Jim Hayett's Credibility

Imagine you are a student and you have a paper a due. It's a paper you've boasted about for a number of years because you spent no-less than three years researching and collecting evidence. The evidence you've painstakingly collected over that duration, you've asserted for the past few months, is conclusive, definite proof of your premise when asked about it or when you volunteer it.

It is due day.

Time for you to turn in your paper and you say to your professor, that you do not have it. You tell him not to worry though, you did do the work and your premises have been true all along.

Ask yourself, what kind of grade do you think you would receive?

Well you don't have to imagine. Jim Hayett, our local crusader charged to "fight liberal lies" pulled this plaint when I asked him to provide his study about liberal bias in the reporting at The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Then, as I am now, am still willing to be convinced. However, like the example of the student and professor above it is the work that matters - we just don't take people's words over such things.

I prodded Jim over this and sarcastically requested a napkin with "hash marks" on it. Even this he could not produce.

Serious studies, as Jim's alleged study on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel bias, would then need to be vetted and peered reviewed by other serious professionals. These other professionals, most likely academia communications professors, would be better at sniffing out errors in methodology and errors in metrics. In the world of sciences and social criticism - this is how it works. No serious professional would endorse such a conclusion without some accounting of the evidence, even if they may agree with it personally.

Jim Hayett has never given indication that this is something he has ever done. Is it any wonder, that when he sat down with representatives of Journal Communications they were unconvinced?

In my opinion, this raises serious issues over Jim Hayett's credibility.

As followers of the blogs will probably know that recently, Lake Country Living blogs, were attacked by a hacker pretending to be other commenter's and the other bloggers. He has since been blocked.

So imagine my surprise when returning home from a long night of drinking with buddies I haven't seen in a decade or more, to find my words changed and the subsequent abuse of countless accusations I took over it? I promptly took screen shots emailed those changed comments to the board administration, routing them through nearly all other members of the volunteer blogging staff here.

And imagine my indignation of one of my accusers, Jim Hayett, insisting to the board administration, that he has conclusive evidence once again? Unfortunately, his evidence didn't mean squat. The board administrator had better, more accurate evidence. Conclusive and not circumstantial.

So it's crystal clear to everyone these are the results of the board administrator's investigation.

The key phrases here are "I have determined, using IP addresses, who the “spoofing” offender is. My suspicions were correct as to the person’s identity. He is a long-time commenter, but he is not one of our bloggers." And "I do not believe there was any collusion amongst our bloggers and the culprit." Will I receive an apology from those that headlong charged into my persecution? No, I doubt it. Will I recieve an apology for the vicisious attack on my recently deceased grandmother by Hemmer Time, Amy Gieger Hemmer with the comment of "Perhaps "Fox News (the hacker)" is MC's cousin? grandma? uncle?" No, I doubt it. (Note: it is 7/28/2011 I have never received an apology.)

Will Jim Hayett apologize for the numerous, unsubstainated accusations made against me in public and in private email correspondence with the board administrator?

No. I doubt that too.

And anyway, even if Jim was to apologize, I can not trust that he is sincere.

His credibility is already a damaged, and he is only a fellow blogger anyway. He is not family, and not even a friend.

Thank you for your time.
MC

God the Abortionist. God the Infanticider.

Fundamentalist Christians frequently like state that God is pro-life, because God is pro-family.

Usually, the verse, Jeremiah 1:5 will be cited. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." And a whole string of random and unrelated Bible verses that are cherry-picked at will, dismissing or ignoring the context of each verse altogether, will be pushed as if they were God' admonishing directly against abortion. Like this person has done.

Of course, if anyone spends a moment to read the full verse (or any of the ones usually cited) you'll notice that God is addressing the priest Jeremiah before the womb - he does not offer a prohibition against abortion. In fact, the 220 or so laws from which the 10 commandments are typically culled from - there is not one mention of God prohibiting abortion. It's rather conspicuously absent that in Jeremiah, God makes no warning against Jeremiah not being born. Also, do you actually believe that it was Yahweh boasting about Jeremiah, and not Jeremiah boasting about himself? (By the way, this is still a simple rheortical device. Bill O'Rielly stated something very similar just a few scant months ago.)

All that Jeremiah is stating that he was destined before birth, designed as a creature of God, to be a great prophet. Abortion, was furtherest from his or Yahweh's concerns.

