At Least He Gets To Keep His Reason And Sanity

Posted by BGH

~
A musician who was a member of a Christian band is not taken with open arms by his fellow band members when he expresses doubt in religious doctrine, and belief in god. Instead he has been booted from the band and now his ex band members are clasping hands 'wishing' him better.

From my perspective, he has gotten better. At least now he is thinking about his indoctrination and trying to determine whether what he believes is true. Too many people uncritically accept the mythology taught as religion their whole lives, never giving the existence of such supernatural events much thought. They become comfortable with the mob mentality and therefore decide to just follow along.

This musician may have lost his job with the band but has gained his intellectual freedom and hopefully he will retain it.
----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

Religion Harbors Insanity

Posted by BGH

~
People are insane. Many, many people are bug-nutter crazy and they just don’t realize it.

Why? Well, religion, a doctrinal set of beliefs and prescribed thought syllabus, gives them a societal asylum. They are able to hide behind the ‘faith’, claim the most insanely delusional things, and society says, “well, that is their religion, that is their right”.

Just check these stories to see how the insanity hides under the cover of religion.

Bible, watermelon stop stray bullet

A bible stopped the bullet? This is divine intervention? What about the first girl who was hit, did god just wake up from a nap in time to stop it from hitting the second girl? The family isn’t told, “you’re crazy, it’s pure luck and coincidence that the WATERMELON and the bible were able to stop the bullet”. No, they are told “praise Jesus”.

Dubai Detains Foreigners Accused Of Being Gay

It is illegal (???) to be gay? Because Muslim doctrine says so, it is permissible to arrest an individual with different preferences; almost no-one in society says anything because, well, the Qu’ran dictates that homosexuality is wrong. So, who are we to argue with their ‘faith’? The western nations can't go after Islam because, if the largest religion in our country (Christianity) says it's okay to hate fags, we can't tell Muslims they are wrong for their beliefs.

Lorna Byrne: 'To me, seeing angels is natural'

This woman is delusional at best and instead of being told she is batshiat crazy, she gets a six-figure book deal because other batshiat crazy people want to read about angels. If someone said they were having visions of mailboxes with “its golden wings in such detail. I could see the feathers individually", a psychological evaluation would be in order, but because ‘angels’ are part of a religious doctrine they are completely believable. If the woman were to be diagnosed with a disorder causing her to have these visions, credit would still be given to the faith and ‘god’, for giving her the gift.

And then there is a faith that makes this an acceptable treatment of women.



Sure, the westernized nations criticize this treatment, but not too much. After all, it is their religion and it wasn't long ago we used our religion (Christianity) to justify similar treatment of the female members of society.

I don't know if religion were to disappear tomorrow if the insanity would go away, or if humans would find another harbor for bigotry, delusion and hatred. I would love to find out. Maybe tripping off the deep end of the sanity pool wouldn't be so easy. Maybe people would be less inclined to boldly display such synapse misfirings. I am not saying disappearance of 'faith' would end all such activity, but it would certainly have one less place to duck for cover.
----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

Where Is This Century's 'Thomas Paine'?

Posted by BGH

~
Where is the voice that can show America that we are not too soft to fight and there is still much worth fighting to defend?

Who can spark the revolution, stir the apathetic and voice (Common Sense) what so many of us are feeling? We have watched our rights get trampled (The Rights Of Men), and disgustingly focused on the latest celebrity scandal instead. There needs to be an awakening in the United States.

Citizens should read The U.S. Constitution, specifically The Bill of Rights, and pay attention to their government (we know they aren't paying attention to us), and no longer 'fear' those in elected office, rather, they should fear us, 'the people'.



----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

Italian Bishop Says: "If The Plumbing Don't Work, You Can't Marry"

Posted by BGH

~
An Italian bishop has refused to marry a couple in a church service, though they are already legally married by civil ceremony, because the man is a paraplegic and impotent as a result of the injuries.

"Salvatore de Ciuco, spokesman for Bishop Lorenzo Chiarinelli of Viterbo in central Italy, told SkyTG24 television late Sunday: “No bishop, no priest can celebrate a wedding when he knows of admitted impotence as it is a motive for annulment” of the marriage."

