In a conversation I had with an acquaintance a couple weeks ago, I mentioned that I was in the book publishing business. He remarked, "Man, I sure hope people are still reading books ten years from now."
Nice of him to say that, but his worries have no basis in reality. For, despite the rise of the internet, despite television's enduring popularity, despite the glitz and lights and sounds of the information age, despite the temptations for kids to turn on their playstation instead of read a book -- despite all of this, we still live in a world where records in book publishing can be utterly shattered.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and final installment in the Harry Potter series, sold 8.3 million copies in its first 24 hours of sales. That's five thousand books sold per minute, and that just in the US - the worldwide figures must be much larger.
This is not only a victory for Ms J.K. Rowling or for the books' publishers (though I extend my congratulations to them) - it is a proud and unmistakable sign that books will continue to be read for a long long time, no matter what flashy gadgets or other advances in circuitry are made.
Congratulations, Mr. Potter. And long live the book!
22 July 2007
20 July 2007
A Human Stain
It takes a uniquely odious brand of asshole to have torturing and killing dogs as a hobby. Falcons quarterback Michael Vick is one such asshole.
This contemptible piece of human excrement bought, trained, tortured, and slaughtered pit bulls for what his primitive nervous system considered fun.
Some have come out in his defense, arguing that, after all, the victims of his sadism were "just dogs".
Yes, so they were. And Michael Vick is just a retarded nonce who enjoys watching animals suffer, because it's appealing to his reprobate sensibilities. Plus, he can't read, so what else is he supposed to do with his time?
Too bad the dogs never got ahold of him. That would be a QB sack I'd like to see.
This contemptible piece of human excrement bought, trained, tortured, and slaughtered pit bulls for what his primitive nervous system considered fun.
Some have come out in his defense, arguing that, after all, the victims of his sadism were "just dogs".
Yes, so they were. And Michael Vick is just a retarded nonce who enjoys watching animals suffer, because it's appealing to his reprobate sensibilities. Plus, he can't read, so what else is he supposed to do with his time?
Too bad the dogs never got ahold of him. That would be a QB sack I'd like to see.
18 July 2007
Critiquing the 'New New Atheism'
Writing in this past Sunday's Wall Street Journal, Peter Berkowitz constructs an interesting critique of the recent atheist publishing boom. Referring to the views espoused by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris as 'the New New Atheism', Berkowitz has this to say:
Profitability is not the only feature distinguishing today's fashionable disbelief from the varieties of atheism that have arisen over the millennia. Unlike the classical atheism of Epicurus and Lucretius, which rejected belief in the gods in the name of pleasure and tranquility, the new new atheism rejects God in the name of natural science, individual freedom and human equality. Unlike the Enlightenment atheism of the 18th century, which arose in a still predominantly religious society and which frequently went to some effort to disguise or mute its disbelief, the new new atheism proclaims its hatred of God and organized religion loudly and proudly from the rooftops. And unlike the anti-modern atheism of Nietzsche and Heidegger, which regarded the death of God as a catastrophe for the human spirit, the new new atheism sees the loss of religious faith in the modern world as an unqualified good, lamenting only the perverse and widespread resistance to shedding once and for all the hopelessly backward belief in a divine presence in history.
Essentially, Mr. Berkowitz seems to think that the caustic, mean-spirited, uncompromising nature of the atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al is unprecedented in western intellectual history, and he strongly implies that past generations had better sense than to be so dismissive of religious ideas.
This is patently false. Mordant, no-holds-barred criticism of religion is far from being a new development. Friederich Nietzsche, Mark Twain, Bertrand Russell, Clarence Darrow, Robert Ingersoll, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ambrose Bierce, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Thomas Paine, Percy Bysshe Shelley - all of these thinkers and more have expressed atheistic arguments in even more uncompromising and mean-spirited terms than the 'new new atheists' who Mr Berkowitz pretends to be unique.
Consider Nietzsche, who wrote that "prayer has been invented for those people who really never have thoughts of their own", and that "in Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point." (I have no idea where Mr Berkowitz gets the lunatic notion that Nietzsche thought the death of god to be a "catastrophe"; Nietzsche despised religion and thought the death of god to be a prerequisite for the rebirth of the human spirit. But I digress.)