It's also strangely absent that out of the Six things that God hates and the seven things which are detestable to him, abortion is not mentioned at all. Funny that.

As I've stated before I read the Bible literally. Something which, literalist – the fundamentalist, only does when it's to hate the gay, or the non-believer. Divorce your wife and tithe? Of course, that's fine. Everything else, is left up to interpretation when it plays exactly into their bigotry.

But that's not to say that God is not concerned about infants, children and the little ones.

Nope.

What does God say?

• Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (Psalms 137:9)
• And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. (Exodus 11:4-5)
• And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. (Exodus 4:23:)
• I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. (Leviticus 26:16)
• I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children , and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate. (Leviticus 26:22)

If that's not enough for you, read the SAB's accounting of all of God's cruelty and murder. Also, check out Gary DeVaney's The God Murderers.

On DeVaney's site he puts God on trial and gives quite a list of God's murderers in the Bible. Men, women, children, newborns, animals, baby animals, whole families, whole civilizations - whole worlds, included.

But one of my favorite examples of God's love and his respect for children is the example from 2 Kings 23-24.

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”

So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

God sends ferocious bears to maul and probably kill 42 children because one of his followers was teased! Why? Because he was bald as the hair on your head! Damn that's hardcore!

But surely MC, that's the Old Covenant. God sending his son to die on the cross instead of us simply forgiving humanity, shows just how pro-life and pro-family he is? He killed his son as a sacrifice to Himself did he not? That's love dammitt! That's the New Covenant!

Well, if you think demanding the death of one's own son is love, then there is not much I can do for you. You are sick and twisted up inside.

But what about that New Covenant, anyway? What does Jesus say about family and it's importance to him?

"Do you think that I came to bring peace on earth? Not at all, I tell you, but rather division! (Luke 12:51)

But tell us Jesus, division among who? He reasserts this message in Matthew again.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matthew 10:34-36)

Jesus refutes the New Covenant.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill."

Of course, believers squirm all over this. They hem. They haw. They defend God and Jesus at any cost because they've taken Pascals Wager and forever their reason is squandered, dominated by fear.

And they defend God because their internal relationship with Jesus has become an idol-construct of their mind, a reflection of their selfish, prideful egos.

My "Psychic Predictions" for 2009

People are so willingly gullible. No more so when it comes to spending money on psychics.

According to one figure I've found, Americans spend upwards of $400 million a year on 900-number calls to "professional" psychics.

It's a sham and its a terrible waste of resources which, unfortunately, leads to destroying lives.

One such case is that of Sylvia Brown, favorite pet psychic of Montel Williams. In 2003 she informed the grieving family of Shawn Hornbeck that by her psychic powers that he had been killed since he went missing in 2001.

Sylvia appeared on TV on the "Montel Williams Show" in February 2003 and told Shawn's parents that he was dead and advised as to where to search for his body, which has led to shifting search team's efforts in that direction.

This January Shawn was found alive just miles from his home living with a man who's kidnapped him.

She was dead wrong and the Montel Williams show faced subsequent punishment by the FCC for that statement. Imagine for a moment if police relied only on psychics for their investigative work? Shawn would still be laboring under his kidnapper today.

Psychics like the Browns or John Edwards use mentalist techniques of cold-reading. If you spend some time and watch Edwards close enough you'll begin to notice that when a guess is wrong about the past or future, he quickly reverses the direction of the prediction – all the while prodding his victims for information in the pursuit of an accurate "prediction." Cognitively, people routinely record the "hits" and dismiss the "misses." Psychics are a boil on humanity's butt because they exploit this flaw in human cognition, whether intentional or not.

Meaning, they are about as psychic as any ham sandwich – unless, of course, the ham sandwich is psychic. If a ham sandwich was psychic, we could at least get that to the laboratory to study. Slyvia Brown has turned down repeated attempts to be tested by the James Randi Educational Foundation in a lab setting where she could win his million dollar challenge. I don't know about you, but who couldn't use another million? I've already spent my first.... Speaking of which, why aren't psychics wracking up all sorts of money playing the lottery or competing in Texas Hold 'Em tournaments?

Anyway, you can read Brown's predictions from 2008 - 2009 here. Her "accurate" ones are so general that they need not be mentioned. But her wrong ones are gems. From the "aura-scanner" used to detect a person's psychic "aura" or the death of the vice president to name just a few.

And it's worth mentioning the predictions she did not make. Otetia? Election of the first black president? Nope.

