Can I just say how hard it is to work as a legal secretary (recently, my boss has started referring to me as his "paralegal", not sure why) when you're about 20 points away from legally blind and somehow forgot to put in your contacts and didn't notice until you got to work (I don't drive)?
Really hard.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Fun with Daily Morality
science, religion, christian, bible, ten commandments, evangelical, evangelism, witness, atheism, atheist, atheophobia, evolution, big bang, stupid
The Blindness of Atheism
(or: Why Atheism is Teh Evul)
okay, this is fun, what follows next is a slew of unattributed quotes. Let's see if we can identify them, shall we?
"Blindness and atheism are ideologically synonomous...." made up by our nameless author. bad form, that.
"Absolute truth implies that truth cannot be subject to one's own mind, but is rather established by an absolute and common Creator, therefore proving God's existence. If there is no absolute truth, it cannot be absolutely held true that God does not exist." and, again
"All deceased atheists either cannot say whether atheism is right or wrong because they don't exist themselves, or they can indeed say that atheism is wrong..." actually all deceased people are incapable of telling us anything because they are dead. unless Mr. Asshat is in regular communication with dead people. his own quote. again.
"If the irrational universe created itself or if an irrational explosion created the universe, then an educated, rational atheist should be able to create the universe with relative ease today..." that makes no sense at all, unless one chooses to redefine almost every word in that sentence. again.
"No faith in God is the most blind faith of all, because it assumes that no faith can be placed in God without any verifying evidence that faith in God fails, and with proof that faith in God is remarkably solid." no faith in any supreme being would simply be no faith at all. actually, the rest of that sentence doesn't make any sense at all. quoting himself. again.
"Atheism is more of a fanciful desire rather than a sincere belief..." so, they're both fanciful desires. so nice of you to admit that, nameless author. usually, that's my line. again.
"The burden of proof for God's existence doesn't reside with the one who asserts God's existence because it is not at all a burden to prove God's existence. What is an impossible burden is proofing He doesn't exist." first of all, proving. second of all, no. and, seriously, stop quoting yourself.
(I am not posting the entire article here, as it is unnecessarily long, and doubtless boring. These are merely the highlights, as it were.)
Atheists are people who deny the existence of their Maker and the existence of the Creator of the universe. we're people who don't believe there is a supreme being. "deny" implies that we know there is a supreme being, a sky daddy if you will, we're just being obstinant about the whole thing. Like 2 year olds. We're not. We just do not believe in a sky daddy. You are more than welcome to believe, or not, in any sky daddy(s) that you wish. Atheism is an ideological struggle primarily against Christianity because Christianity strongly explains the existence of the True God and proclaims that all humans have the responsibility to love and obey His Law. no. atheism, the nonbelief structure, is not in a struggle with anything, being a nonbelief structure. atheists do struggle against christianity, but only in countries where christianity is dominant. atheists do not struggle against christians in saudi arabia, for example. and, we do not struggle against christians because christianity proves the sky daddy, but rather because christians seek to make their faith into laws, because christians regularly persecute atheists and other nonchristians, and christians just can't leave the science alone. asshat.
This Law is written in the hearts of all people who feel exactly the same way you do and is clearly perceived as the embodiment of sanity belief in the sky daddy embodies sanity? seriously? BWAHAHAHAHAHA, civility "you're going to burn in hell for all eternity" is not civil and self righteousness for mankind as a whole. damn those insane, uncivil, unself righteous Hindus. bastards. Atheists are nevertheless against this Law because of their depravity i'm so utterly depraved that i work, pay bills, pay taxes, give to charity, remain faithful to my husband and adopt abused dogs. i'm just awful., but they find it hard to condemn the Law because of its obvious rectitude.
i've said this before, but it bears repeating: what society, ever, has not forbidden lying, stealing and murder? what society could survive that encouraged those actions?
So they deny the existence of the Maker of this Law sky daddy so as to deceptively undermine the universal authority this Law has all right, who leaked the atheist agenda?. So one can truthfully what an interesting use of this word say that debate with atheists over whether God exists is the ideological toggle position hmmm? between immortal human souls morally responsible to God and animalistic human bodies without a soul and responsible to no one and with no life after death. that's right: believe in the sky daddy and you're immortal, human and morally responsible; atheists are soulless, irresponsible animals. nice. although, if atheism renders one soulless, i guess i really don't have to worry about what happens when I die.