Or consider Robert Ingersoll, who is little remembered today but who toured the US in the mid-nineteenth century giving lectures on atheism. He was one of the most popular speakers of his day, drawing record crowds in a country which had only recently gone through a second great awakening. He once said that "religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery."
These thinkers of the past made no such efforts to "disguise or mute their disbelief"; indeed, they proclaimed their hatred of religion "loudly and proudly from the rooftops" every bit as stridently as the new atheists. But I think Mr Berkowitz errs in saying that any atheists, new or old, possess a "hatred of God". You can't hate a being in whom you don't believe. All of these thinkers hate the idea of god - the notion itself that there exists a supernatural being in whom one is supposed to have faith. That's a big difference from hating the being itself - which makes it sound like atheists simply resent god, instead of thinking the belief in him irrational.
All this being said, Mr Berkowitz does make a couple of good points. First of all, he points out that nitpicking at religions - finding sundry contradictory or false statements in the Bible, for instance, or interpreting religious stories like the binding of Isaac in a strictly modern framework - is to miss the point of the religious experience. Although I personally think that these criticisms are not without merit, since so many people do interpret their religions in the same "slavishly literal sense" that Mr Berkowitz says atheistic critics should avoid, I see his point: it's not the big picture.
Berkowitz also makes a sound point in arguing that it is beyond the scope of the new atheists to prove that there is no god. No one will ever be able to prove that beyond doubt, just as no one will ever be able to prove that there is a god.
But I'm not so sure that that is what Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris are saying. I think that their argument is not so much that "we are certain that there is no god", but rather that "we are certain that there exists no good reason to believe in a god". As I have not read all of the books in question, I will not say for sure; but I suspect Mr Berkowitz may be conflating these two approaches to atheism.
The final thrust of Berkowitz's criticism seems to be this:
Playing into the anger and enmities that debase our politics today, the new new atheism blurs the deep commitment to the freedom and equality of individuals that binds atheists and believers in America. At the same time, by treating all religion as one great evil pathology, today's bestselling atheists suppress crucial distinctions between the forms of faith embraced by the vast majority of American citizens and the militant Islam that at this very moment is pledged to America's destruction.
With this I disagree. If anything, the new new atheism confirms America's commitment to freedom, because it is emblematic of the free exchange of ideas that make freedom worthwhile. The mere fact that these criticisms are harsh does not mean that they are undemocratic, and the mere fact that these thinkers consider religions to be false does not mean that they think people should be prevented from practicing them.
And although the new new atheists may indeed blur the distinctions between different forms of faith, that is no flaw, because the focus of their criticism is what all religions share. They are attacking what religions have in common, from militant Islam to Mormonism to Orthodox Judaism: faith. It is faith - believing things without reason - which draws the fires of their abuse.
Mr Berkowitz concludes his piece by suggesting that "the variety of religions" deserve "a fair hearing." Have they not had a fair hearing for the past several thousand years? If there is indeed "nothing new under the sun" in the criticism of religion, certainly religion can offer nothing new in its own defence.
Profitability is not the only feature distinguishing today's fashionable disbelief from the varieties of atheism that have arisen over the millennia. Unlike the classical atheism of Epicurus and Lucretius, which rejected belief in the gods in the name of pleasure and tranquility, the new new atheism rejects God in the name of natural science, individual freedom and human equality. Unlike the Enlightenment atheism of the 18th century, which arose in a still predominantly religious society and which frequently went to some effort to disguise or mute its disbelief, the new new atheism proclaims its hatred of God and organized religion loudly and proudly from the rooftops. And unlike the anti-modern atheism of Nietzsche and Heidegger, which regarded the death of God as a catastrophe for the human spirit, the new new atheism sees the loss of religious faith in the modern world as an unqualified good, lamenting only the perverse and widespread resistance to shedding once and for all the hopelessly backward belief in a divine presence in history.
Essentially, Mr. Berkowitz seems to think that the caustic, mean-spirited, uncompromising nature of the atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al is unprecedented in western intellectual history, and he strongly implies that past generations had better sense than to be so dismissive of religious ideas.