A bunch of woo.

I claim no psychic powers. Let's see how accurate I am this time, next year. Feel free to post your own.

World

01. I predict in the next year that there will be trouble in the along the DMZ in North Korea.

02. I predict in the next year Israel will go to war again with Palestine. God told them too. It's in the book. Likewise, Muslims will be saying the same.

03. I predict in the next year Putin will say something outrageous and conservatives will accuse liberals of being soft on him.

Sports

01. I predict in the next year that the Brewers will finish with 78 wins and 84 losses. I'm afraid by some stunningly bad personal moves by Doug Melvin at the pitcher position, we will not get into the playoffs. At least the Cubs won't either.

02. I predict in the next year that Packers will finish 8-8. Ted Thompson, preferring to build the team through the draft and not securing quality free agents, will make some wrong personal moves. Ted will be gone and Thompson the following year will be coaching the Chargers. In 2010, he'll take them to a Superbowl and lose.

03. I predict in the next year that the Lions will finish will the single best turn-around ever for a franchise. Barry Sanders will take over the organization and the team will go undeafeted all the way to the Superbowl – only to lose to New England to a Tom Brady with a record number 90 touch-downs in one season - or 28 touchdowns. (Either way, not a bad QB to have on your fantasy team.) The Pats will go 15-1 the following year.

Entertainment

01. I predict in the next year that there Brad and Angelina will have more babies.

02. I predict in the next year that George Clooney will settle down and get married to model. A very sexy underwear model.

03. I predict in the next year that a movie based upon a super hero will be made. It'll make $999 Billion dollars. The most ever made by a movie. In turn, the banks and the car manufacturers will ask the Hollywood Studio – a bastion of godless gay fags who are said to hate America by conservatives, for a bail-out. This money will save America giving many out work conservatives jobs.

Local

01. I predict in the next year that Jim Hayett and I will be best friends and even take in a Brewers game together.

02. I predict in the next year that Amy G will have had herself arrested for being a traitor - after she admits to converting to Liberalism as the America she once loved, lay in ashes around her because she destroyed it.

03. I predict in the next year that I will be the biggest and baddest blogger in America. I also predict that I will be accused of being "foul mouthed" and counter with "What, its like you never watched a rated R movie before. Spare me your fake indignation."

Health

01. I predict in the next year that there will be more advances in stem cell research. Christoper Reeves will walk again - after he is resurrected though stem cell science. Since biological science is grounded in evolution, it will deliver resurrection in this life and people will not have to wait for an afterlife, of which there is no physical evidence for anyway. Religion will lose it's hold on humanity. Muslims and Christians and Jews will not have animosity between each other – since anyone can be resurrected by science and return to kill you again.

02. I predict in the next year that teen pregnancies will rise, proving yet again, that abstinence only education doesn't work.

03. I predict in the next year more evidence against the specious claims of NDE's will come to surface. Predictably, it won't change a damn thing to the ardent believer in such rubbish.

Politics

01. I predict in the next year that there will be scandal in the White House, as Bush and Cheney and the entire former administration is put on review in a series of congressional committees.

02. I predict in the next year Pat Robertson will blame the gay and the Obama administration for a natural disaster like a hurricane or earthquake or typhoon as proof of God's vengeance against the gay or the liberal.

03. I predict in the next year that public school in Texas will teach creationism and not science of evolution in biology class. Four years from those students will be clueless, will not pass into college, and work some menial job and lose 10% of their precious income in tithes.

Misc

01. I predict in the next year that the "Blago" hairstyle will be all the rage with the hipsters.

02. I predict in the next year that the Revelation will happen. God will kill all the sinners and non-believers while Jesus delights in unbeliever torment in Hell. If doesn't happen it's because the planet, Pluto, is in ascension.

So that's a few of mine.

Have any? Let's see who is more psychic!

And do you believe there is actually a professional organization for these kooks?

Mercy Me the Season is Over!

What a miserable year for Packer fans has this been?

Although, I never stated it I was pretty sure that the Packers would post at least an 8-8 record since not much had changed with the team – even though Farve quit and moved on.

However, with yesterday's game against the hapless Lions, I felt no joy at their 0-16 record, even though I felt a little relief at the Packer's win against their division rivals.

I have some theories why the Lion organization is so screwed up.

It has to be the jackets. Look at those things!

© JS Online. Photo by Rick Wood.

