through which information can escape from Black Holes. This made God even more tired than tired light, and the evening and the morning were the second day.
God said, let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the continents drift apart by plate tectonics. He decreed that sea floor spreading would create zones of emergence, and He caused subduction zones to build mountains and cause earthquakes. In weak points in the crust God created volcanic islands, where the next day He would place organisms that were similar to but different from their relatives on the continents, so still later created creatures called humans would mistake them for evolved descendants created by adaptive radiation. The evening and morning were the third day.
God saw that the island was barren, so He created animals bearing their own kind. Thou shalt not evolve into new species, and thy equilibrium shall not be punctuated. God placed into the rocks, fossils that appeared older than 4004 BC that were similar to but different from living creatures. The sequence resembled descent with modification. The evening and morning were the fourth day.
God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly moving creatures that have life, the fishes. God created great whales whose skeletal structure and physiology were homologous with the land mammals He would create later that day. God then brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and small, declaring that microevolution was permitted, but not macroevolution. God said, "Natura non facit saltum" - Nature shall not make leaps. The evening and morning were the fifth day.
God created the pongids and homonids with 98 percent genetic similarity, naming two of them Adam and Eve. In the book in which God explained how He did all this, the Bible, in one chapter He said He created Adam and Eve together out of the dust at the same time, but in another chapter He said he created Adam first, then later created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. This caused confusion in the valley of the shadow of doubt, so God created theologians to sort it out.
In the ground placed He in abundance teeth, jaws, skulls, and pelvises of transitional fossils from pre-Adamite creatures. One chosen as his special creation He named Lucy, who could walk upright like a human but had a small brain like an ape. God realized this too was confusing, so he created paleoanthropologists to figure it out.
Just as He was finishing up the loose ends of creation, God realized that Adam's immediate descendants would not understand inflationary cosmology, global general relativity, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, biochemistry, paleontology, and evolutionary biology, so He created creation myths. There were so many creation stories throughout the world that God realized this too was confusing, so created He anthropologists and mythologists to explain all that.
By now the valley of the shadow of doubt was overrun with skepticism, so God became angry - so angry that God lost his temper and cursed the first humans, telling them to go forth and multiply themselves (but not in those words). The humans took God literally and now there are over six billion of them. The evening and the morning were the sixth day.
By now God was tired, so He proclaimed, "Thank Me it's Friday," and He made the weekend. It was a good idea
Posted 2/16/2007 5:58:03 PM
Genesis Revisited
Michael Shermer
Why Darwin Matters
In the beginning - specifically on 23 October 4004 BC, at noon - out of quantum foam fluctuation God created the Big Bang, followed by cosmological inflation and an expanding universe. Darkness was upon the face of the deep, so He created quarks and therefrom He created hydrogen atoms and thence He commanded the hydrogen atoms to fuse and become helium atoms and in the process to release energy in the form of light. The light maker He called the sun, and the process He called fusion. He saw the light was good because now He could see what he was doing, so he created Earth. The evening and the morning were the first day.
God said, let there be lots of fusion light makers in the sky. Some of these fusion makers He grouped into collections He called galaxies, and these appeared to be millions and even billions of light-years from Earth, which would mean that they were created before the first creation in 4004 BC. This was confusing, so God created tired light, and the creation story was preserved. He created many wondrous splendors such as Red GIants, White Dwarfs, Quasars, Pulsars, Supernovas, Worm Holes, and even Black Holes out of which nothing can escape. Since God cannot be constrained by nothing, He created Hawking radiation through which information can escape from Black Holes. This made God even more tired than tired light, and the evening and the morning were the second day.
God said, let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the continents drift apart by plate tectonics. He decreed that sea floor spreading would create zones of emergence, and He caused subduction zones to build mountains and cause earthquakes. In weak points in the crust God created volcanic islands, where the next day He would place organisms that were similar to but different from their relatives on the continents, so still later created creatures called humans would mistake them for evolved descendants created by adaptive radiation. The evening and morning were the third day.
God saw that the island was barren, so He created animals bearing their own kind. Thou shalt not evolve into new species, and thy equilibrium shall not be punctuated. God placed into the rocks, fossils that appeared older than 4004 BC that were similar to but different from living creatures. The sequence resembled descent with modification. The evening and morning were the fourth day.
