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.
30 March 2007
Damned If He Knew, Damned If He Didn't
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has denied that he knew anything about the firing of US attorneys for political reasons. I don't buy that for a New York minute.
But it really doesn't matter, now, does it? If he knew, he's culpable for allowing it to happen, and if he didn't, he's culpable for not knowing about it going on under his watch. Either way, he's in trouble.
But it really doesn't matter, now, does it? If he knew, he's culpable for allowing it to happen, and if he didn't, he's culpable for not knowing about it going on under his watch. Either way, he's in trouble.
28 March 2007
Step 23
Dear Learned Pig,
I came across the following passage in the book 100 Simple Secrets of Happy People by David Niven. It is listed as "Step 23." What do you make of it?
- A Curious Reader
Don't Let Your Religious Beliefs Fade
Religion can show us the way in a world in which bad things happen. It can teach us that much of what we see is so complex we cannot understand why and how it occurred. (p. 42)
Dear Curious Reader,
Thank you for bringing this piece of mindless trash to my attention. Let's take it apart piece by piece.
"Religion can show us the way..."
Ok, wrong from the very start. Religion does NOT "show us the way"; it makes up a way. It encourages you to believe what you want to believe instead of believing what is rational. It values faith over reason and comfort over knowledge.
Any 'way' that religion 'shows you' is a path to ignorance. Religion insulates you from the truth, because the truth can be discomforting. Religion is a childish attempt by weak-minded people to project some sort of socially constructed meaning onto their contingent existences. But the fact that an idea is comforting doesn't make it true.
"... in a world in which bad things happen."
Aww, bad things happen? You poor little thing. Want a lolipop?
Actually, most people turn to religion as a metaphysical lolipop. It comforts them, because without the deluded belief that "all things happen for a reason," they wouldn't be able to deal with suffering.
Nobody likes the fact that bad things happen. That's why such things are called bad. But the mere fact that they happen means nothing in itself. The realization that the universe is indifferent to you is the first step towards living life for yourself.
"It can teach us that much of what we see is so complex we cannot understand why and how it occurred."
You know what's so complex that I cannot understand why and how it occurred? That fucking sentence. This man is as bad at writing as he is at thinking.
I suppose he's trying to say that religion teaches us that we cannot understand the world around us. He should try reading some books. Everything is rational - whether or not one is smart or brave enough to understand it.
So, dear reader, the idea that religion somehow makes life more meaningful is completely and utterly wrong. The advice I would give for a good life would read:
Don't Let Yourself Believe In Bullshit
Religion is a bunch of archaic, puerile nonsense designed to comfort the ignorant and the weak. Try learning about the world around you instead of explaining everything away with a bunch of ridiculous myths and outdated laws.
I came across the following passage in the book 100 Simple Secrets of Happy People by David Niven. It is listed as "Step 23." What do you make of it?
- A Curious Reader
Don't Let Your Religious Beliefs Fade
Religion can show us the way in a world in which bad things happen. It can teach us that much of what we see is so complex we cannot understand why and how it occurred. (p. 42)
Dear Curious Reader,
Thank you for bringing this piece of mindless trash to my attention. Let's take it apart piece by piece.
"Religion can show us the way..."
Ok, wrong from the very start. Religion does NOT "show us the way"; it makes up a way. It encourages you to believe what you want to believe instead of believing what is rational. It values faith over reason and comfort over knowledge.
Any 'way' that religion 'shows you' is a path to ignorance. Religion insulates you from the truth, because the truth can be discomforting. Religion is a childish attempt by weak-minded people to project some sort of socially constructed meaning onto their contingent existences. But the fact that an idea is comforting doesn't make it true.
"... in a world in which bad things happen."
Aww, bad things happen? You poor little thing. Want a lolipop?
Actually, most people turn to religion as a metaphysical lolipop. It comforts them, because without the deluded belief that "all things happen for a reason," they wouldn't be able to deal with suffering.
Nobody likes the fact that bad things happen. That's why such things are called bad. But the mere fact that they happen means nothing in itself. The realization that the universe is indifferent to you is the first step towards living life for yourself.
"It can teach us that much of what we see is so complex we cannot understand why and how it occurred."
You know what's so complex that I cannot understand why and how it occurred? That fucking sentence. This man is as bad at writing as he is at thinking.
I suppose he's trying to say that religion teaches us that we cannot understand the world around us. He should try reading some books. Everything is rational - whether or not one is smart or brave enough to understand it.
So, dear reader, the idea that religion somehow makes life more meaningful is completely and utterly wrong. The advice I would give for a good life would read:
Don't Let Yourself Believe In Bullshit
Religion is a bunch of archaic, puerile nonsense designed to comfort the ignorant and the weak. Try learning about the world around you instead of explaining everything away with a bunch of ridiculous myths and outdated laws.
23 March 2007
20 March 2007
Brutally Redundant
Reading a history book the other day, I came across the sentence "She was brutally raped." 'Brutally raped' or 'brutal rape' has become a phrase almost common enough to be cliche, but isn't it redundant? I mean, can one really imagine a rape that is not brutal? What would differentiate a brutal rape from, say, a sympathetic rape?
Brutality is an inherent quality of rape, a necessary condition for forcefully violating another human being. I think if the author had just left it at "she was raped", we'd still have an accurate picture of the wretchedly inhumane behavior to which he was referring.
