Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has denied that he knew anything about the firing of US attorneys for political reasons. I don't buy that for a New York minute.
But it really doesn't matter, now, does it? If he knew, he's culpable for allowing it to happen, and if he didn't, he's culpable for not knowing about it going on under his watch. Either way, he's in trouble.
30 March 2007
28 March 2007
Step 23
Dear Learned Pig,
I came across the following passage in the book 100 Simple Secrets of Happy People by David Niven. It is listed as "Step 23." What do you make of it?
- A Curious Reader
Don't Let Your Religious Beliefs Fade
Religion can show us the way in a world in which bad things happen. It can teach us that much of what we see is so complex we cannot understand why and how it occurred. (p. 42)
Dear Curious Reader,
Thank you for bringing this piece of mindless trash to my attention. Let's take it apart piece by piece.
"Religion can show us the way..."
Ok, wrong from the very start. Religion does NOT "show us the way"; it makes up a way. It encourages you to believe what you want to believe instead of believing what is rational. It values faith over reason and comfort over knowledge.
Any 'way' that religion 'shows you' is a path to ignorance. Religion insulates you from the truth, because the truth can be discomforting. Religion is a childish attempt by weak-minded people to project some sort of socially constructed meaning onto their contingent existences. But the fact that an idea is comforting doesn't make it true.
"... in a world in which bad things happen."
Aww, bad things happen? You poor little thing. Want a lolipop?
Actually, most people turn to religion as a metaphysical lolipop. It comforts them, because without the deluded belief that "all things happen for a reason," they wouldn't be able to deal with suffering.
Nobody likes the fact that bad things happen. That's why such things are called bad. But the mere fact that they happen means nothing in itself. The realization that the universe is indifferent to you is the first step towards living life for yourself.
"It can teach us that much of what we see is so complex we cannot understand why and how it occurred."
You know what's so complex that I cannot understand why and how it occurred? That fucking sentence. This man is as bad at writing as he is at thinking.
I suppose he's trying to say that religion teaches us that we cannot understand the world around us. He should try reading some books. Everything is rational - whether or not one is smart or brave enough to understand it.
So, dear reader, the idea that religion somehow makes life more meaningful is completely and utterly wrong. The advice I would give for a good life would read:
Don't Let Yourself Believe In Bullshit
Religion is a bunch of archaic, puerile nonsense designed to comfort the ignorant and the weak. Try learning about the world around you instead of explaining everything away with a bunch of ridiculous myths and outdated laws.
I came across the following passage in the book 100 Simple Secrets of Happy People by David Niven. It is listed as "Step 23." What do you make of it?
- A Curious Reader
Don't Let Your Religious Beliefs Fade
Religion can show us the way in a world in which bad things happen. It can teach us that much of what we see is so complex we cannot understand why and how it occurred. (p. 42)
Dear Curious Reader,
Thank you for bringing this piece of mindless trash to my attention. Let's take it apart piece by piece.
"Religion can show us the way..."
Ok, wrong from the very start. Religion does NOT "show us the way"; it makes up a way. It encourages you to believe what you want to believe instead of believing what is rational. It values faith over reason and comfort over knowledge.
Any 'way' that religion 'shows you' is a path to ignorance. Religion insulates you from the truth, because the truth can be discomforting. Religion is a childish attempt by weak-minded people to project some sort of socially constructed meaning onto their contingent existences. But the fact that an idea is comforting doesn't make it true.
"... in a world in which bad things happen."
Aww, bad things happen? You poor little thing. Want a lolipop?
Actually, most people turn to religion as a metaphysical lolipop. It comforts them, because without the deluded belief that "all things happen for a reason," they wouldn't be able to deal with suffering.
Nobody likes the fact that bad things happen. That's why such things are called bad. But the mere fact that they happen means nothing in itself. The realization that the universe is indifferent to you is the first step towards living life for yourself.
"It can teach us that much of what we see is so complex we cannot understand why and how it occurred."
You know what's so complex that I cannot understand why and how it occurred? That fucking sentence. This man is as bad at writing as he is at thinking.
I suppose he's trying to say that religion teaches us that we cannot understand the world around us. He should try reading some books. Everything is rational - whether or not one is smart or brave enough to understand it.
So, dear reader, the idea that religion somehow makes life more meaningful is completely and utterly wrong. The advice I would give for a good life would read:
Don't Let Yourself Believe In Bullshit
Religion is a bunch of archaic, puerile nonsense designed to comfort the ignorant and the weak. Try learning about the world around you instead of explaining everything away with a bunch of ridiculous myths and outdated laws.