Really? This style of padded jacket, finished in a warm grey - as opposed to the cool grey of the Lions uniforms make them look padded Pillsbury dough boys – wobbling around on the field.

That aside...

The Pack has a lot to do in securing talent in the off-season. I think Rogers did a pretty excellent job this year. I will, like most fans, expect more from the young QB. However, Thompson is going to have to get players on both sides of the ball, players who can control the line of scrimmage.

In my opinion the Packer's linebacker core and guards did a really miserable job this year. I wasn't expecting to much from the guards, but I thought at least our defense would be a little stronger. We need, solid guards to protect Rogers next year.

And special teams, I think, were miserable.

Well, no playoffs this year as is our birth-right as Packers fans.

At least the Cowboys and the Bears will not be in the playoffs if that's any consultation.

A Sunday Sermon // Christians, the God you Worship is Evil

As a child in Sunday School, I still vividly recall being lectured on Gods love. To demonstrate how you should love God, it was insisted to us that you must become as obedient as Abraham.

So we were taught the story of Abraham and Isaac.

"Then He said, "Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

It was insisted to us that Abraham's unquestioning obedience to God – even if he as to murder his son, was a high moral imperative that we should emulate.

Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.

And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

We were told that God was on the side of good because he sent an angel to halt the sacrifice. Really? What kind of God would demand the death of his child? Our teachers said anything they could to absolve God from such a vile crime – anything to excuse the fact that it was God who wanted Abraham to kill his son.

In this child's mind at the time, I can still recall being frightened by things that God's would demand. I was to love God through this type of obedience? I was horrified – and as a fully indoctrinated, uncritical, fully trusting Christian child I wondered if God would make similar demands on my father and put me under the knife.

But do you Christians step back and think about your God's actions in this?

No.

If anything, the story of Isaac should lead you to question divine command - and especially of those who are said to represent Gods authority. Instead of calling out God for the brutality he represents, sensing, you position it as a virtue because you know deep down in your conscious, that the story of Abraham and Isaac illustrates unqualified evil.

And you qualify this type of obedience as love.

This is the most twisted love I can think of.

The love of sacrifice.

The love of a God wanting you to kill your own.

The love of blood.

And if that's not bad enough, you worship and love this god who demands the death his own son because he simply can not forgive humanity.

It wasn't Satan demanding that Jesus be killed. No, it was God his father.

Any god that commands you to kill your family and then kills his own son out of debt to himself is evil.

Any religion that demands obedience and espouses obedience as virtue is about as antithetical to freedom of thought and the basic rights of humanity as one can get.

You worship an evil monster.

And you just can't see it.

Is Muhammad a Mythical Figure?

Among New Testament scholars there is the position that the man, the actual person of Jesus never existed and that the gospels are a style of writing – a type of religious narrative, based upon earlier religious beliefs given the synthetic environment from that period of Hellenization in which the gospels were penned. This position is known as the Jesus Myth Hypothesis. (JMH)

Who that actual person Jesus was beneath the scriptures, however, is still a matter of debate even among those NT scholars who believe that Jesus was a real, historical person. In fact, it is this very New Testament criticism which very honestly attempted to un-mythologize Jesus of the gospels that has lead to the development of the JMH.

While the JMH is a minority opinion among New Testament scholars, I personally (at least for now - until more substantial evidence of Jesus existence is uncovered from non-canonical sources) subscribe to the the myth hypothesis. (I consider myself a "student" of Dr. Robert M. Price in this matter.)

The JMH resolves many of the blatant contradictions within the gospels – not just facts or events, but of prose and internal differences in theologies. It is important to remember that the Synoptic Gospels were written many decades after Jesus' alleged life, and decades after Paul's letters by authors (yes, plural) unknown. (Some of which are pseudographic and not penned by Paul himself.) Yes, that's right, the sketchy biographical material that Paul could have read (because he never met Jesus himself) – which he did not, was penned many, many years after he became known as the great Evangelist. This New Testament chronology is generally accepted by critics and skeptics alike.

In my own research on the NT and the historicity of Jesus, I also found a similar mythicist position (Jesus and the Lost Goddess, page 205) as to the question of Muhammad's historicity, the so-called Prophet of Islam.

Sharing this mythicist view (but for different reasons), chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Muenster, Muhammad Sven Kalisch, observes...

"...with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven," "I, however, lean toward the non-existence."

Kalisch also believes that "the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have mythical origins." I couldn't agree more.