God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly moving creatures that have life, the fishes. God created great whales whose skeletal structure and physiology were homologous with the land mammals He would create later that day. God then brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and small, declaring that microevolution was permitted, but not macroevolution. God said, "Natura non facit saltum" - Nature shall not make leaps. The evening and morning were the fifth day.
God created the pongids and homonids with 98 percent genetic similarity, naming two of them Adam and Eve. In the book in which God explained how He did all this, the Bible, in one chapter He said He created Adam and Eve together out of the dust at the same time, but in another chapter He said he created Adam first, then later created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. This caused confusion in the valley of the shadow of doubt, so God created theologians to sort it out.
In the ground placed He in abundance teeth, jaws, skulls, and pelvises of transitional fossils from pre-Adamite creatures. One chosen as his special creation He named Lucy, who could walk upright like a human but had a small brain like an ape. God realized this too was confusing, so he created paleoanthropologists to figure it out.
Just as He was finishing up the loose ends of creation, God realized that Adam's immediate descendants would not understand inflationary cosmology, global general relativity, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, biochemistry, paleontology, and evolutionary biology, so He created creation myths. There were so many creation stories throughout the world that God realized this too was confusing, so created He anthropologists and mythologists to explain all that.
By now the valley of the shadow of doubt was overrun with skepticism, so God became angry - so angry that God lost his temper and cursed the first humans, telling them to go forth and multiply themselves (but not in those words). The humans took God literally and now there are over six billion of them. The evening and the morning were the sixth day.
By now God was tired, so He proclaimed, "Thank Me it's Friday," and He made the weekend. It was a good idea
"Jesus Camp"
Posted 2/14/2007 6:13:58 PM
For those of you who have not seen the documentary "Jesus Camp", you really need to go to your local video store and rent it! To me, this documentary is frightening in it's implications. More and more, I hear the radical right starting to sound militant - and not all that different from the Taliban.
I know some of you will comment without seeing the actual film, but I'd really like to encourage you to see the movie before weighing in.
See the preview here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE
Posted 2/14/2007 6:13:58 PM
For those of you who have not seen the documentary "Jesus Camp", you really need to go to your local video store and rent it! To me, this documentary is frightening in it's implications. More and more, I hear the radical right starting to sound militant - and not all that different from the Taliban.
I know some of you will comment without seeing the actual film, but I'd really like to encourage you to see the movie before weighing in.
See the preview here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE
Do ya know that ya know that ya know
Posted 2/12/2007 8:10:28 PM
I've decided to be not only bold, but daring tonight by tackling a topic that's very near and dear to my heart - but also a very controversial one - religion.
The subject line of this blog is one that I heard time and time again from many a pastor in my church days. The idea was that you needed assurance as to where you were going when you died and if you didn't know, it was high time you figured it out! Why? Well, there's only one of two places that you can possibly go - heaven or hell - and no one wants to go to H E double hockey sticks do they?
Then one day, much later, a thought occurred to me How can one know for sure where they are going when they die? Of course, the obvious answer was, The Bible says Then another resounding and equally disturbing thought came to mind
How do we know the Bible is right?
Well, silly, thats because its the Word of God.
Ok, great says who?
WellerrrI say because I know its the truth because God told me so!
And what about all those other poor saps who think that God told them that what they believe is correct and what you believe is wrong?
Well.they are just deceived by the devil! Thats it! They have been FOOLED
And how is it again that youre so sure that its not you whos being fooled
Well, silly, cuz the Bible says!
And round and round and round we go. The key thing to glean from all this is that all religionsin fact even atheismis built and supported by faith. Faith that what we cant physically experience (i.e. know) is true based on the facts we have to go on. And yet, all of us, given the same set of facts come to different (although sometimes closely related) conclusions about where we came from, why were here, and (maybe most importantly) where we are headed after we check out.
The unfortunate and uncomfortable answer is that we cant know that we know that we know where we are going when we die no one can and I doubt we ever will know for sure at least not until we kick the bucket and experience it for ourselves.
Id like to believe we have more than one chance to get it right that there is no finality, rather, continuous spiritual evolution until finally we reach the ultimate state of being and become one with All. Do I know thats the case? No, but I have just as much chance of being right as any of you do!
