CNN: Vatican issues ten commandments for drivers
Out of touch with reality as usual, the Vatican has issued its official stance regarding the moral use of automobiles. The document is full of weak, sententious 'commandments' that should have already been covered by a driver's manual and plain common sense. Except, of course, for the recommendation that you pray before or while you drive. As if that drunk driver wouldn't have hit you if only you had recited the Lord's Prayer at the stoplight.
So keep your eyes open for people who are DWP: Driving While Pious. They're even more dangerous than cell phone drivers; at least people who drive while on their cell phones are talking to somebody real, not having an imaginary conversation with a man in the sky who they think is magically protecting them.
20 June 2007
18 June 2007
Ole
AP News: Spanish matador back in the ring
Bullfighting. There are many who would call it a beautiful sport. But I fail to see the beauty or sportsmanship in leading an innocent creature into a stadium, taunting it for a while with a red bedsheet, and then heartlessly stabbing the poor thing.
Now don't get me wrong - I'm usually quite tolerant of other cultures' views and customs. But bullfighting is obviously and patently cruel. Why have a 'sport' that involves slaying an animal? Why not kick a fucking ball around?
I reserve no sympathy whatever for anyone who dies while participating in this barbaric and primitive bloodsport. It's only fair that the bull pay you the same courtesy that you would give it. I only wish it happened that way more often.
Bullfighting. There are many who would call it a beautiful sport. But I fail to see the beauty or sportsmanship in leading an innocent creature into a stadium, taunting it for a while with a red bedsheet, and then heartlessly stabbing the poor thing.
Now don't get me wrong - I'm usually quite tolerant of other cultures' views and customs. But bullfighting is obviously and patently cruel. Why have a 'sport' that involves slaying an animal? Why not kick a fucking ball around?
I reserve no sympathy whatever for anyone who dies while participating in this barbaric and primitive bloodsport. It's only fair that the bull pay you the same courtesy that you would give it. I only wish it happened that way more often.
12 June 2007
Tear Down This Myth
Imagine that I have a bowl of fruit on my kitchen table. I walk into the kitchen and proclaim, "Bowl of fruit - I command you to rot!". Lo and behold, a week later the fruit is brown and rotten. Clearly, my strongly worded imperative resulted in the fruit's decomposition.
Sound specious? Try this one. Twenty years ago today, Ronald Reagan gave a speech in Berlin in which he exhorted Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". A couple years later, the Berlin Wall indeed came down. Therefore, Reagan's uncompromising rhetoric and hard-line policies caused the fall of the Berlin Wall and led to our ultimate victory in the Cold War.
These two stories are textbook examples of the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc - 'after this, therefore because of this'. Such a fallacy asserts that because A occured before B, A must have caused B. This is a fallacy because the simple fact that A happened before B is not sufficient evidence to conclude that A actually caused B. Many other factors could have been at work.
In the story of the fruit bowl, my command had nothing to do with the organic processes that would lead to the fruit's decomposition. And the case of Reagan's speech is similar: although he was in the right place at the right time to make it look like his leadership hastened the end of the Cold War, his efforts had little to do with the developments that would lead to the opening of the Berlin Wall and the end of the USSR.
The popular argument for Reagan’s cold-war legacy, which is embraced by American conservatives as gospel truth, usually goes like this: Reagan won the Cold War for the USA and the Free World. He defeated the Soviet Union peacefully and brought freedom and democracy to the citizens of the Soviet Bloc. He accomplished all this by drawing a hard anti-communist line in foreign policy, fueling the arms race to exacerbate Soviet economic problems, and making stringent, no-nonsense demands for arms reductions and for freedom for citizens under communist rule. A true hero and visionary, he made the world a safer place.
But in reality, Reagan’s hard-line, anti-communist policies didn’t accomplish all that much; in fact, they may have even prolonged the Cold War. For the entire first term of Reagan’s presidency, despite the staunch ideological stances of Reagan and Thatcher, no progress whatsoever was made in ‘winning’ the Cold War for the West. There were no talks or agreements between the superpowers, and Reagan’s harebrained SDI program (Star Wars), intended to scare the Soviets into overspending on the arms race, did not have the desired effect (the only significant changes in the Soviet military budget during the 80s were reductions). In addition, Reagan’s penchant for flexing nuclear muscles alienated the USSR, and once again made our sudden extinction as a species a distinct possibility (and it didn’t help that Reagan’s Soviet counterparts were equally wizened, cantankerous and obstinate).
In 1985, however, things took a turn for the better – not because of Reagan, but because of Mikhail Sergeyevic Gorbachev. Gorbachev became leader of the Soviet Union and, on his initiative, the leaders of both countries met for the first time since before Reagan came to office. At the summit meetings, Gorbachev advocated arms reduction, an unheard-of step in the Cold War peace process. Gorbachev was the first Soviet leader since Krushchev to realize that the arms race had been harming the Soviet economy, and he sought peace with the West in the interest of mutual survival and progress. Progressive change was not limited to foreign policy; behind the Iron Curtain, Gorbachev strengthened civil liberties (such as freedom of speech), and allowed the Eastern Bloc more leeway in self-governance. These developments, intended to strengthen the USSR, ironically ended up destroying it, but it would be wrong to attribute such effects to Reagan.