Kalisch said he realized early in 2001 that when the same scientific methods are applied to investigate Muslim claims of historicity as are used on Jewish and Christian origins, similar problems arise at once. He found that traditional theological positions soon collapse once hard evidence is sought. He discovered there is as much "myth-making" in Islam as in Judaism and Christianity. And so his current process of "rethinking Islam" was begun.

What lead Kalisch to this conclusion?

"Religion should never contradict reason," he says. "I could never accept any doctrine or belief that goes against my rational mind."

He's quite right and congratulations to his new found skepticism. Upon hearing this...

A spokesperson for the council (Central Council of Muslim), Ali Kizilkaya, has said if the Prophet Muhammad didn't exist then the Qur'an doesn't exist.

"This would mean that we would have to abolish the religion altogether," Kizilkaya said. "We are convinced the Prophet did indeed exist and that the Qur'an is the word of God."

I think that would be a great idea, but it does not necessarily mean the religion dries up and disappears. (It would be nice though.) As Kalisch points out, only the literalism of the Koran would cease.

Of course, the doesn't stop the threats and reprisals from intolerant believers that Kalisch has received in the wake of his announcement.

I congratulate Kalisch for his courage in standing up against the tide of literalism.

And he's correct. Other western scholars should stand up as well.

(Source)

Congratulations, Christians!

Last night humankind's savior was born!

A child born of man and god to "repair the breach" between God and humanity.

A being as perfect as God his Father. Who is simultaneously, God the Father. A divine being who is perfectly created like Adam – the first man, that somehow in his perfection was easily fooled and tempted to sin.

But never mind that, Jesus is now here. He has come to die for our sins, because God so loved the world he had to send his only begotten son. Of course, instead of sending chattel, God could just forgive – no, blood must be had and be had from the veins of the innocent.

Therefore today, celebrate the birth of the divine-chattel. And in a few months you can celebrate his torture death and rejoice in the blood and torture that is God's love you've come to respect, admire, and uncritically approve of.

And you dare to accuse atheists of arrogance and being ethically inferior?

Please.

A reason why the accents make them seem smarter?

This is good news!

The majority of Britons do not believe the Biblical story of the birth of Jesus, a survey has suggested.

Of 1,000 people questioned, 70% doubted the account, according to the British Market Research Bureau.

Almost a quarter of people who described themselves as Christians shared their scepticism.

For decades the Anglican church has moaned and whined about their fading influence in British society. They whine against the gays. They whine against secular and liberal values. They even whine that people receiving a good education and that skepticism is the reason why Christianity is dying in England and they can't influence public policy.

Which is correct of course. The Anglican Church should fear. The more educated and the more skeptical people are, the less likely they are going to hold a load of impossible beliefs. Despite, the eagled-eyed assertions of people who should know better.

So, perhaps, it's not just the accents which make the British smarter.


(Source)

The Essense of a Gap Argument

(Source)

The Vatican - A Bigoted Nest of Hypocrites

Does anyone really care that the Vatican now says that "gays aren't criminals?"

Thank you, Vatican. Reasonable people already know that, even if more than 87 countries (and many municipalities in the United States) continue to criminalize homosexuality.

This should be good news that Vatican is on the right side on issue for once... right?

Ah.. no.

"The Church is in favour of decriminalising homosexuality," Lombardi said. But it opposes granting "parity of rights", such as marriage. According to Catholic teaching, only unions between a man and a woman can be accorded such parity.

Here's my big middle finger to your Catholic teaching. Actually, here's both. Your "teaching" is backwards. Wrong. Discriminatory. And it's immoral.

Yes, immoral.

Of course, positioning itself as the advocate of equality, the Vatican, opposes "all forms of discrimination."

Unless, it's gay marriage of course. No parity of marriage for you, f ag.

My irony meter broke on that one.


(Source)

Life. Death. Life After Death.

Many people across the theological spectrum believe that when they die that their consciousness, or soul - the intangibles which make them tick, will be reunited with their bodies at some later date. Whether that body is a physical body, or an "astral-body" (a "spiritual" projection of a physical body), the soul will have a new vehicle after death to animate it.

A life after this life. A life that will never end. A life without pain. A life without trial. A life where you'll only make good decisions because there will be no bad stuff to corrupt you otherwise. A place where the soul shall never become permanently extinguished and will survive incorruptible through one eternity to the next.

It is the afterlife, of course.