So please, please, please people. Lets be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that no one knows for sure. If one religion works well for you fabulous. Just dont try to push it onto everyone else while telling them what an idiot they are for not believing your way. As long as it doesnt harm others and it makes you a better person, believe what you will and give others the freedom to do the same.
Nuff said
Posted 2/12/2007 8:10:28 PM
I've decided to be not only bold, but daring tonight by tackling a topic that's very near and dear to my heart - but also a very controversial one - religion.
The subject line of this blog is one that I heard time and time again from many a pastor in my church days. The idea was that you needed assurance as to where you were going when you died and if you didn't know, it was high time you figured it out! Why? Well, there's only one of two places that you can possibly go - heaven or hell - and no one wants to go to H E double hockey sticks do they?
Then one day, much later, a thought occurred to me How can one know for sure where they are going when they die? Of course, the obvious answer was, The Bible says Then another resounding and equally disturbing thought came to mind
How do we know the Bible is right?
Well, silly, thats because its the Word of God.
Ok, great says who?
WellerrrI say because I know its the truth because God told me so!
And what about all those other poor saps who think that God told them that what they believe is correct and what you believe is wrong?
Well.they are just deceived by the devil! Thats it! They have been FOOLED
And how is it again that youre so sure that its not you whos being fooled
Well, silly, cuz the Bible says!
And round and round and round we go. The key thing to glean from all this is that all religionsin fact even atheismis built and supported by faith. Faith that what we cant physically experience (i.e. know) is true based on the facts we have to go on. And yet, all of us, given the same set of facts come to different (although sometimes closely related) conclusions about where we came from, why were here, and (maybe most importantly) where we are headed after we check out.
The unfortunate and uncomfortable answer is that we cant know that we know that we know where we are going when we die no one can and I doubt we ever will know for sure at least not until we kick the bucket and experience it for ourselves.
Id like to believe we have more than one chance to get it right that there is no finality, rather, continuous spiritual evolution until finally we reach the ultimate state of being and become one with All. Do I know thats the case? No, but I have just as much chance of being right as any of you do!
So please, please, please people. Lets be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that no one knows for sure. If one religion works well for you fabulous. Just dont try to push it onto everyone else while telling them what an idiot they are for not believing your way. As long as it doesnt harm others and it makes you a better person, believe what you will and give others the freedom to do the same.
Nuff said
Female Chauvinism
Posted 2/12/2007 8:09:05 PM
I want to begin tonight by giving context to my topic so that you will know where this whole rant (of sorts) is coming from. I was talking to a female friend tonight and was about to relate a rather funny and embarassing story about how I had accidentally went into the women's bathroom. Her instant reaction was to question the fact that it was an accident. Why? Because I'm a man and therefore I must have done it on purpose with the intent of wanting to see women with their pants around their ankles.
This discussion led into her further lambasting the male sex and how men are the cause of all women's woes.
I ended the conversation with what I thought was a rather novel idea - calling her a chauvinist - a term most oft associated with male supremacism. Little did I know, however, that the phrase "female chauvinism" had already been coined - and rightly so.
Over the past few decades, there has been an interesting shift in way feminism is defined. Initially, it was a belief that women should have equal, rights, job opportunities, pay, and respect as men had. This idea could not be more correct and I fully support it's ideals. However, as of late, feminism has become more and more like chauvinism - the idea that the female sex is somehow superior to the male sex. This in turn leads to hatred of the male gender as well as the minimization of it's importance.
Does this sound at all familiar? If you are a student of history, it should. It was not all that long ago that the shoe was on the other foot. Male chauvinism was rampant and women were considered nothing more than sexual play things or property. The idea that women were intellectual equals with males would have been blasphemy.
Yet now we will attempt to repeat history - just in the opposite. Instead of moving to the middle (where we should be) and considering both genders to be equals with different strengths and different weaknesses, we will go to the opposite extreme and continue to justify hatred, stereotyping, and discrimination.
Hollywood reinforces these ideas by making most male "heros" dumb brutes while the female characters are the true leaders and source of sense. Lifetime continually produces movies that reinforce the idea that all men are villains and victimizers. TV shows like the Simpsons, Family Guy, and Everybody Loves Raymond make the Fathers/Husbands out to be brain dead baffoons who don't have a clue.