Brutality is an inherent quality of rape, a necessary condition for forcefully violating another human being. I think if the author had just left it at "she was raped", we'd still have an accurate picture of the wretchedly inhumane behavior to which he was referring.
17 March 2007
Only Religion
The Onion's March 7 horoscope for Aries:
Remember: While faith can move mountains, only religion is capable of making you feel guilty for doing so.
Remember: While faith can move mountains, only religion is capable of making you feel guilty for doing so.
14 March 2007
Literally?
So Anne told me that tonight on NPR, some woman talking about a book had this to say: "And she quite literally poured her heart out onto these pages..."
Quite literally poured her heart out? Really? You're telling me that, as she was writing, she carved her own beating heart out of her chest and dumped it onto the sheet of paper? Wow. Personally, when I need tips on writing, I tend to turn to Strunk and White rather than ancient Mayan sacrificial rites.
People sometimes think that "literally" is just a word that adds emphasis, like "really" or "seriously". It's not. Use it only if the imagery you're employing should be interpreted without any metaphorical or idiomatic layers of meaning.
Quite literally poured her heart out? Really? You're telling me that, as she was writing, she carved her own beating heart out of her chest and dumped it onto the sheet of paper? Wow. Personally, when I need tips on writing, I tend to turn to Strunk and White rather than ancient Mayan sacrificial rites.
People sometimes think that "literally" is just a word that adds emphasis, like "really" or "seriously". It's not. Use it only if the imagery you're employing should be interpreted without any metaphorical or idiomatic layers of meaning.
13 March 2007
General Pace's Upbringing
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, believes that homosexuality is immoral. He doesn't give a reason why; he just declares that he believes it so. As if calling it immoral proves it to be immoral!
That's not an argument, that's a prejudice. But he seems to think that it is an argument, because he backs it up by saying that he believes gayness to be immoral because that's the way he was brought up.
So the outline of his 'argument' runs thus:
Premise 1: I was brought up to think that homosexuality is immoral.
Premise 2 (implied): If I was brought up to believe something, than it must be true.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is immoral.
Bulletproof logic, no?
Since he's so concerned with immorality, I wonder if he considers it wrong to weaken our ability to fight terrorism by dismissing over 50 Arabic specialists from the military for being attracted to members of their own sex.
I'm sure that's a perfectly acceptable policy. Clearly, our capability to understand the enemies' language is secondary to keeping the military loyal to the standards of General Pace's personal upbringing.
That's not an argument, that's a prejudice. But he seems to think that it is an argument, because he backs it up by saying that he believes gayness to be immoral because that's the way he was brought up.
So the outline of his 'argument' runs thus:
Premise 1: I was brought up to think that homosexuality is immoral.
Premise 2 (implied): If I was brought up to believe something, than it must be true.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is immoral.
Bulletproof logic, no?
Since he's so concerned with immorality, I wonder if he considers it wrong to weaken our ability to fight terrorism by dismissing over 50 Arabic specialists from the military for being attracted to members of their own sex.
I'm sure that's a perfectly acceptable policy. Clearly, our capability to understand the enemies' language is secondary to keeping the military loyal to the standards of General Pace's personal upbringing.
10 March 2007
The Real American Idols
Our culture idolizes two kinds of people: people who confess things, and people who 'tell it like it is'.
07 March 2007
Dead Dogs and Dimwits
BBC: Dog Meat Popular in Nigeria
"Eating dog meat gives you a special protection against the most potent juju (charm)," [a seller of dog meat] claims, reeling off the benefits of dog meat. "Dog meat also improves your sex life. And if you eat dog meat, you cannot be poisoned."
Apparently, though, eating dog meat is unable to cure terminal stupidity.
Eating dog meat prevents malaria, improves libido, protects against poison, and even makes you run faster? Wow! That all sounds too good to be true! Probably because it IS too good to be true!
The doctor quoted in the article points out that these supposed virtues of dog meat are not supported by any real medical evidence. But tell that to the people who like eating dogs, and they'll smile, shake their heads, and proudly dismiss your learned opinion. For you see, although they don't have medical degrees, they do have faith. Faith, the main ingredient in religious belief, is also required for belief in superstition. Faith allows you to believe whatever you want, without having any reason to believe it.
So a veritable canine genocide will continue to take place in Nigeria, simply because ignorant people have convinced themselves that dog flesh has magically healthful properties.
Oh, and of course, it tastes good. When asked about the flavor, Mr. Nnkwo was quoted in the article as responding "Oh la la! You don't know what you are missing." He's right, I don't. I do know what he is missing, though: a moral conscience and a basic knowledge of biology.
"Eating dog meat gives you a special protection against the most potent juju (charm)," [a seller of dog meat] claims, reeling off the benefits of dog meat. "Dog meat also improves your sex life. And if you eat dog meat, you cannot be poisoned."
Apparently, though, eating dog meat is unable to cure terminal stupidity.
Eating dog meat prevents malaria, improves libido, protects against poison, and even makes you run faster? Wow! That all sounds too good to be true! Probably because it IS too good to be true!
The doctor quoted in the article points out that these supposed virtues of dog meat are not supported by any real medical evidence. But tell that to the people who like eating dogs, and they'll smile, shake their heads, and proudly dismiss your learned opinion. For you see, although they don't have medical degrees, they do have faith. Faith, the main ingredient in religious belief, is also required for belief in superstition. Faith allows you to believe whatever you want, without having any reason to believe it.