This is patently false. Mordant, no-holds-barred criticism of religion is far from being a new development. Friederich Nietzsche, Mark Twain, Bertrand Russell, Clarence Darrow, Robert Ingersoll, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ambrose Bierce, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Thomas Paine, Percy Bysshe Shelley - all of these thinkers and more have expressed atheistic arguments in even more uncompromising and mean-spirited terms than the 'new new atheists' who Mr Berkowitz pretends to be unique.
Consider Nietzsche, who wrote that "prayer has been invented for those people who really never have thoughts of their own", and that "in Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point." (I have no idea where Mr Berkowitz gets the lunatic notion that Nietzsche thought the death of god to be a "catastrophe"; Nietzsche despised religion and thought the death of god to be a prerequisite for the rebirth of the human spirit. But I digress.)
Or consider Robert Ingersoll, who is little remembered today but who toured the US in the mid-nineteenth century giving lectures on atheism. He was one of the most popular speakers of his day, drawing record crowds in a country which had only recently gone through a second great awakening. He once said that "religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery."
These thinkers of the past made no such efforts to "disguise or mute their disbelief"; indeed, they proclaimed their hatred of religion "loudly and proudly from the rooftops" every bit as stridently as the new atheists. But I think Mr Berkowitz errs in saying that any atheists, new or old, possess a "hatred of God". You can't hate a being in whom you don't believe. All of these thinkers hate the idea of god - the notion itself that there exists a supernatural being in whom one is supposed to have faith. That's a big difference from hating the being itself - which makes it sound like atheists simply resent god, instead of thinking the belief in him irrational.
All this being said, Mr Berkowitz does make a couple of good points. First of all, he points out that nitpicking at religions - finding sundry contradictory or false statements in the Bible, for instance, or interpreting religious stories like the binding of Isaac in a strictly modern framework - is to miss the point of the religious experience. Although I personally think that these criticisms are not without merit, since so many people do interpret their religions in the same "slavishly literal sense" that Mr Berkowitz says atheistic critics should avoid, I see his point: it's not the big picture.
Berkowitz also makes a sound point in arguing that it is beyond the scope of the new atheists to prove that there is no god. No one will ever be able to prove that beyond doubt, just as no one will ever be able to prove that there is a god.
But I'm not so sure that that is what Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris are saying. I think that their argument is not so much that "we are certain that there is no god", but rather that "we are certain that there exists no good reason to believe in a god". As I have not read all of the books in question, I will not say for sure; but I suspect Mr Berkowitz may be conflating these two approaches to atheism.
The final thrust of Berkowitz's criticism seems to be this:
Playing into the anger and enmities that debase our politics today, the new new atheism blurs the deep commitment to the freedom and equality of individuals that binds atheists and believers in America. At the same time, by treating all religion as one great evil pathology, today's bestselling atheists suppress crucial distinctions between the forms of faith embraced by the vast majority of American citizens and the militant Islam that at this very moment is pledged to America's destruction.
With this I disagree. If anything, the new new atheism confirms America's commitment to freedom, because it is emblematic of the free exchange of ideas that make freedom worthwhile. The mere fact that these criticisms are harsh does not mean that they are undemocratic, and the mere fact that these thinkers consider religions to be false does not mean that they think people should be prevented from practicing them.
And although the new new atheists may indeed blur the distinctions between different forms of faith, that is no flaw, because the focus of their criticism is what all religions share. They are attacking what religions have in common, from militant Islam to Mormonism to Orthodox Judaism: faith. It is faith - believing things without reason - which draws the fires of their abuse.
Mr Berkowitz concludes his piece by suggesting that "the variety of religions" deserve "a fair hearing." Have they not had a fair hearing for the past several thousand years? If there is indeed "nothing new under the sun" in the criticism of religion, certainly religion can offer nothing new in its own defence.
16 July 2007
Eternity's sun rise
Eternity
He who binds to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy
But he who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in eternity's sun rise.
-William Blake (1863)
He who binds to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy
But he who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in eternity's sun rise.
-William Blake (1863)
11 July 2007
Meat's Pressures on the Planet
Many people assume that there are only two reasons to become a vegetarian: health concerns and ethical considerations. But the widespread consumption of meat has effects on the environment that go far beyond human nutrition or the well-being of animals.