Wake up people! Men and women BOTH have their flaws...and their merits. Neither sex is all bad or all good. If we would allow ourselves to see the good each gender brings to the table, we would be able to move past the petty hate and move on to greater and better things.
As long as the world is unbalanced, we will find only suffering.
Posted 2/12/2007 8:09:05 PM
I want to begin tonight by giving context to my topic so that you will know where this whole rant (of sorts) is coming from. I was talking to a female friend tonight and was about to relate a rather funny and embarassing story about how I had accidentally went into the women's bathroom. Her instant reaction was to question the fact that it was an accident. Why? Because I'm a man and therefore I must have done it on purpose with the intent of wanting to see women with their pants around their ankles.
This discussion led into her further lambasting the male sex and how men are the cause of all women's woes.
I ended the conversation with what I thought was a rather novel idea - calling her a chauvinist - a term most oft associated with male supremacism. Little did I know, however, that the phrase "female chauvinism" had already been coined - and rightly so.
Over the past few decades, there has been an interesting shift in way feminism is defined. Initially, it was a belief that women should have equal, rights, job opportunities, pay, and respect as men had. This idea could not be more correct and I fully support it's ideals. However, as of late, feminism has become more and more like chauvinism - the idea that the female sex is somehow superior to the male sex. This in turn leads to hatred of the male gender as well as the minimization of it's importance.
Does this sound at all familiar? If you are a student of history, it should. It was not all that long ago that the shoe was on the other foot. Male chauvinism was rampant and women were considered nothing more than sexual play things or property. The idea that women were intellectual equals with males would have been blasphemy.
Yet now we will attempt to repeat history - just in the opposite. Instead of moving to the middle (where we should be) and considering both genders to be equals with different strengths and different weaknesses, we will go to the opposite extreme and continue to justify hatred, stereotyping, and discrimination.
Hollywood reinforces these ideas by making most male "heros" dumb brutes while the female characters are the true leaders and source of sense. Lifetime continually produces movies that reinforce the idea that all men are villains and victimizers. TV shows like the Simpsons, Family Guy, and Everybody Loves Raymond make the Fathers/Husbands out to be brain dead baffoons who don't have a clue.
Wake up people! Men and women BOTH have their flaws...and their merits. Neither sex is all bad or all good. If we would allow ourselves to see the good each gender brings to the table, we would be able to move past the petty hate and move on to greater and better things.
As long as the world is unbalanced, we will find only suffering.
A Tale of Two Kitties
Posted 2/5/2007 10:10:49 PM
Two dead kitties that is. Yes, I apologize for such a morbid topic, but I have been somewhat traumatized by what I am about to share with you and goddamn it, blogging is good therapy.
The first kitty in my story appeared about 6 months ago. It was a warm, sunny, stereotypical Florida day. The bees were buzzing and...oh wait...those aren't bees - those are big black flies. That was how we found kitty number one. When we traced back the origin of these nasty insects, we found they were all abuzz about big gray tom cat. Apparently, his time on this plane was up. Apparently it had been up for a while because he wasn't looking so hot.
In consideration of those of you who just ate a meal, I won't go into all the gorey details. Suffice it to say that Pinellas Animal Control does not dispose of dead felines. It was up to us to perform the role of kitty undertaker. My only tools were latex gloves, a shovel, a bucket, and some plastic garbage bags (I used draw string and I have to tell you, I highly recommend them for the task if you are ever so unfortunate as I). I'd also like to thank Family Dollar because, unwittingly they acted as the site where I so callously disposed of the body. Sorry folks, I don't do burials. WHAT? I didn't even know the cat ok?
Now, fast forward to the present. Apparently fate decided to take an enormous shit on me again. However, this time, I guess fate figured since I already had some experience in this task, it would make this time round a bit more challenging.
Lately we started noticing a foul odor outside around our porch. The smell was faint, but also permeated into our home itself. I tried to deceive myself into believing that it was not something that had decided to die underneath my house. Maybe it was just some garbage somewhere. However, eventually I had to come to grips with the grim truth. Something was definitely dead underneath my house.