So a veritable canine genocide will continue to take place in Nigeria, simply because ignorant people have convinced themselves that dog flesh has magically healthful properties.
Oh, and of course, it tastes good. When asked about the flavor, Mr. Nnkwo was quoted in the article as responding "Oh la la! You don't know what you are missing." He's right, I don't. I do know what he is missing, though: a moral conscience and a basic knowledge of biology.
06 March 2007
Religion and Progress
Tonight's guest on the Colbert Report was Mara Vanderslice, a consultant who encourages Democrats to appeal to religious voters. Besides having an excellent last name, she made some valuable points. For instance, she said that voters of faith constitute a huge demographic: 80% of the US population believes in god. She also explained that since Democratic politicians are also religious, their party does not deserve the reputation of being anti-religion.
And then she said something else: she asserted that people of faith have been behind every progressive movement in American history.
This is a lie.
The notion that religion has been a driving force in the history of social progress is totally absurd. It is, however, a widely accepted misperception, and this is perhaps due to the subtlety of the logical fallacy it presents.
It is indeed true that there have always existed some religious people who have championed social progress; the fallacy here is to jump to the blanket statement, "Religious people have championed all social progress". This statement fails to reveal the whole picture: it disregards the groups of religious people who have opposed social progress, and it also disregards the groups of nonreligious people who have championed social progress.
Once one considers that there have always been religious people on both sides of social debates, it becomes clear that religion does as much harm as it does good. And once one considers that nonreligious people have also helped social progress, the role of faith becomes a moot point; clearly, religious belief was not a necessary factor, because it was a more specific element (social consciousness, ethical awareness, etc) that was driving positive change.
Take the abolition of slavery as an example. The religiously correct in this country love to point out how good Christian values were instrumental in changing people's minds and attitudes about slavery. But they conveniently forget or disregard the fact that religion was even more instrumental in attempts to defend the 'peculiar institution': southern Christian slaveholders used the curse of Canaan, for instance, to prove that God wants black people to serve white people. And there were prominent freethinkers - notably Horace Greeley - who did as much as any religious person in fighting for the freedom of blacks.
Women's suffrage is perhaps an even better example; religious rhetoric was used again and again to argue that the woman's place is in the home, but religious groups rarely came out to support women's rights.
And just look at the progressive movements of our own time! Only a liar or an idiot would argue that religious dogma is helping to support gay rights, or to champion the superiority of evolutionary science over superstitious bullshit.
In the end, I think any contributions that religion has provided to social progress would prove accidental. It is reason, and reason alone, that drives positive social change. Faith, which is the absence of reason, can only spread ignorance and suffering.
And then she said something else: she asserted that people of faith have been behind every progressive movement in American history.
This is a lie.
The notion that religion has been a driving force in the history of social progress is totally absurd. It is, however, a widely accepted misperception, and this is perhaps due to the subtlety of the logical fallacy it presents.
It is indeed true that there have always existed some religious people who have championed social progress; the fallacy here is to jump to the blanket statement, "Religious people have championed all social progress". This statement fails to reveal the whole picture: it disregards the groups of religious people who have opposed social progress, and it also disregards the groups of nonreligious people who have championed social progress.
Once one considers that there have always been religious people on both sides of social debates, it becomes clear that religion does as much harm as it does good. And once one considers that nonreligious people have also helped social progress, the role of faith becomes a moot point; clearly, religious belief was not a necessary factor, because it was a more specific element (social consciousness, ethical awareness, etc) that was driving positive change.
Take the abolition of slavery as an example. The religiously correct in this country love to point out how good Christian values were instrumental in changing people's minds and attitudes about slavery. But they conveniently forget or disregard the fact that religion was even more instrumental in attempts to defend the 'peculiar institution': southern Christian slaveholders used the curse of Canaan, for instance, to prove that God wants black people to serve white people. And there were prominent freethinkers - notably Horace Greeley - who did as much as any religious person in fighting for the freedom of blacks.
Women's suffrage is perhaps an even better example; religious rhetoric was used again and again to argue that the woman's place is in the home, but religious groups rarely came out to support women's rights.
And just look at the progressive movements of our own time! Only a liar or an idiot would argue that religious dogma is helping to support gay rights, or to champion the superiority of evolutionary science over superstitious bullshit.
In the end, I think any contributions that religion has provided to social progress would prove accidental. It is reason, and reason alone, that drives positive social change. Faith, which is the absence of reason, can only spread ignorance and suffering.
04 March 2007
The Conditions for God
"'God himself cannot live without wise people,' said Luther with good reason. But 'God can exist even less without unwise people' - that our good Luther did not say."
-Friederich Nietzsche, The Gay Science
-Friederich Nietzsche, The Gay Science
02 March 2007
Compassion Towards Animals: An Enlightenment View
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Enlightenment philosopher and vegetarian, eloquently wrote in the preface to his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1754) on how compassion and ethical treatment should not distinguish between humans and animals:
"Meditating on the first and most simple operations of the human soul, I believe I perceive in it two principles that are prior to reason, of which one makes us ardently interested in our well-being and our self-preservation, and the other inspires in us a natural repugnance to seeing any sentient being, especially our fellow-man, perish or suffer.