I guess love is not a factor according to the bishop and the only viable marriages are ones that produce more catholics.

Another reason in a long list, indicating just how fucked up the catholic church really is.
----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

10 Tenets Of My Skepticism

Posted by BGH

~
These are a set of thoughts that drive my skepticism and inspire me towards continuous inquiry.

1. I do not need the opiate they call religion, for I shall hold nothing on faith alone. I will require evidence, reason and critical thought to arrive at conclusions.


2. Because I may know your holy book better than you does not mean I am repressing a hidden inner 'true' belief in your deity, it means that I care if what I believe is true. I will spend time and energy looking into claims to verify there is substantial reason believe and when there is not I will abandon those beliefs.


3. I will not only research and investigate one side of an issue, I will try to inform myself of many facets of a topic.


4. I shall hold arguments from popularity as irrelevant. How many people believe a 'thing' does not necessitate 'truth'.


5. I shall dismiss arguments from ignorance. Because we do not know the true cause does not infer that a supernatural or pseudo scientific explanation is the correct one.


6. I believe extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


7. My systematic doubt is not a negative, it is an asset, along with continuous inquiry, for I value the truth.


8. "We don't know", is a perfectly acceptable answer instead of a made up one. I accept that there are limits to knowledge.
   


9. I shall exhibit a joy and wonder in learning about the world while trying to keep at bay emotion driven thinking.
   


10. I will question, question, question, question, question, question, question....

----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

Ridiculous Islamic Push For International Blasphemy Law

Posted by BGH

~
A Jordanian prosecutor is trying to summon the Danish cartoonist and newspaper editors responsible for printing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
Jordan Summons Danes In Effort To Create International Blasphemy Law

Jordan court to rule on cartoon case

From the latter article:

"Lawyers representing the coalition have argued that publishing the cartoons violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which both Jordan and Denmark are signatories to, and several articles of the Jordanian Penal Code Law, which can imprison those who slander the prophet for up to three years. Some 96 per cent of Jordan’s 5.8 million people are Muslims.

“There are limits to the freedom of speech that shouldn’t allow for the slandering of prophets,” said Osama Bitar, one of the lawyers arguing on behalf of the coalition. Islamic law bans depictions of the prophet to prevent idolatry.

“We hope this lawsuit … will pave the way for an international law that would incriminate anyone who slanders Islam and the prophet, including other religions, through electronic means.”

Mr Bitar said the International Covenant on Civilian and Political Rights bans the advocacy of anything that “constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”."

How ridiculous and insecure can one's personal faith be that cartoons are reason for violence? When the depictions were first printed in Denmark, there were Muslim riots and violence with calls for death to the artist, newspaper editors and anyone else involved.

The so-called blasphemous material has led to a push by some for an international law against such offenses. How oppressive and backward can a faith be to push for others to honor it though they are not adherents? Those of Islamic faith who push for such legislation display an arrogance and insecurity by trying to quell free speech and silence those who hold differing views.

Though I have heard much about Islam over the last few years and have performed some research myself, I have yet to witness one redeeming quality yielded by Muslim tenets.

Blasphemy is a victim-less offense and certainly should not be law.
----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

Inflicting 'God' On Others

Posted by BGH

~
Some of you who have visited us before may have read about my 'holy co-worker'. Our relationship dynamic is an odd one. He is not really a subordinate or colleague, we merely work on separate projects in the same lab so interactions between us are much more casual.

He is aware that I am an atheist and that skepticism is what drives my non-belief, I require substantial evidence to believe the spectacular claims of religion and thus far, the criteria has not been met. On the other hand, he is a fervent Christian and though he claims to follow scripture to live his life, he has not read the complete bible (a real deficiency in my opinion of many fervent believers).

We are able to have many benign conversations about religion and 'god' without any hard feelings on either side, usually we end up agreeing to disagree. There is one issue though that is a bit irksome, he incessantly claims that one day my mind will change, I will no longer need evidence for supernatural claims and become just as relentless as he is about the existence of god. While I always leave my mind open to new evidence and seldom say "never", I have looked very deeply into religious claims and all of them came up lacking where they pertain to evidence. A change of mind is highly unlikely.