You see, I have an older style home. It's raised about 2 1/2 feet off the ground, so we have a crawl space. It's one that a friend of mine and I made ourselves by busting out some of the concrete blocks so that we could get underneath and run some phone wire. Problem is, I never sealed it up. I just put a temporary blockage up - an old door from inside the house laid across the front of the hole. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to keep a cat out.
Today, I reluctantly put on some old ratty clothes, grabbed a flash light and set myself to the task of finding whatever had met it's bitter end underneath my humble abode. I had hoped and prayed to all the gods and goddesses whose names I knew for it NOT to be a cat....or a small dog...or oppossum...or small child. I wished for something small....a bird...a mouse...or a rat. No such luck. My flashlight soon fell upon a black cat, curled into a ball at the front most corner of the house.
Again, I will spare you details. However, I will say that while the logistics of getting him/her out (I didn't bother checking which it was) was much more challenging, the smell and level of decay was far less than the cat I had found only months ago. This time, the shovel was to no avail in such tight quarters. Only rubber gloves and a plastic garbage bag. I kept telling myself that getting the cat in the bag was the worst part of the ordeal, after that, I was home free. Like a morbid Santa Claus, I would drag my unfortunate friend back to the crawl space and then make use of my good friends at Family Dollar once again. And so I did. And thanks again to my friends at Family Dollar.
My prayer is that I've made my quota. I really don't want to ever do this again. Yes, I talk of it lightly, but it was really a horrible experience. The only way you get through it is not to think about it. It also gave me a far greater appreciation for soldiers and police officers who have to deal with far more gruesome horrors. In comparison, this was truly nothing.
If I've completely grossed you out, I apologize. However, you obviously read the whole thing and no one made you do it. So there!
Posted 2/5/2007 10:10:49 PM
Two dead kitties that is. Yes, I apologize for such a morbid topic, but I have been somewhat traumatized by what I am about to share with you and goddamn it, blogging is good therapy.
The first kitty in my story appeared about 6 months ago. It was a warm, sunny, stereotypical Florida day. The bees were buzzing and...oh wait...those aren't bees - those are big black flies. That was how we found kitty number one. When we traced back the origin of these nasty insects, we found they were all abuzz about big gray tom cat. Apparently, his time on this plane was up. Apparently it had been up for a while because he wasn't looking so hot.
In consideration of those of you who just ate a meal, I won't go into all the gorey details. Suffice it to say that Pinellas Animal Control does not dispose of dead felines. It was up to us to perform the role of kitty undertaker. My only tools were latex gloves, a shovel, a bucket, and some plastic garbage bags (I used draw string and I have to tell you, I highly recommend them for the task if you are ever so unfortunate as I). I'd also like to thank Family Dollar because, unwittingly they acted as the site where I so callously disposed of the body. Sorry folks, I don't do burials. WHAT? I didn't even know the cat ok?
Now, fast forward to the present. Apparently fate decided to take an enormous shit on me again. However, this time, I guess fate figured since I already had some experience in this task, it would make this time round a bit more challenging.
Lately we started noticing a foul odor outside around our porch. The smell was faint, but also permeated into our home itself. I tried to deceive myself into believing that it was not something that had decided to die underneath my house. Maybe it was just some garbage somewhere. However, eventually I had to come to grips with the grim truth. Something was definitely dead underneath my house.
You see, I have an older style home. It's raised about 2 1/2 feet off the ground, so we have a crawl space. It's one that a friend of mine and I made ourselves by busting out some of the concrete blocks so that we could get underneath and run some phone wire. Problem is, I never sealed it up. I just put a temporary blockage up - an old door from inside the house laid across the front of the hole. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to keep a cat out.
Today, I reluctantly put on some old ratty clothes, grabbed a flash light and set myself to the task of finding whatever had met it's bitter end underneath my humble abode. I had hoped and prayed to all the gods and goddesses whose names I knew for it NOT to be a cat....or a small dog...or oppossum...or small child. I wished for something small....a bird...a mouse...or a rat. No such luck. My flashlight soon fell upon a black cat, curled into a ball at the front most corner of the house.