"In this way one is not obliged to make a man a philosopher before making him a man. His duties toward others are not uniquely dictated to him by the belated lessons of wisdom; and as long as he does not resist the inner impulse of compassion, he will never harm another man or even another sentient being, except in the legitimate instance where, if his preservation were involved, he is obliged to give preference to himself. By this means, an end can also be made to the ancient disputes regarding the participation of animals in the natural law. For it is clear that, lacking intelligence and liberty, they cannot recognize this law; but since they share to some extent to our nature by virtue of the sentient quality with which they are endowed, one will judge that they should also participate in natural right, and that man is subject to some sort of duties toward them. It seems, in effect, that if I am obliged not to do any harm to my fellow man, it is less because he is a rational being than because he is a sentient being: a quality that, since it is common to both animal and men, should at least give the former the right not to be needlessly mistreated by the latter."
[Translation by Donald A. Cress]
"Meditating on the first and most simple operations of the human soul, I believe I perceive in it two principles that are prior to reason, of which one makes us ardently interested in our well-being and our self-preservation, and the other inspires in us a natural repugnance to seeing any sentient being, especially our fellow-man, perish or suffer.
"In this way one is not obliged to make a man a philosopher before making him a man. His duties toward others are not uniquely dictated to him by the belated lessons of wisdom; and as long as he does not resist the inner impulse of compassion, he will never harm another man or even another sentient being, except in the legitimate instance where, if his preservation were involved, he is obliged to give preference to himself. By this means, an end can also be made to the ancient disputes regarding the participation of animals in the natural law. For it is clear that, lacking intelligence and liberty, they cannot recognize this law; but since they share to some extent to our nature by virtue of the sentient quality with which they are endowed, one will judge that they should also participate in natural right, and that man is subject to some sort of duties toward them. It seems, in effect, that if I am obliged not to do any harm to my fellow man, it is less because he is a rational being than because he is a sentient being: a quality that, since it is common to both animal and men, should at least give the former the right not to be needlessly mistreated by the latter."
[Translation by Donald A. Cress]
27 February 2007
Bigger People, Smaller Population
BBC: X-treme Eating in the US
Chain restaurants in the United States are promoting dangerous "X-treme Eating", a US watchdog has said.
They are serving up "ever-more harmful new creations," the Center for Science in the Public Interest says... some individual dishes can exceed 2,000 calories, more than the recommended daily intake for women.
Gross? Yes it is. It's as if fast food and chain resturaunts are having a culinary arms race with each other over who can build the biggest arsenal of disgusting and deadly food. And like the objects of a real arms race, it seems the menus of these resturaunts can be measured in megatons.
But because of the horrid affront to healthfulness that it represents, I would argue that some unintended but quite beneficial consequences could come out of this "X-treme eating" trend.
The human population on Earth is expanding faster than it ever has - not only because of pure exponential reproduction, but also because of improving medical care and increasing life expectancies.
But the fact that a disgustingly large (pun intended) section of the population won't make it past middle age will help stem the growth of the population. Think about it: you don't see many obese senior citizens. For a healthy person, a retirement plan is a 401(k) and a condo in Florida; for an obese person, it's a heart attack and an XXL coffin.
And there also will be an added bonus for those of us who don't eat ourselves into oblivion. Since social security money all goes into one big pool, those of us who actually survive to retirement will get to enjoy more money, since there will be fewer people around to collect.
So if you're a fan of the Texas Double Whopper, by all means: bon appetit. Go ahead and block up those coronory arteries. And take up smoking while you're at it. We atheletes and vegetarians will be enjoying your social security money and the extra space in the neighborhood long after you've been buried in your big, fat grave.
Chain restaurants in the United States are promoting dangerous "X-treme Eating", a US watchdog has said.
They are serving up "ever-more harmful new creations," the Center for Science in the Public Interest says... some individual dishes can exceed 2,000 calories, more than the recommended daily intake for women.
Gross? Yes it is. It's as if fast food and chain resturaunts are having a culinary arms race with each other over who can build the biggest arsenal of disgusting and deadly food. And like the objects of a real arms race, it seems the menus of these resturaunts can be measured in megatons.
But because of the horrid affront to healthfulness that it represents, I would argue that some unintended but quite beneficial consequences could come out of this "X-treme eating" trend.
The human population on Earth is expanding faster than it ever has - not only because of pure exponential reproduction, but also because of improving medical care and increasing life expectancies.
But the fact that a disgustingly large (pun intended) section of the population won't make it past middle age will help stem the growth of the population. Think about it: you don't see many obese senior citizens. For a healthy person, a retirement plan is a 401(k) and a condo in Florida; for an obese person, it's a heart attack and an XXL coffin.
And there also will be an added bonus for those of us who don't eat ourselves into oblivion. Since social security money all goes into one big pool, those of us who actually survive to retirement will get to enjoy more money, since there will be fewer people around to collect.
So if you're a fan of the Texas Double Whopper, by all means: bon appetit. Go ahead and block up those coronory arteries. And take up smoking while you're at it. We atheletes and vegetarians will be enjoying your social security money and the extra space in the neighborhood long after you've been buried in your big, fat grave.