23 March 2007
20 March 2007
Brutally Redundant
Reading a history book the other day, I came across the sentence "She was brutally raped." 'Brutally raped' or 'brutal rape' has become a phrase almost common enough to be cliche, but isn't it redundant? I mean, can one really imagine a rape that is not brutal? What would differentiate a brutal rape from, say, a sympathetic rape?
Brutality is an inherent quality of rape, a necessary condition for forcefully violating another human being. I think if the author had just left it at "she was raped", we'd still have an accurate picture of the wretchedly inhumane behavior to which he was referring.
Brutality is an inherent quality of rape, a necessary condition for forcefully violating another human being. I think if the author had just left it at "she was raped", we'd still have an accurate picture of the wretchedly inhumane behavior to which he was referring.
17 March 2007
Only Religion
The Onion's March 7 horoscope for Aries:
Remember: While faith can move mountains, only religion is capable of making you feel guilty for doing so.
Remember: While faith can move mountains, only religion is capable of making you feel guilty for doing so.
14 March 2007
Literally?
So Anne told me that tonight on NPR, some woman talking about a book had this to say: "And she quite literally poured her heart out onto these pages..."
Quite literally poured her heart out? Really? You're telling me that, as she was writing, she carved her own beating heart out of her chest and dumped it onto the sheet of paper? Wow. Personally, when I need tips on writing, I tend to turn to Strunk and White rather than ancient Mayan sacrificial rites.
People sometimes think that "literally" is just a word that adds emphasis, like "really" or "seriously". It's not. Use it only if the imagery you're employing should be interpreted without any metaphorical or idiomatic layers of meaning.
Quite literally poured her heart out? Really? You're telling me that, as she was writing, she carved her own beating heart out of her chest and dumped it onto the sheet of paper? Wow. Personally, when I need tips on writing, I tend to turn to Strunk and White rather than ancient Mayan sacrificial rites.
People sometimes think that "literally" is just a word that adds emphasis, like "really" or "seriously". It's not. Use it only if the imagery you're employing should be interpreted without any metaphorical or idiomatic layers of meaning.
13 March 2007
General Pace's Upbringing
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, believes that homosexuality is immoral. He doesn't give a reason why; he just declares that he believes it so. As if calling it immoral proves it to be immoral!
That's not an argument, that's a prejudice. But he seems to think that it is an argument, because he backs it up by saying that he believes gayness to be immoral because that's the way he was brought up.
So the outline of his 'argument' runs thus:
Premise 1: I was brought up to think that homosexuality is immoral.
Premise 2 (implied): If I was brought up to believe something, than it must be true.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is immoral.
Bulletproof logic, no?
Since he's so concerned with immorality, I wonder if he considers it wrong to weaken our ability to fight terrorism by dismissing over 50 Arabic specialists from the military for being attracted to members of their own sex.
I'm sure that's a perfectly acceptable policy. Clearly, our capability to understand the enemies' language is secondary to keeping the military loyal to the standards of General Pace's personal upbringing.
That's not an argument, that's a prejudice. But he seems to think that it is an argument, because he backs it up by saying that he believes gayness to be immoral because that's the way he was brought up.
So the outline of his 'argument' runs thus:
Premise 1: I was brought up to think that homosexuality is immoral.
Premise 2 (implied): If I was brought up to believe something, than it must be true.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is immoral.
Bulletproof logic, no?
Since he's so concerned with immorality, I wonder if he considers it wrong to weaken our ability to fight terrorism by dismissing over 50 Arabic specialists from the military for being attracted to members of their own sex.
I'm sure that's a perfectly acceptable policy. Clearly, our capability to understand the enemies' language is secondary to keeping the military loyal to the standards of General Pace's personal upbringing.
10 March 2007
The Real American Idols
Our culture idolizes two kinds of people: people who confess things, and people who 'tell it like it is'.
07 March 2007
Dead Dogs and Dimwits
BBC: Dog Meat Popular in Nigeria
"Eating dog meat gives you a special protection against the most potent juju (charm)," [a seller of dog meat] claims, reeling off the benefits of dog meat. "Dog meat also improves your sex life. And if you eat dog meat, you cannot be poisoned."
Apparently, though, eating dog meat is unable to cure terminal stupidity.
Eating dog meat prevents malaria, improves libido, protects against poison, and even makes you run faster? Wow! That all sounds too good to be true! Probably because it IS too good to be true!