Christianity posits such an afterlife, provided you believe the right things. If you don't believe the right things, you'll suffer an eternity in another, less happier address. A place to be tortured by fire for eternity - all by a loving God alleged to be omnibenevolent – the infinite expression of goodness and benevolence. Yet Hell, so egregiously inhumane, that many Christians I know, do not even wish the unbeliever in, despite their belief and tacit approval of this policy by a god they worship who exhibits less humanity, less love, than them.

My grandma died on Friday, December 5th, 2008. She lived a long, long life well into her late eighties and is survived by 9 surviving children, countless grandchildren and great grand-children.

Today is her funeral. Both Liberal Hammer and I will be attending. We are brothers, after all.

While my grandma did not have much material or financial wealth when she died, she had a very successful life. The very fact that she had a natural death is a success in itself, if you stop to consider the fecundity of life and the fecundity of death which unremittingly governs us all. You are more likely to die due to lack of resources, or succumb to disease or senility. Life is inherently hostile to itself. A life, or universe, that has "precisely the properties we should expect if these is, at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

I am happy and proud of my grandma. To the very end she was full of humor and verve, even though these last few years she was sometimes grouchy and difficult to deal with.
In short, her life is to be celebrated. And today I will celebrate the contributions she made to my life and to the great-grandchildren she raised as her own with unswerving dedication and unrelenting love.

As many of you know, I am an atheist. I have not been convinced of the supernatural, and as a logical consequence, the afterlife I do not believe in. I will never see my grandma again. She will never see me again. This is why her commitment she made to her great-grandchildren I find that much more admirable. It was the meaning she brought to her life.

The "meaning of life" is no great secret to those that don't seek it in ancient texts and moral codes of less civilized men and from less civilized societies. You bring meaning to life by living it. Hopefully, you'll do it by minimizing your impact on it and have fostered a better world to live in after you've occupied it, like my grandma.

I've heard the afterlife described as a never ending baseball game. Imagine a game with one inning after another for eternity. A never-ending groundhog's day of sport. Three up. Three down. Forever. Sisyphus at bat for eternity.

That's not much of an existence I'd want to be assigned to forever and ever.

The very fact that life ends makes it crucial and urgent. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's wife, stated about her husband that they lived "with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is" and that they "never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . ." That's is why a afterlife beliefs only devalues the only life we have. In some cases, like the 9/11 bombers, the afterlife motivates people to do terrible, terrible things.

Life is like those nine, crucial innings of America's favorite past-time.

There is no afterlife. There is no scientific evidence and there are no philosophical arguments which make the survival of one's consciousness possible.

Draw your loved ones close. Realize this is the only time you have. Make every day crucial and urgent.
You've got nine innings, and if the game is tied or not at the close of the nineth, it is still all you'll get.

I love you Grandma Rische.

Goodbye and thanks!

I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden

I heart Blago.

I mean, if you're gonna be corrupt - go large.

Live it.

Rod wasn't playing around.

"I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden," prosecutors quoted Blagojevich as saying about the Senate appointment on federal bugs in his campaign office and wiretaps on his home telephone,"and I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing. I'm not gonna do it."

(Source)

You gotta admire the balls on Blago. Bankrupt Tribune company? Sure, the state can you loan you money, but first, the Tribune will have to fire a few editors who criticized Blago to receive any assistance. Going after the Fifth Estate is never a good idea. That takes balls, man. Even Bush, in his gerrymandering of the news media, doesn't seem to have balls that big. Perhaps, Blago, should have been looking for work with the Bush administration.

Goodness gracious me...

As corrupt as democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich is, at least, the Democrats who he tried to sell the seat to had the temerity and integrity enough to say no. One corrupt asphat discovered, and a handful of honorable democrats confirmed. That will be the forgotten part of this scandal as history is quickly canonized and passed through popular memory.

I think Blago should make the case that's he's just being a good capitalist. That is, letting the market decide just who is qualified enough to become the senatorial successor to Obama. Why not? Most on the right love to state just how much of a capitalist nation we are and that somehow an economic system is tantamount to a constitution which enumerates civil rights as part of its social contract.

Gleefully republicans love to admonish democrats that democrats just don't get it.

I would just love... just love to hear democrats on the offensive admonishing republicans for not understanding capitalism as a defense for Blago.