23 February 2007
Good Riddance to Bad Bile Farmers
BBC: Bears Eat Keeper Who Took Their Bile
Gee. I wonder why the bears were upset:
The bile is extracted in an excruciatingly painful process which involves slicing into the animal's flesh and "milking" the substance with a tube.
What the hell is the deal with traditional Chinese medicine's penchant for killing and abusing rhinos, tigers, bears, and other wildlife? Is it a traditional doctrine of theirs that to help humans you have to maim and torture innocent animals?
These traditional superstitions hold that the tiger penis and rhinoceros horn are aphrodisiacs, and that bear bile can be used as a versatile 'medicine'. Riiiiight. Clearly they got their MDs at Hopkins.
This is NOT a matter of cultural relativism - these practices should not be seen as acceptable simply because they cloak themselves in "tradition". This is a matter of sheer ignorant superstition being used to justify appalling immorality.
Go bears! Well done. That ignorant reprobate asswipe got exactly what he deserved: a dose of his own "medicine".
Gee. I wonder why the bears were upset:
The bile is extracted in an excruciatingly painful process which involves slicing into the animal's flesh and "milking" the substance with a tube.
What the hell is the deal with traditional Chinese medicine's penchant for killing and abusing rhinos, tigers, bears, and other wildlife? Is it a traditional doctrine of theirs that to help humans you have to maim and torture innocent animals?
These traditional superstitions hold that the tiger penis and rhinoceros horn are aphrodisiacs, and that bear bile can be used as a versatile 'medicine'. Riiiiight. Clearly they got their MDs at Hopkins.
This is NOT a matter of cultural relativism - these practices should not be seen as acceptable simply because they cloak themselves in "tradition". This is a matter of sheer ignorant superstition being used to justify appalling immorality.
Go bears! Well done. That ignorant reprobate asswipe got exactly what he deserved: a dose of his own "medicine".
21 February 2007
Your Diet and the Environment
There are two commonly-known reasons for vegetarianism: avoidance of killing animals, and a more healthful diet. But there is a lesser-known reason for vegetarianism that many people would find persuasive, were they only aware of it.
I'm referring to the environmental and economic impacts of eating meat. Raising animals for slaughter and subsequent consumption is the most ludicrously inefficient and wasteful process that the modern-day free market still tolerates.
To raise a cow for hamburger meat requires:
1. Abundant land for grazing
2. Years of time
3. Enough food and water every day to feed multiple people
Clearing land for livestock is one of the primary reasons for deforestation, rainforests included. Just look at how much rainforest Brazil has destroyed in order to clear land for the meat industry. Also, the majority of agricultural land in the world today grows crops not to feed humans directly, but to feed the animals that will feed humans. Sound insane?
The amount of months and years it takes for a cow to mature enough to become your hamburger could be spent gathering multiple harvests of fruits, grains, or vegetables. And the fact that we feed a cow, day in, day out, for several years, means that we're providing it with thousands of human meals - just in order to create a few dozen hamburgers.
Put it all together, and it means that if no one ate meat, we would only need a fraction of the land we use today for agriculture, we would have an overabundance of food in the world, and deforestation would all but come to an end (especially because the land we would no longer need for agriculture could be used for RE-forestation).
As Peter Singer writes:
Animals raised in sheds or on feed-lots eat grains or soybeans, and they use most of the food value of these products simply in order to maintain basic functions and develop unpalatable parts of the body like bones and skin. To convert eight or nine kilos of grain protein into a single kilo of animal protein wastes land, energy, and water. On a crowded planet with a growing human population, that is a luxury we are becoming increasingly unable to afford.
Want to fight global warming? Stop eating meat:
Intensive animal production is a heavy user of fossil fuels and a major source of pollution of both air and water. It releases large quantities of methane and other greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. We are risking unpredictable changes to the climate of our planet... for the sake of mere hamburgers. A diet heavy in animal products... is a disaster for animals, the environment, and the health of those who eat it.
So avoidance of cruelty to animals and better health aren't the only reasons for going vegetarian. If you claim to support the environment but continue to eat meat, you need to face up to the fact that your actions do not match your ideals.
I'm referring to the environmental and economic impacts of eating meat. Raising animals for slaughter and subsequent consumption is the most ludicrously inefficient and wasteful process that the modern-day free market still tolerates.
To raise a cow for hamburger meat requires:
1. Abundant land for grazing
2. Years of time
3. Enough food and water every day to feed multiple people
Clearing land for livestock is one of the primary reasons for deforestation, rainforests included. Just look at how much rainforest Brazil has destroyed in order to clear land for the meat industry. Also, the majority of agricultural land in the world today grows crops not to feed humans directly, but to feed the animals that will feed humans. Sound insane?
The amount of months and years it takes for a cow to mature enough to become your hamburger could be spent gathering multiple harvests of fruits, grains, or vegetables. And the fact that we feed a cow, day in, day out, for several years, means that we're providing it with thousands of human meals - just in order to create a few dozen hamburgers.
Put it all together, and it means that if no one ate meat, we would only need a fraction of the land we use today for agriculture, we would have an overabundance of food in the world, and deforestation would all but come to an end (especially because the land we would no longer need for agriculture could be used for RE-forestation).