Atheists would rather view humans as animals who are not under a universal moral Law from God and would rather not face the reality of an afterlife for souls of humans. no, i just can't believe in the illogical, irrational fantasy of the sky daddy. i like to think that humans are capable of morality on their own, without the necessity of being told that murder is bad. (notice how the ten commandments don't reference rape at all? if you only follow god's law, apparently raping is okay.) as for the afterlife, i'll believe it when i see it. The existence of God nevertheless in their minds is the greatest obstacle against this fantasy no, we don't believe in the existence of the sky daddy. it is the greatest obstacle to rational discussion with christians, however. and so they primarily deny God’s existence on this basis, - often without realizing it. oh, so i think i just don't believe in the sky daddy, but asshat, who is telepathic, apparently, knows different. uh huh.
Even atheists admit this. For example one atheist wrote i added the cite. asshat apparently doesn't feel a need to credit others for their work., “Atheism has wide ranging implications for the human condition. In the absence of belief in God, ethical goals must be determined by secular (nonreligious) aims and concerns, human beings must take full responsibility for their destiny, and death marks the end of person’s existence.” So this is really an outline of the ideology that atheists profess, and denying the existence of God is the most convincingly way in their minds to lend credibility to this ideology. amazingly, that quote admits no such thing. what the writer is saying is that if you remove the sky daddy from the equation, all we're left with is us. so, now we need to end hunger, end violence, help the environment, etc. for me, that's a fantastic thought that makes getting up in the morning worthwhile. for some, not so much, i guess.
Therefore when you are accosted by atheists when has anyone, ever, been "accosted by atheists"? (okay, i'm sure there are some atheist muggers, but that's not what this asshat means.) last time i checked it's not atheists that engage in open air preaching, tract distribution, and door to door sales . . . er, evangelizing. , atheists’ ultimate goal is usually not to get you to disbelieve the existence of God true, worship my socks for all i care, but for you to espouse their ideology nope, just stop abusing my ideology and will be fine. (oh, and quite trying to legislate your beliefs.)(and, leave science to scientist, okay?) and to assume their hostility against God’s morality i can't be hostile against something i don't believe in. i'm not hostile towards the easter bunny, either, against Christianity, against an absolute truth find me one. oh, wait, i got one: e=mc2, against the infallibility of the Bible BWAHAHAHAHA did you know bats are birds and insects have 4 legs?, and against the general conscience of humans it's all the depravity we're sunk in which may naturally feel pricked when it goes contrary to the Law that God has written in everyone’s heart. everyone who feels like you Denying God’s existence is perhaps the most obscure way however, of leading people down a turbulent slope against the historical peace Christianity has brought. what historical peace? is this asshat for real? christians brought down the roman empire into chaos, christianity gave us over a dozen crusades, the salem witch trials . . . is this some new definition of peace i am unaware of?
...
Atheists wish to argue that statistics and evidence we call that "proof" show that atheists are no more immoral than believers. true, actually When atheists make this claim however, one should realize these three facts. you're going to abuse the word "fact", aren't you? First, when atheists use the word, “moral” they are not talking about the morality of God true, and how does that relate to anything?, but rather what atheistic society has defined “ethical” in a practical sense, if nobody's lying, stealing or murdering, what's the difference? do you really care why the man you just passed on the street didn't kill you?. So in other words, their definition of morality is what atheists call morality. and your definition of morality is what christians call morality, so? Second, when atheists use the word “believer” they are using an immensely broad definition referring to people who claim to believe in God or gods, without regard to the authenticity of those who truly believe in the true God, and those who ostensibly invoke His name. ah, i sense a No True Scotsman coming. The nuance between true believers and hypocrites is greater than the difference between night and day, that's not reallty but atheists don’t make that distinction. that's right, any atheist who does wrong represents all atheists, but any christian who does wrong wasn't christian in the first place. And lastly, atheists fail to realize that atheism is immoral by mere definition , because it promulgates a lie and labels the truth of God’s existence as folly. so, if a christian kills someone, they're moral purely because they are christian, but if i save a busload of children, i'm still immoral
...
Moreover, the “betterment of humankind” as atheists label it can never be realized through the lie that God doesn’t exist. If one wanted to establish a better path for humankind, he or she would be wise to look beyond the transient corporal existence of humans and consider the eternal spiritual state human souls enter after only a short period of time in the corporal state. Therefore true Christians’ efforts have far reaching implications that continue after corporal death, whereas atheist’s best efforts struggle to reach even the grave. you know, i love this logic. it explains why churches are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure gays don't get married, when there are more than 35.5 million households in the US that don't have enough food. see, it doesn't matter how much people suffer here on earth. child sex slaves? who cares- they'll go to heaven. starving children? doesn't matter- just give them a bible! if you can't see what's wrong with that, i can't help you.
...
