Peer Into the Unspotted Mind

Obama's NOT Jesus Christ? NO WAY!

2009-01-20T21:44:00.000-07:00

Yeah, i'm just as happy as the next person that we're finally going off into a new direction. I'm looking forward to actually seeing what becomes of this presidency.

What pisses me off are the people who seem to think that those of us who voted for and support him are somehow all brainless sheep who worship this man. No, you fucking nimrods, this is a democracy... we VOTE for who we think will do the country best! Often this person holds firm ideas about which we can agree. This is precisely an example of that. I don't need you to continue reminding me that he's not the Messiah. Jesus H. Christ, I'm an Atheist! I don't need reminding that a messiah will never come!

Obama is a man. Obama is a politician. He's as fallible as anyone else, but he seems to have a MUCH clearer plate than most anyone who had ever run for president in the past.

I'll tell you where parallels may be drawn, however. They may be drawn from men to men. Obama's promises are much like Roosevelt's- who was very much a mortal. His charisma is quite similar to that of John F. Kennedy. His convictions, personality, and philosophy... those are something fresh, and they are exactly why I voted for him. They are something that he developed from growing up as he did, and ending up where he did. that to me is fascinating. Since his values seem to be in the correct place, I am fairly sure nobody has much to worry about. We shall see how things will go from here.

In the mean time, please stop insulting my intelligence with your presumptuousness.

aww, da poor POOR widdle Baby war-vetwan, and Barebac-- I mean, brokebac-- I mean saddleback.

2008-08-21T16:50:00.001-06:00

All potential respect for John McCain: Gone.

Valid assertion: John McCain wasn't actually in a "cone of silence" during the first thirty minutes of the saddleback forum. Therefor, it's probable that he had prior access to the questions.

McCain's fallacious response: That's impossible, he was in his motorcade on the way to the event! The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous!
Red Herring, appeal to pity, appeal to emotions,

Valid assertion: John McCain is uncertain as to how many housing properties he actually owns. Very interesting. Very few Americans have this problem.

McCain's fallacious response: "This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison," referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War. "Obama lives in a frickin' mansion!"
Appeal to pity, appeal to emotions, ad hominem tu quoque.

Do you see how this works? Somehow McCain, a war veteran, is now incapable of lying and it excuses him from having ridiculous brain-farts over something that should be common knowledge, like 1+3 = 4! Did I mention that he was not only a veteran, but a POW... so it's even LESS likely that his campaign is lying. These arguments are fundamentally flawed.

Using inductive reasoning, the probability is there: It IS pretty probable that someone from McCain's campaign notified the candidate of the questions he'd be hearing beforehand. This is NOT flawed reporting from NBC. So that's the first fallacy: just because McCain was in his motorcade does not make it any less likely that he received the questions on the way. And his campaign has avoided that question quite a bit. And then there's this POW bullshit. alright grandpa, we know you were in the w-- yes, you were in the war, and it SUCKED! Yeah, we've heard it already. You've told that story alr-- GRANDPA PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP, THIS IS GETTING OLD.

Of course, I never told my grandpa that, because he actually had interesting things to talk about.

This whole Saddleback forum was a complete mistake anyway. After viewing it myself, the entire thing was just a circus set up by the evangelicals. Obama never had a chance there. His responses were intellectual musings. McCain's were one-sentence responses, preaching to the choir. They were a black and white interpretation as to how the world is supposed to work. You know, simple things that the evangelicals could digest straight from the pages from the bible. I, for one, am not surprised that the polls show Obama slipping. Whether or not I give them credence is another thing altogether.

So yeah, McCain is a fuckoff who will not be getting my vote, and I now vehemently oppose him and his campaign, for his blatant dishonesty, misdirection, and the disgraceful misuse of his POW status during vietnam.

In the words of Keith Olbermann: Mr. McCain-- GROW UP!

Faith Healing is SICK

2008-01-28T10:35:00.000-07:00

Someone once told me that it doesn't matter what people believe in their own personal lives, as long as they're happy. I thought it was a powerful statement, and I know that, to a considerable degree, what other people hold as faith does not directly effect my life. I accept others' beliefs, though I usually groan to see varying degrees of delusion eating the life out of many people in this world. To me, it's like watching someone being cheated out of money right before my eyes, without that someone realizing it. Except in this situation, it's not money, it is the time we have left on this earth. But hey, they're happy, and who am I to interfere. They'll only fall asleep one day and never wake up from that again. I'm not affected.

That doesn't mean that I don't get REALLY fucking pissed off when I see a large mass of people being duped of life and money when they follow some creepy fuck with a bad accent around the globe so that they can help him make money in exchange for "miracle "

Seriously, I thought this fucker was dead.

http://www.peterpopoff.org/

But no, he's back up, still cheating people out of their time and money, and still living a lavish life through selling "miracles." Seriously, miracle water, miracle bread, miracle mana, divine transaction, or however the hell he puts it. This guy thrives off of the testimonials of the few people who mysteriously received checks in the mail for some outrageous amount. Considering this guy's popularity, there ought to be windfalls all throughout the U.S. where people mysteriously receive sums of $100,000 in their mailboxes. This is not the case however. I think that God is the last person we have to blame for inflation, unless we take George Bush's statement that God guided him to the whitehouse seriously.

This all angers me so much because I cannot stand to see others suffering. So it's even worse when I see someone else profiting off of others' sometimes life-threatening ailments and suffering. Worse still when the profiteer is lying to make money. And even worse when he's using 'faith' as a base for his profitable lies. These are very low individuals. This guy is saying that if you eat this miracle mana bread shit that he personally prepared, that you will start to get checks in the mail worth several tens of thousands of dollars. He is saying that he 'divinely' stopped cholera, typhoid, and other water-borne diseases by giving these African children 'miracle straws.' which are really just simplified water filters, and probably wouldn't last more than a few weeks at best.

Sorry, but faith healing is a moral abhorrition. It wouldn't be so bad if all of these guys were just writing checks and sending them off, but that is simply not the case. These people are making personal profit off of it. This Popoff guy drives a $100,000 car, lives in a multi-million dollar house, and probably bought his multi-million dollar family. It's ludicrous, and these are the types of people worthy of being locked up in a capsule and subsequently launched in the general direction of the sun. Wouldn't that be morally abhorrent? Maybe, but it's one less asshole on this planet who bathes luxuriously amidst other people's suffering.

Anybody, be they Theists, Agnostics or Atheists should be skeptical of a claim such as this "with a pledge of $1000 I will prey on -- err, excuse me, pray for you and you will come across mountains of success! Oh yeah, and your cancer will be gone. You have cancer right?" I've come across too many of these people in my research, and it really has got to end. I don't know how, but it just has to.

Someone needs to line Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff, Pat Robertson, and Uri Gellar for good maesure and release 10,000 sex-starved monkeys on them infected with that virus from "I Am Legend" Then nuke the general area. Maybe God will be omnipresent enough to cure all of those monkeys, and have them sing "Oh Come All Ye Faithful" as a perfect baritone choir while the fucktard televangelists quietly get away. Hey, if it happened that way, that would be MORE than enough to make me believe in god.

Until then, the only thing Peter Jackoff would expect from me is a box of leftover "Santorum" remnants from FC after all has been said and (proverbially) done.

Anyway, just thought I'd post that rant.

Six Years of shit.

2007-09-11T22:03:00.000-06:00

Yay nostalgia.

I wasn't originally going to say anything about the subject, but as I'm hearing more and more about it, listening to the Radio, and glancing through blogs,
Is it insensitive of me to not care very much about 9-11 anymore?

I woke up today, and I thought to myself, "Man! This is a pretty good day!" and I went about my life not even giving a thought to the explosive events of six years ago.. until of course I tuned in to the radio in the late evening.

I swear they play some of these documentaries every year... especially PBS. Don't they have better things to do with their funding?
Here are a few things I don't get about this whole 9/11 hype every year:

Why are people allowed to capitalize on this event?
T-Shirts that say "NEVER FORGET..." and have pictures of two buildings burning in the background
T-Shirts that have pictures of a bald eagle crying against the background of burning buildings, faded into a larger background of an American flag.
pictures of burning buildings everywhere-- post-cards, neckties, tattoos, posters, stain glass windows, flags, etc.
The idiot box showing the collapse from OVER 10,000(!!!!) different angles, with people crying, and running, and dying amidst the cloud of burning building material.
It's amazing we're not singing:
Happy birthday to you! Happy birthday to yoouuu!
Happy birthday dear 9-11!!!
Happy birthday to yoouuuuuuu!!!
And many more....

At which point we'll all exchange our 9/11 souvenir models of the burning buildings, and model airplanes.

There are also these moments of silence everywhere you go-- it's inescapable.

When is the last time we held a moment of silence for the thousands that died during Pearl Harbor? The only time you hear about that event is every time the anniversary falls upon a year that is divisible by ten.
When are Americans going to show any concern beyond themselves?

roughly 3,000 people died in those towers. Millions more die every year of outright genocide for the same reasons: different religions.

Which brings me to my final point. Why glorify god through all of this?

God bless America. Pray for these families. God gives us hope. god, GOD, G_D, gOd, GoD, GOD GOD GOD DAMMIT!!! Everywhere there's god, and he's credited for giving comfort to us during trying times.

In my mind, if he truly existed, none of this would have happened. It's at times like this, when I most expect him to pop up into some church that preaches the ideas that he originally wanted to be taught. But it hasn't happened.

So why glorify god? Why not give money instead to the people that actually ran into those burning buildings and rescued others? You know, the PEOPLE that did something, not the GOD that did absolutely nothing. He's the last person that should be glorified for this, and in fact, he should be severely admonished. After all, this attack was done both in his name, and against his will.

No, folks. The way I see it is this:

The attacks were carried out by people who have delusional ideas about the world. And people that have equally as delusional world-views are pissed off about it, so they have to shove their god's infected penis in other people's faces.

I don't see the comfort in the idea that god brings comfort into this world, and the people that do hold such a belief need to take a closer look at the suffering, and see all of the people (not gods) that are trying everything in their power to alleviate such suffering.

Thanks to all of this nostalgic, delusional BS, I do not celebrate September 11th. I am going to let it pass as another day as I did today, and just not give a damn about it, because there are things in this world that require, in my opinion, more immediate attention.

To Osama:
Happy anniversary!!! Your public video drive to increase annual nostalgia has worked!

~David~

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and good night.

2007-08-31T15:11:00.000-06:00

After about 30 minutes on a crash course of learning about Genders of german, I finally have this straightened out.

Why is there a difference in "gut" (good) when concerning the phrases, "guten morgen" and "gute nacht" or good morning, and good nigh, respectively?

Well, it has to do with genders. German, like spanish has genders. Although German has three.

Masculine: Der-- as in, der Morgen.
Neutral: Das-- as in Das Auto.
Feminine: Die-- as in Die Nacht.

As such, Morgen is masculine. It should be Guder; however, in the case of the phrase "good morning", it falls into the accusative case. For some reason in the accusitive case, the masculine form of a word changes from ER to EN. This is why good morning is "guten morgen.
This is also the gase with "good evening", and "good day". Evening and day are masculine, and would be "der abend" and "der tag", respectively.

Good night is also an accusitive case, but "nacht" is a feminine word-- therefor, nothing changes. It is Die nacht, and therefor, gute nacht.

And it's spoken as guten nacht in the same way that brittish people say "an hypothesis" Mechanically it's not correct. It's only correct when you speak it.

Re: Evidence

2007-08-12T13:18:00.000-06:00

in response to Ottoid's recent post, concerning the nature of evidence, and the nonexistence of something that might be bullshit in the first place.

The argument is this: I say that there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed. He agrees. But he says that he cannot prove one hundred percent that he does not exist.

I say that the probability doesn't matter, because like any other premise that derives from the bible or any other faith based literature, there has been no evidence for their existence, and therefore, they probably didn't exist. Yes, I said probably. Probably, like there's probably no flying Spaghetti monster, or invisible pink unicorn. Is there a small possibility? Yes. But I think it's negligible. It leads me to decide that Jesus did not exist, based upon additional historical accounts that we have looked over from that time, where we did not find his name. This fact has been verified numerous times by historians across the globe. The only thing saving Jesus is people's continued belief in him only. Christian Apologists come up with "proof", but most are questionable at best.