BBC online has begun a new series, Planet Under Pressure, which explores six of "the most pressing environmental issues facing the human race today": food, water, energy, climate change, biodiversity, and pollution. All of these crises are directly or indirectly linked to eating meat.
FOOD
More agricultural crops in the world today are grown to feed the animals that feed humans, rather than to feed humans directly. Meat-eating is one of the most insanely inefficient processes that free markets tolerate.
In the world's oceans, overfishing has depleted many fish populations to critical levels. If demand continues to rise and stocks continue to shrink, some fishing stocks will disappear entirely.
WATER
Livestock, and the huge amounts of crops grown to feed livestock, consume epic amounts of water that could be supplying our homes and human-intended crops instead.
ENERGY
The huge amounts of land that are being used now for raising livestock and growing the food that feeds them could be used for wind or solar energy, thus easing our reliance on coal and nuclear power.
POLLUTION, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND BIODIVERSITY
Meat-eating is a leading cause of deforestation, since large tracts of land are required not only to graze livestock, but to grow the aforementioned crops that feed livestock. And deforestation, in turn, is a leading cause of species extinction. Moreover, we need forests in order to keep the air in our atmosphere clean, and as we chop down more forests, pollution will worsen and global warming will accelerate.
In the sea, overfishing has heinous effects on biodiversity. The fact that many fish populations have been depleted to less than 10% of their original levels not only threatens the survival of those individual target species, but other species in the food web as well. According to oceanographer Doug Segar, overfishing may constitute "a far greater threat [to marine ecosystems] than the oil spills or industrial and domestic sewage discharges that often dominate media coverage."
The planet is indeed under pressure - and much of the pressure comes from humans' insistence on eating cows, chickens, pigs, and fish. Keep these animals off your plate more often and you'll be giving Mother Nature a break she desperately needs.
BBC online has begun a new series, Planet Under Pressure, which explores six of "the most pressing environmental issues facing the human race today": food, water, energy, climate change, biodiversity, and pollution. All of these crises are directly or indirectly linked to eating meat.
FOOD
More agricultural crops in the world today are grown to feed the animals that feed humans, rather than to feed humans directly. Meat-eating is one of the most insanely inefficient processes that free markets tolerate.
In the world's oceans, overfishing has depleted many fish populations to critical levels. If demand continues to rise and stocks continue to shrink, some fishing stocks will disappear entirely.
WATER
Livestock, and the huge amounts of crops grown to feed livestock, consume epic amounts of water that could be supplying our homes and human-intended crops instead.
ENERGY
The huge amounts of land that are being used now for raising livestock and growing the food that feeds them could be used for wind or solar energy, thus easing our reliance on coal and nuclear power.
POLLUTION, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND BIODIVERSITY
Meat-eating is a leading cause of deforestation, since large tracts of land are required not only to graze livestock, but to grow the aforementioned crops that feed livestock. And deforestation, in turn, is a leading cause of species extinction. Moreover, we need forests in order to keep the air in our atmosphere clean, and as we chop down more forests, pollution will worsen and global warming will accelerate.
In the sea, overfishing has heinous effects on biodiversity. The fact that many fish populations have been depleted to less than 10% of their original levels not only threatens the survival of those individual target species, but other species in the food web as well. According to oceanographer Doug Segar, overfishing may constitute "a far greater threat [to marine ecosystems] than the oil spills or industrial and domestic sewage discharges that often dominate media coverage."
The planet is indeed under pressure - and much of the pressure comes from humans' insistence on eating cows, chickens, pigs, and fish. Keep these animals off your plate more often and you'll be giving Mother Nature a break she desperately needs.
09 July 2007
Not all those who wander...
Occassionally on the street you might encounter a bumper sticker that reads, "Not all who wander are lost". Sadly, it is almost invariably written without citation, and so most people probably assume that it's just a cute invention by the same creative minds that brought you bumper stickers like "I go from zero to bitch in 2.5 seconds", or "My other ride is a..."
But the line was actually penned in Middle-Earth, and it refers to Aragorn, son of Arathorn, also known as Strider. The full quote is below.
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not whither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
-J.R.R. Tolkein, The Lord of the Rings
But the line was actually penned in Middle-Earth, and it refers to Aragorn, son of Arathorn, also known as Strider. The full quote is below.