As Peter Singer writes:
Animals raised in sheds or on feed-lots eat grains or soybeans, and they use most of the food value of these products simply in order to maintain basic functions and develop unpalatable parts of the body like bones and skin. To convert eight or nine kilos of grain protein into a single kilo of animal protein wastes land, energy, and water. On a crowded planet with a growing human population, that is a luxury we are becoming increasingly unable to afford.
Want to fight global warming? Stop eating meat:
Intensive animal production is a heavy user of fossil fuels and a major source of pollution of both air and water. It releases large quantities of methane and other greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. We are risking unpredictable changes to the climate of our planet... for the sake of mere hamburgers. A diet heavy in animal products... is a disaster for animals, the environment, and the health of those who eat it.
So avoidance of cruelty to animals and better health aren't the only reasons for going vegetarian. If you claim to support the environment but continue to eat meat, you need to face up to the fact that your actions do not match your ideals.
Philosophy in Lost 2
I forgot about yet another character on Lost who is named for an Enlightenment philosopher. Rousseau, the strange woman who lives in the woods, is aptly named after Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Enlightenment thinker best known for his theories on nature versus society. As Rousseau lives in a "state of nature" and acts as a contrast to the island "societies" of the crash victims and the others, this is a perfectly chosen name.
Also, I found some info on how John Locke relates to his Lost namesake here. Seems his social theories and his personal biography may be more of a connection than his epistemic positions.
So, now the count is 4 Enlightenment philosophers! Who will be next? Spinoza? Berkeley? Voltaire? I can't imagine them incorporating a Gottfried Leibniz. Maybe Adam Smith, though - that name sounds commonplace enough.
Also, I found some info on how John Locke relates to his Lost namesake here. Seems his social theories and his personal biography may be more of a connection than his epistemic positions.
So, now the count is 4 Enlightenment philosophers! Who will be next? Spinoza? Berkeley? Voltaire? I can't imagine them incorporating a Gottfried Leibniz. Maybe Adam Smith, though - that name sounds commonplace enough.
18 February 2007
Philosophy in Lost
Lost is a great TV series, and no wonder: this season it's become clear that at least someone on the writing staff is a fan of Enlightenment philosophy! The character John Locke has been around since season one, and there's no mistaking that reference. But this season two more philosophic names have come to light: Desmond, whose full name is Desmond David Hume, and a peripheral character (from Juliet's backstory - her boss and ex-boyfriend) named Edmund Burke.
They sure aren't subtle about drawing these references to Enlightenment thinkers. So what does it all mean? Well, one prominent theme in the show is the mystery of the island. Both John Locke and David Hume contributed much to the study of epistemology (the study of knowledge), so perhaps there's a connection there. But both Hume and Locke were empiricists - relying on only the senses for a foundation of knowledge - whereas in the show, John is characterized by faith in some kind of unfathomable destiny, and Desmond seems to have the power of foresight, so the similarities seem limited.
Burke was a political thinker, primarily known for his opposition to the French Revolution. Unclear what the connection there is. He was also British, though - suppose that's something.
So now we know that two main characters are named after British empiricists. We'll have to see where they go with this. If a new character named George Berkeley shows up, we'll know something's really afoot.
They sure aren't subtle about drawing these references to Enlightenment thinkers. So what does it all mean? Well, one prominent theme in the show is the mystery of the island. Both John Locke and David Hume contributed much to the study of epistemology (the study of knowledge), so perhaps there's a connection there. But both Hume and Locke were empiricists - relying on only the senses for a foundation of knowledge - whereas in the show, John is characterized by faith in some kind of unfathomable destiny, and Desmond seems to have the power of foresight, so the similarities seem limited.
Burke was a political thinker, primarily known for his opposition to the French Revolution. Unclear what the connection there is. He was also British, though - suppose that's something.
So now we know that two main characters are named after British empiricists. We'll have to see where they go with this. If a new character named George Berkeley shows up, we'll know something's really afoot.
16 February 2007
"Tragic and misguided" indeed
Associated Press: Catholics Attack NYC's Free Condoms
NEW YORK - New York's top Catholic leaders on Thursday sharply criticized the city for "blanketing our neighborhoods with condoms," saying city officials were promoting promiscuity and degrading society by distributing subway-themed condoms.
The plan, the Catholic leaders said, "is tragic and misguided," adding that the only way to protect against sexually transmitted diseases is through abstinence before marriage and fidelity among married couples.
Religion has an amazing capacity for utterly disregarding any fact which it deems inconvenient. The only way to protect against STDs is through abstinence and marital fidelity? Um... no. No. No, that is simply a false statement. It's not open to debate.
We - and by "we" I refer to people with even a cursory, high-school-level knowledge of biology - have known for quite some time that sheathing a penis in latex will prevent male bodily fluids from getting out and female body fluids from getting in. No fluid transmission means no disease transmission. Quod erat demonstrandum.
And yet the Catholics talk about it as if it's a matter of opinion! It is not - it is a matter of fact, of empirical reality. Understandably, this makes Catholics nervous, because faith isn't very useful when facts and reality are involved. Faith is always employed as a vehicle to escape those things.
Catholics don't want you to have sex unless you satisfy two necessary and sufficient conditions: 1) you're married, and 2) you are copulating with the express intention to produce offspring.
This is pure stupidity. Waiting to have sex until marriage is not only a hopelessly unrealistic expectation for society at large, it is a bad starting point for any individual marriage. You really want people staying together partially because they don't know how good or bad sex would be with other people? Seems to me that the mere ignorance of something better would be a terrible foundation for a relationship.