Or perhaps, democrats could make the tradition argument. Blago is fourth in a long line of Illinois governors to be accused and convicted of corruption. One of which was Republican George Ryan. What's wrong with that, republican? In the beginning, God created corruption and politics. It's a traditional marriage, if you will. Do you republicans have something against tradition?

But as much as I love to see democrats play those cards – even democrats, by and large, ain't that stupid. No need of a tu quoque - if you understand my French.

Anyway, Blago must have his day in court. If the evidence is that good as the indictment indicates, then we are all in for a fantastic trial.

Hopefully, a better trial than that Ted Stevens cat.

Friday Fallacy // Tu Quoque

As other concerns preoccupy me, I've not been spending much time blogging or reading the blogs as of late – which, I am sure, is of great relief to our resident social conservatives, fundamentalist Christians, or Bush Nationalists and apologists.

However, I have begun to notice this fallacy creeping quite a bit into the follow-up discussions on various posts. Not completely unsurprising, this fallacy is usually committed by defenders of George Bush (ie. Bush Nationalists afflicted by their own brand of Bush Derangement Syndrome) or other right leaning apologists for the soon out-going administration.

I hate to single them out as anyone can commit this fallacy in defense of the indefensible where creed, political, or religious values are concerned. Yet, they make themselves such easy targets - and I really have no love for this type of ethical knife twisting.

Again, this is not meant to be a complete analysis and for sake of brevity, I'll cite one example today.

Defined
The Tu Quoque is a rhetorical red herring which can take the order of an ad hominem. It is an accusation of likewise chicanery when one's actions or beliefs are exposed as either vile, or for the stark wrongheadedness of its inherent reasoning.

In short, when the petitioner commits this fallacy, it is an attempt to put the accuser on the defensive who correctly identifies the error in the petitioner's reasoning. It is a simple attempt to deflect criticism without actually confronting the basis for which the criticism was observed in the first place.

Functionally, this fallacy becomes a red herring - irrelevancies to the main issue.

Example
On the doctrine of torture by waterboarding by the Bush administration:

"Wrong again. Bush did not torture anyone. The waterboarding was approved by democrats like Pelosi. Anyway, what we do to the enemy is no different than a college hazing." Jim Heyatt. (Source)

Explained and Exposed
The example attempts to justify waterboarding as a legal practice because not only has Bush given his sign-off, but the current highest ranking Democrat, Speaker Pelosi, as an endorser as well.

The reasoning is simple here. If Democrats do it, then a Republican who does it has committed no harm, no shame. Hey, if both sides agree, then how can waterboarding be wrong?

For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true, both Pelosi and Bush agree that waterboarding – a technique of "forced suffocation and inhalation of water" where the "subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent" is entirely legal and therefore not torture.

This argument implores us to suspend our judgment because of perceived political alignment and to ignore what waterboarding actually entails.

John Sifton of Human Rights Watch describes it as the person (waterboarded) "believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution" and further observes "is illegal under international law." Adding to this, former CIA officer Bob Baer states that "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough."

Essentially, in defense of Bush's policy of torture, the Bush-Nationalist (or any supporter of this doctrine), would have you forget that by all accounts and supportable evidence that waterboarding is not torture because they believe they've cornered the accuser out of similar political necessity and commitment.

Suffice to say, the pro-wateboarder is easily and uncritically convinced by this reasoning.

As for others who do have a consistent moral grounding, we are not as blinded by political necessity or commitment.

I'll call a spade a spade here.

If you believe that waterboarding is merely "college-hazing" – You are morally bankrupt.

In Conclusion
Just because Jimmy does what Janey does, does not make such an action or belief ethical in itself.

Criticisms of someone's beliefs or actions must be defended on its merits, not on the actions or merits of others.

When the Tu Quoque is evoked, there is a good chance that the petitioner who does is more than likely defending the indefensible and a person of questionable moral persuasion.

An Atheist During the Holidays?

I won't speak for all atheists, but many of us do many of the things that the religiously inclined do around this time of year. We shop. We put up a tree. We eat ferocious amounts of food. We spend time with our family and friends. Some of us even perpetuate the myth of Santa to our children. My wife and I are having that debate now.

If your a typical religious American you grudgingly attend church probably only twice a year – much like the Bible that you've barely read or perhaps cracked open once or twice in your life.