Again, I will spare you details. However, I will say that while the logistics of getting him/her out (I didn't bother checking which it was) was much more challenging, the smell and level of decay was far less than the cat I had found only months ago. This time, the shovel was to no avail in such tight quarters. Only rubber gloves and a plastic garbage bag. I kept telling myself that getting the cat in the bag was the worst part of the ordeal, after that, I was home free. Like a morbid Santa Claus, I would drag my unfortunate friend back to the crawl space and then make use of my good friends at Family Dollar once again. And so I did. And thanks again to my friends at Family Dollar.
My prayer is that I've made my quota. I really don't want to ever do this again. Yes, I talk of it lightly, but it was really a horrible experience. The only way you get through it is not to think about it. It also gave me a far greater appreciation for soldiers and police officers who have to deal with far more gruesome horrors. In comparison, this was truly nothing.
If I've completely grossed you out, I apologize. However, you obviously read the whole thing and no one made you do it. So there!
Raise in Federal Minimum Wage
Posted 2/2/2007 2:12:00 PM
COURTESY OF BOORTZ.COM
SENATE PASSES MINIMUM WAGE BILL
The Senate has passed a minimum wage hike bill...the new wage: $7.25 an hour over two years. The president supports the bill and says he will sign it, after it is reconciled with the House version. My...just $7.25 an hour? Isn't that a bit stingy? How in the world are you supposed to raise a family on $7.25 an hour? And what is a conservative Republican doing supporting the whole idea.
The answer to that one is that it's politically popular. We like to think that there should be a minimum standard for what people should be paid. Maybe that would work if we could come up with a minimum standard setting what every individual should be worth to his employer. The problem is in setting that standard. Why just $7.25? The left has no answer. They just say it should be raised. Which leads to the question, why not raise it more. Let's do the math.
If a minimum wage worker works 52 weeks a year, (vacations are for rich people) multiplied by 40 hours a week (no overtime, gotta raise those 4 kids sometime) equals 208 hours. Multiply that by the new minimum wage and you get just $15,080 a year. That's not very much. How about doubling the minimum wage to $14.50 an hour. Give people a fighting chance!
The reason the Democrats say it can't be that high is because it will kill jobs. Exactly.
Posted 2/2/2007 2:12:00 PM
COURTESY OF BOORTZ.COM
SENATE PASSES MINIMUM WAGE BILL
The Senate has passed a minimum wage hike bill...the new wage: $7.25 an hour over two years. The president supports the bill and says he will sign it, after it is reconciled with the House version. My...just $7.25 an hour? Isn't that a bit stingy? How in the world are you supposed to raise a family on $7.25 an hour? And what is a conservative Republican doing supporting the whole idea.
The answer to that one is that it's politically popular. We like to think that there should be a minimum standard for what people should be paid. Maybe that would work if we could come up with a minimum standard setting what every individual should be worth to his employer. The problem is in setting that standard. Why just $7.25? The left has no answer. They just say it should be raised. Which leads to the question, why not raise it more. Let's do the math.
If a minimum wage worker works 52 weeks a year, (vacations are for rich people) multiplied by 40 hours a week (no overtime, gotta raise those 4 kids sometime) equals 208 hours. Multiply that by the new minimum wage and you get just $15,080 a year. That's not very much. How about doubling the minimum wage to $14.50 an hour. Give people a fighting chance!
The reason the Democrats say it can't be that high is because it will kill jobs. Exactly.
FeedBack
Nusaiba
11/24/2007 8:11:48 AM
Dear sir
i do not think i have have found a more attractine blog than yours. and i quite agree with your view in the Gordon's rule, it never helps humans anything excepts to write like brainless hogs.
live4life
5/14/2007 2:56:32 PM
re: about me- you debate, i bliss. you need three points to prove a point- i dont even need a point ;)
Jkrapture
5/10/2007 7:47:57 PM
Good to see you back
shellie2284
4/14/2007 5:47:11 PM
ty for the comment :-D he he
shellie2284
4/13/2007 10:02:03 PM
I wanted to say ty for the comment! I know Im a Little late with the ty lol :) hope to see you around. Have a great wkend!
:)
Jkrapture
4/13/2007 3:31:37 PM
Hey Mergan, Vote for the Bloggers of Fame Click Here
flappertball
4/6/2007 7:01:51 PM
Hi Mergan. There never has been world peace. Humanity seems violence-prone, but if everyone accepts this as inevitable, the more avoidable wars, such as Iraq, maybe have a more fertile ground. Just my opinion. Have a good weekend.