The arrogant assumption that one day everyone will join his 'club' is an indication to me of the Holy Co-Worker's insecurities with his faith and beliefs. An uncomfortable tone coats his words when he speaks of those who do not believe exactly as he does, this even applies to other Abrahamic faiths such as Judaism and Islam. There is a tension exhibited by the 'insecure' believers when they encounter others who do not hold the same beliefs. It appears that they feel their faith, their so-called "personal" beliefs are at risk when not everyone tows the line.

On the other hand... I am secure in my non-belief. I do not need another person on this planet to be a atheist for me to hold confidently to what I believe is (or isn't) true.

I have encountered many believers such as my co-worker, they do little to support their faith and only display to me the weakness and deep welled strife within that possibly comes from belief in 2000 year old myth and legend.
----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

Admitting Lack Of Belief To A Child's Friends

Posted by BGH

~
I wrote a few months back about my son's friends and the religious questions had about my beliefs.
Atheism And Your Children's Friends

At the time I was foreseeing a day when they would press harder and the questions would no longer be passing in nature and instead, they would truly want to know, "Does BGH believe in god?".

Well, that day was today. We were all hanging out, I had just finished a home improvement project and took a seat at the kitchen table. My son's friends, we affectionately call them 'the boys', always are full of questions around me. The topics are about anything and anything, from sex to peer pressure to drugs to, well this time... god.

As I said earlier, they have asked before but it seems their attention was quickly diverted elsewhere because they are 14 years old and not many of things can get them to slow down for a minute. Usually when the boys are together, there are four of them (my son included), they have laptops open, guitar hero playing and all out WWF matches going on in the middle of the living room all at once.

Today, while I was sitting at the table, the subject of a movie we watched the previous night came up. We had watched "The Exorcism Of Emily Rose", a preposterous story of a 'true' demonic possession gone bad. Well, there was very little merit given to skepticism in the movie and the message seemed to be that everyone was supposed to 'believe' based on anecdotal evidence and hearsay.

Well, one of the boys asked straight out, "Do you believe in god?" I have treaded lightly in this area in the past because I do not want my lack of belief to influence my son's friendships. So I asked the boy, "How do you feel about people who don't believe in god?" He replied in turn that, he had nothing against them but added, he didn't think ever knew anyone like that. So I told him, "Now you do." I continued, "Well, you have for a while, but you just didn't know it."

After that it was a flood of questions. Mainly, we covered the why's and the how's like "why not?", "what do you think happens to us when we die?" and "how do you think we got here?" We went over my time being raised catholic, the questions I had, my desire for more evidence than just the bible and some very in-depth descriptions of the early universe. We discussed how, given substantial evidence I would be open to changing my mind, but up until this point in my life the criteria just hasn't been satisfied.

I did not 'profess' atheism, I did not call them silly or deluded, and did not try to sway them. I mostly just answered their questions and told them, whether someone is a believer or not, if they are my friend and a good person they are welcome in my house. The boys discussed what their parents might think, the twins didn't think their parents would care too much but the other boy had his doubts about the reaction of his parents. They all decided, on their own I will add, that there isn't any reason to run home and tell mom and dad. Their parents like us as we are and unless they specifically ask (like the boys did), there isn't a reason to tell them.

All in all it was a great talk and I foresee many more questions about my non-belief. I look forward to it.
----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

Reasonable Expectation Vs. 'Faith'

Posted by BGH

~
There is a difference.

I had another discussion at work with the "Holy Co-Worker" yesterday where he seemed totally confused. It was a passing conversation that I kind of butted my way into, but I wanted to see where he was going to take this statement. He said, "Everyone has faith in something".

Now, as soon as I heard this I had a good idea where he was going to head with his reasoning if I pressed him, and I did so I could make my point. I said, "Not everyone".