So if you want to award credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall, blame glasnost and perestroika. Blame Soviet bureaucratic incompetance. Blame a long-standing popular yearning east of the Iron Curtain for the freedoms enjoyed by the Western world. Blame the Soviet imbroglio in Afghanistan. Blame Mikhail Gorbachev. But don't give the credit to Ronald Reagan. Actor that he was, he just happened to be on stage at the right time to steal the limelight.
Sound specious? Try this one. Twenty years ago today, Ronald Reagan gave a speech in Berlin in which he exhorted Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". A couple years later, the Berlin Wall indeed came down. Therefore, Reagan's uncompromising rhetoric and hard-line policies caused the fall of the Berlin Wall and led to our ultimate victory in the Cold War.
These two stories are textbook examples of the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc - 'after this, therefore because of this'. Such a fallacy asserts that because A occured before B, A must have caused B. This is a fallacy because the simple fact that A happened before B is not sufficient evidence to conclude that A actually caused B. Many other factors could have been at work.
In the story of the fruit bowl, my command had nothing to do with the organic processes that would lead to the fruit's decomposition. And the case of Reagan's speech is similar: although he was in the right place at the right time to make it look like his leadership hastened the end of the Cold War, his efforts had little to do with the developments that would lead to the opening of the Berlin Wall and the end of the USSR.
The popular argument for Reagan’s cold-war legacy, which is embraced by American conservatives as gospel truth, usually goes like this: Reagan won the Cold War for the USA and the Free World. He defeated the Soviet Union peacefully and brought freedom and democracy to the citizens of the Soviet Bloc. He accomplished all this by drawing a hard anti-communist line in foreign policy, fueling the arms race to exacerbate Soviet economic problems, and making stringent, no-nonsense demands for arms reductions and for freedom for citizens under communist rule. A true hero and visionary, he made the world a safer place.
But in reality, Reagan’s hard-line, anti-communist policies didn’t accomplish all that much; in fact, they may have even prolonged the Cold War. For the entire first term of Reagan’s presidency, despite the staunch ideological stances of Reagan and Thatcher, no progress whatsoever was made in ‘winning’ the Cold War for the West. There were no talks or agreements between the superpowers, and Reagan’s harebrained SDI program (Star Wars), intended to scare the Soviets into overspending on the arms race, did not have the desired effect (the only significant changes in the Soviet military budget during the 80s were reductions). In addition, Reagan’s penchant for flexing nuclear muscles alienated the USSR, and once again made our sudden extinction as a species a distinct possibility (and it didn’t help that Reagan’s Soviet counterparts were equally wizened, cantankerous and obstinate).
In 1985, however, things took a turn for the better – not because of Reagan, but because of Mikhail Sergeyevic Gorbachev. Gorbachev became leader of the Soviet Union and, on his initiative, the leaders of both countries met for the first time since before Reagan came to office. At the summit meetings, Gorbachev advocated arms reduction, an unheard-of step in the Cold War peace process. Gorbachev was the first Soviet leader since Krushchev to realize that the arms race had been harming the Soviet economy, and he sought peace with the West in the interest of mutual survival and progress. Progressive change was not limited to foreign policy; behind the Iron Curtain, Gorbachev strengthened civil liberties (such as freedom of speech), and allowed the Eastern Bloc more leeway in self-governance. These developments, intended to strengthen the USSR, ironically ended up destroying it, but it would be wrong to attribute such effects to Reagan.
So if you want to award credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall, blame glasnost and perestroika. Blame Soviet bureaucratic incompetance. Blame a long-standing popular yearning east of the Iron Curtain for the freedoms enjoyed by the Western world. Blame the Soviet imbroglio in Afghanistan. Blame Mikhail Gorbachev. But don't give the credit to Ronald Reagan. Actor that he was, he just happened to be on stage at the right time to steal the limelight.
A friend I made at the Bronx Zoo
Those eyes are so strikingly human. I wonder if he was thinking about how my eyes were so strikingly apelike.
06 June 2007
CPR
You know what the motto of the New York Police Department is? It's written on all of their cop cars: "CPR: Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect." Three words that mean exactly the same thing. I mean, could one really be respectful without being courteous? Could one be professional without being respectful?
You can tell that they thought of the catchy abbreviation before they came up with the words themselves. Here's a better version of CPR: Control Police Redundancy!
You can tell that they thought of the catchy abbreviation before they came up with the words themselves. Here's a better version of CPR: Control Police Redundancy!
03 June 2007
Olympic Politics
During tonight's Democratic primary debate on CNN, the candidates were asked what they would do to stop the Darfur genocide. Bill Richardson was the first to answer, saying that among other things, he would threaten to boycott the 2008 Olympics in China, because the Chinese acquire much of their oil from Sudan. To threaten to boycott the Olympics, he argues, would send China a message to stop funding genocide.
The US has made the mistake of an Olympic boycott before. When Jimmy Carter had the US sit out the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, he not only cheated our own athletes, but he undermined the very meaning of the Olympic Games themselves.
The Olympics were first held in Greece in 776 BC, and they continued almost without interruption for the next millennium. In an age when warfare among city-states was the rule rather than the exception, the Olympic Games provided a rare break in the bloodshed: a time when Greeks put down the spear and the shield, picked up the javelin and the discus, and came together - not to fight, but to compete.