The argument atheists intend to use when they cite the presence of evil is that God, being good, can’t exist because He wouldn’t allow evil. actually, i just argue that it is sophistry at best to assert that good things that happen are god, bad things are free will. it's inane. Such an outlook should spiral atheists into chronic depression. no, actually it does not. if evil is a function of a supreme being, there is nothing to be done about suffering and pain. if, on the other hand, we are responsible for evil, there is a chance, no matter how slim, to end evil. that's reason for celebration. Since they acknowledge that evil does exist, but want to assert that God does not exist, they lock themselves into a hopeless world with no possibility of evil ever being destroyed. see above. i'm not sure how you got from A to Q. God is the only One capable and willing for that matter, to destroy evil. show your work. True Christians look forward to the certain fulfillment of the destruction of evil by God. and it can't be yesterday, because? sky daddy as sadistic voyeaur is not comforting. Atheists must look to the dejected depravity proven historically of man to rectify the world and to scrap evil. huh? There is surely no hope in man for the destruction of evil. i'll admit, it's not likely, but no hope at all? nope. In fact, the exemplification of evil is proceeding from bad to worse in man. show your work. Atheism itself is a form of evil. stop that. God is going to scrap atheism on the last day by the manifestation of Himself. true, if the sky daddy appeared before me, i would absolutely worship him. your point? When everyone bows their knee to God, one evil will certainly be dispelled, and that evil will be the lie that God doesn’t exist. i'd really prefer to get rid of rape and murder and child molestation, but whatever. Atheism is undoubtedly the very producer of THIS evil. well, duh. atheism is indeed atheism.
...
young earth creationism
...
stalin was teh evul, therefore all atheists are teh evul
...
creation proves the creator proves creation proves the creator
...
Atheists also say that although the Bible does have some truth in it, it is nevertheless a book filled with lies, deception, and fantasy from superstitious idiots. i never said idiots, i did say "bronze age desert nomads". they may have been remarkably intelligent bronze age desert nomads, i don't know. Such a bigoted diatribe truth? the Israelites were bronze age desert nomads, no matter how you spin it. against the Bible is very virulent for the moral development of all people how? hindus are moral, last time i checked. you're not defending the Bhagavad Ghida, are you?, and further verifies that contemporary American atheism insinuates a dissident ideology to the Bible. no, we don't insinuate it, we just say it right out. On the contrary, the Bible has been a huge factor conserving morality throughout the world really? show your work, and has been at the core of beliefs against murder through abortion for example i don't buy that, so you're not convincing me, try again., against cursing and swearing we all know cursing and swearing brought about the end of the roman empire, against violence except the violence god ordered and the violence regularly done in the name of god, and against all evil in general rape's not even covered in the bible. Proper interpretation of the Bible the writer's has never proven pernicious to any innocent person or system. no true scotsman Atheists likewise discount the miracles described in the Bible because there is absolutely no proof of them, and say that if such miracles did occur strong evidence should exist to corroborate them, or else they should be considered false otherwise i can claim to perform 6 miracles a day before breakfast and you have to believe me. The fact is, however, such miracles were witnessed by dozens of people who have accurately told us what happened how do you know they accurately reported events? and what "dozens" of people? only 4 gospels appear in the bible. It would be hard for such evidence to be revamped back to what existed at the time what?. Most importantly, God is the witness to these miracles as well. so, the guy i don't believe in proves himself by witnessing his own miracles? that's not even close to logic. God’s testimony is far better than all evidence. not if you don't believe in god. Evolution, big bang and other propositions of atheists try scientists, the words are not interchangeable do not even have a shred of empirical evidence yes, they do, creationism, however, does not, yet atheists nevertheless believe or at least say they believe them. actually, belief or disbelief in science is irrelevant. the universe is as it is. science only seeks to describe it.
The Blindness of Atheism
(or: Why Atheism is Teh Evul)
okay, this is fun, what follows next is a slew of unattributed quotes. Let's see if we can identify them, shall we?
"Blindness and atheism are ideologically synonomous...." made up by our nameless author. bad form, that.
"Absolute truth implies that truth cannot be subject to one's own mind, but is rather established by an absolute and common Creator, therefore proving God's existence. If there is no absolute truth, it cannot be absolutely held true that God does not exist." and, again
"All deceased atheists either cannot say whether atheism is right or wrong because they don't exist themselves, or they can indeed say that atheism is wrong..." actually all deceased people are incapable of telling us anything because they are dead. unless Mr. Asshat is in regular communication with dead people. his own quote. again.
"If the irrational universe created itself or if an irrational explosion created the universe, then an educated, rational atheist should be able to create the universe with relative ease today..." that makes no sense at all, unless one chooses to redefine almost every word in that sentence. again.
"No faith in God is the most blind faith of all, because it assumes that no faith can be placed in God without any verifying evidence that faith in God fails, and with proof that faith in God is remarkably solid." no faith in any supreme being would simply be no faith at all. actually, the rest of that sentence doesn't make any sense at all. quoting himself. again.