And then he took the conversation exactly where I thought he would. He continued, "What do you mean? Yes they do. When you get in your car and drive down the road, you don't know if your brakes will work or not when you step on the pedal, but you have 'faith' and press down anyway."

Perfect!! I was ready. I said back to him, "No, that is not faith, THAT is 'reasonable expectation' based on previous experience/evidence. I do not 'believe' the brakes will work, I 'expect' that they will work based on every other time I stepped on the the pedal and the car began to slow. The same argument is used regarding the Sun coming up in the morning, people who don't realize the difference between faith and reasonable expectation will say that we have faith that the sun will rise. That is not true, we have a reasonable expectation that we will see the Sun come up on the eastern horizon tomorrow based on the 4.5 billion years of previous evidence of it doing so. So, no, not everyone has 'faith' in something, 'faith' is belief without evidence and I don't wish to live my life that way."

One of our coworkers was sitting at a nearby table and another was at the counter preparing his lunch, both began nodding their heads and the one at the table said, "he is exactly right".

The "Holy Janitor" looked dumbfounded, stood there speechless for a minute, then just walked away.
----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

On Censorship

Posted by BGH

~
Throughout history of the written and spoken word there have existed efforts to deter or silence opposing viewpoints. This type of attitude, while having the appearance of protecting and insulating your stance from criticism, only indicates the insecurity of your position and gives others an open door to also squelch your ideas from being heard.

Once we start censoring ideas we don’t agree with, all ideas can be silenced, even our own, and nothing is beyond reproach. I don’t agree with the neo-Nazi, the 9/11 truther, the extremely far right, the extremely far left, or many other viewpoints for that matter, but they have a right to speak their mind.

I am strong proponent of free speech, defending the marketplace of ideas and protecting all speech, even that with which I strongly disagree. I feel I can make my case, defend my arguments and if someone can prove me wrong or convince me otherwise, I am willing to accept it. Censorship has no place in society, to wall up sensibilities from scrutiny and brand certain discussion ‘off limits’ pushes modern society backward, causing regression of thought and basically creates automatons from the citizenry.

Say what you will; say what you want, if we disagree, great! At least there is a discussion, and no one’s viewpoints are silenced. We learn best when being confronted with many varied and wide ranging viewpoints, we remain ignorant when only having access to like-minded speech.

On this blog we do not delete comments we disagree with, we let the criticism remain, we state our case in response but DO NOT expel differences of opinion.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” - The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre
----

A Looming Recession Is Now Called A 'Rough Patch'

Posted by BGH

~
President Bush, in another awesome display of his infinite wisdom and ethereal insight declared the U.S. economy is in a 'rough patch'.

"We're in a rough patch right now," Bush said in answer to a question at a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

In the last two days there have been news stories regarding rising food prices, crude oil tipping out over $115 a barrel and increasing unemployment. Our president, the financial wizard that he is, thinks the best terminology to describe the flailing state of the economy is 'rough patch'. A fight with the wife over doing chores is a rough patch, the U.S. economical situation is more akin to pushing your wife over a cliff.

I can't say I am surprised by the comment though, George W. Bush is an excellent denialist and will dispute evidence a mile high in order to keep from admitting mistakes. This is just another example of his complete detachment from reality and propensity to diminish the seriousness of situations that may be on his shoulders.

People are losing their homes, stores and shops are closing up and it is becoming increasingly more expensive to feed a family, for fuck's sake, wake up GWB!!
----

Delusions Of The Desperate To Rationalize The Belief

Posted by BGH

~
What level of cognitive dissonance must one hold to believe that when confronted in tragedy a 'god' will save you while your friends, who attend the same Christian school, die around you?

A teen in New Zealand, along with a group of fellow students, was 'canyoning' in a national park when the group was taken over by a flash flood. There was an unfortunate series of event's where six students and an instructor from the school lost their lives while one student, Kish Proctor, managed to survive.

"All I can say is this is my story and this is what happened to me and God saved me," he told the Herald.

Kish does himself, whatever god he believes in, and his friends who lost their lives a very large disservice. It must be offensive to the families of those who were lost to listen to Kish credit 'god' with saving his life while their children perished in the raging water.

