Bush Heckled by Avian Protester

Alright, I admit that the bird may have been a fan of Bush in reality. A rude and careless fan at best. However, I have to presume that even Bush supporters aren't this careless around the leader of the "free" world, and it was instead a minor but accurately aimed protest, instead. On the other hand, perhaps even nature itself has turned against the American "decider" and someone was fortunate enough to have caught the first attack.

This is what rednecks watch, Brian.

A clip from the ever hilarious Family Guy show, providing a glimpse into...well, you ought to see for yourself. (This is particularly and perhaps only funny if you a fan of Carl Sagan or have watched his long adored television series from the 1980, Cosmos.)

You're excommunicated! OK, maybe...not really...

Is the pope truly infallible? Sure, after his Secretariat of State "cleans" the transcript.

In this case, as MSNBC.com reports, Benedict had given a clear, "Yes...It is part of the (canon law) code," in answer to a reporter's question as to whether Mexican legislators who legalized abortion should be considered excommunicated. In a transcript released today, the "yes" was curiously missing after the Vatican fielded disgruntled reaction ever since the pope's response first hit the news. Apparently other changes were made as well, muting the response into...infallibility, we can only suppose.

Still, the best quote from the article, hands down, comes from Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao (though somehow I don't believe he is the first to coin the phrase) who remarked, "If men got pregnant, I'm sure this question would have been resolved a long time ago."

Playlists for the Democratic and Republican Presidential Debates

Democratic Presidential Debate

(9 videos from the debate on 4/26/07)



Republican Presidential Debate

(10 videos from the debate on 5/03/07)

Conservative Christians buck PBS for series on atheism

On May 4th, PBS will be showing a three part documentary on atheism that has raised the hackles of some within the Christian Right. Describing it as "demagogic and propagandistic" (sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it--browse the comment section of this blog's article Who is afraid of the Big, Bad Dawkins? if you don't know what I mean), it is amazing how threatening a documentary like this can apparently be to those of the firmly Right. Curiously, that seems to be the cue as to how they generate their own reaction, such as Janice Crouse who is quoted in a CBSNews.com article about the atheism series, and less than subtly threatens what is purportedly at stake by saying,"...airing the program gives credibility and cohesiveness to individuals who seek to undermine the beliefs and values on which democracy and the American dream are founded."

Right. That's the collective atheist goal. Not to mention, we're lacking credibility and so-called cohesiveness, even as Crouse is commenting on a documentary which details the long history of atheism and its pronounced intellectual and rational personalities. As though we just sprouted out of the ground with tin foil hats and all sort of wild and crazy ideas, bent on a (likely communist...can't you hear it under her breath?) goal of bringing down the American democracy.

I swear, Christians can be such simple-minded brutes who reflexively reject any sort of rational inspection or intellectual contemplation of anything that can be seen as threatening to their own world view and philosophy. Real open-minded folk, eh? I suppose, at least for those less-than-moderate Christians such as Crouse, the simple-minded sort of 'good vs. evil' and 'with us or against us' mentality is a powerful draw toward the conservative forms of Christianity they incessantly buzz about.

Giuliani incites, "Expect another 9/11 if you elect a Democrat!"

Given the topic introduced in yesterday's blog entry, this new article regarding Rudy Giuliani is a perfect compliment and gives example of the use of fear psychology to persuade people toward an instinctive and conservative slant in their decision making, politically or otherwise.

Drumming up the horrific events of 9/11 while threatening that another attack of equivalent proportion is bound to follow, should we the American people vote in a Democrat, is exactly the sort of thing people need to slow down and thoroughly analyze rather than let their gut direct them. It also bares naked the state of American (and particularly Republican) politics and just how low it has stooped. We, the people, are under attack by not only terrorists but by our own politicians who work to inspire fear in us as well! And none with even a hint of admitted disgrace as they go.

All I can think to myself is, "When will the people begin to appreciate reasoned leaders rather than demagogues who ceaselessly browbeat us with their fear mongering and sharpened partisan politics? And where are our reasoned philosopher kings when we need them? For how long can this people and their country continue to endure this? How long will we?"

And Rudy? Shame on you. Shame!

read more | digg story

Liberals: Energetic and Resilient -- Conservatives: Rigid and Inhibited?

Psychology Today is currently featuring an article called The Ideological Animal. If you have a couple minutes on hand, spend them reading it. I think you'll agree that it proves to be interesting and insightful.

The earlier part of the article discusses a study, initiated in 1969 by two Berkeley professors, that uncovered an empirical correlation between childhood personality and political preference. Conservatives found the results stunning and less than flattering. Not a surprising response considering that the personality traits indicating later conservatism included "easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3." Liberalism, to the contrary, was marked in adults who, as children, were denoted as "self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient." I'm forced to wonder what this means for libertarians, like myself, who weren't highlighted in article. Perhaps we're exceptionally well balanced or a horrific mess; I feel in no position to measure.

Several points in the article reflect that conservatism, in some sense, is a reaction to ambiguity and reliance on authority to resolve or alleviate this ambiguity. Particularly when faced with fearful and uncertain situations, even traditionally liberal people will suddenly--sometimes even drastically--become like their conservative counterparts, even if only temporarily. The article hovers on the study of this effect at some length, analyzing how psychological terror and fear can cause this transition to occur.