The Olympics were thus about putting aside political and geographical differences. And that is the spirit of the modern games as well - and in more than just theory. For instance, the US participated in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, when Germany was under Nazi control. What would have happened if FDR had decided to have America sit out? Jesse Owens never would have been able to embarrass the Nazis by proving that for all their talk about being the master race, they certainly weren't the masters of the footrace.
And one must consider the athletes themselves. These people dedicate their lives to a sport, in order that every four years they have a shot at personal glory, national recognition, and international victory. It is unfair to deny them their dreams, and to render their daily efforts moot, in the name of a squabble about international trade.
And what better way to stick it to a country than to enter the games and beat them on their own turf? Look at not only Jesse Owens, but at the famous 1980 Winter Olympics hockey finals, when the USA beat the USSR in a surprise upset. That victory was huge. What further victories could we have won if Carter had let us trounce the Russkies in the summer games as well? Gold medals speak louder than boycotts.
Sitting out the games was a bad idea in 1980, and it remains a bad idea. Bill Richardson has visited the Darfur region; he should have less petty and more efficacious proposals for a solution.
The US has made the mistake of an Olympic boycott before. When Jimmy Carter had the US sit out the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, he not only cheated our own athletes, but he undermined the very meaning of the Olympic Games themselves.
The Olympics were first held in Greece in 776 BC, and they continued almost without interruption for the next millennium. In an age when warfare among city-states was the rule rather than the exception, the Olympic Games provided a rare break in the bloodshed: a time when Greeks put down the spear and the shield, picked up the javelin and the discus, and came together - not to fight, but to compete.
The Olympics were thus about putting aside political and geographical differences. And that is the spirit of the modern games as well - and in more than just theory. For instance, the US participated in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, when Germany was under Nazi control. What would have happened if FDR had decided to have America sit out? Jesse Owens never would have been able to embarrass the Nazis by proving that for all their talk about being the master race, they certainly weren't the masters of the footrace.
And one must consider the athletes themselves. These people dedicate their lives to a sport, in order that every four years they have a shot at personal glory, national recognition, and international victory. It is unfair to deny them their dreams, and to render their daily efforts moot, in the name of a squabble about international trade.
And what better way to stick it to a country than to enter the games and beat them on their own turf? Look at not only Jesse Owens, but at the famous 1980 Winter Olympics hockey finals, when the USA beat the USSR in a surprise upset. That victory was huge. What further victories could we have won if Carter had let us trounce the Russkies in the summer games as well? Gold medals speak louder than boycotts.
Sitting out the games was a bad idea in 1980, and it remains a bad idea. Bill Richardson has visited the Darfur region; he should have less petty and more efficacious proposals for a solution.
01 June 2007
Blind
"Haven't you noticed that all opinions without knowledge are ugly? The best of them are blind. Or does one who has a true opinion without knowledge seem any different than a blind man who just happens to be traveling on the right road?"
-Plato, The Republic, Book VI
-Plato, The Republic, Book VI
31 May 2007
Right on Redundant
I took this picture in Washington DC this past weekend. "Except authorized vehicles only"? Isn't 'only' implied in the word 'except'? That's bureaucratic redundancy for you!
26 May 2007
We Won!
BBC: Mars gets veggie status back
Mars has abandoned plans to use animal products in its chocolate, and has apologised to "upset" vegetarians.
The firm had said it would change the whey used in some of its products from a vegetarian source to one with traces of the animal enzyme, rennet.
Mars said it became "very clear, very quickly" that it had made a mistake.
"There are three million vegetarians in the UK and not only did we disappoint them, but we upset a lot of the consumers," [Mars said].
The Learned Pig applauds Mars's correction of what was indeed a grave mistake. Granted, this change of heart was induced by a threat to profits rather than a moral epiphany, but at least now I won't have to support the veal industry when I buy a Milky Way.
Now, if we can only get Junior Mints to stop including gelatin in their recipe, we'll be all set.
Mars has abandoned plans to use animal products in its chocolate, and has apologised to "upset" vegetarians.
The firm had said it would change the whey used in some of its products from a vegetarian source to one with traces of the animal enzyme, rennet.
Mars said it became "very clear, very quickly" that it had made a mistake.
"There are three million vegetarians in the UK and not only did we disappoint them, but we upset a lot of the consumers," [Mars said].
The Learned Pig applauds Mars's correction of what was indeed a grave mistake. Granted, this change of heart was induced by a threat to profits rather than a moral epiphany, but at least now I won't have to support the veal industry when I buy a Milky Way.
Now, if we can only get Junior Mints to stop including gelatin in their recipe, we'll be all set.
24 May 2007
Wall of Separation
Ever wonder where the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" comes from? It was coined by our nation's third president, who couldn't have made it any more clear that he didn't want religion mixing with politics:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1 January 1802
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1 January 1802
20 May 2007
English
BOISE, ID—The Idaho Legislature passed a unanimous resolution Monday declaring English the only language the elected assembly knows how to speak, write, or understand.