A common rationalization is that 'god' has a plan and he called the deceased 'home'. In an instance such as this story, it comes across as arrogant and self righteous to make the claim that your life, your future is somehow more important, more valuable than others who were not so fortunate as to have survived. I find this one of the most disgusting parts of god belief, that the faithful willfully insult the lives and importance of friends, family and even strangers by claiming they were spared by a divine hand while others perished without the same intervention.
----

Church State Intersection According To Justice Scalia

Posted by BGH

~
(H/T to Religion Clause)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who by some is regarded as an advocate for interpreting the Constitution to is original meaning and context, made statements that appear to be an 'argument from tradition', at least from a logical point of view.

"I have nothing against formulaic abstractions--otherwise known as rules," Scalia said.

But he added: "When one of these judicially created abstractions comes up against a longstanding tradition, it is the abstraction--not the tradition--that must yield."

In essence Justice Scalia is saying that, because we have the 'tradition' of opening prayer in legislative bodies, it is the literal interpretation that must give way. Where the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;", it should not override the 'tradition' of prayer. He calls these "Constitutional traditions", though it is unclear how this terminology is appropriate.

Because the practice of an invocation(usually Christian in nature) before legislative sessions gives the appearance of endorsing religion over non-religion or non-Abrahamic religions, it is the Constitution that should be adhered to, it matters not that the tradition is long standing. The removal of the opening prayer does not endorse a religion or prohibit anyone from free exercise, it merely places the government in a neutral position, as specified in the First Amendment. This type of literal, neutral interpretation ensures freedom for all to worship or pray as they wish, when none are endorsed all are free.

This is why presidential elections are so important, not solely because of policy they propose to initiate, but also because of the possibility they may have the opportunity to name Supreme Court Justices and, nominate judges who prefer tradition over the framers intent.

Justice Scalia also makes some very interesting comments regarding illegal searches, the article is here, Justice says rule-making judges should yield to Constitution.
----

Oil Prices Surge to $112 A Barrel Today Because...

Posted by BGH

~

1. The wind blew.
2. John McCain said something stupid.
3. George W. Bush said something equally stupid.
4. Hillary lied about getting shot at again.
5. All of the above.

Actually, the price rose today not because of any of the reasons above (which I am sure did happen), but because it was reported that U.S. supplies had a higher than expected decline.

I know, I know... "The company's profit margin is only 12%", "The executives are barely scraping by on the 10 billion dollar bonuses" or "The corporations don't control the price, the market does". I can feel their pain.

It is soon going to be more affordable for me to stay home and collect unemployment instead of filling my tank for the commute to work. The price of groceries and every other product is on the rise because this commodity more than doubled in the last seven years. Is there any other product that influences the cost of everything else, which has doubled in price in such a short time frame?

My question is this, why, in the very least aren't the American Oil companies being investigated for collusion? Or price fixing? Or whatever you want to call it when an industry, pretty much across the board has the same retail price in an area. There isn't a variance, other than tenths of a penny here or there. Surely one of the big three can do business a little cheaper than the next guy, maybe they found a way to process the oil a little less costly, or maybe they have a lower overhead, where is the price war for gas? What may be lost in margin percentage, most certainly would be made up in volume.

The economy is crumbling and fingers are being pointed at factors like inflation, the housing industry collapse, the lending crisis or overseas competition. I can tell you this, eight years ago oil prices were lower, by half, and the economy was fairly stable. Did the war run up the price? Maybe. Did more demand raise the cost per barrel? Possibly. We can be sure of one thing, it does seem awfully silly for congress to investigate steroid use in Major League Baseball when our President is flagrantly disregarding the law and constitution, a war and loss of life continues on that was begun under false pretenses and the middle and lower class citizens of this country are being pushed to the brink. Six hundred dollar rebates are not 'relief' when your home is being foreclosed on, or when you lose your job. I think lower oil prices may help things quite a bit though.

Fuck big oil, fuck their margins, fuck the market and fuck our ex oil-man President, the congress and corrupt administration.