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not whither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
-J.R.R. Tolkein, The Lord of the Rings
05 July 2007
Some clarifications on my views concerning religion
A reader of my blog recently wrote me with this objection:
Dear Mr. West,
I find your Blog to be a mystery. It mentions tolerance towards religions yet shows none, if tolerance has anything to do with respect. To modify a concept from Heidegger, I would recommend an attitude of Gelassenheit towards spirituality. I expect future posts to be either more sensitive about religion or at least more honest about your own biases. Thank you sir.
First of all, I would like to thank this reader for taking the time to read my blog and construct a respectful criticism. I shared a couple of classes with this person in college, and I continue to hold his thoughts in high esteem. I hope that this response can do justice to his objection.
I do not believe that I, on this blog, have ever made any pretension of objectivity. The opinions advanced herein are my own. I thought that the very nature of the forum would have made that clear. This blog is nothing more than an editorial outlet for my own thoughts and views, and that is meant to be implicitly understood without my having to write “I think” before every statement I make here.
But although this blog is inherently subjective, I take issue with the contention that it is biased. ‘Bias’ carries the connotation of an unreasoned prejudice or a deceptively subtle favoring of one side of an issue. I do not think that my views on religion are biased. I do not reject religion because of some visceral distaste or underlying prejudice; I reject religion because I find it to be a fundamentally unsound set of ideas.
As I see it, the foundation of religion is faith. To have faith means to believe something without having any reason to believe it – to believe something merely because you want to believe it, regardless of any supporting or contradictory evidence. I can imagine no greater stupidity than that, and I reserve no respect for any system of beliefs founded on such an intellectual farce.
Faith is the most dangerous intellectual precedent imaginable, and it has given rise to much violence and misery over the course of human history. It is primarily because of faith that religion retards scientific and social progress, and engenders the holding of unreason in equal or higher esteem than reason itself.
Moreover, it seems to me that the sociological, anthropological, psychological, and historical records make it clear that religions are social conventions created to satisfy the base needs of human beings to comfort themselves and to explain the mysteries of the world around them. Simply put, religion is born out of ignorance and fear, and as such, in the words of James Madison, it "shackles and debilitates the mind, and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
Clearly I make no secret of my opposition to religious ideas. But let us not conflate intellectual opposition with intolerance. The position I take is that of Voltaire, who once wrote to the Jesuits (a people with whom he had fierce conflicts of opinion): “I disagree with what you say, but would defend to the death your right to say it.” I believe in intellectual freedom. I do not believe in banning books, or persecuting people, or forcibly stamping out beliefs (all things that religions have done at one time or another, and not by mistake). I believe in the free marketplace of ideas: you are entitled to your own opinion, and I to mine. But watch out: this also means that I am entitled to my own opinion OF your opinion, and you to your own opinion OF mine! Thus, you have right to believe in God, and I have the right not to. I have the right to point out why I think your belief in God is irrational and cowardly, and you have the right to think that I’m morally and spiritually bankrupt for saying so. And I have the right to think that that’s absurd. And so on. The free marketplace of ideas thus renders intolerance unnecessary, because at the end of the day, reason and logic should prevail of their own accord.
Of course, I’m not always so highbrowed in my criticisms. I often express my opposition to religion with disparaging mockery or sarcasm. But the apparent immaturity of such derision belies the purpose it serves. Religion, after all, rejects reason as an epistemic standard, and one cannot reason with the unreasonable; thus condescension and mockery are sometimes all one can employ against such bankrupt ideas.
I started this blog as a forum dedicated to reason and observation as the only responsible sources of knowledge and the only reliable guides against error. I think that the harsh tone that I take against religion is in better harmony with that ideal than anything else I write here.
So to conclude, dear reader, I will not alter the nature of the position I take against religion. To be, as you suggest, “more sensitive toward religion” would be, I think, to compromise intellectual honesty, which demands that criticism not be afraid of its own conclusions. Intellectual honesty also demands considering arguments opposed to your own positions, and I frequently do this; I welcome any sound rebuttal to my positions, but I have yet to hear a pro-faith or pro-religion argument that was not fatally flawed in its logic. Thus I will continue to give religious faith only the intellectual credit it deserves, which as far as I can tell, is none.