In the case of Jesus, the lack of evidence for his existence, is the evidence for his non-existence. If he existed, you would think we might see him in some of the secular writings of his time-- not decades or centuries after, with no personal or independent accounts. The case for the historical figure of Jesus is something that we can analyze with fact, and has nothing to do with faith, but the idea of faith too, is relevant. It's relevant because the argument that Christians use to "prove" god's existence is this:

Well, you can't DISPROVE him, can you?

No, you can't. And that's problematic. Try to disprove the existence of anything that doesn't have any evidence in the first place, and you won't get anywhere.

Alright Otto, that's my official reply to your post. If you want to read on you may, but these are merely thoughts that arose while writing a response to you. Some of it is repeated, other is actual evidence of actual events that further prove my point. I don't think you understand the scientific method, and I don't think you understand falsifiability.

I realize that it takes evidence to prove the existence of something. In science, that's all we rely upon, the evidence, and the merit of such evidence, as decided upon by the learned scientific population of nations together.

He keeps complaining about my invoking of faith into this argument-- I do not mean to focus my attention on faith, but that's ultimately what it comes down to. Just like with any other scientific concept, we didn't prove that the sun didn't go around the earth, we proved that the earth went around the sun.

What we were talking about in our argument, however, was disproving the existence of something that arose out of faith, such as god, or Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a celestial teapot. You can't disprove the existence of any of these. Since they are NOT falsifiable, there is no reason to believe that there will ever be any evidence that proves its existence. It comes down to falsifiability as far as faith is concerned.

When we speak about scientific terms, we don't seek to disprove something, we seek more and newer evidence. Say we're talking about evolution. If there ever was a case where we found a human skeleton in the same layer of strata that dinosaur bones are in, then evolution would be in serious trouble. It would have to either make up for itself, or it would just phase out of existence. Or it was a fabricated hoax. Scientific concepts are constantly changing in this very way. It's what we call the scientific method.

in the matter of faith however, these ideas have existed for millenia. There are supposed "historical accounts" that hardly have any merit when one looks at the artifact record of that time. Just a few of those stories are linked very loosely with actual historical occurrences. The Great Flood, for instance. This is hardly a history textbook we're talking about here. This goes for anything that people just make up on the spot. This is why the idea of god is as stupid as the celestial teapot. This is why we don't have to disprove the existence of god-- because it's as ridiculous as the teapot. We simply can't falsify those claims, like we can with evolution, with gravity, with atoms.

Prove to me first that there's any real evidence that god actually exists, then we'll start talking about falsifiability. Philosophers have been trying for centuries. There is, as of yet, no evidence. I imagine it will remain so.
Just as the discoveries of the micro-cellular world of biology, you need to prove to me that something really small is there, before I can say, "now hold on a minute, that's not what the evidence suggests..."

You can't disprove the existence of something that doesn't have any evidence. It's completely illogical.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
~Carl Sagan~

What the shit?

2007-08-07T15:59:00.000-06:00

Yay! I'm so happy to be going back to school, now that I have a new direction and all! Everything is complete, and all I'm waiting for is my FAFSA!!!!

Otto: Here's your mail from today, it's from CNM.

Me: Okay, cool, maybe they've already given me financial aid! *RIIIIIIP*

"Dear Student,

Your FAFSA ... blah blah blah... has been selected for review by the department of education. Please submit COPIES of your taxes, your parents taxes, both W-2 forms, your birth certificate, your social security card, your grandfather's social security card. The death certificate of your mother's aunts second cousin twice removed, your prepuce (if applicable), a complete copy of yours and your parents genome and your right kidney.

This verification is completely random, and it has nothing to do with how much we trust our students to not make errors on our applications, even though we already make it as contrived as possible. After all, it wasn't difficult for you to have someone drive you to your parents house to get their tax information, sit for several hours deciphering the language that we use on your FREE application for federal student AIDS-- er, aid, and double check to make sure that you didn't miss anything, was it? No, your parents don't live on the complete opposite side of town. Your parents also don't make you fill out everything yourself, even though it says "Parents" on it. We are Jedi.

Thank you for your cooperation,
and by the way, we will send a law enforcement Clydesdale horse to assrape you if we find ANY inconsistencies on your application.

Again, thank you for your cooperation.

Have a nice day!

~CNM Financial Aid bureau-- I mean, department~"

I forgot how fun Financial Aid was :)

fuckers

~David~

Rendeem Pest

2007-08-03T16:25:00.000-06:00

(For a translation scroll down)

E heve e beef weth peeple thet spell thengs cempletele wreng when they knew perfectle well thet they ere beeng cempletele encerrect.

Recentle, me ceesen end me heve teken te enventeng e new tepe ef wreting. Thes sentex censests ef repleceng evere vewel en the englesh lengeege end petteng en "E" en ets plece. Ebveesle, "Es" den't chenge.
E let ef thes pest cemes frem wetcheng e stell yeenger ceesin tepe en hes MeSpece te hes MeSpece freends. Et's e bench ef shet leke thes:

wat up?
wat school u go to
call me 555-5555
yeah lol im grounded now too

end se en end se ferth.... yee get the edee. Me beef es thet peeple leke hem ere cempletele ewere thet they're besterdezeng the lengeege. End they den't cere thet the rest ef es heve te set there end trenslete theer reterded lengeege-- end they're ekey weth thet. E den't cere thet they speek te eech ether thet wey, bet when E get en enstant messege from enebedy, end they telk leke thet, et mekes me went te greb e neerbe het peker end sheve et ep theer ess. These ere the tepe ef peeple thet get "there, Their, end they're" mexed ep.
Se E thenk thet thes es the seleteen. Evere teme thet semeeene telks te me leke thet, E em geeng te replece evere vewel weth the letter "e" end let them trenslete me vere ewn besterdezed (bet fer mere destengeeshed) verseen ef Englesh.
end then when they tell me, "can u plz speel write?" E'll sey, "net entel e de e dembess."

They'll never know what hit them.

I have a beef with people that spell things completely wrong when they know perfectly well that they are being incorrect.

Recently, my cousin Otto and I have taken to inventing a new type of writing. This syntax consists of replacing every vowel in the English language with "E". Obviously, "Es" don't change.
A lot of this post comes from watching a still younger cousin type on his myspace to his myspace friends. It's a bunch of shit like this:

wat up?
wat school u go to
call me 555-5555 laterz
yeah lol im grounded now too.

and so on and so forth.... you get the idea. My beef is that people like him are completely aware that they're bastardizing the language. And they don't care that the rest of us have to sit there and translate their retarded language-- and they're okay with that. I don't care that they speak to each other that way, but when I get an instant message from anybody, and they talk like that, it makes me want to grab a nearby hot poker and shove it up their ass. These are the type of people that get "there, their, and they're" mixed up.
So I think that this is the solution. Every time that someone talks to me like that, I am going to replace every vowel with the letter "e" and let them translate my very own bastardized (but far more advanced) version of English.
And then when they tell me, "can u plz speel write?" I'll say, "net entel e de e dembess"

They'll never know what hit them.

In other news,
I was looking at The Outlook, the newsmagazine that shows up with the Albuquerque Journal, yesterday, and read that Sony ImageWorks is going to be building a studio in Albuquerque. They said that they'll be bringing people from abroad, but that they're also going to be working locally with colleges and universities to recruit people.
HMMMMMM.
Since Imageworks focuses on computer animated movies and the like, this might be something I should look into, given my recent change in majors. I wouldn't have to move to somewhere like California or India to to computer animation work.

I only fear what David's going to say when I tell him that my aspiration is to work at Sony <.<;;;

Anyway,

Yeah,

~David~

2007-07-12T01:27:00.000-06:00

It's been a while.... yet again. I don't know what's kept me from this blog. I guess it's just the whole not having time to maintain a regular blog. But I do what I can.

I've been rather meh. I don't know if it's college that's getting to me, or something else. Classes are a lot more difficult than I expected. And it's not like I'm not learning anything... but it's that homework thing.... it always fucked me up in school. Why isn't there some alternative to people like me who know the material, but have better things to do outside of school? I do fine on every single one of the in-class assignments. And what's the point of doing big projects outside of school when you have the least access to help? Th ebig projects are the ones that should be worked on in the classroom, with the instructor doing what he or she is paid to do: instruct.

Ahh well. That's always the beef I had with homework. I always hated how they make homework like 50% of your grade-- even more than the final exam. Every time, the teachers have always used the same rhetoric: Practice makes perfect! ^_^ ugh. Not like it's changeable anyway. I just find it really hard to get the drive to do homework.

In other news, I was talking with (The Other) David(c) this evening. We were watching the Colbert report, and we saw his interview with a man who said that "Gaydar" could in fact be real, and also that it could be genetic.
I tend to think that nurture does in fact play a pretty big part in the whole process... but I can't deny the new science developing in the study of sexual preferences. There may be a gene that in fact enhances the probability that someone will develop homosexual tendencies. I don't recognize any of that from my early life personally, which is why I still believe that part of it comes from our own choices.

Our own choices. This may not be the most popular explanation-- but why the hell not? People can make choices. Without these choices, we can't get anywhere in life. So where is the beef? People make choices every day about more than what they want from McDonald's $1 menu. They make long-term financial choices, they make political choices, they make choices about the future of their kin, and finally they make choices about their religion.
Does this mean that we're going to have to start trying to find gene-implantation cures for the people who make all of the unpopular morally wrong choices? That's the implication I'm getting.
I went to an NMSR meeting last night that discussed the evolutionary biological origins of political values. It might have something to do with the immune system, and their reaction to viruses and other diseases. Does that mean we're going to have to start taking a look at the DNA of our immune systems, then try to manipulate them so that our choices are made differently?
OF COURSE NOT.
So my question still remains: Where's the beef? It's not like you can "catch homosexuality" if you shake my hand. HIV/AIDS is a blood disorder, not one that is transferred from a cough. This is xenophobia at its worst... and it really has got to stop. The fucktards (and I apologize for the vulgarity, but this issue really irks me) at places like Virtue Online who believe that gene implantation therapy would be just a swell cure for homosexuality, or those subhuman deiphiles (a combination of deity and philia... god lovers) at Exodus International who believe that all of us were abused or molested at a young age, and just need love from "A REAL MAN" have got to either die, or see themselves for what they really are: self-centered, bigoted, half-witted, unaccepting, fundamentalist, holier than thou, bible thumpers who have no fucking idea how many happy lives they are ruining by subjecting these lives to terror through bible-therapy (ie: introduction to Hell 101, and the usual diatribe about how god loves you only if you believe in such and such contradictive passages).
In all, I think the discussions taking place currently about homosexuality have got to be taken out of the religious context. Someone has got to tell these religious zealots who have the control over the "moral majority" that their opinions about science do not qualify AS SCIENCE just because they are about science. it's circular reasoning, and it's proof that these retards don't know the true and beautiful nature of science. Their opinions don't matter in the field, and why not? Because the bible, time and time again has been proved to be an entirely inaccurate, corruptible, and ridiculously fallible source of information.
It's the time to tell them simply this: Fuck off. If you refuse to look at the facts, and simply come up with your own, or worse, get them directly from the bible, then you have no business in expressing scientific opinions. Homosexuality does not negatively affect your life. If it violates your own sense of security, then by all means, stay away from us. I fear what you could do to me every day on the streets. I'm afraid of expressing my love openly as straight people do in public because of assholes who get a kick out of seeing blood spilt because of a stupid law in Leviticus.

So that's my rant for tonight... a special treat to whomever might possibly still read this thing.

And remember: Republicans for Voldemort

The Holy Test

Your score is 46.

Congratulations, you have passed the Hypocrite Test! You are officially Unholier Than Thou. The world is a happier place with you in it

~David~

May, June, July, August... SEPTEMBER?!?!

2006-09-26T20:40:00.000-06:00

Wow, it has been 4 months since my last update, hasn't it?

So what's new?