In summary, this leaning toward conservatism reverberates a native irrationality stationed in each of us. A sort of irrationality and failure to rely on forethought that can be triggered, literally, by presenting a person with overwhelming and helpless feeling situations and stimuli. It makes sense to become conservative in the face of danger and peril, immediate or otherwise. After all, open-mindedness can bring its own sort of risk into any equation, and can be less than desirable when the equation might decide your own fate.

Still, the article concludes with an antidote to this resulting fear-born conservatism:

"People have two modes of thought," concludes Solomon. "There's the intuitive gut-level mode, which is what most of us are in most of the time. And then there's a rational analytic mode, which takes effort and attention."

The solution, then is remarkably simple. The effects of psychological terror on political decision making can be eliminated just by asking people to think rationally. Simply reminding us to use our heads, it turns out, can be enough to make us do it.

That is something to remember the next time you find yourself debating with a Christian, Creationist, or anyone else who may be leaning on gut-instinct rather than logical analysis and reasoning to decide their position. Ask them to go slowly, to use their head and really pause to think about the topic of concern. Maybe people will begin to rely more on their faculty of reason if we'd just gently yet consistently remind them to do so and, better yet, try to always lead by example.

The Secret Theism of Atheists

It never ceases to amaze me that so many theists are convinced that atheism somehow precludes a person from morality, or makes them incapable of comprehending and even validating concepts such as justice or ethics without somehow invoking a god. Usually their god, naturally. An example of this sort of thinking springs forth from an article written by Douglas Wilson, entitled Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Virginia Tech. A core argument he tries to make is summarized in this statement:

"The [ Virginia Tech ] rampage is an atrocity which Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all believe will never be put right. Justice will never be applied to it. And this lack of justice is just the way it is. So what is wrong with this lack of justice now? Given atheism, nothing is wrong with it."

Earlier in the article he poses his view that atheists are stuck with this detached position, except that "something" else permits us to escape our terminal apathy. He hints:

"My point is that atheists disapprove of this kind of thing [ of the Virginia Tech shooting ], but their disapproval cannot be derived from the premises of their atheism. It must therefore come from somewhere else."

Well golly, Wilson! You're nearly onto something there!

What Wilson fails to recognize is that many atheists do derive their disapproval and abhorrence of events like Virginia Tech as a logical conclusion of their atheism. And this is where our disapproval comes from; an unmitigated necessity to determine moral and ethical views based on the use of reason and logic. Those are the tools, the very best tools, we have to work with. We have neither religious fiction nor god-given dogma to provide those answers. We cannot disregard the tools of logic or the facts of reality because, well, we have no faith. If we did, we would have nothing at all.

This necessary approach is also what describes a tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech in even more abhorrent terms for the atheist, than for a theist such as Wilson. How so? For precisely the reason he cites in his article; Cho Seung-Hui and many of his victims are dead. We can never rectify nor bring about justice to resolve that permanent condition.

I can and do accept that, and I acknowledge that no one can change or lend justice to that fact. Dawkins and Harris do as well. We are doubly offended, saddened, and troubled because we recognize the permanence of the horror unleashed. Wilson simply can't understand how we manage. We must have a dark secret.

Wilson also can't seem to understand how we atheists don't merely fall into utter apathy about horrible tragedies, or why we don't listlessly shuffle away, left with the unsatisfactory consolation that the universe is simply cruel and uncaring to the plight of humanity. He feels compelled to suspect that we atheists secretly harbor attention with his deity to try and answer away a reality that, to him, rational atheism simply must be incapable of dealing with.

Meanwhile, Wilson and other theists openly grasp at a fictional form of justice that remains wholly unproven and is, in all probability, no more than mere fantasy and wish fulfillment on their part. Still, this hollow form of justice permits them to view tragedy in a notably different tone, no matter if it is true or not. For Wilson, Cho is already facing an eternity of hellfire and torment and as far as he is concerned, justice is being served even as I write this.

Wilson completely ignores the fact that atheists are not apathetic or uncaring, even if the universe itself is. That we atheists, unlike the universe, have a vested interest in the lives of ourselves and our fellow man. A moral, ethical, justice driven interest, even. What an incredible thought! Wilson thinks it an illusion.

Curiously, all these things that we can claim, as rational human beings and as rational atheists, is a position that Wilson cannot demonstrate as a native part of his own theology. This is due to his theology's insistence on faith, rather than reason, as the measure of confidence that indicates whether the theology is valid at all. The result is that, if the theist feels as the atheist does, that sense must come from something other than theology.

And indeed it does. Christians quite frequently use the faculty of reason to derive moral codes and positions that are not provided, or frequently run counter, to those expressed in the book they claim as their moral anchor--the bible.

For example, I don't know of any Christian who thinks that we should stone to death unruly and disrespectful children, even though the bible expresses just such a penalty. Nor do most of the Christians I know believe that we should take a homosexual out and stone them to death, yet another "moral code" and penalty clearly outlined, even familiar to many Christians. This, a blatant admission, indirect as it may be, that the bible is not in fact as rational as they can be. The primary difference is that atheists rely on this tool, on rationality, full-time and by way of necessity, continuing to do so even when religious insensibility overtakes our theistic neighbors.

This explanation is likely not enough for Wilson, however. He has already provided his own, backwards and as erroneous as it may be, professing:

"But even the new atheists cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this. This is because they are created in the image of God, and they know better."

You just keep telling yourself that, Wilson, and maybe you can convince yourself it is true.