Dear Mr. West,
I find your Blog to be a mystery. It mentions tolerance towards religions yet shows none, if tolerance has anything to do with respect. To modify a concept from Heidegger, I would recommend an attitude of Gelassenheit towards spirituality. I expect future posts to be either more sensitive about religion or at least more honest about your own biases. Thank you sir.
First of all, I would like to thank this reader for taking the time to read my blog and construct a respectful criticism. I shared a couple of classes with this person in college, and I continue to hold his thoughts in high esteem. I hope that this response can do justice to his objection.
I do not believe that I, on this blog, have ever made any pretension of objectivity. The opinions advanced herein are my own. I thought that the very nature of the forum would have made that clear. This blog is nothing more than an editorial outlet for my own thoughts and views, and that is meant to be implicitly understood without my having to write “I think” before every statement I make here.
But although this blog is inherently subjective, I take issue with the contention that it is biased. ‘Bias’ carries the connotation of an unreasoned prejudice or a deceptively subtle favoring of one side of an issue. I do not think that my views on religion are biased. I do not reject religion because of some visceral distaste or underlying prejudice; I reject religion because I find it to be a fundamentally unsound set of ideas.
As I see it, the foundation of religion is faith. To have faith means to believe something without having any reason to believe it – to believe something merely because you want to believe it, regardless of any supporting or contradictory evidence. I can imagine no greater stupidity than that, and I reserve no respect for any system of beliefs founded on such an intellectual farce.
Faith is the most dangerous intellectual precedent imaginable, and it has given rise to much violence and misery over the course of human history. It is primarily because of faith that religion retards scientific and social progress, and engenders the holding of unreason in equal or higher esteem than reason itself.
Moreover, it seems to me that the sociological, anthropological, psychological, and historical records make it clear that religions are social conventions created to satisfy the base needs of human beings to comfort themselves and to explain the mysteries of the world around them. Simply put, religion is born out of ignorance and fear, and as such, in the words of James Madison, it "shackles and debilitates the mind, and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
Clearly I make no secret of my opposition to religious ideas. But let us not conflate intellectual opposition with intolerance. The position I take is that of Voltaire, who once wrote to the Jesuits (a people with whom he had fierce conflicts of opinion): “I disagree with what you say, but would defend to the death your right to say it.” I believe in intellectual freedom. I do not believe in banning books, or persecuting people, or forcibly stamping out beliefs (all things that religions have done at one time or another, and not by mistake). I believe in the free marketplace of ideas: you are entitled to your own opinion, and I to mine. But watch out: this also means that I am entitled to my own opinion OF your opinion, and you to your own opinion OF mine! Thus, you have right to believe in God, and I have the right not to. I have the right to point out why I think your belief in God is irrational and cowardly, and you have the right to think that I’m morally and spiritually bankrupt for saying so. And I have the right to think that that’s absurd. And so on. The free marketplace of ideas thus renders intolerance unnecessary, because at the end of the day, reason and logic should prevail of their own accord.
Of course, I’m not always so highbrowed in my criticisms. I often express my opposition to religion with disparaging mockery or sarcasm. But the apparent immaturity of such derision belies the purpose it serves. Religion, after all, rejects reason as an epistemic standard, and one cannot reason with the unreasonable; thus condescension and mockery are sometimes all one can employ against such bankrupt ideas.
I started this blog as a forum dedicated to reason and observation as the only responsible sources of knowledge and the only reliable guides against error. I think that the harsh tone that I take against religion is in better harmony with that ideal than anything else I write here.
So to conclude, dear reader, I will not alter the nature of the position I take against religion. To be, as you suggest, “more sensitive toward religion” would be, I think, to compromise intellectual honesty, which demands that criticism not be afraid of its own conclusions. Intellectual honesty also demands considering arguments opposed to your own positions, and I frequently do this; I welcome any sound rebuttal to my positions, but I have yet to hear a pro-faith or pro-religion argument that was not fatally flawed in its logic. Thus I will continue to give religious faith only the intellectual credit it deserves, which as far as I can tell, is none.