(Previous post regarding congressional dead end testimony from the oil companies,
Congress Asking Big Oil To Answer: "Why Do You Need Free Money With Billion Dollar Profits?")

Skepticism And Trust

Posted by BGH

~
Often, because of the incessant skepticism I apply to nearly everything, I am accused of being distrustful. I don’t view it that way; I just require proof when most others do not.

I have never been much of a credulous person and most times I find myself questioning even the smallest minutia, nothing is beyond scrutiny. If someone describes for me a particular news event, though I believe them, I look it up to be sure they got the facts right. If a doctor diagnosis my seasonal sneezing as allergies, I heed his advice but I also look it up to verify my symptoms match. If someone tells me they got the bolt tight enough, though stood there and watched them perform the work, I put the wrench on it to see if it budges a little more. I simply just have to verify, for my own sanity, what I have been told is true. Exhausting as it may seem, this drive for proof, is my path to reality.

I don’t like this behavior being called distrust.

Skepticism to me is inquisitiveness. It is a want to learn and verify through data, even regarding things we already ‘know’. It is my way of not being duped, deluded or diverted. I may take the wrong position on an issue but it won’t be because I have been fooled, it will be because I applied some sort of bias. I may apply faulty reasoning to a dilemma, but I will have at least applied SOME reasoning. Granted, there is always the chance of deception, but in most cases the lies will be detected and dispelled.

I am not saying my way is better, but that it works for me. I feel safe relying on my skepticism to lead me through life and, though I trust certain people, it doesn't mean I will refrain from verifying something they purport to be true.
----

Information Suppression - A Danger To All

Posted by BGH

~
In the democratic and free society, as established by the founders of this nation, The United States of America, censorship and suppression of knowledge should not be tolerated. We cannot allow the government to control independent information sources and effectively water down or completely redact information. When we turn a blind eye and allow this to happen we will no longer have a shoulder to cry on or a pot to piss in when propaganda is utilized to manipulate us.

This is the second post in the last four hours where I am ranting about a government action to control what we hear, read or see. First the story of how any search term regarding abortion was blocked from an international health site, and now how a fallen soldier's Wikipedia page created by his friends, was edited by someone at The Pentagon to remove any reference that he was gay.

Fortunately, there are those of us who do care, we will stand up and speak up. JCE and I are hopefully going to be working on a letter campaign, which we will post here with downloadable letters that you can effectively sign and send to your Senators, Representatives or other relevant parties, we may even compile a list of email addresses for easier use. More information will be forthcoming when we have something worked out.

I hope more of you will speak up, even if it is just to sign the letter and send it on, we need to make it known that this type of manipulation will not be tolerated.

For more information about fighting censorship visit this site.

Don't Be Inquisitive And Certainly Don't Smell A Marker

Posted by BGH

~
Hypersensitivity is generally a result of exposure to some real threat that we expand and become obsessed with preventing. Which is certainly the case when an 8 year-old gets suspended and the school removes all permanent markers because of purported "huffing"(link).

How many of us sat in art class and 'smelled' the markers because of an interesting odor? We had no real intention of getting high, actually quite the opposite, the smell was just different and 'weird'. Same thing goes for "White-Out".

Now, with an ever increasing effort by hypersensitive parents, administrators and legislators, nearly any chance of so-called danger is immediately jumped upon and over reacted to with fervor. A toxicologist in the story cited above discredits the school's theory the child was trying to become "intoxicated" by the smelling the marker with this comment:

A toxicologist with the Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center says that claim is nearly impossible.

Dr. Eric Lavonas says non-toxic markers like Sharpies, while pungent-smelling, cannot be used to get high.

"I don't know whether it would be possible for a real overachiever to figure out a way to get high off them," Lavonas said. "But in regular use, it's just not something that's going to happen."

Yet, school officials saw fit to suspend the student and remove all permanent markers from the classroom. WTF? At least get the input from an expert before you react/overreact. There is zero threat that there will be a class full of drugged up 8 year-olds from smelling a markers, there isn't an indication of danger at all.