"We're putting into law a general feeling that everyone here has had for years: English is the only language we know, and English is the only language we want to know," Lt. Gov. James E. Risch said during a press conference outside the State Capitol building. "It's a good language, serves us well in matters of communication, and we can't think of any good reason to go around knowing some other language that we have no use for."
The legislature is expected to pass a separate resolution later this week officially declaring out-of-towners "suspicious."
16 May 2007
He should have prayed for lower cholesterol
Today we celebrate the passing of a man whose life was a blight on the moral and intellectual state of the nation. The Reverend Jerry Falwell is dead. For the past several decades, his puritanical morality, stunted intellect, and expansive waistline have made him the shining model of right wing evangelism. Who can forget his incisive commentaries on American immorality, like the time he told us all who was really to blame for 9/11:
The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen."
Brilliant. Falwell's other accomplishments included starting the Moral Majority, an organization that opposed the rights of anyone who was not a wealthy, white, straight, male Christian, and founding Liberty 'University', a place for especially backward Christians to insulate their ignorance from the kind of rational examination that is so pervasive in most other institutions of higher learning.
Goodbye, you obese Jesus-loving freak. You will be missed, but not by me.
The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen."
Brilliant. Falwell's other accomplishments included starting the Moral Majority, an organization that opposed the rights of anyone who was not a wealthy, white, straight, male Christian, and founding Liberty 'University', a place for especially backward Christians to insulate their ignorance from the kind of rational examination that is so pervasive in most other institutions of higher learning.
Goodbye, you obese Jesus-loving freak. You will be missed, but not by me.
15 May 2007
Milk Chocolate, Creamy Nougat, and Bovine Stomach Acid
Damn it. I used to love eating Snickers, Milky Way, and Twix. But now, if I want to eat any of those, I also have to eat the stomach of a tortured calf.
BBC: Mars starts using animal products
Masterfoods [owner of Mars chocolate] said it had started to use animal product rennet to make its chocolate products.
"If the customer is an extremely strict vegetarian, then we are sorry the products are no longer suitable, but a less strict vegetarian should enjoy our chocolate," said Paul Goalby, corporate affairs manager for Masterfoods.
A 'less strict vegetarian' should still be able to enjoy their chocolate, eh? Well, let's see what exactly this rennet stuff is:
Natural rennet is produced in the inner mucosa of the fourth stomach of young ruminants. These stomachs are a by-product of veal production.
Deep-frozen stomachs are milled and put into an extracting solution – in this solution the enzymes are extracted. The crude rennet extract is then activated by adding acid...
So rennet is extracted from the stomach of a veal calf - an animal that lived out its short, miserable existence in a narrow box, so that its soft, atrophied flesh could appeal to the palate of sophisticated diners.
I fail to see how anyone who considers him/herself to be a vegetarian - or even anyone who harbors an ounce of real compassion - could 'enjoy' a product made with such barbarous and vile methods.
Looks like I'll be a strict Hershey man from now on. No animals need to die in order for them to make their chocolate.
BBC: Mars starts using animal products
Masterfoods [owner of Mars chocolate] said it had started to use animal product rennet to make its chocolate products.
"If the customer is an extremely strict vegetarian, then we are sorry the products are no longer suitable, but a less strict vegetarian should enjoy our chocolate," said Paul Goalby, corporate affairs manager for Masterfoods.
A 'less strict vegetarian' should still be able to enjoy their chocolate, eh? Well, let's see what exactly this rennet stuff is:
Natural rennet is produced in the inner mucosa of the fourth stomach of young ruminants. These stomachs are a by-product of veal production.
Deep-frozen stomachs are milled and put into an extracting solution – in this solution the enzymes are extracted. The crude rennet extract is then activated by adding acid...
So rennet is extracted from the stomach of a veal calf - an animal that lived out its short, miserable existence in a narrow box, so that its soft, atrophied flesh could appeal to the palate of sophisticated diners.
I fail to see how anyone who considers him/herself to be a vegetarian - or even anyone who harbors an ounce of real compassion - could 'enjoy' a product made with such barbarous and vile methods.
Looks like I'll be a strict Hershey man from now on. No animals need to die in order for them to make their chocolate.
14 May 2007
Two H, One O, No Matter What You Pay For It
What's in a name? That which we call Dasani
By any other name would taste as refreshing....
Truly the biggest triumph of coporate marketing in the past 10-15 years has been the rise of the bottled water industry. Every day, millions of suckers buy water for a cost that is several thousand times its actual value, just because it comes in a plastic container and has some artist's depiction of a mountain spring on the label.
Guess what? The water that comes out of my tap is H-O-H, just like the water they're buying. It has the same nonexistant taste, the same chemical composition, and the same thirst-quenching properties. Except I get it for free.
We don't live in Russia, people. The water is safe. Buy a Brita filter, fill it up a few times a week, and stop shelling out piles of cash for the cheapest and most abundant liquid on Earth.
By any other name would taste as refreshing....
Truly the biggest triumph of coporate marketing in the past 10-15 years has been the rise of the bottled water industry. Every day, millions of suckers buy water for a cost that is several thousand times its actual value, just because it comes in a plastic container and has some artist's depiction of a mountain spring on the label.
Guess what? The water that comes out of my tap is H-O-H, just like the water they're buying. It has the same nonexistant taste, the same chemical composition, and the same thirst-quenching properties. Except I get it for free.