I'm attending CNM (Central New Mexico Community College), formerly but AKA: Technical Vocational Institute (TVI). Yes, some of the instuctors there are still referring to their school as TVI. It was a pain in the ass to pay for, but I pulled it off in the end. I started the semester with about $800, I now have less than $100.

So I do need a job before I can even think about applying for school next semester. Anyway, I'm having fun... no, I'm having FUN!!!!! in my first semester. Fun like I didn't know existed. And you know what? I'm doing it without beer :D

The way I like to put it is this: I'm taking college courses at CNM. I'm living the college life at UNM. Because all of the fun people and things to do are at the University. I can tell that this is where the basis of my lifestyle will be for the next 5-10 years.

This first semester, I'm taking mainly core classes. Among them, Philosophy, Biology, English 101, and Math 100A (yes, I know, I SUCK!) but they're going well. I actually like Philosophy and biology a lot. I still might just take the science route, and get a degree somewhere in biology. Or even double-major in it along with the liberal arts. Science definitely pays more. But we'll see.

I enjoy the people around me more than I like the classes though. FINALLY I can be around people who actually know me, unlike high school, where walking among the thousands of students during passing period was one of the loneliest times of my life. Don't get me wrong, I loved my high school friends, but there just was an element to those relationships missing I think. The hole is filled now, and now I'm quite a bit more happy than I was. Mistake not my partial-resentment of high school for an emo-trip. That's just not me.

I have no idea who's still reading this fast-thinking-cat blog, but I'd imagine not many, after being absent for about 4 months now. But if there are any old school friends etc. out there who happen across this blog, please leave a message, or send an email or something. I like to keep in touch. I even have messengers which I frequent a lot. Just ask me!

Blah. Well, I don't know what else to put. Well, there's one thing on my mind. TASTE THE RAINBOW!

That is all. Perhaps something a little more thought-provoking on my next update.

~David~

2006-05-24T17:14:00.000-06:00

Okay, so I check my email alerts. And I get this alert from a place called virtueonline.org. Here's the link:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4106

And the subject is "causes and cures of homosexuality". I've had issues with this website before, and their failed logic is absolutely astounding, so I merely clicked it because yes, I was bored. Anyway, they make some pretty stupid overused claims in this story. And I thought it might be interesting to adress them. So, I shall do that here.

The article starts by explaining how an "ex-gay", Greg, was abused during his childhood years, and how he was promiscuous in homosexuality. Then there is the heartwarming story where Greg had noticed the evil of his ways, and had re-affirmed his faith in Jesus Christ. The most warm feeling of course came when he was taking care of his father, and his father told him "I love you" which was a surprise to Greg. The point of that being that Christian people are not abusive to other Christian people who lead good, moral, non-homosexual lifestyles.
The above section of the story is absolutely tear-jerking ... to any soap-opera watcher. It's not impressive though, at all. But of course, these are the only stories we hear about. The "ex-gay" who was abused as a child and slipped into homosexuality in seek of comfort.
Predictably, what we next hear about, is that the bible says that this is wrong, and that homosexuality can be cured. Focusing on the negative aspects of life is how they do this. ie: "you were abused as a child. You need to let this go though, and realize that bad things did happen, you can come out of homosexuality, and be good like us"

The fact is though, everyone has disagreed with their parents at some point or another. It doesn't make us all homosexual. Some people were also thoroughly abused as children who are actually straight. So focusing on a negative cause of homosexuality is just about as irrelevant as finding a positive aspect of life in a straight person's childhood... simply, because we all have good and bad childhood experiences. We tend to focus on the good ones. But places such as the church or any establishment which believes a "cure" exists, play upon the bad ones, especially where early decision-making is concerned.

sexual orientation too isn't a decision more than it is actually an embracement. Someone realizes what makes them happy, and they either accept it, or they turn their back to it. It just depends on the individual, and nothing else. It's not a disorder, and it doesn't hurt anyone in it's mere concept. People exist, and people hold different beliefs, and like different things. What's moral and not moral has to be made by the indivual, not by anyone else, and not by society.

If you want to know why there is an increase in number of homosexual suicides, I'll ask everyone to look at the world that they have to live in today. In Saudi Arabia, men are killed for it.

Greg then goes on to explain that if there was a gay gene (which neither he nor I believe exists) then we wouldn't have to accept that any more than a woman would have to accept her breast cancer. It may be true to a degree. Nobody's asking anybody to accept homosexuality just because this gene was allegedly discovered. But what's really false is that, like cancer, we need to seek a cure for it, as we do for cancer.

Folks, I don't know about you, but I could not name one instance where the existence of homosexuality has caused the cell population in a human's body to just explode. The difference is obvious. Cancer kills, and homosexuality does not. AIDS is later cited in a person's response in a thread. They seem to ignore the fact that people generally do not accept this as true anymore. AIDS can afflict any gender regardless of orientation. It's a blood disease only.

But a homosexual gene does not exist as of this point, so the argument is rather ridiculous to continue.

Nobody is asking anyone to accept homosexuality, but please do not use false science to back up your claims. And for god's sake, be consistant, or just don't speak at all! Realize that homosexuality and cancer are not synonomous. Realize also that faith should be kept entirely seperate when pursuing a scientific conclusion through observation. Probably the only reason that a gay gene was found is because the scientist was looking for one specifically. Of course, we know now that such a gene does not exist due to current research. Of course, even if we did find one, another suggestion that was offered was that "gene implantation" could be administered. A Brave New World anyone?

People make me sick.

Sincerely,
David... who is entirely happy.

2006-05-05T08:34:00.000-06:00

I've never shaken so much before a presentation since they've been required. I mean, I've been nervous about them before, but not so much that my heart rate raised 3 hours before the actual presentation and will not settle down. I'm going to be so glad when theis is over. Of course this is not the last presentation that I will give. But it's the source of most of my worries. What if I just freeze up there and forget what I'm talking about?

x.x

I doubt that I will, but it's happened before, and it's really embarassing. It's the reason that I don't like to present in front of my peers. Ahh well... time will come, it will stay, and it will go. Sooner or later, that class has to come, and sooner or later it has to end. Sooner or later, it has to be night, so sooner or later, this whole thing will be over, it will be in the past, and it likely will not matter any more.

Since I've written this paper, I've had a lot of time to reflect upon what the importance of science is to my nearly faithless way of life. And I'm glad for that. I wish that more people would dump organized religion like I did, and look at the world in the scientific sense. One can still have faith in a greater being and respect the awsome nature of science. I've been doing it for years, well respecting the scientific method, and I am not an immoral hitler-type. I am bound by the reasonable nature of my human integrity, my respect for others, and that's what this all boils down to. This issue is important to me, because we can not beat ourselves senseless back to the dark ages, a time of scientific depression, and unquestionable religious fundamentalism.

God has not been left out of the equation. There is just no evidence for him. Everywhere we look, we see things beautiful in nature, and think to ourselves "That must be the work of an intelligent designer" -- of course, that is an excellent show of faith, but it's not science. In all of our history, when we look at science, we have discovered the existence of a natural explanation for phenomena. The properties of Physics govern most of the forms we see. The properties of chemestry creates anatural balance in the world that we as people MUST understand to keep going forward. Applying god directly into the equation will halt scientific progress as we know it.

The best thing then to do is to recognize that there are things in nature that are spectacular. And, where you wish, keep believing in god. Believe in god in the naturalistic sense. Believe that he has given us all of the properties of physics, chemistry, biology to determine what the outcome of human life is. Because the explanations that we are coming by are all true, and they are all naturalistic. And they cannot be cointinued to be ignored just because they defy someone's religious dogma. The application of science can be made to individual religious beliefs. It's up to the people, and its up for science to remain objective so that the people can make these decisions for themselves.

As you can see much of this is just random typing, while I try to vent some of the anxiety that I'm feeling at the moment. Well, I have to start presenting in about 20 minutes.. I ought to run through my presentation again. I hope I do well.

~David~

Intelligent Design: A Scientific Secular Alternative?

2006-04-26T01:12:00.000-06:00

I suggest copy/pasting into a word processor and putting it in a double-spaced format for easier reading. It's finally almost complete, I appreciate anyone who reads this.

Thanks,
~David~

“The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Carl Sagan said these words. Something a true scientist like Sagan would not explain is that science is materialism. He or she would also not explain that science is a religion, or that science has many interpretations based on religious beliefs. Only a scientist from the times of the medieval ages would make such erroneous statements. And yet, to this day, around every corner of knowledge that someone looks, there is a person claiming to be a scientist, who tries to hold back the progressive goal of science in favor of the traditional mind-set that has a majority of Americans ideologically entrapped. Such is not science. Science is progressive, and only has ceased when that progress has been suppressed, such as during the medieval ages.
The medieval ages seemed to have returned in the form of pseudoscience masquerading as legitimate in the United States. In order to make up for their ignorance, religious fundamentalists will try to fill the gaps with anything and everything. In the recent centuries, these gaps of ignorance were replaced by a concept called “Creationism Science” that sought to teach a literal interpretation of the Bible’s Genesis, and apply “science” to it. There were, and still there exists today several flaws with this pseudoscientific reasoning. None of which the least addresses the questionable objectivity of the argument. The goal of science has always been to prove itself through vigorous postulations, experimentation, and through objective analysis of data. Its goal is not however to continue to dispel the arguments from half a millennium ago which Intelligent Design continues to advocate, and which have all been refuted.
Recently, despite constant ridicule, Creationism has evolved into a new-age theory called Intelligent Design, which seeks to upset science at its very foundations, to fit its own specific needs in order to reshape not only science, but a progressive society in general. There is a difference between science and ideology. To be science-driven is to objective despite whatever personal beliefs one has, and to be mindful of all the possible variables out there. Ideology, as far as science is concerned, should not play a part in the process of analysis, as ideology is strictly one’s political and philosophical beliefs. This could mean religion, it could mean Atheism; either way, it does not belong in the scientific process. Though many would argue that God could very well be one of those variables, as well as any possible intelligent force out there which might have created the Earth’s creatures in their present form. The requirement however, of observable scientific data almost always undermines this notion of an intelligent designer in the scientific form. So what Intelligent Design (hereinafter “ID”) tries to do is to go a step further, to redefine science from its present sense to fit its own needs. To lay the arguments of incredulity to rest, a thorough definition of science must be presented.