And the Church also conveniently disregards the fact that sex is both natural and fun. It is an essential aspect of life, and it is something to indulge in, as much as eating a good meal or sleeping soundly. And no matter how much the Church may try to reduce sex to its most practical, functional role - the propagation of the species - they must admit that no one can ever have sex purely for that purpose. Sex always requires a male erection - you can't have sex without at least some desire (self-loathing as it may be). Our friend evolution made sure of that. Haha - science wins.
The Catholic Church, like so many other religions, is desperately trying to cling to its ancient heritage of superstition, willful scientific ignorance, and the reduction of women's roles in society to that of pious baby factories. But even the Church's priests sometimes realize that no one can live a full life without a little lust. Unfortunately, their minds twisted with years of repression, these priests then turn to pedaresty as their sexual outlet. Maybe they avoid women because they think condoms are a bigger evil than statutory rape.
NEW YORK - New York's top Catholic leaders on Thursday sharply criticized the city for "blanketing our neighborhoods with condoms," saying city officials were promoting promiscuity and degrading society by distributing subway-themed condoms.
The plan, the Catholic leaders said, "is tragic and misguided," adding that the only way to protect against sexually transmitted diseases is through abstinence before marriage and fidelity among married couples.
Religion has an amazing capacity for utterly disregarding any fact which it deems inconvenient. The only way to protect against STDs is through abstinence and marital fidelity? Um... no. No. No, that is simply a false statement. It's not open to debate.
We - and by "we" I refer to people with even a cursory, high-school-level knowledge of biology - have known for quite some time that sheathing a penis in latex will prevent male bodily fluids from getting out and female body fluids from getting in. No fluid transmission means no disease transmission. Quod erat demonstrandum.
And yet the Catholics talk about it as if it's a matter of opinion! It is not - it is a matter of fact, of empirical reality. Understandably, this makes Catholics nervous, because faith isn't very useful when facts and reality are involved. Faith is always employed as a vehicle to escape those things.
Catholics don't want you to have sex unless you satisfy two necessary and sufficient conditions: 1) you're married, and 2) you are copulating with the express intention to produce offspring.
This is pure stupidity. Waiting to have sex until marriage is not only a hopelessly unrealistic expectation for society at large, it is a bad starting point for any individual marriage. You really want people staying together partially because they don't know how good or bad sex would be with other people? Seems to me that the mere ignorance of something better would be a terrible foundation for a relationship.
And the Church also conveniently disregards the fact that sex is both natural and fun. It is an essential aspect of life, and it is something to indulge in, as much as eating a good meal or sleeping soundly. And no matter how much the Church may try to reduce sex to its most practical, functional role - the propagation of the species - they must admit that no one can ever have sex purely for that purpose. Sex always requires a male erection - you can't have sex without at least some desire (self-loathing as it may be). Our friend evolution made sure of that. Haha - science wins.
The Catholic Church, like so many other religions, is desperately trying to cling to its ancient heritage of superstition, willful scientific ignorance, and the reduction of women's roles in society to that of pious baby factories. But even the Church's priests sometimes realize that no one can live a full life without a little lust. Unfortunately, their minds twisted with years of repression, these priests then turn to pedaresty as their sexual outlet. Maybe they avoid women because they think condoms are a bigger evil than statutory rape.
13 February 2007
Fullscreen
It was time to relax. I had it all ready: the bag of popcorn, the large glass of cranberry juice, the fluffed-up pillows on my futon, and my feet up on the table. The feature presentation of the evening was to be Million Dollar Baby, a critically acclaimed film that I'd long been eager to watch. I had borrowed it that day for free from the Middletown Public Library.
But then, just as I was ready to settle down into two hours of cinematic bliss, I looked at the DVD box. To my disdain, to my consternation, to my horror, was that loathsome word: FULLSCREEN.
After unleashing a violent series of expletives, I got up, put on my jacket, went downstairs, drove to Blockbuster, paid $4.50 for a rental of the widescreen version of the film, came back, and resumed my evening.
An extreme reaction? Hardly. When I watch a movie, I like to watch the actual movie, not the fake hackjob version. There is no surer way of raping the artistic work of a cinematographer than to render a film into a fullscreen edition.
Movies these days are usually shot in a 16:9 ratio (sometimes in even more rectangular ratios like 2.35:1). This is the rectangular shape of the movie that is projected on movie screens; it is the movie as it was shot and as it is meant to be seen.
Most televisions, however, are still more of a square shape (4:3 ratio) than a rectangular shape. And, as anyone who graduated from kindergarten will tell you, a rectangle will not fit into a square. So if you want to watch a film on your TV, you've got two options: shrink the rectangle down so that it will fit inside the square, or chop off the sides of the rectangle and force it to fit.
The former method accounts for the "letterbox" format of widescreen, with black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. The latter method is fullscreen.
Rendering a movie into fullscreen can cut out up to 45% of the original picture. That's right - you're literally seeing only two-thirds or less of the movie you're watching! And any attempt at artfully setting up shots is completely compromised.