03 July 2007
The Use and Abuse of Philosophy
I'm always interested - and not infrequently disappointed - in how people react when I tell them I majored in philosophy. A college acquaintance of mine, for instance, once told me that she didn't like philosophy, because she found it to be too abstract. This puzzled me, especially because she herself was majoring in government. She seemed not to understand that all fundamental questions in her field - and, for that matter, in all of the humanities - go back to philosophy.
Philosophy is to the humanities what mathematics is to the sciences: it is the foundation upon which everything rests. Philosophy, like mathematics, appears at first to be abstract, even detached from reality. And for this reason, many people dismiss it as being too difficult, or of too little use in daily life to warrant serious study.
But philosophy is not at all abstract - it is eminently pragmatic and practical, and your mind can't live a day without it, any more than your body can survive without water or food. Philosophy is not some head-in-the-clouds pastime involving ridiculous questions about what sound a tree makes when falling in the forest. It is simply the practice of rational, critical thought.
My friend majoring in government, for instance, would have done well to consider that the core questions in her field are all philosophical considerations: what is the most just form of government? Is the death penalty just, or is it cruel and unusual? Is it fair to tax the rich and redistribute wealth to the indigent, or is true justice characterized by letting people keep what they earn? Does bigger government expand the borders of liberty, or does it limit them?
The other fields in the humanities also grow out of philosophy. One cannot study history, for instance, without considering why we should even care about the past in the first place. One cannot study art without aesthetics, anthropology without a theory of human nature, or sociology without an examination of social norms.
Even the sciences require an implicit study of philosophy. The scientific method is nothing more than an organized approach to dealing with the central challenges of epistemology: how do we know what we know, and what is the most responsible and reliable way of acquiring knowledge? And of course, all of the sciences rely on mathematics, which in turn rely on logical reasoning. One could thus go so far as to explain the project of science as the use of one branch of philosophy - logic - to pursue another branch - epistemology.
Simply put, philosophy is thinking - nothing more, nothing less. And the last time I checked, thinking is a fairly pragmatic and important activity in daily life (though ironically, one too often taken for granted by the very people who pride themselves on being pragmatic).
Philosophy is to the humanities what mathematics is to the sciences: it is the foundation upon which everything rests. Philosophy, like mathematics, appears at first to be abstract, even detached from reality. And for this reason, many people dismiss it as being too difficult, or of too little use in daily life to warrant serious study.
But philosophy is not at all abstract - it is eminently pragmatic and practical, and your mind can't live a day without it, any more than your body can survive without water or food. Philosophy is not some head-in-the-clouds pastime involving ridiculous questions about what sound a tree makes when falling in the forest. It is simply the practice of rational, critical thought.
My friend majoring in government, for instance, would have done well to consider that the core questions in her field are all philosophical considerations: what is the most just form of government? Is the death penalty just, or is it cruel and unusual? Is it fair to tax the rich and redistribute wealth to the indigent, or is true justice characterized by letting people keep what they earn? Does bigger government expand the borders of liberty, or does it limit them?
The other fields in the humanities also grow out of philosophy. One cannot study history, for instance, without considering why we should even care about the past in the first place. One cannot study art without aesthetics, anthropology without a theory of human nature, or sociology without an examination of social norms.
Even the sciences require an implicit study of philosophy. The scientific method is nothing more than an organized approach to dealing with the central challenges of epistemology: how do we know what we know, and what is the most responsible and reliable way of acquiring knowledge? And of course, all of the sciences rely on mathematics, which in turn rely on logical reasoning. One could thus go so far as to explain the project of science as the use of one branch of philosophy - logic - to pursue another branch - epistemology.
Simply put, philosophy is thinking - nothing more, nothing less. And the last time I checked, thinking is a fairly pragmatic and important activity in daily life (though ironically, one too often taken for granted by the very people who pride themselves on being pragmatic).
01 July 2007
The Court
Well, it's Supreme Court decision season again, but did you know that the highest court in the land has occupied its current building for only the past seventy years? Before the 1930's, the Court didn't have a home of its own - it met in the basement of the Capitol building. Then, in the 1920's, Chief Justice (and former President - the only man ever to have served in both Judicial and Executive Branches) William Howard Taft proposed that a Supreme Court Building be erected a short distance from the Capitol. Taft, along with such justices as Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., oversaw the planning and construction of the building, which was completed in 1935.