The scientific method was developed through history so that it now includes six basic principles that all theories must adhere to in order to be considered real science. Scientific investigations consist of these six principles, and they are followed in order to produce constant, objective data and reasoning. Because of this, science has developed to become enormously self-critical. Science has become so effective, that it is able to take in new ideas and put them together. But these ideas do not just come up out of thin air. No, they are novel scientific ideas presented by scientists from all over the nation, and all over the world.
According to an essay (Sawin, Enoch I.) which describes the way science ought to be taught, the six requirements that any novel scientific claims need to fulfill in order to be considered a valid theory includes: 1) a felt need to exist; need for conclusion for something that remains unexplained. As an example, human origin has always been in question, where the gaps have always been filled with supernatural explanations. For science, this is not good enough. A constant feed of knowledge is needed in order to explain observable natural phenomena. 2) A formulated problem, a need for well rounded problem ready for an experimental approach. 3) A formulated hypothesis, or prediction. Suggested solutions are put forth based on educated guesses. 4) Data is collected, supporting facts are sought out to support the hypothesis in question. 5) Conclusions from the collected data are drawn out. 6) Analysis of the conclusion. By the end, the science is applied to everyday lives. This is the point where science will explain what question was answered, and why it even matters that research was even done. Evolution is applied to the past, present and future in this way. Because the theory of evolution has a strong basis from steps 1-6 inside and out, it has held firmly in place when confronted by many forces trying to bulldoze the foundation. .
It is true that science must be accurate, it must be trustworthy, and it must not lie. If the conclusions that have been drawn by science were ever inaccurate, then the answers to some of the most important fundamental questions would never be solved. This is why the Scientific Method is used (Sawin, Enoch I). It is more important to know why it has worked so well throughout history. During the development of civilized world history, humans have depended on technological advancements to forward their culture. The Greeks and the Romans established the basis of what is now called science. It was Ptolemy for example who conceived the first idea explaining how the sun goes around the Earth . But it would serve better to mention the development of science during the Enlightenment period of European world history.
It was during this time that, with such minds as Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, and Johannes Kepler, science went through a highly charged reform. Isaac Newton’s research also brought forth revolutionary ideas that would change the workings of science forever. During this period, Kepler and Tycho Brahe worked together. Kepler’s main area of study concerned the laws of Planetary motion, whereas Tycho Brahe sought to prove his Geo-heliocentric model of the universe. Even after Brahe’s death, Kepler continued to use the scientific tools leftover from his colleague’s discoveries. He also used science that derived from the ancient times of the Greeks, and the Romans. (Kepler, 1609) All of this eventually led up to the collapse of the planetary system that Ptolemy brought forth a millennium and a half before.
The new and improved heliocentric view of the Earth’s position holds that the sun lays in the center of the solar system, and that the planets orbit around the sun in an elliptical manner. Kepler thus came up with the three laws of planetary motion, and those observations by kepler were later shown to be evidence that there was another force acting upon the planets. This was a force, later defined by Newton, called gravity.
Kepler was persistent in his research of the planets. Before he figured out his three laws of planetary motion, Kepler sought to prove that the planets were created in an orderly fashion following the number and shapes of the Platonic solids. The platonic solids included the cubed forms of the circle, triangle, square, pentagon, hexagon and octagon. After several attempts to justify this, Kepler eventually gave up on that idea, because it was not working, and he then pursued other explanations.
This also helped along Galileo’s claim that the Sun was in fact the stationary object in the universe. Thus it is demonstrated that during the Enlightenment period the development of the Scientific Method both weeded out unsatisfactory theories, and replaced them with well-reasoned ones. That is not to say however that Kepler’s ideas did not go through history as indisputable fact. It was merely a firm basis on which to build an enormous scientific idea that would continue to develop over the next several centuries. Today, the ideas brought out by Kepler, and Sir Isaac Newton are needed absolutely to launch anything ranging from satellites to teams of astronauts into orbit around the Earth as flawlessly as humanly possible.
Of course it is notable to mention that there are alternate theories out there concerning Gravity and Planetary motion. Yet, these theories have time and time again been debunked by modern science. Of course the opposite spectrum does exist, and they claim that the science and reasoning behind the Scientific Method are flawed, that they are too naturalistically narrow-minded, and are censoring the ideas surrounding Creationism (Bergman, 1996), when the forum is always open for debate– after all, that is what drives science forward (Sawin, Enoch I.).
An open forum is also precisely why science works as well as it does. It is an open forum to all new ideas that have made it past the developing phase, and research phase that science requires. Once the community has picked the theory apart, the leftovers if there are any will be incorporated as they make sense into the scientific theory that it surrounds, and that theory into the broader scope of science.
To determine the validity of a scientific claim, which has gone through the processes of scientific inquiry, one must rely on the numerous peer-reviewed journals that are out in mainstream science. These journals do include but are not limited to Nature, Science, Frontiers, and Scientific American.
All in all, the things required for the objective consideration of a scientific claim come down to the validity of the hypothesis where objectivity and progressiveness is concerned. Looking at the procedures used during experimentation to determine whether they accurately and objectively were used to collect the data is also key to identifying a valid theory. Finally, the conclusion and analysis of the data to determine whether or not the original hypothesis is correct must be taken into account. Does it align with the current facts that preceded this hypothesis? Scientists and publishers of scientific journals must ask themselves this and many other questions when considering a theory. It is the lack of all of this due process that often declares a proposed theory, especially where creationism is concerned, invalid.

Intelligent Design has a mission. And that mission as defined by the Discovery Institute is “to make a positive vision of the future practical. To promote ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market, and individual liberty using book reports, debates ...” (Discovery Institute). The real roots behind the Discovery Institute lays in the Wedge Document produced by it, but this more public goal in short means that: ID will try everything in its power to manipulate its way into the scientific community by getting high-profile people particularly in the government to lobby for the inclusion of its ideas into society.
An analysis of Intelligent Design and its use of the Scientific Method is essential to proving its affiliation with pseudoscience. Before that takes place though, a summary of the history of Intelligent Design must be looked at. Some say it began with the explosion of controversy that erupted at the beginnings of the 21st century. Others say that it began with the court ruling in 1987 that banned Creationism from schools for good (Edwards V. Aguilard). Roots of this movement go as far back as Greek and Roman times. But it appears that modern-day intelligent Design can be traced back to Philosopher William Paley, who presented the Watchmaker Analogy (Paley, William A., Natural Theology, 1802). This analogy is extensively used by modern Creationists today, and is cited in Michael Behe’s book, and is still quoted in many online communities as actual proof for an Intelligent Designer.
This theory is the foundation of the modern ID movement. If something such as a biological system or function is very complex, and there is no scientific explanation yet, it then draws the conclusion that an intelligent designer had placed that specific system or function directly, explaining why the system is supposedly irreducibly complex.
First, one must ask, is there a felt need for the idea of Intelligent Design to exist? Some argue yes. ID specifically addresses the problems surrounding the evolution of the bacterial flagella, and other microbiological areas using the notion of irreducible complexity for instance (Behe, Michael J., Darwin’s Black Box). ID advocates assert that the function of the flagella could not have evolved through natural selection because it can function only as it does by possessing the proteins which it does, and by no other means.
The second question requires a well-formulated problem that needs to be explored. Again, the complexity of the flagella comes into play. ID asserts that Evolution fails to explain the naturalistic process of this biological system, that it is irreducibly complex. Solving this complexity requires an alternate explanation; God did it.
Third, A hypothesis. Referring to the flagella again, Intelligent Design postulates that there is no conceivable way for the functions of the proteins to have been evolved. Therefor, in the absence of any data, it should be concluded that a Designer created it at some point. God created the flagellum because its complexity is too great for it to have arose in any other way.
Fourth, Data is collected. There has yet to be any scientific data to be collected that promotes ID’s postulation. Such books as Of Pandas and People and Darwin’s Black Box are touted as the leading explanations in favor of Intelligent Design. Both explore the idea of Irreducible Complexity, as well as flaws with the “icons of evolution”. Otherwise, Intelligent Design effectively uses the data collected by science in the past, and doesn’t necessarily require to generate any new evidence of its own besides conceptual evidence.
The fifth question regards the conclusions which can be drawn. Since no data has been collected thus far, Intelligent Design has instead decided to run its arguments primarily based off the logistical arguments presented by such minds as William Dembski, and Michael J. Behe to conclude that with the lack of data from Evolution evolution is false, and the only explanation left, is to place an Intelligent Designer in the equation.
The sixth and final step is the analysis of the conclusion. The conclusion of ID is based upon the analysis of the data, which is based upon the accusation that evolution has presented no explanation for the complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Taking all of this to note, to ID, it is quite obvious that evolution cannot explain themselves, and thus Intelligent Design is the only alternative to learning about biology.
All of these questions have been tied together, and this way the Scientific Method is applied to Intelligent Design.
Irreducible complexity remains the master argument for Intelligent Design; an icon of ID, just as Evolution has proclaimed icons such as the natural selection evidence concerning the evolution of peppered moths. When paraphrased however, something that is irreducibly complex means that something has parts of it that cannot be divided into simpler terms. The bacterial flagella, they say, has so many parts that it’s too complex to have developed its functions using natural selection. Other things that they find irreducibly complex include the human eye, the immune system, and any functioning blood-clotting system. The idea was first proposed in Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, and is then defined as, ". . . a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Behe, 39). The flagellum consists of three major parts, with several tens of proteins, resembles a whip, and enables a bacteria to swim about in its environment (Berg C., Howard). The structure of flagella has been studied for years, has been hotly debated on several peer-reviewed journals, and discussed also heatedly on many relevant online scientific communities such as talk.orgins. The consensus among the scientific community is that the bacterial flagellum has evolved over time from another organelle that perhaps increased the chances of latching onto another cell which happened to be passing by. It’s also notable to mention that evidence exists which shows a protein family in the flagellum to have a common ancestor (Gibbons, I.R.)
The concept most ignored by IDCs (Intelligent Design Creationists) is the concept of “change in function.” This is the idea that a different function can evolve from the components that made up a past function. Charles Darwin discussed this idea in his book, Origin of the Species. The example he used was the eye, but he also presented that if any research demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by modifications over an extended period of time, his theory would break down absolutely. (Darwin, Charles, 146) This is an example of a theory’s ability to be falsified.
To put all of this into a bit of context, scientists ought to be able to apply their ideas in a real scientific experiment. They should be able to take their ideas and make predictions with them, in turn, these predictions ought to be testable. Since science can look for modifications on the molecular level, if evolution is correct, it should be found that there are alternative biological functions to these complex systems or their components. If Evolution is wrong, there should be no way that these proteins would have any other function. The idea proposed by ID, that Irreducible Complexity is an obstacle for evolution, is wrong if it is found that these proteins can serve other functions.
To begin, the notion of the bacterial flagellum and its complexity will be taken into account. Intelligent Design holds that If any part of the system from the flagellum is taken away, then the proteins could not function, thus it had to have a creator to drive the process.
If evolution is correct, then several parts of the bacterial flagellum ought to be able to be eliminated, and the remaining proteins should still have a function.
So, in taking away several of the proteins from the system, 40 of them in fact, the result ends up still having a recognizable function. Very recognizable in fact, the function is that of the type III Secretory System. This system is used by numerous bacteria to inject paralyzing proteins into other cells. It’s not a flagellum, but it is a fully functional system. (Miller)
Keep in mind this is just one type of flagellum. This is just referring to the bacterial flagellum, and not those of the eukaryotes, or even cilia, which all have completely different designs (talk.origins).
Even though the many parts were taken away, the remaining parts still have a function. This means that the proteins that make up the flagellum can have other functions. With the knowledge of the history of science, and its methods one can come to the general conclusion that with time, science can explain what functions may have existed before the flagellum. Therefore, it can be reasoned that evolution is in fact completely ready to explain how the function of the flagellum came about through time. This is the Scientific Method at its best, and it clearly shows its efficiency in drawing accurate conclusions with collected data. This method has answered innumerable questions mankind has generated throughout history, and continues to do so to this day.
In each and every case of alleged Irreducible Complexity, a mountain of evidence can be presented in front of the advocates which certainly drowns their arguments immediately. Their persistence and public relations alone keep them afloat.
Take the blood clotting process for example. If one factor is taken away, it has been found, the function is still able to take place in several sea mammals (Robinson, Jean A., 1420) and the same is true with the puffer fish, though rather than just 1 factor removed, there are three removed. Given that macro-evolution did occur, which Intelligent Design does not dispute, some 450 million years ago when the transition went from mammals living on land to mammals living in the water, the blood clotting system developed through gene duplication. (Davidson et al, 1487)
When Michael J. Behe was on the expert witness stand in Dover, he presented his argument that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Behe was then presented with over fifty peer-reviewed scientific publications describing just how the immune system could develop via evolution (Kitzmiller et al.). Behe claimed that all of this evidence just wasn’t enough. And it is here where the true colours of the Discovery Institute finally come out. The evidence just isn’t good enough for them.

With all of these arguments in mind, and the six questions applied, it can be easy to refute these arguments used by design. And can also easily be identified as a direct attack upon evolution, and for no other purpose than that. For when making their arguments, proponents of ID state their points and then attack evolution openly. For example, when Ohio’s state board of education decided to place warning labels on the biology book, which read “This textbook has material on Evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This subject should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered” (Cobb County Board of Education), the board members were religiously motivated in their decision. Fortunately, the judge saw this, and in January of 2005, the decision was overturned (MSNBC).
Creationists try to admonish those that cite the first amendment against so-called “critical thinking” policies. After all, this label on the books doesn’t mention a thing about religion, or even Intelligent Design! What it is trying to do though, is to try to promote the false notion in a child that somehow a theory is more weak than a fact.
It also should be mentioned that Gravity is also only a theory, and not a fact. What the sticker means to tell kids though, is that Evolution is a very controversial subject, especially in these times, when the country is collectively considering such touchy subjects as Separation of Church and State in the most literal senses. However, it is not worth tearing down one section of the wall to let the two separate entities flow into each other.