The doctor quoted in the article points out that these supposed virtues of dog meat are not supported by any real medical evidence. But tell that to the people who like eating dogs, and they'll smile, shake their heads, and proudly dismiss your learned opinion. For you see, although they don't have medical degrees, they do have faith. Faith, the main ingredient in religious belief, is also required for belief in superstition. Faith allows you to believe whatever you want, without having any reason to believe it.
So a veritable canine genocide will continue to take place in Nigeria, simply because ignorant people have convinced themselves that dog flesh has magically healthful properties.
Oh, and of course, it tastes good. When asked about the flavor, Mr. Nnkwo was quoted in the article as responding "Oh la la! You don't know what you are missing." He's right, I don't. I do know what he is missing, though: a moral conscience and a basic knowledge of biology.
"Eating dog meat gives you a special protection against the most potent juju (charm)," [a seller of dog meat] claims, reeling off the benefits of dog meat. "Dog meat also improves your sex life. And if you eat dog meat, you cannot be poisoned."
Apparently, though, eating dog meat is unable to cure terminal stupidity.
Eating dog meat prevents malaria, improves libido, protects against poison, and even makes you run faster? Wow! That all sounds too good to be true! Probably because it IS too good to be true!
The doctor quoted in the article points out that these supposed virtues of dog meat are not supported by any real medical evidence. But tell that to the people who like eating dogs, and they'll smile, shake their heads, and proudly dismiss your learned opinion. For you see, although they don't have medical degrees, they do have faith. Faith, the main ingredient in religious belief, is also required for belief in superstition. Faith allows you to believe whatever you want, without having any reason to believe it.
So a veritable canine genocide will continue to take place in Nigeria, simply because ignorant people have convinced themselves that dog flesh has magically healthful properties.
Oh, and of course, it tastes good. When asked about the flavor, Mr. Nnkwo was quoted in the article as responding "Oh la la! You don't know what you are missing." He's right, I don't. I do know what he is missing, though: a moral conscience and a basic knowledge of biology.
06 March 2007
Religion and Progress
Tonight's guest on the Colbert Report was Mara Vanderslice, a consultant who encourages Democrats to appeal to religious voters. Besides having an excellent last name, she made some valuable points. For instance, she said that voters of faith constitute a huge demographic: 80% of the US population believes in god. She also explained that since Democratic politicians are also religious, their party does not deserve the reputation of being anti-religion.
And then she said something else: she asserted that people of faith have been behind every progressive movement in American history.
This is a lie.
The notion that religion has been a driving force in the history of social progress is totally absurd. It is, however, a widely accepted misperception, and this is perhaps due to the subtlety of the logical fallacy it presents.
It is indeed true that there have always existed some religious people who have championed social progress; the fallacy here is to jump to the blanket statement, "Religious people have championed all social progress". This statement fails to reveal the whole picture: it disregards the groups of religious people who have opposed social progress, and it also disregards the groups of nonreligious people who have championed social progress.
Once one considers that there have always been religious people on both sides of social debates, it becomes clear that religion does as much harm as it does good. And once one considers that nonreligious people have also helped social progress, the role of faith becomes a moot point; clearly, religious belief was not a necessary factor, because it was a more specific element (social consciousness, ethical awareness, etc) that was driving positive change.
Take the abolition of slavery as an example. The religiously correct in this country love to point out how good Christian values were instrumental in changing people's minds and attitudes about slavery. But they conveniently forget or disregard the fact that religion was even more instrumental in attempts to defend the 'peculiar institution': southern Christian slaveholders used the curse of Canaan, for instance, to prove that God wants black people to serve white people. And there were prominent freethinkers - notably Horace Greeley - who did as much as any religious person in fighting for the freedom of blacks.
Women's suffrage is perhaps an even better example; religious rhetoric was used again and again to argue that the woman's place is in the home, but religious groups rarely came out to support women's rights.
And just look at the progressive movements of our own time! Only a liar or an idiot would argue that religious dogma is helping to support gay rights, or to champion the superiority of evolutionary science over superstitious bullshit.
In the end, I think any contributions that religion has provided to social progress would prove accidental. It is reason, and reason alone, that drives positive social change. Faith, which is the absence of reason, can only spread ignorance and suffering.
And then she said something else: she asserted that people of faith have been behind every progressive movement in American history.
This is a lie.