We don't live in Russia, people. The water is safe. Buy a Brita filter, fill it up a few times a week, and stop shelling out piles of cash for the cheapest and most abundant liquid on Earth.
10 May 2007
Today's Most Popular Beatdowns
Notice how the four "most popular" videos on CNN today all have to do with beatings.
Ah, the 24-hour news networks. If they're good for anything, it's perpetually sating our society's thirst for violence.
09 May 2007
04 May 2007
Religious Bondage
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind, and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
-James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, 1 April 1774
-James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, 1 April 1774
02 May 2007
Thou Shalt Not... Pluck?
Know this, ye faithful: hair gel is hateful unto the Lord.
CNN: Iran bans Western haircuts, eyebrow plucking for men
I understand that hard-line Muslims want to discourage vanity. I think that's it's idiotic to heap moral condemnation upon metrosexual hairstyles, but I understand that the negative perception of vanity is the religious context from which this puritanical nonsense emanates. But where does one draw the line? Are brushing teeth or taking baths next on the list? Does wearing deoderant make me sinful in the eyes of the Lord? Will owning a mirror in my house condemn me to eternal damnation in the afterlife?
CNN: Iran bans Western haircuts, eyebrow plucking for men
I understand that hard-line Muslims want to discourage vanity. I think that's it's idiotic to heap moral condemnation upon metrosexual hairstyles, but I understand that the negative perception of vanity is the religious context from which this puritanical nonsense emanates. But where does one draw the line? Are brushing teeth or taking baths next on the list? Does wearing deoderant make me sinful in the eyes of the Lord? Will owning a mirror in my house condemn me to eternal damnation in the afterlife?
01 May 2007
Solely Because of Their Race
The Civil Rights movement may have taken place four decades ago, but apparently some of us still have catching up to do.
CNN: Students Attend First Integrated Prom
Yes, you read that correctly. The students of Ashburn, Georgia were still holding segregated proms right up through 2006.
But don't worry, it's not as bad as it sounds! Mindy Bryan, a student who attended a segregated prom back in 2001, had this to say:
"There was not anybody that I can remember that was black," she said. "The white people have theirs, and the black people have theirs. It's nothing racial at all."
Nothing racial at all. Yes. The segregation of black people from white people was nothing racial at all. That's the dumbest goddamned thing I've ever heard in my life.
Apparently, though, Mindy isn't the only Rhodes Scholar in the bunch. Nichole Royal, who attended a white prom and commented that black students could have attended too but didn't, said: "I guess they feel like they're not welcome."
Now there's a startling sociological inference: black people might not feel welcome attending a prom for white people!
I think it's appropriate to end this heated post with a dispassionate analysis from Earl Warren's opinion in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Note that this was written 53 years ago. We should be past this.
To separate [black children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.
CNN: Students Attend First Integrated Prom
Yes, you read that correctly. The students of Ashburn, Georgia were still holding segregated proms right up through 2006.
But don't worry, it's not as bad as it sounds! Mindy Bryan, a student who attended a segregated prom back in 2001, had this to say:
"There was not anybody that I can remember that was black," she said. "The white people have theirs, and the black people have theirs. It's nothing racial at all."
Nothing racial at all. Yes. The segregation of black people from white people was nothing racial at all. That's the dumbest goddamned thing I've ever heard in my life.
Apparently, though, Mindy isn't the only Rhodes Scholar in the bunch. Nichole Royal, who attended a white prom and commented that black students could have attended too but didn't, said: "I guess they feel like they're not welcome."
Now there's a startling sociological inference: black people might not feel welcome attending a prom for white people!
I think it's appropriate to end this heated post with a dispassionate analysis from Earl Warren's opinion in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Note that this was written 53 years ago. We should be past this.
To separate [black children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.
30 April 2007
Nonsensical Advertising
"New and Improved": This is a nonsense phrase. If something is improved, then it can't be new. And if something is new, what is it improving on?
27 April 2007
24 April 2007
Punishment
Notable loser Fred Phelps and his band of ignorant reprobates, the Westboro Baptist Church, have made headlines in the news the past several years for protesting the funerals of gay people and soldiers. He and his church believe that the Iraq War is God's punishment on us for allowing gay people to exist in our country.
In fact, they believe that pretty much anything bad that happens to Americans must be the work of a vengeful, homophobic god. Case in point: this past week, they wanted to picket the funerals of those killed in the VA Tech shooting. Clearly, they argue, the massacre was another punishment inflicted by god on a society that tolerates homosexuals.
They ended up not doing the pickets in exchange for getting some air time on a radio show.
But you know what the real punishment is for tolerating gays in America? Fred Phelps. Fred Phelps and other ministers of idiocy like him are the inevitable byproducts of a tolerant society that ensures equal protection under the law and protects the freedoms of speech, belief, and expression.
As long as we in this country tolerate gays - and blacks, and asians, and hispanics, and anyone who differs in religious creed or political ideology - we will have to put up with a few mentally stunted bigots who feel threatened by the freedom enjoyed by those around them.
In fact, they believe that pretty much anything bad that happens to Americans must be the work of a vengeful, homophobic god. Case in point: this past week, they wanted to picket the funerals of those killed in the VA Tech shooting. Clearly, they argue, the massacre was another punishment inflicted by god on a society that tolerates homosexuals.