And like many Americans, you attend church in December for the commemoration of the incestuous impregnation of an underage, "virgin" teen by "God the Father" and the subsequent production of a hybrid human-god – known only to us by appellation, not name. And you might just show up in Easter, to celebrate the torture and death of said hybrid in the ritual savaging of his flesh and spilling of blood that in turn, quixotically pleases that same wily Father who is simultaneously that same said hybrid born of His seed. During this time, you incredulously wonder at this same hybrid's multiple postmortem zombie-like appearances, suspending your disbelief in favor for the suspect testimony from a people who lived in an age before science and in the backwaters of the Roman Empire.

In short, we do all the things that you do, but without the religious underpinnings and without the specious beliefs that are held as virtuous and not as the embarrassments that they are.

So it is no surprise that invariably this time of the year some diarrhetic pastor, or foaming mouth Christian, will state ignorantly that the atheist must be in real pain because we have no one (i.e. God) to thank or to appreciate the holidays with as defense of these specious beliefs and to claim ownership over these holidays. Ignorant and annoying garbage. It is also false. Yet as ridiculous as this is, it does not dissuade the efforts by the Christian to demonize the unbeliever and to prop up the thin veneer of their faith.

When I read such tripe, I am reminded of a time when I was asked by my best friend and his family to offer a prayer before one of our semi-monthly weekend grilling dinners – back when I was still living in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee.

Until the last few years has the state of my non-belief ever been anything of an issue to my best friend and his family. They are cool with it and are generally inquisitive as to what it is like to be without belief in the supernatural and they can discuss quite easily the Bible with me when we do. I don't mind the questions. In fact, I encourage them.

That evening, the discussion began with their then ten-year old's natural father (not my best friend – he is but a step-dad) is a youth pastor at an Pentecostal church – the crazies who speak in tongues. Their ten-year old was relating how he was pressured into speaking tongues and refused. We congratulated him and I added that his level of skepticism was a good thing and that all truth claims should be likewise questioned. (After much re-explaining - with help of his mom, that a ten year old could understand.) Of course, my larger point was about Christianity itself without attacking the religion head-on.

These open ended-conversations always drift into other tenets of the religion and its relation to the sentinel events of life. I was asked about faith by my best-friend. I informed him that faith is unnecessary when you have knowledge instead. I declared right then and there that my knowledge was superior to his faith in all ways. He didn't say anything and moved on to the next topic of interest to him.

I was asked about death. I think it's entirely self-evident that when the brain dies so to does the "soul" that inhabits your head is likewise extinguished. I went on to explain that every moment I am together with him and his family are precious moments. Moments never to be relived again. I also informed both of them that I just couldn't lie to myself and believe in Christianity was true. Doesn't the Bible instruct us not to lie? They agreed with me, of course. I also related the story that when I was in Sunday school my teacher had instructed us that if you did good for humanity without Jesus, you had in effect, done no good at all. They bristled at that.

These conversations are always rapid and free-flowing and directly following this rambling discussion, dinner was served. Crab legs, yellow fin tuna, mushrooms, Texas toast were all deliciously served under the twinkling summer sky. Just as I was about to sit down to eat, the ten-year old was about to offer the dinner prayer when his mother reminded him that the guest should say it.

Well, suffice to say, I felt broadsided at that request in light of our recent conversation just a few scant minutes ago. I did realize the good spirit in which it was offered. (At least, I hope so.) It's hard to think negative about my friends. I literally stuttered (I was shocked) and said very plainly "You know I am an atheist and haven't been a Christian in like, forever."

Instead a compromise was reached. I was prompted to say something nice. And you know what? I did.

I gave, from the bottom of my being - those things that I think that are the best about them and why I loved each of them and how important their company is to me. I meant it. All of it predicated on our relationship and the real love of humans. Not compelled because God tells us to love. Not forced by reward or punishment. Real human love.

And from the silence after my speech, I could tell they realized exactly what I felt. I talked about us, together in this life. The only life we have. No interfering God that is so far removed from the affairs of his creation that its like He doesn't exist at all. Funny that.

There is nothing intrinsically or even historically Christian about our holidays like Thanksgiving, Christmas or Easter. Actually, if you dig into the history of each of these holidays, you will learn that Christians grafted their holidays onto already long established pagan days of celebration. In fact, the early church father, Dionysus Exegesis, had no clue when to place יֵשׁוּעַ's birth. He had to guess.

Our holidays are civic celebrations – secular. There is no need to thank the gods for the prosperity you, yourself create and the joy and love you receive and give to your family and friends.

God does not do this.

You do.

Rejoice in that.