"Atheism is more of a fanciful desire rather than a sincere belief..." so, they're both fanciful desires. so nice of you to admit that, nameless author. usually, that's my line. again.
"The burden of proof for God's existence doesn't reside with the one who asserts God's existence because it is not at all a burden to prove God's existence. What is an impossible burden is proofing He doesn't exist." first of all, proving. second of all, no. and, seriously, stop quoting yourself.
(I am not posting the entire article here, as it is unnecessarily long, and doubtless boring. These are merely the highlights, as it were.)
Atheists are people who deny the existence of their Maker and the existence of the Creator of the universe. we're people who don't believe there is a supreme being. "deny" implies that we know there is a supreme being, a sky daddy if you will, we're just being obstinant about the whole thing. Like 2 year olds. We're not. We just do not believe in a sky daddy. You are more than welcome to believe, or not, in any sky daddy(s) that you wish. Atheism is an ideological struggle primarily against Christianity because Christianity strongly explains the existence of the True God and proclaims that all humans have the responsibility to love and obey His Law. no. atheism, the nonbelief structure, is not in a struggle with anything, being a nonbelief structure. atheists do struggle against christianity, but only in countries where christianity is dominant. atheists do not struggle against christians in saudi arabia, for example. and, we do not struggle against christians because christianity proves the sky daddy, but rather because christians seek to make their faith into laws, because christians regularly persecute atheists and other nonchristians, and christians just can't leave the science alone. asshat.
This Law is written in the hearts of all people who feel exactly the same way you do and is clearly perceived as the embodiment of sanity belief in the sky daddy embodies sanity? seriously? BWAHAHAHAHAHA, civility "you're going to burn in hell for all eternity" is not civil and self righteousness for mankind as a whole. damn those insane, uncivil, unself righteous Hindus. bastards. Atheists are nevertheless against this Law because of their depravity i'm so utterly depraved that i work, pay bills, pay taxes, give to charity, remain faithful to my husband and adopt abused dogs. i'm just awful., but they find it hard to condemn the Law because of its obvious rectitude.
i've said this before, but it bears repeating: what society, ever, has not forbidden lying, stealing and murder? what society could survive that encouraged those actions?
So they deny the existence of the Maker of this Law sky daddy so as to deceptively undermine the universal authority this Law has all right, who leaked the atheist agenda?. So one can truthfully what an interesting use of this word say that debate with atheists over whether God exists is the ideological toggle position hmmm? between immortal human souls morally responsible to God and animalistic human bodies without a soul and responsible to no one and with no life after death. that's right: believe in the sky daddy and you're immortal, human and morally responsible; atheists are soulless, irresponsible animals. nice. although, if atheism renders one soulless, i guess i really don't have to worry about what happens when I die.
Atheists would rather view humans as animals who are not under a universal moral Law from God and would rather not face the reality of an afterlife for souls of humans. no, i just can't believe in the illogical, irrational fantasy of the sky daddy. i like to think that humans are capable of morality on their own, without the necessity of being told that murder is bad. (notice how the ten commandments don't reference rape at all? if you only follow god's law, apparently raping is okay.) as for the afterlife, i'll believe it when i see it. The existence of God nevertheless in their minds is the greatest obstacle against this fantasy no, we don't believe in the existence of the sky daddy. it is the greatest obstacle to rational discussion with christians, however. and so they primarily deny God’s existence on this basis, - often without realizing it. oh, so i think i just don't believe in the sky daddy, but asshat, who is telepathic, apparently, knows different. uh huh.
Even atheists admit this. For example one atheist wrote i added the cite. asshat apparently doesn't feel a need to credit others for their work., “Atheism has wide ranging implications for the human condition. In the absence of belief in God, ethical goals must be determined by secular (nonreligious) aims and concerns, human beings must take full responsibility for their destiny, and death marks the end of person’s existence.” So this is really an outline of the ideology that atheists profess, and denying the existence of God is the most convincingly way in their minds to lend credibility to this ideology. amazingly, that quote admits no such thing. what the writer is saying is that if you remove the sky daddy from the equation, all we're left with is us. so, now we need to end hunger, end violence, help the environment, etc. for me, that's a fantastic thought that makes getting up in the morning worthwhile. for some, not so much, i guess.