They ended up not doing the pickets in exchange for getting some air time on a radio show.
But you know what the real punishment is for tolerating gays in America? Fred Phelps. Fred Phelps and other ministers of idiocy like him are the inevitable byproducts of a tolerant society that ensures equal protection under the law and protects the freedoms of speech, belief, and expression.
As long as we in this country tolerate gays - and blacks, and asians, and hispanics, and anyone who differs in religious creed or political ideology - we will have to put up with a few mentally stunted bigots who feel threatened by the freedom enjoyed by those around them.
23 April 2007
The Right to Maintain and Display Ignorance
I didn't think that anyone would actually be so imbecilic as to put forth the proposition that the incident at VA Tech last week might not have been as bad, had only more students been carrying guns.
Surely, I thought, such a position would be self-satirizing. No one could be that dumb.
And then the Virginia Citizens' Defense League went ahead and exceeded my expectations.
"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," [the president of the league] told AFP.
"You want people to be able to defend themselves -- always," he said.
Yes, you read that correctly: the responsibility for the Virginia Tech Massacre lies with gun control. There just weren't enough guns at VA Tech.
Well, now we know what the problem was. But at least there's a clear solution: more students need to carry guns. How patently logical. I'm sure such a trend will ensure a marked drop in gun violence on campuses. And we can't forget how much college students like to drink. Surely, binge drinking + concealed firearms = safety for all. Problem solved!
Now, using the same intrepid logic, let's ensure permanent world peace by giving every country on Earth a nuclear weapon.
Thank you, Virginia Citizens' Defense League. You are inspiring proof that things like illiteracy and a lack of a high school education shouldn't stop you from getting out there and solving the world's problems.
Surely, I thought, such a position would be self-satirizing. No one could be that dumb.
And then the Virginia Citizens' Defense League went ahead and exceeded my expectations.
"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," [the president of the league] told AFP.
"You want people to be able to defend themselves -- always," he said.
Yes, you read that correctly: the responsibility for the Virginia Tech Massacre lies with gun control. There just weren't enough guns at VA Tech.
Well, now we know what the problem was. But at least there's a clear solution: more students need to carry guns. How patently logical. I'm sure such a trend will ensure a marked drop in gun violence on campuses. And we can't forget how much college students like to drink. Surely, binge drinking + concealed firearms = safety for all. Problem solved!
Now, using the same intrepid logic, let's ensure permanent world peace by giving every country on Earth a nuclear weapon.
Thank you, Virginia Citizens' Defense League. You are inspiring proof that things like illiteracy and a lack of a high school education shouldn't stop you from getting out there and solving the world's problems.
20 April 2007
Survival of the Fittest
Most people assume that Charles Darwin coined the famous phrase 'survival of the fittest'. Actually, Darwin never used those words in any of his writings. The man who invented the term was Herbert Spencer, the 19th-century thinker and founder of the school of thought known as Social Darwinism.
Darwin used the phrase 'natural selection' to describe the process that lay at the center of his theory of evolution. 'Survival of the fittest', though still a term commonly used as shorthand for Darwin's theory, is actually misleading: it makes it seem as if survival is the standard for evolutionary success. Actually, reproduction is what counts, and survival only matters insofar as it allows reproduction. If you compared a parent of three who died at 25 years old with another person who lived to 100 but never had children, the former of the two would be the more successful in evolutionary terms.
Darwin used the phrase 'natural selection' to describe the process that lay at the center of his theory of evolution. 'Survival of the fittest', though still a term commonly used as shorthand for Darwin's theory, is actually misleading: it makes it seem as if survival is the standard for evolutionary success. Actually, reproduction is what counts, and survival only matters insofar as it allows reproduction. If you compared a parent of three who died at 25 years old with another person who lived to 100 but never had children, the former of the two would be the more successful in evolutionary terms.
19 April 2007
Inside the Multimedia of a Killer
Welcome to the 21st century, when an extensive massacre is accompanied by a 'multimedia package'.
At least it removes all doubt regarding the meaning of this tragedy. There was no meaning. It wasn't political, it wasn't religious, it wasn't even a personal vendetta. It was just an addle-minded scamp with a severe martyr complex and a gun.
Note, however, that without the gun, he would have been just another addle-minded scamp. So much for the second amendment.
At least it removes all doubt regarding the meaning of this tragedy. There was no meaning. It wasn't political, it wasn't religious, it wasn't even a personal vendetta. It was just an addle-minded scamp with a severe martyr complex and a gun.
Note, however, that without the gun, he would have been just another addle-minded scamp. So much for the second amendment.
15 April 2007
This just in: teens have sex even when you tell them not to
BBC: US sex-abstinence classes queried
US students attending sexual abstinence classes are no more likely to abstain from sex than those who do not, according to a new study.
Duh.
I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again: how is it that conservatives can get away with calling liberals naive?
Conservatives actually believe that telling teenagers not to have sex will prevent them from having sex.
Yeah. Right. Problem solved. Because we know that if there's one thing teens love, it's doing exactly what adults tell them to do.