Why the overreaction? Can it be blamed on our litigious society? School districts do not want to incur lawsuits, so they try to remove any hint of risk, before it becomes an issue. Society as whole has demonstrated time and time again that, they expect to be insulated in a harm-free bubble, no matter if there is any real liability in incidents, someone will pay.

So, we now have a nanny-state where we are being over-protected from OURSELVES. In honor of 8-year-old Eathan Harris, I am sitting here contently smelling my Sharpie, don't tell the Adams School District 50.

Wake up people!
----

The Power Of... 'Prayer'??? NO!

Posted by BGH

~
Having spent the last two days in the hospital with an ill relative and another close relative diagnosed with breast cancer recently, the subject of praying has popped up over and over.

I am not going to blast the well wishers with a laundry list of ways that prayer fails, at the end of the day their wish is the same as mine, that the loved one recovers. But I do wonder, what good, what benefit do they really feel can come from clasping ones hands? There certainly are those in much more dire need of help, there certainly are billions around the world asking for the same thing from their god and as almost any believer will tell you, god has a plan and his 'will', will be done regardless.

So, why even play this begging game? Why not ask more questions of the physicians, stay diligent with care and medicines and rely on what has been proven to be effective... modern medicine?

We have no evidence that prayer is anything more than wishful thinking, and if you believe in the omnipotent creator and have 'faith' as you claim, let him decide your fate and allow the doctors do their work without giving credit to the invisible 'decider'?
----

Congress Asking Big Oil To Answer: "Why Do You Need Free Money With Billion Dollar Profits?"

Posted by BGH

~
Congress, after finally getting enough heat from constituents, is calling on representatives from the five largest U.S. oil companies to Capitol Hill to answer a few questions.

It seems that while posting record profits each quarter (in the tens of billions of dollars), the companies still find it necessary to vehemently fight to retain billion-dollar government tax breaks. With President Bush threatening to veto any legislation that may bring to an end to this form of corporate welfare, congress appears to be pressing ahead with its inquiry.

Many people will argue that oil prices are controlled by the trade price of crude, they almost seem content with rising prices of gas and everything affected by $4.00 a gallon fuel (which is literally ‘everything’). Although, a growing population would like answers regarding profits during the last seven years and the $18 billion special breaks these companies have received while posting a cumulative $123 billion in profits last year.

I sincerely hope congress can get a handle on this clusterfuck and make some headway.
----

The U.N. Campaign Against Free Speech

Posted by BGH

~
In recent years it appears that the United Nations is actively campaigning against the right to free speech set forth by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19) adopted in 1948 by the U.N. General Assembly. It almost seems as if the current U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon would like to see Article 19 revised and the definition of "free expression" to only include speech that will not offend the much too fragile doctrines, and sensibilities of religious zealots.

With the release of Geert Wilders film, "Fitna" (this is a link to the film if you wish to view it), the U.N. condemned the movie claiming 'social responsibility' must be used to meter free expression, and called the film anti-Muslim hate speech. The thing is, Mr. Ban appears to obfuscate the definition of free expression. This term does not imply the right to not be offended, it does not make special accommodations for religion, nor does it protect one's delicate sensibilities. Free expression includes all speech, even that with which I disagree or find hateful, and that which others may disagree with or find hateful.

I may not agree with a Ku Klux Klan member's anti-black rant, a Muslim diatribe of Jew-hate or a Christian pastor's rant against the ungodly atheists, but I will do all that I can to stand up for their right to say it. THAT is free expression. A restrained or censored speech is not a free speech and in a free society nothing is taboo or off-limits, even religious proclivities.

So, in regards to Article 19 of the U.N.'s own document, Mr. Ban is failing his post as Secretary-General and furthermore overlooking many other human rights violations by the same religions he is so vehemently protecting. Article 5 of the same document says this:

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

How many Islamic theocracies around the globe do you suppose are guilty of violating this basic human right, yet hinder free-expression as Mr. Ban would prefer? Maybe it is necessary for the Secretary-General to withdraw from his post if he cannot, and will not, uphold the binding document of the international organization he now heads.

Hypocrisy is offensive to me Mr. Ban, shall you issue a resolution condemning it?
----