Therefore when you are accosted by atheists when has anyone, ever, been "accosted by atheists"? (okay, i'm sure there are some atheist muggers, but that's not what this asshat means.) last time i checked it's not atheists that engage in open air preaching, tract distribution, and door to door sales . . . er, evangelizing. , atheists’ ultimate goal is usually not to get you to disbelieve the existence of God true, worship my socks for all i care, but for you to espouse their ideology nope, just stop abusing my ideology and will be fine. (oh, and quite trying to legislate your beliefs.)(and, leave science to scientist, okay?) and to assume their hostility against God’s morality i can't be hostile against something i don't believe in. i'm not hostile towards the easter bunny, either, against Christianity, against an absolute truth find me one. oh, wait, i got one: e=mc2, against the infallibility of the Bible BWAHAHAHAHA did you know bats are birds and insects have 4 legs?, and against the general conscience of humans it's all the depravity we're sunk in which may naturally feel pricked when it goes contrary to the Law that God has written in everyone’s heart. everyone who feels like you Denying God’s existence is perhaps the most obscure way however, of leading people down a turbulent slope against the historical peace Christianity has brought. what historical peace? is this asshat for real? christians brought down the roman empire into chaos, christianity gave us over a dozen crusades, the salem witch trials . . . is this some new definition of peace i am unaware of?
...
Atheists wish to argue that statistics and evidence we call that "proof" show that atheists are no more immoral than believers. true, actually When atheists make this claim however, one should realize these three facts. you're going to abuse the word "fact", aren't you? First, when atheists use the word, “moral” they are not talking about the morality of God true, and how does that relate to anything?, but rather what atheistic society has defined “ethical” in a practical sense, if nobody's lying, stealing or murdering, what's the difference? do you really care why the man you just passed on the street didn't kill you?. So in other words, their definition of morality is what atheists call morality. and your definition of morality is what christians call morality, so? Second, when atheists use the word “believer” they are using an immensely broad definition referring to people who claim to believe in God or gods, without regard to the authenticity of those who truly believe in the true God, and those who ostensibly invoke His name. ah, i sense a No True Scotsman coming. The nuance between true believers and hypocrites is greater than the difference between night and day, that's not reallty but atheists don’t make that distinction. that's right, any atheist who does wrong represents all atheists, but any christian who does wrong wasn't christian in the first place. And lastly, atheists fail to realize that atheism is immoral by mere definition , because it promulgates a lie and labels the truth of God’s existence as folly. so, if a christian kills someone, they're moral purely because they are christian, but if i save a busload of children, i'm still immoral
...
Moreover, the “betterment of humankind” as atheists label it can never be realized through the lie that God doesn’t exist. If one wanted to establish a better path for humankind, he or she would be wise to look beyond the transient corporal existence of humans and consider the eternal spiritual state human souls enter after only a short period of time in the corporal state. Therefore true Christians’ efforts have far reaching implications that continue after corporal death, whereas atheist’s best efforts struggle to reach even the grave. you know, i love this logic. it explains why churches are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure gays don't get married, when there are more than 35.5 million households in the US that don't have enough food. see, it doesn't matter how much people suffer here on earth. child sex slaves? who cares- they'll go to heaven. starving children? doesn't matter- just give them a bible! if you can't see what's wrong with that, i can't help you.
...
The argument atheists intend to use when they cite the presence of evil is that God, being good, can’t exist because He wouldn’t allow evil. actually, i just argue that it is sophistry at best to assert that good things that happen are god, bad things are free will. it's inane. Such an outlook should spiral atheists into chronic depression. no, actually it does not. if evil is a function of a supreme being, there is nothing to be done about suffering and pain. if, on the other hand, we are responsible for evil, there is a chance, no matter how slim, to end evil. that's reason for celebration. Since they acknowledge that evil does exist, but want to assert that God does not exist, they lock themselves into a hopeless world with no possibility of evil ever being destroyed. see above. i'm not sure how you got from A to Q. God is the only One capable and willing for that matter, to destroy evil. show your work. True Christians look forward to the certain fulfillment of the destruction of evil by God. and it can't be yesterday, because? sky daddy as sadistic voyeaur is not comforting. Atheists must look to the dejected depravity proven historically of man to rectify the world and to scrap evil. huh? There is surely no hope in man for the destruction of evil. i'll admit, it's not likely, but no hope at all? nope. In fact, the exemplification of evil is proceeding from bad to worse in man. show your work. Atheism itself is a form of evil. stop that. God is going to scrap atheism on the last day by the manifestation of Himself. true, if the sky daddy appeared before me, i would absolutely worship him. your point? When everyone bows their knee to God, one evil will certainly be dispelled, and that evil will be the lie that God doesn’t exist. i'd really prefer to get rid of rape and murder and child molestation, but whatever. Atheism is undoubtedly the very producer of THIS evil. well, duh. atheism is indeed atheism.
...
young earth creationism
...
stalin was teh evul, therefore all atheists are teh evul
...
creation proves the creator proves creation proves the creator
...