This study proves what anyone who's ever been a teenager, had contact with a teenager, or seen a teenager on TV should have inferred: that teenagers will have sex. Period. As the study shows, it doesn't matter whether you throw 10 million dollars or 176 million dollars at programs trying to stop them. You can't. They're teenagers!
The question is not whether teens are going to have sex. The question is, when the time comes that they do have sex, will they do so safely?
As long as this administration continues to model its sex education policy after that of the 17th-century Puritans, the answer is no.
US students attending sexual abstinence classes are no more likely to abstain from sex than those who do not, according to a new study.
Duh.
I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again: how is it that conservatives can get away with calling liberals naive?
Conservatives actually believe that telling teenagers not to have sex will prevent them from having sex.
Yeah. Right. Problem solved. Because we know that if there's one thing teens love, it's doing exactly what adults tell them to do.
This study proves what anyone who's ever been a teenager, had contact with a teenager, or seen a teenager on TV should have inferred: that teenagers will have sex. Period. As the study shows, it doesn't matter whether you throw 10 million dollars or 176 million dollars at programs trying to stop them. You can't. They're teenagers!
The question is not whether teens are going to have sex. The question is, when the time comes that they do have sex, will they do so safely?
As long as this administration continues to model its sex education policy after that of the 17th-century Puritans, the answer is no.
12 April 2007
So It Goes
Listen:
Kurt Vonnegut is dead. He always quipped that he was "committing suicide by cigarette," and it finally worked.
So it goes.
He will live on in his writing. He had a unique gift for conveying profound truths through simple reductionism - stepping back from everyday life like an anthropologist would (he actually did have an M.A. in anthropology), and explaining conventions in such simple terms as to reveal their absurdities. (I still remember how, in the beginning of Breakfast of Champions, he called the American National Anthem "gibberish sprinkled with quotation marks.")
What Mark Twain was to the 19th century, Kurt Vonnegut was to the 20th. Whereas Mark Twain revealed the insecurities of a post Civil War America, Vonnegut exposed the incoherencies and hypocrisies of the America that emerged after WWII. America after the war was catapulted from depression to prosperity, from devastating world war to nuclear brinksmanship in a cold war. Advances in science had improved our quality of life, while simultaneously improving our capacity to take away life. And Vonnegut, the master satirist, was there to write about it all, with a simple, honest narrative voice that had the power to make you look at the world with fresh eyes.
As he dedicated the library at Connecticut College thirty years ago, Vonnegut had this to say:
By reading the writings of some of the most interesting minds in history, we meditate not only with our own poor minds, but with those interesting minds, too.
This to me is a miracle.
Yes - and when I speak of interesting minds, I am not limiting my admiration to belletrists, to poets and story tellers and elegant essayists and the like. We should be equally in love with astronomers and physicists and mathematicians and chemists and engineeers - cooks, bakers, mechanics, musicians - people telling, sometimes clumsily, sometimes not, what they have perceived as the truths of their trades.
On occasion, even children have written instructively. Anne Frank was a child.
So much for that.
If Vonnegut's worldview could be encapsulated in one sentence, it would be 'so much for that'.
Rest in peace, Mr. Vonnegut. And thank you.
Kurt Vonnegut is dead. He always quipped that he was "committing suicide by cigarette," and it finally worked.
So it goes.
He will live on in his writing. He had a unique gift for conveying profound truths through simple reductionism - stepping back from everyday life like an anthropologist would (he actually did have an M.A. in anthropology), and explaining conventions in such simple terms as to reveal their absurdities. (I still remember how, in the beginning of Breakfast of Champions, he called the American National Anthem "gibberish sprinkled with quotation marks.")
What Mark Twain was to the 19th century, Kurt Vonnegut was to the 20th. Whereas Mark Twain revealed the insecurities of a post Civil War America, Vonnegut exposed the incoherencies and hypocrisies of the America that emerged after WWII. America after the war was catapulted from depression to prosperity, from devastating world war to nuclear brinksmanship in a cold war. Advances in science had improved our quality of life, while simultaneously improving our capacity to take away life. And Vonnegut, the master satirist, was there to write about it all, with a simple, honest narrative voice that had the power to make you look at the world with fresh eyes.
As he dedicated the library at Connecticut College thirty years ago, Vonnegut had this to say:
By reading the writings of some of the most interesting minds in history, we meditate not only with our own poor minds, but with those interesting minds, too.
This to me is a miracle.
Yes - and when I speak of interesting minds, I am not limiting my admiration to belletrists, to poets and story tellers and elegant essayists and the like. We should be equally in love with astronomers and physicists and mathematicians and chemists and engineeers - cooks, bakers, mechanics, musicians - people telling, sometimes clumsily, sometimes not, what they have perceived as the truths of their trades.
On occasion, even children have written instructively. Anne Frank was a child.
So much for that.
If Vonnegut's worldview could be encapsulated in one sentence, it would be 'so much for that'.
Rest in peace, Mr. Vonnegut. And thank you.
10 April 2007
Forgetting Anna
I've tried to insulate myself as much as possible from the past two months' media orgy surrounding the death of Anna Nicole Smith. Nevertheless, when I logged on to CNN's website today, I couldn't miss the big headline announcing the dramatic news that the father of Smith's child has been identified at last.
Great. Fine. Nice. Can we forget about her now?