For instance, I grew up loving the Indiana Jones films, and watching them all the time on VHS. The VHS tapes I had were fullscreen versions of the films. When the DVDs finally came out a few years back, I got to see the widescreen versions - and what a difference! I remember one particular shot in Raiders of the Lost Ark, a head-and-shoulders shot of Indy. In the fullscreen version he's simply in the middle of the frame - not a very interesting shot. In the widescreen version, however, he's only on one side of the screen - the entire right side of the shot is a beautiful background panorama. That's how the shot was meant to be seen.
It's not just artistic visions, however, that fullscreen versions compromise; sometimes you miss vital plot elements. Consider this info from Wikipedia's article on Pan and Scan:
Pan and Scan versions of DVDs are often called Fullscreen. But this method can also severely alter compositions and therefore dramatic effects.
For instance, in the film Jaws, the shark can be seen approaching for several seconds more in the widescreen version than in the pan and scan version. For the opening crawl [of text] in each Star Wars film, on the pan and scan versions the viewer has to wait until a line of text of the opening crawl reaches the center of the screen to read through that whole line. On the widescreen versions, each line of the opening crawl text appears in its entirety beginning at the bottom of the screen.
Additionally, in Indiana Jones (I don't know why I'm choosing all these examples from Spielberg), there's a scene in Raiders where Indy is sitting down in a bar with Belloq, the villain. At the end of the scene, all the Arabs in the bar suddenly pull out guns and point them at Indy. But in the widescreen version, this is foreshadowed by a hand in the right foreground handing off a pistol to another mysterious hand. A small detail perhaps, but an interesting one that heightens tension, and leads up to the climax of the scene. And yet it's simply lost in the fullscreen version.
Fullscreen versions of films should not exist at all, and they wouldn't if directors had their way. But there are too many idiots in this country who think that if the picture doesn't fill their screen, they're missing out. They have it backwards: they don't realize that when they watch fullscreen they're missing a third of the movie.
So remember: friends don't let friends watch fullscreen. When you watch a movie, watch the whole movie.
But then, just as I was ready to settle down into two hours of cinematic bliss, I looked at the DVD box. To my disdain, to my consternation, to my horror, was that loathsome word: FULLSCREEN.
After unleashing a violent series of expletives, I got up, put on my jacket, went downstairs, drove to Blockbuster, paid $4.50 for a rental of the widescreen version of the film, came back, and resumed my evening.
An extreme reaction? Hardly. When I watch a movie, I like to watch the actual movie, not the fake hackjob version. There is no surer way of raping the artistic work of a cinematographer than to render a film into a fullscreen edition.
Movies these days are usually shot in a 16:9 ratio (sometimes in even more rectangular ratios like 2.35:1). This is the rectangular shape of the movie that is projected on movie screens; it is the movie as it was shot and as it is meant to be seen.
Most televisions, however, are still more of a square shape (4:3 ratio) than a rectangular shape. And, as anyone who graduated from kindergarten will tell you, a rectangle will not fit into a square. So if you want to watch a film on your TV, you've got two options: shrink the rectangle down so that it will fit inside the square, or chop off the sides of the rectangle and force it to fit.
The former method accounts for the "letterbox" format of widescreen, with black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. The latter method is fullscreen.
Rendering a movie into fullscreen can cut out up to 45% of the original picture. That's right - you're literally seeing only two-thirds or less of the movie you're watching! And any attempt at artfully setting up shots is completely compromised.
For instance, I grew up loving the Indiana Jones films, and watching them all the time on VHS. The VHS tapes I had were fullscreen versions of the films. When the DVDs finally came out a few years back, I got to see the widescreen versions - and what a difference! I remember one particular shot in Raiders of the Lost Ark, a head-and-shoulders shot of Indy. In the fullscreen version he's simply in the middle of the frame - not a very interesting shot. In the widescreen version, however, he's only on one side of the screen - the entire right side of the shot is a beautiful background panorama. That's how the shot was meant to be seen.
It's not just artistic visions, however, that fullscreen versions compromise; sometimes you miss vital plot elements. Consider this info from Wikipedia's article on Pan and Scan:
Pan and Scan versions of DVDs are often called Fullscreen. But this method can also severely alter compositions and therefore dramatic effects.
For instance, in the film Jaws, the shark can be seen approaching for several seconds more in the widescreen version than in the pan and scan version. For the opening crawl [of text] in each Star Wars film, on the pan and scan versions the viewer has to wait until a line of text of the opening crawl reaches the center of the screen to read through that whole line. On the widescreen versions, each line of the opening crawl text appears in its entirety beginning at the bottom of the screen.
Additionally, in Indiana Jones (I don't know why I'm choosing all these examples from Spielberg), there's a scene in Raiders where Indy is sitting down in a bar with Belloq, the villain. At the end of the scene, all the Arabs in the bar suddenly pull out guns and point them at Indy. But in the widescreen version, this is foreshadowed by a hand in the right foreground handing off a pistol to another mysterious hand. A small detail perhaps, but an interesting one that heightens tension, and leads up to the climax of the scene. And yet it's simply lost in the fullscreen version.
Fullscreen versions of films should not exist at all, and they wouldn't if directors had their way. But there are too many idiots in this country who think that if the picture doesn't fill their screen, they're missing out. They have it backwards: they don't realize that when they watch fullscreen they're missing a third of the movie.
So remember: friends don't let friends watch fullscreen. When you watch a movie, watch the whole movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