Atheists also say that although the Bible does have some truth in it, it is nevertheless a book filled with lies, deception, and fantasy from superstitious idiots. i never said idiots, i did say "bronze age desert nomads". they may have been remarkably intelligent bronze age desert nomads, i don't know. Such a bigoted diatribe truth? the Israelites were bronze age desert nomads, no matter how you spin it. against the Bible is very virulent for the moral development of all people how? hindus are moral, last time i checked. you're not defending the Bhagavad Ghida, are you?, and further verifies that contemporary American atheism insinuates a dissident ideology to the Bible. no, we don't insinuate it, we just say it right out. On the contrary, the Bible has been a huge factor conserving morality throughout the world really? show your work, and has been at the core of beliefs against murder through abortion for example i don't buy that, so you're not convincing me, try again., against cursing and swearing we all know cursing and swearing brought about the end of the roman empire, against violence except the violence god ordered and the violence regularly done in the name of god, and against all evil in general rape's not even covered in the bible. Proper interpretation of the Bible the writer's has never proven pernicious to any innocent person or system. no true scotsman Atheists likewise discount the miracles described in the Bible because there is absolutely no proof of them, and say that if such miracles did occur strong evidence should exist to corroborate them, or else they should be considered false otherwise i can claim to perform 6 miracles a day before breakfast and you have to believe me. The fact is, however, such miracles were witnessed by dozens of people who have accurately told us what happened how do you know they accurately reported events? and what "dozens" of people? only 4 gospels appear in the bible. It would be hard for such evidence to be revamped back to what existed at the time what?. Most importantly, God is the witness to these miracles as well. so, the guy i don't believe in proves himself by witnessing his own miracles? that's not even close to logic. God’s testimony is far better than all evidence. not if you don't believe in god. Evolution, big bang and other propositions of atheists try scientists, the words are not interchangeable do not even have a shred of empirical evidence yes, they do, creationism, however, does not, yet atheists nevertheless believe or at least say they believe them. actually, belief or disbelief in science is irrelevant. the universe is as it is. science only seeks to describe it.
Joe the Economic Advisor
joe the plumber, GOP, republican, conservative, economic, liberal, obama, recovery, economy
Okay, look, when you're taking economic advice from a plumber that isn't even legally qualified to give advice on plumbing, you need to admit that "flailing around helplessly" is your only remaining plan.
Or, the GOP has been involved in the longest-running piece of performance art in history.
It's getting a little hard to tell.
Politico.com:
Fresh off his stint as a war correspondent in Gaza, Joe the Plumber is now doing political strategy with Republicans.
When GOP congressional aides gather Tuesday morning for a meeting of the Conservative Working Group, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher – more commonly known as Joe the Plumber — will be their featured guest. This group is an organization of conservative Capitol Hill staffers who meet regularly to chart GOP strategy for the week.Wurzelbacher, who became a household name during the presidential election, will be focusing his talk on the proposed stimulus package. He's apparently not a fan of the economic rescue package, according to members of the group.
If nothing else, GOP aides are using the appearance to get staffers to attend the 9 a.m meeting.“In case you weren’t planning to attend CWG tomorrow morning, you might want to reconsider because Joe the Plumber will be joining us!” Kimberly Wallner, an aide to South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, wrote in a message to her e-mail list this afternoon.
Keep in mind, Mr. Wurzelbacher was famously against an economic plan that would have helped him.
Okay, look, when you're taking economic advice from a plumber that isn't even legally qualified to give advice on plumbing, you need to admit that "flailing around helplessly" is your only remaining plan.
Or, the GOP has been involved in the longest-running piece of performance art in history.
It's getting a little hard to tell.
Politico.com:
Fresh off his stint as a war correspondent in Gaza, Joe the Plumber is now doing political strategy with Republicans.
When GOP congressional aides gather Tuesday morning for a meeting of the Conservative Working Group, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher – more commonly known as Joe the Plumber — will be their featured guest. This group is an organization of conservative Capitol Hill staffers who meet regularly to chart GOP strategy for the week.Wurzelbacher, who became a household name during the presidential election, will be focusing his talk on the proposed stimulus package. He's apparently not a fan of the economic rescue package, according to members of the group.
If nothing else, GOP aides are using the appearance to get staffers to attend the 9 a.m meeting.“In case you weren’t planning to attend CWG tomorrow morning, you might want to reconsider because Joe the Plumber will be joining us!” Kimberly Wallner, an aide to South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, wrote in a message to her e-mail list this afternoon.
Keep in mind, Mr. Wurzelbacher was famously against an economic plan that would have helped him.
Surprise, Surprise, the Mormons Lied, Part II
lie, liar, prop 8, traditional, marriage, homophobia, homosexual, gay, mormon, money, democracy, legislation, politics,
For more on Mormongate, check out Latter Day Chino's riveting expose. (Mostly I just wanted to say "riveting expose", but really, it's very informative.)