It is a depressing commentary on the state of our culture that our media spend two months ranting and raving about the death of a woman whose only contribution to society was her enormous rack. Certainly more ink has been spilled about Anna Nicole Smith in the past two months than about the Darfur genocide in the past year. And for what?
A woman who became a B-list celebrity by taking her clothes off died in a hotel of a drug overdose, leaving behind a child with doubtful paternity. Truly an unexpected, unprecedented, consequential event. She will continue to be mourned by masturbators everywhere, but can we please now give more media attention to news that actually matters?
Great. Fine. Nice. Can we forget about her now?
It is a depressing commentary on the state of our culture that our media spend two months ranting and raving about the death of a woman whose only contribution to society was her enormous rack. Certainly more ink has been spilled about Anna Nicole Smith in the past two months than about the Darfur genocide in the past year. And for what?
A woman who became a B-list celebrity by taking her clothes off died in a hotel of a drug overdose, leaving behind a child with doubtful paternity. Truly an unexpected, unprecedented, consequential event. She will continue to be mourned by masturbators everywhere, but can we please now give more media attention to news that actually matters?
05 April 2007
The 'N' Word
The word 'nigger' connotes some of the most terrible aspects of our nation's history and heritage. It invokes memories of over two hundred years of chattel slavery, and another hundred years of continued social oppression. It conjures images of the overseer's whip, of mob lynchings, and of the segregationist campaigns to keep black people separate, indigent, and powerless.
Does that mean we should make a law banning the word 'nigger'?
Since the Michael Richards gaffe last year, the debate over whether there should be formal laws or bans prohibiting the use of the notorious 'n' word has heated up.
But no no word should ever be banned, regardless of how derogatory, how ugly, or how inappropriate it may be. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free democracy, and the reason that such a freedom exists is precisely for cases like this. The very reason we have a constitutional protection of free speech is because there are people who will voice unpopular opinions and use unpopular language. But freedom of speech also allows the more rational and ethical among us to openly criticize such opinions and language. That's the free exchange of ideas, and it's what makes a democracy work.
Also, if we were to ban the word nigger, what about kike, fag, chink, spic, dyke, gook, wop, dago, cracker, guinea, towelhead, and redskin? And what about bitch, idiot, and dumb - words that are pejorative to women, the mentally handicapped, and the mute, respectively?
How would you enforce such a ban? Fine people who are overheard saying the word? One would think there are more serious crimes that the police should be fighting than the use of naughty words.
Lastly, and most importantly, banning words won't change people's mindsets. A law might stop a racist from saying 'nigger', but no law can stop him from thinking it.
The whole problem with the word 'nigger' is not the word itself; it's the profound ignorance that is a precondition for using the word. Banning words won't solve anything; it's as impracticable as it is contradictory to our nation's ideals. Curtailing free speech is not the solution to the problem of racism. Education is the solution to racism, and keeping free speech free is necessary for an educated, open-minded society.
Does that mean we should make a law banning the word 'nigger'?
Since the Michael Richards gaffe last year, the debate over whether there should be formal laws or bans prohibiting the use of the notorious 'n' word has heated up.
But no no word should ever be banned, regardless of how derogatory, how ugly, or how inappropriate it may be. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free democracy, and the reason that such a freedom exists is precisely for cases like this. The very reason we have a constitutional protection of free speech is because there are people who will voice unpopular opinions and use unpopular language. But freedom of speech also allows the more rational and ethical among us to openly criticize such opinions and language. That's the free exchange of ideas, and it's what makes a democracy work.
Also, if we were to ban the word nigger, what about kike, fag, chink, spic, dyke, gook, wop, dago, cracker, guinea, towelhead, and redskin? And what about bitch, idiot, and dumb - words that are pejorative to women, the mentally handicapped, and the mute, respectively?
How would you enforce such a ban? Fine people who are overheard saying the word? One would think there are more serious crimes that the police should be fighting than the use of naughty words.
Lastly, and most importantly, banning words won't change people's mindsets. A law might stop a racist from saying 'nigger', but no law can stop him from thinking it.
The whole problem with the word 'nigger' is not the word itself; it's the profound ignorance that is a precondition for using the word. Banning words won't solve anything; it's as impracticable as it is contradictory to our nation's ideals. Curtailing free speech is not the solution to the problem of racism. Education is the solution to racism, and keeping free speech free is necessary for an educated, open-minded society.
03 April 2007
Nurses Uniforms Place
Part 4 of my ongoing series of pictures of ruined English:
That's not even ungrammatical. That's agrammatical. It's like three random nouns collided in a train wreck of nonsense.
Is that really the name of their business? Do they actually print that nonsensical combination of words on their tax forms?
I wonder what their company motto is. The Nurses Uniforms Place: you're one stop solution four nurses uniforms!
Picture taken in Philly PA. Thanks to KW and KAO for the image.
That's not even ungrammatical. That's agrammatical. It's like three random nouns collided in a train wreck of nonsense.
Is that really the name of their business? Do they actually print that nonsensical combination of words on their tax forms?
I wonder what their company motto is. The Nurses Uniforms Place: you're one stop solution four nurses uniforms!
Picture taken in Philly PA. Thanks to KW and KAO for the image.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