Through all of these inconsistent points brought forth by ID, one thing does remain consistent: Something is completely awry. Science, or religion? Education or indoctrination? What do they mean by uttering the phrase “teach the controversy” when in reality, it has been shown above that there is no controversy?
In its “Wedge Document”, the Discovery Institute bases its entire existence on the fact that the western civilization was influenced on the existence of the belief that most people had a belief in God.

When looking at what Carl Sagan said about the universe being absolutely everything, what could he possibly have meant? Perhaps that the Universe just exists, perhaps he meant that humans have no purpose relatively in this vast physical existence. But knowing what Sagan did with his life, knowing what he pursued, and what mattered to him in his life, this notion could be tossed out without question. An understanding about what the universe actually is, why it is, how it is, and perhaps more importantly, what the universe could become, what humans can do with this existence. The beauty of the world must held in awe, certainly. But after a respectable awe, human understanding must tackle these things which cannot yet be explained. The problem with Intelligent Design as it stands, is that it prevents, or even more frustratingly, alters completely the system around which science orbits. Without the objectivity that science has on the outcome of collected data, false ideas would be published, and just because a wrong turn is made does not mean that a dead end will not be hit. When hitting a dead end, the solution is to always turn around and try to backtrack, setting the correct course and speed again, and learning from the mistake. The map by which science is driven now works fine, and it has for the past several centuries. Taking a wrong turn toward dumping the definition of science down a paralyzing abyss is not only a completely unfortunate dead end, it’s very dangerous. It’s dangerous in that humans depend on the progress of science to live their lives.

Bibliography:

Behe, Michael J. “Darwin’s Black Box” Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, 1996

Cobb County Board of Education, March, 28 2002

Davidson CJ, Tuddenham EG, McVey JH. 450 million years of hemostasis. J Thromb Haemost 2003; 1: 1487–94.

Darwin, Charles “On The Origin of Species”

Dawkins, Richard. “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design” W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, 1987

www.discovery.org

MSNBC, associated press “Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers: Disclaimer questioning theory ruled unconstitutional” January 13, 2005)

The National Center for Science Education (ncseweb.org)

Gibbons, I.R., “Dynein family of motor proteins: present status and future questions”

Kitzmiller V. Dover Area School District

Matzke, Nicholas J. “Behe’s Blunder” BASIS - issue April-June 2004

Miller, Kenneth R., Lecture

Paley, William A. “Natural Theology”, 1802

Perakh, Mark. "Does irreducible complexity imply Intelligent Design? Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity," according to "design theorists," implies Intelligent Design of biological systems. In fact, such a conclusion lacks a logical foundation. Irreducible complexity can even more reasonably be construed as an argument against Intelligent Design.(EVOLUTION AND THE ID WARS)." Skeptical Inquirer 29.6 (Nov-Dec 2005)

Pigliucci, Massimo. "Design Yes, Intelligent No A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism." Skeptical Inquirer 25.5 (Sept 2001)

Robinson, Jean A. Et al, “Hageman Factor XII Deficiency in Marine Mammals” Science, Volume 166, 1969

Ruse, Michael. "Creationism." New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Ed. Maryanne Horowitz. Vol. 2. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005. 489-493. 6 vols.

Sawin, Enoch I. "The scientific method and other bases for evaluation procedures." ETC.: A Review of General Semantics 62.4 (Oct 2005)

www.talkorigins.org

Witty...

2006-04-19T11:03:00.000-06:00

Bushcronium! XD

A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Bushcronium."

Bushcronium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an Atomic mass of 311. These 311 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Bushcronium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Bushcronium causes one reaction to take over 4 days to complete when it would normally take less than a second. Bushcronium has a normal half-life of multiples of 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Bushcronium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass."

When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element which radiates orders of magnitude, more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as many morons.

Bushcronium can spontaneously transmute into Pandemonium.

Enjoy,

~David~

2006-04-10T23:04:00.000-06:00

the meeting was 4 HOURS long, but thank goodness for the air conditioning that passed by from time to time.

But for the moment, it looks like Intelligent Design has a narrower back door to get through.... because as I watched the board debate the issue, after the mountains of people voicing their opinions, I noticed that the original advocating board members proposed striking out the last line of the debate and replacing it with the last line already established in the current state standards. And that was rather suspicious to me. Why make such a redundant move when you could have just struck the whole thing out, and abide by the standards anyway?

That was just one part of it though. The beginning was rather boring. After all, the board members had other things on the agenda, like budget, and school programs and such, and that was interesting, but the reason that this small room for 63 was packed beyond what the fire code would allow, was science policy #401, and the debate was clear even before the meeting started. For instance, some jackass at the beginning started yelling, "This is a public forum, we should ALL have seats in order to have our say..." (followed by cries of "herehere!") over and over and over again in a loud (sorry to say, rather retarded) voice until someone else told the board just to ignore him at which point he retorted "who the HELL are you?" and that's about as tense as the night got.

Everyone then proceeded to their seats and the meeting started. After all the essentials were out of the way, it was 401's turn, and first the public was allowed to speak. I'd say there were upwards of 200 people at that meeting, because it had been announced on the News earlier in the morning.

Among the first to speak was the head of the local high school Science Department, and he essentially laid out all that he could in the 3 minutes he was given, and asked those who supported him to stand up. More than half the room did so, and that was a good feeling. But I reminded myself that there were still another 50+ people signed up to speak. Myself among them. Point after point was made, and our side kept reinforcing the definition of science, and how it should be taught in our science classrooms. Essentially, "this policy is a back door for intelligent Design, Intelligent Design is not science because science is this, this, this, and this."

and then it was my turn. I don't have a degree in biology or nuclear physics like some of these other guys had, so I just got up there and tried to explain what my issue as a student was with this policy. I pointed out again that time and time again, this policy has been revealed to be nothing more than a new way to use ID to indoctrinate creationism among the students. And that by connecting the board's existence with the government, I was able to point out that this board was under the law to not pass this policy on the grounds of the 1st amendment, which the board was subject to. You know, the typical rebellious student argument.

wasn't that great an appearance as I am horrible with public speaking. I ought to have brought note cards up or something. Ahh well, there were others that underlined the case I had put forward. So that was a good feeling.

Their points were the same tired arguments that had been refuted backwards and forward up down left right and through the anus. "this is critical thinking" the leader of IDnet New Mexico, Rebecca Keller who is the leading ID proponent in New Mexico saying that they did not represent ID per sey, but that they'd like to see this policy remain. Pathetic. But then there were people who also tried to admonish the teachers for not blindly enforcing this policy "as educators" and that it was "frustrating for them as parents" that the teacher could not "teach" properly. And boy, did the science teachers get furious. During the recess that took place between the arguments, and the actual debate among the board members, the advocates of both sides were at each other's necks. Especially the science teachers. Me? I hung out with the physicists, and did a lot of Eavesdropping.

It's interesting to note that most of the room got quiet after a few minutes. I suspect this is when all the IDiots (sorry, I had to incorporate that somewhere) ran out of arguments, and stumbled back to try and start again x)

anyway, after the recess, the board took the debate into their own hands. The first proposition was that of striking out the existing line, and replacing it with the line stated in the NM state science standards. That reasonable people would disagree with the origins of species, the cause of the big bang, etc. Which is a good standard to abide by... however if it's already there, why on earth would you include it again word for word in the standards? That's why I remain suspicious... again, it's not a full victory, I think that we're just getting somewhere finally. The second proposition was to keep it the way it was because there was nothing in the policy currently that suggested ID (despite half of the proponents of this policy being members of NMIDnet) but what really shut this moron's face is when one of the other board members got engaged in a dialogue with him that went something like this,

Board member 1 (against rescinding) : I think our staff is more than capable enough to discuss all issues among the students if the studnets should bring them up.
Bard member 2 (for rescinding) : You think our teachers are qualified to teach the origins of religions deriving from Islam, or that they are qualified to discuss the book of mormon in the classroom if they should bring them up? And what about the dozens of Indian Pueblos in the area? Are we going to ask our teachers to step out of their boundaries to teach that which ought to not be taught in a science classroom?
Board member 1: I think our staff is capable of that, yes. It encourages our students to think critically.
Board member 2: how do you think that this is possible, when their fields extend only to those that they study in?
Board member 1: well... it's something we need to figure out.

at this point, the whole room erupts in laughter. You mean you did not figure this out before? Genius mister board member! A slap in the face to you, and a revelation that you have no god damned clue about what you're talking about. It was about ID the entire time, and you know it. "The only indoctrination that's happening here" I said, "is the indoctrination of religion that's happening in this board meeting. This is a public school system. Religion has no place in it."

Hopefully, the rest of the board members will realize how redundant their actions today were, and they'll bring the policy back to the way it originally was before August 23rd.

FYI:

Rio Rancho Public School Science Policy wrote:

... When appropriate and consistent with the New Mexico Science Content Standards, Benchmarks, and Performance Standards, discussions about issues that are of interest to both science and individual religious and philosophical beliefs will acknowledge that reasonable people may disagree about the meaning and interpretation of data.

that was adopted this past August, and is the controversial phrase.

now the above line reads:

New Mexico State Science Standards wrote:

Understand that reasonable people may disagree about some issues that are of interest to both science and religion (e.g., the origin of life on Earth, the cause of the Big Bang, the future of Earth).

adopted August 28th of 2003. The above standards have been acclaimed nation wide as some of the best state standards to ever come out of schools. Why change it? Why make amends when no amendment is needed? Why? Because there was a hidden agenda, that's why. There are some people who would rather have students be subject to ID ideology because "Evolution is a theory and not a fact" or (and this was the biggest ignorance of the meeting) the board member touting that there is NO fossil record supporting transitional species. I don't know where he's been the past few days, but a recent article in Nature would probably disagree. Anyway, that is my rant about tonight. I had to post it somewhere, and here seemed like a good place.

If you've read thus far, thank you very much :p

~David~

They caught me on camera by the way, so my opinions reached beyond the ears too of those who were actually at the meeting. And that's pretty satisfying. ^^

Immigration issues ... again

2006-04-10T08:07:00.000-06:00

It's stunning. hundreds of thousands of people uniting across the country in order to tell Congress that they'd like a slice of their American pie too. What's more is that it was unprecedented by anyone. It's interesting to think about what is really at stake. Basic human rights, good hard workers, a culture movement that could be shot dead in its tracks, but also the sense of "haha, I'm better than you" that most Americans feel comfortable growing up with. What will be the outcome honestly, if there was more legal competitoin as far as jobs go? After all, it's not the immigrants who are holding wages down, it's the people who employ these immigrants who hold the wages down, because they are basically allowed to pay these people nothing but dirt in essence. But what would happen if we suddenly let all of the 11+ million who are here already become citizens and be elligible to compete for minimum wage? The jobs are already there, there is a need to feed this many people anyway, wouldn't this either keep the wages as level as they are now, or make them go higher to draw more competition for those jobs? Why is this so bad?

To tell you the truth, I believe that the only reason that there is so much hostility toward these people by the citizens of the U.S.A. is a deep sense of racism. They ignore the economic impact completely, and skip right to the part that explains how they're illegal aliens from Mexico who are driving down the wages. What they don't see is that it's the employer's damned fault that the wages offered is so low. It's absolutely pathetic to be so selff-centered around the "American Dream" when it's their own stupid selves depriving their region of those level wages, and also destroying the desire, the demand, for a better life as opposed to the life which was offered in Mexico.

I'll say it again too, if these people demand jobs, why should we capitalists prevent that from happening? Especially if it will -- god forbid-- benefit other people, and possibly the country below us.

That issue aside however, we need to work withour neighbor below us. Right now, we're talking over each other's heads. They think that we ought to open our borders, we are like, heh, no... we like this cheap labor, because it grows our economy. It's a constant battle to determine who has more power in the long run, who can benefit most out of it. And as it stands, we basically have Mexico in a choke hold. With the flick of a wrist in the signature of a pen, we could order the execution of 11 million immigrants if we wanted to. Fortunately, we would never do that in our right-- err, left minds. But we could quite effectively devastate the Mexican economy by deporting millions back to the country, placing military at the Mexican border, and not allow any more people to come through.