For more on Mormongate, check out Latter Day Chino's riveting expose. (Mostly I just wanted to say "riveting expose", but really, it's very informative.)
Monday, February 2, 2009
Intellectually Bankrupt and Oxytocin
turner, keroack, abstinence, liar, lie, lying, study, science, sex, sexism, misogyny,
So, the abstinence only crowd has found a scientific (scientists, you guys like scientists, right?) reason for abstinence: Women who have multiple sexual partners lack oxytocin, which is to emotional bonding what superglue is to physical bonding.
Unfortunately, this simply isn't true.
This post quotes a study by Eric Keroack, except Keroack didn't do the study, Rebecca Turner, a psychology professor at San Francisco's Alliant International University did. And she was appalled to see what Keroack had done with her study.
From hugthemonkey:
Dana Wilkie of Copley News Service tracked down Rebecca Turner, a psychology professor at San Francisco's Alliant International University whose paper found its way into a treatise Keroack wrote for the Abstinence Clearinghouse.
According to Wilkie, Turner found that:
When women were asked to recall memories about close relationships, whether familial or romantic, those with a tendency to be anxious about such relationships had lower oxytocin increases than those who were married, living together or dating. Hardly surprising. If oxytocin is emotional superglue, it's not shocking that women who are anxious about their relationships have low levels of oxytocin. However, Turner's research did NOT delve into why those women had low levels of oxytocin. Perhaps low levels of oxytocin cause anxiety in relationships, which destroys relationships, which forces a woman into many relationships. We don't know.
Turner was shocked and dismayed to find that her research was being misrepresented, she told Wilkie.
But here's the kicker: No matter what the level of oxytocin in women who were anxious about close relationships, Turner's paper found that oxytocin activity was “completely unrelated” to the number of previous sexual partners.
Understanding that finding doesn't require a course in logic; a simple ability to read will do. Still, Keroack somehow made the leap that sex with multiple partners inhibits the brain's ability to respond to oxytocin, and therefore the ability to bond.
During a follow-up study three years later, Turner found no links between oxytocin levels and emotional conditions, but that was after Keroack's paper came out.
So, intellectually bankrupt or just Liar for Christ(tm)?
So, the abstinence only crowd has found a scientific (scientists, you guys like scientists, right?) reason for abstinence: Women who have multiple sexual partners lack oxytocin, which is to emotional bonding what superglue is to physical bonding.
Unfortunately, this simply isn't true.
This post quotes a study by Eric Keroack, except Keroack didn't do the study, Rebecca Turner, a psychology professor at San Francisco's Alliant International University did. And she was appalled to see what Keroack had done with her study.
From hugthemonkey:
Dana Wilkie of Copley News Service tracked down Rebecca Turner, a psychology professor at San Francisco's Alliant International University whose paper found its way into a treatise Keroack wrote for the Abstinence Clearinghouse.
According to Wilkie, Turner found that:
When women were asked to recall memories about close relationships, whether familial or romantic, those with a tendency to be anxious about such relationships had lower oxytocin increases than those who were married, living together or dating. Hardly surprising. If oxytocin is emotional superglue, it's not shocking that women who are anxious about their relationships have low levels of oxytocin. However, Turner's research did NOT delve into why those women had low levels of oxytocin. Perhaps low levels of oxytocin cause anxiety in relationships, which destroys relationships, which forces a woman into many relationships. We don't know.
Turner was shocked and dismayed to find that her research was being misrepresented, she told Wilkie.
But here's the kicker: No matter what the level of oxytocin in women who were anxious about close relationships, Turner's paper found that oxytocin activity was “completely unrelated” to the number of previous sexual partners.
Understanding that finding doesn't require a course in logic; a simple ability to read will do. Still, Keroack somehow made the leap that sex with multiple partners inhibits the brain's ability to respond to oxytocin, and therefore the ability to bond.
During a follow-up study three years later, Turner found no links between oxytocin levels and emotional conditions, but that was after Keroack's paper came out.
So, intellectually bankrupt or just Liar for Christ(tm)?
Surprise, Surprise, the Mormons Lied
morality, mormon, lie, lying, prop 8, tradition, traditional, marriage, gay, homosexual, homophobia, fppc, california
From americablog.
In a Friday filing with California's Fair Political Practices Commission, the Mormon Church listed almost $190,000 in previously unreported expenses in support of last year's successful campaign to eliminate marriage equality in California.
$190,000. That's how much they now admit to spending.
The report, filed with the secretary of state's office, listed a variety of California travel expenses for high-ranking members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and included $20,575 for use of facilities and equipment at the church's Salt Lake City headquarters and a $96,849 charge for "compensated staff time" for church employees who worked on matters pertaining to Prop. 8.