If you're ever sightseeing in Washington, go see the Court! It's not heavily touristed and is well worth a trip.
28 June 2007
Memory
"Das habe ich gethan" sagt mein Gedächtnis. "Das kann ich nicht gethan haben" sagt mein Stoltz und bleibt unerbittlich. Endlich - giebt das Gedächtnis nach.
-Friederich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse
"I have done that," says my memory. "I cannot have done that," says my pride, and remains inexorable. Eventually - memory yields.
-Friederich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
-Friederich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse
"I have done that," says my memory. "I cannot have done that," says my pride, and remains inexorable. Eventually - memory yields.
-Friederich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
25 June 2007
You call this archaeology?
A new series on the History Channel, Ice Road Truckers, debuted about a week ago. A description on the show's web site reads:
The History Channel embarks upon an unparalleled adventure revealing the virtually unknown occupation of ice road trucking, considered to be one of the world's most dangerous jobs. ICE ROAD TRUCKERS charts two months in the lives of six extraordinary men who haul vital supplies to diamond mines over frozen lakes that double as roads. The livelihood of many depends on these tenuous roads, which through the years have been responsible for the deaths of dozens of men.
Always prepared for the ice to give way under the weight of their trucks, these drivers put their lives and financial security of their families on the line in an exhilarating dash for cash. Beginning Sunday, June 17 at 10pm ET/PT, this adrenaline packed series reveals the raw, gripping quest of ice road truckers.
Ok. First of all, I can see maybe an episode or two about this particular profession, but an entire series? Are they so strapped for ideas that they need to stretch this out through a whole season?
Secondly - and much more importantly - this is the History Channel. Exactly what does "Ice Road Trucking" have to do with history? Wouldn't this be a program more appropriate for the Discovery Channel? Or the Travel Network? Or Fox?
And this isn't the first History Channel series to stray from the historical path. Though dubbed "the Hitler Channel" several years ago by critics who (justifiably) thought that there was too much WWII coverage, the History Channel nowadays would more appropriately be nicknamed "the Construction Channel". Shows such as Modern Marvels and Mega Movers (the producers of the History Channel seem to have a passion for alliteration with m's) focus on modern technology and large-scale construction, and have nothing to do with history. Unless one accepts the weak caveat that today's modernity is tomorrow's history, these shows deserve no place on the History Channel.
Shame on you, History Channel. Keep living in the past - it's where you belong!
The History Channel embarks upon an unparalleled adventure revealing the virtually unknown occupation of ice road trucking, considered to be one of the world's most dangerous jobs. ICE ROAD TRUCKERS charts two months in the lives of six extraordinary men who haul vital supplies to diamond mines over frozen lakes that double as roads. The livelihood of many depends on these tenuous roads, which through the years have been responsible for the deaths of dozens of men.
Always prepared for the ice to give way under the weight of their trucks, these drivers put their lives and financial security of their families on the line in an exhilarating dash for cash. Beginning Sunday, June 17 at 10pm ET/PT, this adrenaline packed series reveals the raw, gripping quest of ice road truckers.
Ok. First of all, I can see maybe an episode or two about this particular profession, but an entire series? Are they so strapped for ideas that they need to stretch this out through a whole season?
Secondly - and much more importantly - this is the History Channel. Exactly what does "Ice Road Trucking" have to do with history? Wouldn't this be a program more appropriate for the Discovery Channel? Or the Travel Network? Or Fox?
And this isn't the first History Channel series to stray from the historical path. Though dubbed "the Hitler Channel" several years ago by critics who (justifiably) thought that there was too much WWII coverage, the History Channel nowadays would more appropriately be nicknamed "the Construction Channel". Shows such as Modern Marvels and Mega Movers (the producers of the History Channel seem to have a passion for alliteration with m's) focus on modern technology and large-scale construction, and have nothing to do with history. Unless one accepts the weak caveat that today's modernity is tomorrow's history, these shows deserve no place on the History Channel.
Shame on you, History Channel. Keep living in the past - it's where you belong!
20 June 2007
Thou Shalt Not Tailgate
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