Of course, as I am a socialist, I think that America ought to be taken over. But seeing as how that's not an option, compromises have to be made. More specifically, LET these people become citizens! There are 11,000,000 who are competing for the food that we overproduce anyway, that's why the prices are driven down so much, because we seem to overproduce for the people who are not there. Let these people be involved in the competition, and I gaurantee you that the wages will go back up. Besides, what is the other option anyway? Turn a blind cheek? Hell no, where does that get anyone? people are still going to be taking advantage of other people, and prices will STILL be driven up nowhere.

How do we keep these people out? IMHO, we need to make a conceivable program in conjunction with Mexico that makes a Mexican's time over here easier. That means don't make it so damned difficult to get a VISA for these people. It helps neither us or them. A 1 month journey across the desert seems more attractive than staying an additional 6 months in Mexico before they are allowed to come here. Furthermore, we need to do something to help Mexico. For example lift this stupid idea that we call free trade with Mexico. It's what is making labor cheap in Mexico, and oppressing millions of people. Go to Juarez, and you'll see American corporations popping up here and there. American jobs moving to Mexico, why? Cheap labor. Why cheap labor? free trade with our own companies from another company.... what does this do for us? $$$$$ what does it do for the people of Mexico? X.X -$$$$$ ... oppression. The same oppression that we claim to be fighting against in Iraq. When we start putting tariffs on our goods again, then and only then can the region experience a growth in the standard of living. We really have to stop being arrogant assholes whose only interest lays in the amount of ring tones we are allowed to posess, and not the people around us.

Do you think a wall is going to save us? No more than the Iron curtain or the Berlin wall helped the USSR, or East Berlin. Trust me when I say that we are not doing anything close to what we could be doing to help the situation. We are doing as much as we can to make sure the situation benefits us and only us. We need to find a way that helps ALL of us in the long run. If not democratically, then with force. Though that will not come until several decades into the future. But it is the inevitability of all Empires to be taken over.

That's my rant for today, I hope to find everyone well,

~David~

WARNING: F-Bombs ahead...

2006-03-27T22:34:00.000-07:00

AVARICE WILL KILL YOU IN TIIIIIIIIIIME!

alright, there's a lot of anger surging through my blood, so I feel like ranting. Yes, me, angry.

if you want rational talk, skip the bold part of this post, and go to the bottom where boldface ends.

First, how this came up. I was reading someone's blog (really, a live journal, but meh) this is someone who I've come to see as extremely intelligent and pretty funny. I'm not going to say who out of respect for him and to save me some humiliation. Some people would know though. Anyway, his post concerned the protests that were going on throughout the country because of the debate going on in congress over whether or not we should build a wall on the US-Mexico border. To sum it up, he said it was STUPID, and downright OUTRAGEOUS that people were protesting over this. As if it were surprising that people getting pissed that human rights were being violated. He justified this by saying it was in our laws to keep people out of this country without due process. And thus far, I agreed. It was a law. Where I disagree, however, is it's existence altogether. Why... the hell ... do we stop ... people ... from getting ... better... f*cking ... LIVES!!! Is it too much to ask to open our borders to those whose countries are less significant than ours? What the hell are we so afraid of that we don't let Mexicans come through our border? Yet we have Canadian and American subdivisions right next to each other? They literally cross the damned road and they have international neighbors to exchange fucking flower!!! What the hell is the difference? BRING THE VIOLENCE IT'S SIGNIFICANT!!!!! sorry, I'm listening to angry music. Anyway, back to the rant. I'll tell you what the difference is. Avarice. Avarice. Avarice Avarice AVARICE!!!!! We Americans have the highest population of spoiled rich whining fuckers who are damned unwiling to give up a few luxuries like an i-pod, or fucking Pixie Stix. Why? because we're greedy assholes who are concerned about getting these pixie stix and NOTHING ELSE! What would be better is if we could find a justification for doing this... find a way to justify pwning the whole damned world because we rape them of everything they own. Alright, to keep with a little consistency, I'm going to introduce a luxury. Cute annoying fucking ring tones. Yeah. SHOUT! SHOUT! LET IT ALL OUT! THESE ARE THE THINGS I CAN DO WITHOUT! c'mon, I'm talking to you. Anyway. These ring tones are the big things these days. EVERYBODY's got to have them because they're so cute, and customizable, and everyone can have their own whenever they want. Their annoyingness aside, I now drop the term "annoying fucking" from the subject because it would get annoying itself. So, we have these cute ring tones, and we have people who want them. We have people who would kill god for these stupid things. People would sacrifice their FIRST BORN INFANT for one of these pointless sound bytes!!!!!!! they live in Canafordavarice. Meanwhile, in a distant country called Corptofarmland, there are people who don't have bread to feed their communities because the police there are liek, omglolololol, I want some bread for my family 2! I take ur monies poor peeps!" So the regular citizens of corptofarmland are like this :( we need bread, so they look to the land above them called Canafordavarice, and they look at how they're doing up there. Shit, they heard that a neighbor moved up there a year ago, and now he's making more money there than he ever did here. Why? because the law enforcement never caught him, and because people are willing to pay them up there. Why? Because these are jobs that NOBODY wants!! But of course, it's much better than doing a job you don't want anyway only to get your money stolen by the government in its entirety. Let's get up there! So they do. And after traveling for miles, hopping some barbed wire, and getting some rides, this family is now here. And they're like, "k, now what?.. umm, let's find a job" good idea for them, they need money. This is the part that pisses the inhabitants of Canafordavarice off. Everyone's walking around on their personal wifi-equipped computers, holding their cell-phones in one hand and typing with the other. Clicking and paying for these cute ringtones for their phones. They're all giggling, and having a good time as they listen to their wonderful work of substandard-quality jumble of techno sounds of a barely recognizable song, and LOL!!! This family looks at them and says "@.@!! I WANT!!!!!" Great! They have the motivation required to exist in this society. Moreso in fact than these retards on the street of Canafordavarice who probably inherited their social status. As I've said, inherited or not, this is the first qualification for living well in a capitalist society. Greed. You have to want it so badly that you are willing to fuck the person next to you into oblivion to get what you want. Even the people who don't have it anyway, or probably don't even care that they don't have it. It doesn't matter, you want to be the person with the most ringtones, so you are like MINE! And knock your coworker down by saying "HA! PWNED! I HAVE MORE $$$ THAN YOU! I GET MORE RINGTOOOONESSSS :D" Your boss in Canafordavarice is liek, "well done, but remember, I gots even more $$$$$$$ than even you, and I gots teh power to take yours away and keep it as my own foo!" And you're like, well crap, I gotta get his job! Climb up the latter! ^^" and meanwhile the immigrants from corptofarmland are like, "k! let's get started" only, they're picking snowpeas in a field surrounded by the corn they'll have to pick in another 6 months, they don't care what they're making, they get bread! They get bread and an asshole boss who says "hahahahaha, look at u foolz, I gots power, money, and teh brainz (of a two year old) that can pwn your arses with one call on the telephone!" These immigrants are now prisoners of this farmer, working twice as fast, for 5 times less than what they could be earning if they were legally part of the system. But the farmer doesn't care. He's like "hahahahaa, this is ur fault, I get ring tones and your poor rears are getting dry bread! hahaha" And so the strawberries that the Corptofarmlanders picked now go out for lots and lots and lots of money to give the farmer so he can get more ringtones! And now he's like "pwned, kthx, here's your payment, now stfu and die kthx!" Why? Avarice. HE WANTS MORE DAMNED RING TONES! HE'S WILLING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE WHO HAVE NOTHING NOTHING N-O-T-H-I-N-G IN ORDER TO GET THEM!!!! NO-THING NO THING NOT ONE DAMNED THING And that's just on a local level. What happens on a global scale is far worse. People DIE every year because the capitalist assholes in this country are like, "hahahaha, lol, j00 r teh ded, and we are teh rich. We don't care about j00 cuz j00 can't give us lots of money quickly... or ringtones" hmmmmmmm.... but maybe there is a way that we can.... if we build factories over in their countries... See, we are limited in the amount of ringtones we can get because the prices over here are so high, and we need to spend loads of money buying other crap that we can't afford more ring tones. WE HAVE TO HAVE MORE RING TONES!!!!!!! LET'S BUILD FACTORIES OVER THERE, AND MAKE THEM WORK SO WE HAVE MORE MONEY TO BUY MORE RING TONES!!!!!!! OMGLOLOLOL. So now the family that came from Corptofarmland are liek, yay! We can buy stuff teh cheaper! :D and the citizens look at this family and they say "omglol, what? i dun think so j00 get your butt back to Corptofarmland where you belong!!!!!!" the family's liek, w0t????!?!??! we picked your fewd for you!!!!!! the ppl are like, "nuuu, no ringtones for you!!!! And we put up a wall so you can't come back!!! muahahahahaaa!!!!!!"

MEMORIES DON'T LIE! YOU KNOW BETTER THAN MEMORIES DON'T LIE!

PAIN REDEFINED!!!!

AVARICE WILL KILL YOU IN TIIIIME!!!!!!!!! ;.;

okay here's the point where I start to make some sense. Enough of the random dialogue because it's only confusing. Why? Because this rationalization doesn't make a damned bit of sense.

we have a capitalist government. The main motivation is greed. Only to lighten up the sound of that, we say "competition through markets" it's greed though, make no mistake about it.

What people are willing to do in order to attain the things they want, like cell phone rings, is astounding. Stomping on every single person around them in any way they can. Whether this means making them live in substandard housing, making them buy substandard things, or making them shop at Wal*Mart, greed will take its toll, and people are going to suffer.

The justification of this is usually "if we want more cell phone ring tones, we are going to get it by being more greedy than the people next to us. We're willing to do whatever it takes to get those cell-phone rings, even putting people through complete hell"

That's the undeniable truth, and it's damned sad for me to think about. People suffering because we live in this illusion of a utopia, this-this illusion of heaven.

Ich will nicht ins Paradies, wenn der Weg dorthin so schwierig ist!

This paradise that's so easy to live in, so hard to get into, because it doesn't even exist. People are too fucking (sorry for the random f-bombs) consumed with themselves that they don't care about the people next to them. The apathy only comes when their right to avarice is threatened. Or when the illusion of our extending our illusion of avarice out to another country.

Why was there such a huge support for Iraq? Because A) they were portrayed as a threat to our greed. B) because we were going to spread the right to being greedy to their country. Or in other words "because they were a threat to everything America Stands for, and because they are evil misled murderers who must be changed and must conform to our capitalist way of life" the part of course that was not mentioned is the $$$ that the U.S. would get out of it. If we can control OPEC, then we can get more $$$ (AND RINGTONES!!!!)

All because ... we are arrogant fucktards who only care about, not helping each other out as human beings, but by getting more for our own human being selves. It's a pathetic way of life. Humans have so much more potential. They don't fucking see it though because they are so immersed in their own paranoid egotistical way of life. Too fucking worried about what the person next to him has to worry about what a person hundreds of miles away who has considerably less BECAUSE of this avarice.

*sighs* I wish there was something I could do about it. But ... I don't think it's possible in my life time....

What's the problem? I just care about people living decently. I care that people are not dying for stupid reasons. What's so bad about that? :(

Anyway.... I'm out of ranting power. My anger has stopped flowing, and now I'm a bit sad.

Next post will hopefully contain my completed thesis. Stay tuned.

~David~

btw, happy birthday to me o.o

Intelligent Political Cartoons...

2006-03-09T10:54:00.000-07:00

David Gonzalez
March 9, 2006
Humanities 12-B
Block 2

Intelligent Design: Keep that sense of humor
An analysis of political cartoons

In a lecture given by Ken Miller in early January of 2006, he explained to the audience that one good thing about this whole design movement was all of the laughs that came out of it. One must keep their sense of humor fine-tuned, especially in situations like this, when something just refuses to die, despite being trampled on by science and reason. And so, through this movement there have been numerous cartoons published across the country, critical of the Design movement, which , as it has been shown, is being very harshly criticized by many in the scientific community. Here are a few examples that I will provide that are sure to stimulate one's sense of humor, and yet also stimulate one's thinking critically about what ID is really about:

In looking at all of these, the cartoons seem to invoke humor out of the minds of scientists, and utter anger and scoffing from the proponent of Intelligent Design. Indeed, the truth hurts, especially if one is facing it head-on.