It seems as if the complaint filed with the FPPC by Californians Against Hate was not as specious as the Mormons initially charged:
Up until Friday, the Mormon church had denied any direct financial support for the campaign beyond a reported $2,078 spent for bringing church Elder L. Whitney Clayton to California.
$2,078. Hmmm . . . That seems smaller somehow than $190,000. Let's see . . . yes, it is, $187,922 smaller in fact. Quite a lie, that one.
Church officials complained that Karger's complaint was full of errors and that the church had "fully complied" with California law.In other words, the Mormon Church had no intention of modifying their expense reporting until pressed by Californians Against Hate and the subsequent -- and ongoing -- FPPC investigation.
The Mormon Church deserves the scrutiny its been getting. The leaders have not been honest. Teddy poses the important question: what else is the Mormon Church hiding? We have to find out.
So, tell me Ruby, tell me Pearlysnot, tell me DNA, how are you going to spin this one? What are you going to say to excuse the lies?
From americablog.
In a Friday filing with California's Fair Political Practices Commission, the Mormon Church listed almost $190,000 in previously unreported expenses in support of last year's successful campaign to eliminate marriage equality in California.
$190,000. That's how much they now admit to spending.
The report, filed with the secretary of state's office, listed a variety of California travel expenses for high-ranking members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and included $20,575 for use of facilities and equipment at the church's Salt Lake City headquarters and a $96,849 charge for "compensated staff time" for church employees who worked on matters pertaining to Prop. 8.
It seems as if the complaint filed with the FPPC by Californians Against Hate was not as specious as the Mormons initially charged:
Up until Friday, the Mormon church had denied any direct financial support for the campaign beyond a reported $2,078 spent for bringing church Elder L. Whitney Clayton to California.
$2,078. Hmmm . . . That seems smaller somehow than $190,000. Let's see . . . yes, it is, $187,922 smaller in fact. Quite a lie, that one.
Church officials complained that Karger's complaint was full of errors and that the church had "fully complied" with California law.In other words, the Mormon Church had no intention of modifying their expense reporting until pressed by Californians Against Hate and the subsequent -- and ongoing -- FPPC investigation.
The Mormon Church deserves the scrutiny its been getting. The leaders have not been honest. Teddy poses the important question: what else is the Mormon Church hiding? We have to find out.
So, tell me Ruby, tell me Pearlysnot, tell me DNA, how are you going to spin this one? What are you going to say to excuse the lies?
Networks Hate Pro-Life Ads- Or Not
prochoice, prolife, abortion, choice, superbowl, advertising, nbc, pro life, pro choice
There has been a lot of whining from the prolifers about NBC's refusal to play a prolife ad during the Superbowl. "Oh, it's life affirming." "They'll play ads with bad language and sexual entendres, why won't they play our ad?"
Here's the deal, kids. The ad shows a fetus and then describes the life story of Barack Obama- the point being that you shouldn't have an abortion no matter how bad things are because your pregnancy could result in the next Barack Obama. (This is sort of an odd tack for the prolifers to take considering how much they hate Obama's stance on abortion, but whatever.) They play this game all the time with Beethovan and other notables from history- and that's the point. It's okay to do that with Beethovan, for one thing, he's dead. For another, we have no idea what his opinion on abortion would have been.
However, to use a living person, our President no less, who is in favor of a woman's right to choose, in a prolife commercial is disingenuous at best. "Intellectually bankrupt" comes to mind, as well.
Oh, and here's one for you:
A woman is her husband's third wife- and his half niece. She is pregnant with their fourth child, the father's sixth. The father is brutally abusive and the family is extremely poor. Would you choose to continue with the pregnancy?
If you said yes, then you just saved Hitler's life. Good for you.
There has been a lot of whining from the prolifers about NBC's refusal to play a prolife ad during the Superbowl. "Oh, it's life affirming." "They'll play ads with bad language and sexual entendres, why won't they play our ad?"
Here's the deal, kids. The ad shows a fetus and then describes the life story of Barack Obama- the point being that you shouldn't have an abortion no matter how bad things are because your pregnancy could result in the next Barack Obama. (This is sort of an odd tack for the prolifers to take considering how much they hate Obama's stance on abortion, but whatever.) They play this game all the time with Beethovan and other notables from history- and that's the point. It's okay to do that with Beethovan, for one thing, he's dead. For another, we have no idea what his opinion on abortion would have been.
However, to use a living person, our President no less, who is in favor of a woman's right to choose, in a prolife commercial is disingenuous at best. "Intellectually bankrupt" comes to mind, as well.
Oh, and here's one for you:
A woman is her husband's third wife- and his half niece. She is pregnant with their fourth child, the father's sixth. The father is brutally abusive and the family is extremely poor. Would you choose to continue with the pregnancy?
If you said yes, then you just saved Hitler's life. Good for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