Jkrapture
3/28/2007 2:49:15 PM
I wrote a Blog, I think you would be interested in. Click here
who_am_i
3/18/2007 5:01:39 PM
i havent read your article b4 so what r ur beliefs?
sweetlou
3/14/2007 1:18:09 PM
you r kool
sweetlou
3/14/2007 12:58:44 PM
ok i did
sweetlou
3/6/2007 9:51:37 AM
i was playing with u
jamieiez81
3/2/2007 7:57:04 AM
have a great weekend
Jkrapture
2/26/2007 10:59:54 PM
Don't bring your cat into this debate lol, and be regretful that you have the logic capability, to question such philosophical theories, like purpose of life.
sweetlou
2/21/2007 9:41:39 AM
im not a emo
and u r gay
jamieiez81
2/21/2007 8:05:02 AM
I hope you have a wonderful day!
Jkrapture
2/20/2007 12:54:54 PM
Damn it, I thought you were just on a lunch break and it would end soon, you mean I have whole day!!! lol
Mergan_the_Dragon
2/19/2007 8:14:14 PM
Thus why I consider myself a libertarian. I believe in small government in both social and economic aspects. It's like the happy medium between the Dems and the Republicans
imnpink
2/18/2007 6:39:36 PM
Republicians believe in very small gov't and dem believe in cradle to grave large gov't to take care of all the needs.. sounds to me like the weak spoiled rotten kids want mommy and daddy to just pay their way.
Jkrapture
2/18/2007 5:31:58 PM
Oh and tell me what song you want first on the list.
11/24/2007 8:11:48 AM
Dear sir
i do not think i have have found a more attractine blog than yours. and i quite agree with your view in the Gordon's rule, it never helps humans anything excepts to write like brainless hogs.
live4life
5/14/2007 2:56:32 PM
re: about me- you debate, i bliss. you need three points to prove a point- i dont even need a point ;)
Jkrapture
5/10/2007 7:47:57 PM
Good to see you back
shellie2284
4/14/2007 5:47:11 PM
ty for the comment :-D he he
shellie2284
4/13/2007 10:02:03 PM
I wanted to say ty for the comment! I know Im a Little late with the ty lol :) hope to see you around. Have a great wkend!
:)
Jkrapture
4/13/2007 3:31:37 PM
Hey Mergan, Vote for the Bloggers of Fame Click Here
flappertball
4/6/2007 7:01:51 PM
Hi Mergan. There never has been world peace. Humanity seems violence-prone, but if everyone accepts this as inevitable, the more avoidable wars, such as Iraq, maybe have a more fertile ground. Just my opinion. Have a good weekend.
Jkrapture
3/28/2007 2:49:15 PM
I wrote a Blog, I think you would be interested in. Click here
who_am_i
3/18/2007 5:01:39 PM
i havent read your article b4 so what r ur beliefs?
sweetlou
3/14/2007 1:18:09 PM
you r kool
sweetlou
3/14/2007 12:58:44 PM
ok i did
sweetlou
3/6/2007 9:51:37 AM
i was playing with u
jamieiez81
3/2/2007 7:57:04 AM
have a great weekend
Jkrapture
2/26/2007 10:59:54 PM
Don't bring your cat into this debate lol, and be regretful that you have the logic capability, to question such philosophical theories, like purpose of life.
sweetlou
2/21/2007 9:41:39 AM
im not a emo
and u r gay
jamieiez81
2/21/2007 8:05:02 AM
I hope you have a wonderful day!
Jkrapture
2/20/2007 12:54:54 PM
Damn it, I thought you were just on a lunch break and it would end soon, you mean I have whole day!!! lol
Mergan_the_Dragon
2/19/2007 8:14:14 PM
Thus why I consider myself a libertarian. I believe in small government in both social and economic aspects. It's like the happy medium between the Dems and the Republicans
imnpink
2/18/2007 6:39:36 PM
Republicians believe in very small gov't and dem believe in cradle to grave large gov't to take care of all the needs.. sounds to me like the weak spoiled rotten kids want mommy and daddy to just pay their way.
Jkrapture
2/18/2007 5:31:58 PM
Oh and tell me what song you want first on the list.
Please login to post a comment.