The cartoon to the right depicts a man representing Intelligent Design trying to get into the prestigious community that makes up science. The community of course objects, fairly pointing out that Intelligent Design has not met any of the criteria that absolutely needs to be met in order to be included as real science. Fortunately, it seems that Design will not be getting through the doors if admissions can help it. Admissions then evokes its true colours to everyone when he retorts that all that he needs to do is to do is to use a different way of getting past, in this case, smiting. In this context, smiting means redefining the requirements to fit the standards of ID.

Of course, when looking at many cases throughout the U.S., ID only managed to smite a few school districts, and not the entirety of science. Fortunately, nobody had their faces covered by the illusion of “smiting” that ID tried to put forth. Science upheld itself valiantly, and the requirements of observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, and peer review pulled through.

The cartoon to the left depicts two grown men in front of a chalk board trying to solve a complicated-looking equation. The equation in question is so difficult that during one of the steps, the student presumably inserts “THEN A MIRACLE OCCURS” as a possible solution. The instructor isn’t very impressed and suggests to the student that he really ought to explain this particular step of the problem.

Miracles are usually defined by a divine influence. Being thrust down a mountain and surviving could be defined as miraculous. The cure for AIDS could be defined as miraculous. As an adjective, miraculous is a fine way to define something that is extraordinary. However, using it to explain a scientific breakthrough, or worse still, to explain that which science has yet to explain, thus limiting the knowledge that humans can grasp on the subject just because they cannot understand it at this point and time.

Science is not critical of ID because it opposes Evolution. Science merely asks Design to be more clear about their position in science. Science demands Design to produce empirical evidence that has undergone rigorous peer-review before it is accepted as mainstream.

So, like the misguided student in this cartoon, Intelligent Design is either going to learn from its mistake, and correct its mistakes, or it will fail because they cannot put any sort of evidence on the table. And the teacher who represents science will go on teaching the rest of the students the correct way to do their math– and get the method for acceptance pushed through as soon as possible.

But it also gives the rest of the community reason to laugh.

Song Analysis

2006-03-07T08:15:00.000-07:00

This was an interesting class requirement. To analyze the lyrics of a song that struck us as powerful. The unit we're doing now is on poetry. And I'm quite enjoying myself as far as this is going too.

Naturally, I chose as song that Disturbed has covered. The lyrics were superbly written, and David Draiman's voice helps make the song display the angst of what the song is really about in my eyes... revolution, and why it must happen. So anyway, here's the song lyrics. Following those, is my analysis.

--------------------------

Land of Confusion

I must have dreamed a thousand dreams
Been haunted by a million screams
But I can hear the marching feet
They're moving into the street

Now, did you read the news today?
They say the danger has gone away
But I can see the fire's still alight
They're burning into the night

There's too many men, too many people
Making too many problems
And there's not much love to go around
Can't you see this is a land of confusion?

This is the world we live in
And these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying
To make it a place worth living in

Oh, superman, where are you now?
When everything's gone wrong somehow?
The men of steel, these men of power
Are losing control by the hour

This is the time, this is the place
So we look for the future
But there's not much love to go around
Tell me why this is a land of confusion

This is the world we live in
And these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying
To make it a place worth living in

I remember long ago
When the sun was shining
And all the stars were bright all through the night
In the wake of this madness, as I held you tight
So long ago

I won't be coming home tonight
My generation will put it right
We're not just making promises
That we know we'll never keep

There's too many men, too many people
Making too many problems
And there's not much love to go round
Can't you see this is a land of confusion?

Now, this is the world we live in
And these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying
To make it a place worth fighting for

This is the world we live in
And these are the names we're given
Stand up and let's start showing
Just where our lives are going to

-------------------------

Land of Confusion—Lyrics Analysis

Lyrics Written by Genesis, and Covered by Disturbed

Revolution sends a powerful message. It helps people make things right by force, usually after all other options have been exhausted. Revolution is sometimes necessary in a society after the ruling force in that society has suppressed acts of civil disobedience. When people are sick and tired of looking at all that is wrong with a civilization, and worse, that these problems are not getting fixed. It then takes a large outcry to establish a rebellion. But when one is approaching, it is loud and it escalates quickly. It can be heard from all around. To some, it is the most terrifying sound that one could ever pass through his ears. To others, it is the most refreshing break in their mind that they have had in years. One that they thought would never come.

Suppressing rebellion is one goal of a society. Of course to do that, one must keep the people happy. If they’re not happy, they have to be made to be happy—via some illusion. But always, always there is a different way to look through the illusion. This is when society gets really scared. This is when it really does start to tumble. Because as the ideas grow, and lies are seen through, the anger in the inhabitants rise, and violence breaks out. This could be by means of a coup, as happened in Venezuela, or it could be by the help of a foreign power. This was the case in the American Revolution of the 1700’s. The rebellions could not be suppressed, and everyone was ready to change.

Through each of these rebellions in the past, the problem has always been one thing: too many powerful people—particularly men. There are too many people in power, each with entirely too much power. Thus far, all throughout history, every fallen leader has been immersed in one thing that leads to his downfall: greed. Greed has always surrounded humanity. Greed is the human condition. Humans know not life without looking at what the person next to him has, and wanting to not only take it, but to beat that person back down through the ropes of society, and remain on top, always getting more and more stuff. This is why humans cannot love one another; they cannot help one another in this day and age; because they are able to greedy. It is encouraged in fact; but masked by the simple use of the word “competition”. The illusion then in this world, is competition. Everywhere, competition for jobs, competition for market, competition for capitol, competition for smarts, competition for living—all of these are an added problem to the equation of this time of terrible human existence. Greed is rampant everywhere people turn their heads. For those who actually can see through the illusion that is put forth by those in power, there exists only a land of utter, terrible confusion.

As a thinking race though, possibly out of tens or hundreds of thousands of others in the universe, it is possible to set the pace of existence in the correct direction. Into a direction that more makes sense for continued human existence. One in which there exists no need to hold power over anyone. How is this achieved? Civil disobedience, rebellion, revolution, and overcoming the grasp that the powerful have on the lower walks of life in society, are all ways that can improve society, as the average person knows it. It can only be achieved if everyone knows why it has to be done. A society cannot progress if nobody agrees with it.

People need to feel abandoned somehow by those who protect them. Like a good superhero, the ruling class of any society should always protect those who they rule over. This is not happening, and more and more everyday, the power is not being taken by a government, but by private individuals who only care about money, and what they may buy with it. They care only about capitalizing off of various goods, essentials for life some of these things.

Any rebellion that would happen ought to happen here and now very soon. The time has never been more perfect. If people want a better future, and they can envision it, then all that has to be done, is to form a group of people who are ready for a change, collectively, for the better of themselves, each other, and for all of humanity. If this could happen, the world does not have to exist in confused chaos any longer.

There was a time when all humans were young, and things seemed to be carefree. The loved ones to be around knew how to take care of life, to make it better. And the only things to be worried about was how one could go about making their own life better without that extra outside help. Life seemed so perfect then, so carefree. It had to end because humans have to grow older. They have to develop their minds, and they have to look at life in a multi-dimensional sense. A critical view looking at the realities of life should scream in horror when they look around themselves. All too often, this is not the case. Those simple times are put behind human beings, and after a while, these times become as distant as the faintest memory. Instead, the mind is always gearing about how to possess more here, and now.

There is only one way to solve this problem. We can fix it ourselves. The idea is there, the truth is there, now we have to make the truth known to the entire nation, to all of humanity. And because we know the truth, we cannot let it die. One way or another, the point will get across. Then, everyone will know, we were no joke. We were right all along with our revolutionary, cynical ideas of the world that used to be.

What a utopia that could be, with none of these ruling men, these greedy men, trying to do nothing more than make his own life better while stamping out those that he considers more inferior. Creating nothing more than a world where people only see what the ruling class wants them to see. The world as it stands to day is not worth fighting for. We must make it worth fighting for by fighting for a better world. To do this, it needs to be made known how terrible a place this is. How better a world this could be, and the powerful must be undermined. It will come in time. But with marked words, this realization will come to pass, and when it does, the rebellion will be ready.

------------------------------------

Tell me what ya think.

~David~

Hey, people, with your fzcking dogs...

2006-03-06T15:51:00.000-07:00

Alright. I got maybe 5 hours of sleep at most last night. So today at school was just another one those blah days. I got a lot done either way, but still, I wasn't really expecting, nor was I in the mood for any random crap to happen. By the end of the day, I was just so exhausted. It's bloody hot too, which makes my mood a little worse. The busride home wasn't particularly enthralling, but I did get to have a decent conversation with someone, about peers and their stupidity... kinda ironic, a conversation like that is.

Anyway, I get off the bus, and start walking home. The bus was still behind me letting people off, so I got a good headstart. I was about two blocks away from the stop behind me, and the bus came up the road, and the driver parked it by the curb on which I was walking, like he does everyday to check the aisles for trash and stuff. This is when I noticed, across the street, two dogs were frolicking on the sidewalk. I didn't mind... they're having fun. More power to them, you know?

What made me groan is when I watched them start coming across the street right toward me. Great. I'm a person who's had his ear mauled by a chow, and my leg cut open by a rotweiler. Needless to say, I HATE DOGS!!! These two were a medium size, actually probably smaller than medium, but they weren't small. They looked like shepard crosses in their early years. One was dragging a leash behind him, the other was pure white, with no identification at all.

I looked around me, for anyone that could possibly help. The driver was still parked behind me, but (with entirely ALL due respect to him) he's very overweight. He still has a radio for which he could call for help though... so I took that into account. That was only in an urgent situation too. Other than that, the streets were empty, and they were still coming at me. I was holding my jacket over my shoulder, and I stood as tall as I could (not on tip-toes, but just taller than normal) and kept walking.

My fears did take place... they started growling and barking at me, and looked menacingly at me (curled lips etc...) I kept facing them, and kept walking toward them... hoping to instill fear in them of me, and kept my jacket held out in front of me in case they did attack. I was also yelling too (a few obscenities too, but I was pretty scared at this point, admittedly x.x) One of them went past me, but the other was still in front of me. Which I didn't see as a very good thing, as I do not have eyes in the back of my head. So I kept my jacket in front of me, and checked on the white one which had walked past. So all I had to worry about was this brownish one that was still snarling at me.

After lunging at it a few times, and more yelling, and also a bit of defensive swinging of my jacket, it too finally passed. Still, I faced them both, and walked back slowly, until they both ran away.

Oh the suspense. It was the most exciting part of my day, if not extremely annoying..

PEOPLE, LEASH AND FENCE YOUR GOD DAMNED DOGS! AND IF YOU'RE WALKING THEM, HOLD THEM FOR CHRISAKES! IF YOU CAN'T HOLD YOUR DOGS, MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T OWN THEM!

Honestly, everwhere I go, there seems to be some stray dog, either prowling around stupidly around the roads, or they're in the roads... never going to move ever again, for obvious reasons. It's not the dog's fault, I know, it's the human's fault. They can't keep the bloody things leashed up. What these people ought to realize is that it's putting other people in danger, as well as the dogs. I could have easily had my jacket torn away from my hands, and what would I have had left? Those dogs could have jumped at me if they wanted to. I'm assuming the fanned out jacket in front of me made me look bigger and more agressive than I actually was. If I didn't have that... it would not have been as good. And I would have had no other choice, but to have searched for a wall to jump over. I'm good at that, but there wasn't one for meters. I would have surely been bitten or taken down before I reached it.

So, in conclusion to my extremely frustrating day, I have to say: HOLD ON TO YOUR DOGS DAMMIT!!!!!!

Thanks,

~David~

2006-03-03T10:48:00.000-07:00

Wow, my spelling and grammar sucked on that last post.