The notion that religion has been a driving force in the history of social progress is totally absurd. It is, however, a widely accepted misperception, and this is perhaps due to the subtlety of the logical fallacy it presents.
It is indeed true that there have always existed some religious people who have championed social progress; the fallacy here is to jump to the blanket statement, "Religious people have championed all social progress". This statement fails to reveal the whole picture: it disregards the groups of religious people who have opposed social progress, and it also disregards the groups of nonreligious people who have championed social progress.
Once one considers that there have always been religious people on both sides of social debates, it becomes clear that religion does as much harm as it does good. And once one considers that nonreligious people have also helped social progress, the role of faith becomes a moot point; clearly, religious belief was not a necessary factor, because it was a more specific element (social consciousness, ethical awareness, etc) that was driving positive change.
Take the abolition of slavery as an example. The religiously correct in this country love to point out how good Christian values were instrumental in changing people's minds and attitudes about slavery. But they conveniently forget or disregard the fact that religion was even more instrumental in attempts to defend the 'peculiar institution': southern Christian slaveholders used the curse of Canaan, for instance, to prove that God wants black people to serve white people. And there were prominent freethinkers - notably Horace Greeley - who did as much as any religious person in fighting for the freedom of blacks.
Women's suffrage is perhaps an even better example; religious rhetoric was used again and again to argue that the woman's place is in the home, but religious groups rarely came out to support women's rights.
And just look at the progressive movements of our own time! Only a liar or an idiot would argue that religious dogma is helping to support gay rights, or to champion the superiority of evolutionary science over superstitious bullshit.
In the end, I think any contributions that religion has provided to social progress would prove accidental. It is reason, and reason alone, that drives positive social change. Faith, which is the absence of reason, can only spread ignorance and suffering.
04 March 2007
The Conditions for God
"'God himself cannot live without wise people,' said Luther with good reason. But 'God can exist even less without unwise people' - that our good Luther did not say."
-Friederich Nietzsche, The Gay Science
-Friederich Nietzsche, The Gay Science
02 March 2007
Compassion Towards Animals: An Enlightenment View
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Enlightenment philosopher and vegetarian, eloquently wrote in the preface to his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1754) on how compassion and ethical treatment should not distinguish between humans and animals:
"Meditating on the first and most simple operations of the human soul, I believe I perceive in it two principles that are prior to reason, of which one makes us ardently interested in our well-being and our self-preservation, and the other inspires in us a natural repugnance to seeing any sentient being, especially our fellow-man, perish or suffer.
"In this way one is not obliged to make a man a philosopher before making him a man. His duties toward others are not uniquely dictated to him by the belated lessons of wisdom; and as long as he does not resist the inner impulse of compassion, he will never harm another man or even another sentient being, except in the legitimate instance where, if his preservation were involved, he is obliged to give preference to himself. By this means, an end can also be made to the ancient disputes regarding the participation of animals in the natural law. For it is clear that, lacking intelligence and liberty, they cannot recognize this law; but since they share to some extent to our nature by virtue of the sentient quality with which they are endowed, one will judge that they should also participate in natural right, and that man is subject to some sort of duties toward them. It seems, in effect, that if I am obliged not to do any harm to my fellow man, it is less because he is a rational being than because he is a sentient being: a quality that, since it is common to both animal and men, should at least give the former the right not to be needlessly mistreated by the latter."
[Translation by Donald A. Cress]
"Meditating on the first and most simple operations of the human soul, I believe I perceive in it two principles that are prior to reason, of which one makes us ardently interested in our well-being and our self-preservation, and the other inspires in us a natural repugnance to seeing any sentient being, especially our fellow-man, perish or suffer.
"In this way one is not obliged to make a man a philosopher before making him a man. His duties toward others are not uniquely dictated to him by the belated lessons of wisdom; and as long as he does not resist the inner impulse of compassion, he will never harm another man or even another sentient being, except in the legitimate instance where, if his preservation were involved, he is obliged to give preference to himself. By this means, an end can also be made to the ancient disputes regarding the participation of animals in the natural law. For it is clear that, lacking intelligence and liberty, they cannot recognize this law; but since they share to some extent to our nature by virtue of the sentient quality with which they are endowed, one will judge that they should also participate in natural right, and that man is subject to some sort of duties toward them. It seems, in effect, that if I am obliged not to do any harm to my fellow man, it is less because he is a rational being than because he is a sentient being: a quality that, since it is common to both animal and men, should at least give the former the right not to be needlessly mistreated by the latter."
[Translation by Donald A. Cress]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