Anyway, this day is going by fairly quickly. Surprising for a Friday. Most of it was mostly because we had hardly a thing to do. I finished a few modulation tutorials in Algebra, which is quite an accomplishment for a lazy friday, and in Humanities, we had a discussion about poetry, music, and other things. Our homework for yesterday was to bring in lyrics so that we could analyze them. I chose to bring in "Deify" by Disturbed. Yeah, if you haven't figured it out already, I'm in love with Disturbed. It's basically the only heavy metal (it's disputed what genre they're really in, but I don't really care, I'M calling them really metal :P) band that I'll listen to besides the few Rage' songs that have captured my liking. I chose Deify because it is a political song, and those sorts of songs have an up front meaning, but they stir one's mind to dig deeper into the meaning and apply it not only to your life, but to the lives of other people around you.

Deify is a song that reveals the nature of world leaders, with a special emphasi perhaps on George W. Bush, and how they are percieved as the next big thing that could save us all, when in fact, the thing they do most often is screw a whole lot of people over with lies, and just generally piss people off. Enough to cause revolt on so many levels. And why should they be surprised about it? THey're causing it. Anyway, a very interesting lesson in that class. It wasn't a new idea to me, but music is essentially poetry with a rythm/beat around it. Edgar Allen Poe's works could probably be rapped if one worked hard enough to accomplish it, without so much as taking the meaning away from it that it's supposed to convey.

So I have a class coming up in a few minutes, and I'm showing my teachers an optical illusion to see if they can figure it out. The answer is pretty discrete. The only reason it took *me* so long to realize it is because I was looking for some complicated explanation. Whereas the answer is quite obious once you find it... ask the question "how can one extra person be made when there are only twelve people to work with? It's very fun in any case.

There's the bell....... time for some fun >:D

ciao.

~David~

5 minute post!!!!

2006-03-02T13:29:00.000-07:00

peers = dense.

I did get my graded thesis back... and I must say.. I've never seen so much red on my paper before now O.O ... has my grading experience been supressed throughout my entire high school career? Anyway, I'll get a scan of it and post it here in my next block. Really astounding. Ummmm, I had my crossroad's teacher watch an anti-bush video. He laughed, and I ddid too. It seemed that he needed some humor in his day... and I just happened to have that video in my collection. ANyway, this block ending. Have a good day

~David~

Thesis updatage, and Critical Analysis of Behe's "'Black Box"

2006-02-27T09:44:00.000-07:00

what a crappy night. I forgot to do laundry over the weekend and thus was up @12:00 to ~3:00 doing it. So 3 hours of sleep. Not the best to get through a day, but I'll live.

Anyway, I'm supposed to be getting something from my Thesis back... "First 5 pages" but it was more like three for me >.> so I won't be surprised if I get a horrible grade on it. I also have a terrible time grasping the concept of citing. I am so used to just writing an essay without thinking about much else except what I do know. I mean, I grasp why I must do it... it's just so much to remember, as it's a conditional "if-then" process. I dislike doing that when I'm writing. It just flows better if I don't have to take into account where I got the information and insert it into parentheses. Ahh, well, I'll get it soon enough. Anyway, while I'm waiting, Here's my analysis of the book thus far. It's supposed to be ~3 pages, but it's not yet quite complete.

David Gonzalez
February 27, 2006
Humanities 12-B

Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box

Darwin’s Black box is a full-length non-fiction book seeking to explain irreducible complexity. The book claims to be “The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”, a scientific challenge, and other Authors comment on the book as “(making) and overwhelming case against Darwin on the Biochemical level… an argument of great originality and intellectual power”. From the first page, within, and to the last page the text of “Black Box” has a well-written and easily comprehensible explanation about the roots of Irreducible Complexity (hereinafter IC) and why it is a fundamental flaw of Evolution, and also makes a case for an Intelligent Designer.
Innovating and as controversial as this book is, it is certainly above all a very good explanation of what Intelligent Design is.

---

it appears that he's not going to get to me today. Maybe tomorrow. Anyway, adios for now!

~David~

Note to Self: http://www.davidbrin.com/

Ignorance....

2006-02-24T10:52:00.000-07:00

Or maybe not ignorance, but I can't help but recognize that some of the opinions of my classmates are so self-centered that it's not astonishing that minorities are treated as they are-- because this egotisticle mind set of "well, our race has always been superior, thus we need only to know about the way we white people understand history." It's such a sad way to think because these are the sorts of ideas that earned Africans an oppressive life for centuries. It still exists today all over the world, in AFrica of course, but it is also *clear* that here in America, there is also more than a bias toward people whose skin tone is different, African Americans, yes but also Indians, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans.

The question that seems to earn my sympathy is "is this fair to everyone?" -- and of course it is not. But the fact that there are people in this world that will just tell other "lesser" people to just live with it is just disturbing. WHy aren't we humans willing to fix this? What on earth is so bad about working for the common good of each other? Because we've always been arrogant (and pardon the language) assholes to each other? Because the only way to be a good person is to have more than the person next to you? And collectively the goal is to screw the lower people out of their money enough so that they have merely enough to survive?

THese are all the goals of capitalism, whether this rich jerkoffs are willing to admit it.

And what more could any fat rich guy want than more power? Than to have a certain pride that he's somehow better than those below him. THat's what we're encouraging our kids to do when we try to gently coax them into becoming entrepreneurial business pioneers. Screw the person next to you harder than he tries to screw you, and you'll get to the top faster and with more pride.

Kind of messed up to think of it like that. Because that's the grim reality. THere is no opportunity in this country. There's no garantee to the "American Dream" -- just tell that to the proletarians of New Orleans. especially talk to the ones that are deceased in wheelchairs at the superdome. I'm sure the last thing they'll tell you is that they are living the American dream.

The point of my rant is ... being this arrogant is not going to help anyone... ANYONE. ANd it's proved true in the past few weeks and years especially as we are all as humans more exposed to the events of the world. It's apalling that we can view these events with the shrug of a shoulder, and not react to it beyond that. THings need to change. We need to stop screwing each other over, and start helping one another reach a level where we can interact without wondering why he's got a better car than you.

After all of this, I have one more thing to say:

The American Dream is pathetic.

that's all,

~David~

TIME OUT!

2006-02-22T10:59:00.000-07:00

Reuters: "McClellan said to not go forward with the deal would send a "terrible message" because it would hold a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a British company and because the United Arab Emirates has been a strong partner in the war on terrorism."

And yet, you will support legislation that OPENLY discriminates against all arab muslims??? Though they are AMERICAN CITIZENS??? I'm, sorry, but supporting a trade off of this country's security is beyond ridiculous. It's dangerous. I'm no racist, but giving the security of our ports over to the United Arab Emirates would be no more helping our security than a Kwikset key to a masterlock to Houdini. It's just plain stupid, and dangerous. THe UAE supports the very terrorists, and even aided in funding on some levels, whom attacked the United States. Bush, the so-called Crusade fighter, is going to stop and say "hmmmmm, we can't stop this trade from happening. the UAE would never DREAM of attacking us, though they are proving UNCOOPERATIVE in the war on terror. Let's LET them get our ports, where a ridiculously high percentage number of crates go unchecked even with the current company that oversees the safety of our supplies" this is stupid logic. It's stupid, because we can find better. If there's one way you want to prevent terrorism from accessing this country, it's first of all NOT giving them our keys.

the UAE is not just some Arab country; it is one that has in the past supported terrorism. And handing them our ports would be a VERY-BAD-IDEA. It's one thing to be for open free-trade. It's quite another to set the gate keys in the hand of a killer and name them as your butler. Nope, nope, nope. Bad idea. The government needs to keep its keys, raise taxes, and protect our OWN damned ports.

If not... then hey, another raised glass to the hastening of the fall of the Empire.

I just had to get that out, as it came up in our humanities discussion on Economics.
that's all

~David~

2006-02-21T10:09:00.000-07:00

Well, finished two more modulations today. And it is only now that I realize that there are just a little more than 10 or 11 weeks to this school year. And makes me beg the question to myself-- am I going to get through this Algebra II course before the year ends? It's a difficult question to answer. But I will keep trying my best. At this rate, I should at least be able to complete 60% to 75% at best of the modulations in Algebra II --- it is NOT humanly possible for me to complete it 100%. Hell, I didn't even get Algebra I entirely complete. But at least all of my other classes are going well.

I have finished the subheadings outline of my Thesis, but did not complete the first 5 pages as required. My own fault, but I will use the week to really catch up on it. My book is due today, and I cannot check it out again. Darwin's Black Box was the novel that I had to read for my thesis. I did not finish it, but I know enough about it I think to produce a decent literary analysis of the book. So again, that's that. I will post the updated version of my thesis once I am done with the section dealing with the Scientific Method.

------------

In other news....

it's rather a slow news day actually. The headlines from America read that a court case will be heard to determine the legality of partial-brith abortion. To be entirely honest, I am with the conservatives on this particular branch of this issue. If one has to give birth to a human, even if just partially, and it can survive out of the uterus without the care of a mother, then you might as well leave this thing in there and wait for it to come out properly--- then put it up for adoption. I think that a child is considered to be capable of surviving out of the womb after the first 6-8 months, though I'm not 100% sure.

It just makes sense to me to make the decision to abort a pregnancy early and not wait until the fetus inside can actually be defined as an actual human being if it were born as an individual. If not, sorry, you'r SOL.

Worldwide however... erm. death, chaos, war, and violence? much of the same, in other words. Iran's pissing everyone off, and Russia is getting too big for its britches with their oil, pissing off all of those whom buy petroleum from them. more Australians are being executed for smuggling drugs, the bird flu is killing hundreds of thousands of birds and 10 people (sarcasm [SARS virus anyone?]) 50 sheep and an Iraqi are killed in a bombing carried out by the U.S. .. over the weekend, a U.S. embassy was breeched over the cartoon anger ... death, chaos, war, violence ... and a disease.

Isn't this soooo depressing?

Of course it is. Because we can't control it ...... but we can make money off of it ~.^

anyway, that's my rant for today. Some links I have for you are:

IDnet boasts a list of "500 scientists and counting!" who express skepticism about Evolution (it's also notable that many of these scientists are nat biologists, and hold degrees in fields such as "business science" ...)

Talkorigins.org has come up with a list of its own. called "Project Steve" it is a compilation of a list of "Steves" who support Evolution. THus far, there are 720 Steves!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/ Have a look

and have a nice day!

~David~

2006-02-15T11:13:00.000-07:00

I FINALLY PASSED THE RATIONAL EXPRESSION MODULATION!!!!!!

It's about time too. Now it's on to dividing them ... >.>

That's about the highlight of my day. Though I must bring this up...

Why on earth is it such a big deal the Cheney shot some rich lawyer? You'd think that if Cheney wanted to kill him, he'd have done it properly, especially with all of his minions around. But no, he called his Ambulance, and got the guy to the hospital. Wher'es the enigma?

No, I don't like the man, but where on earth do these theories arise that this shooting was actually planned? It's ridiculous, is what it is.

That's all I have time for today though.

Talk later,

~David~

----------

NOTE TO SELF: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
and also: http://craptaculus.com/eac/ID/id-faq.shtml
And finally: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4716762.stm

2006-02-09T07:55:00.000-07:00

Well.... I almost passed the modulation today.

but no cigar >.<

------------

This cartoon controversy going on worldwide is... well, to put it bluntly, very VERY ridiculous. Of course, nobody has the right to infringe upon the religious freedom of another person, that's recognizable.. but the protest has gone all too far. Here, clearly is the evidence that religion, while advocating love and respect for every person in the world, defies all moral code when someone (doesn't matter from what religion they are) challenges the size of some god's cojones somewhere -- in this case, Mohammed (sp?).

I'm NOT just talking about muslim extremists either... it doesn't matter. You so much as say something not so nice about whichever God happens to be from anyone's religion, and there is a high probability that an office building will be blown up the next day. The anger of course varies from region to region -- I doubt that people here in the United States would have the same access to bomb materials so that they can shove it up their rectum and drive themselves through a crowd... but anger will erupt anyway. In the United States, it's more likely that an angry mob would cause some serious damage to property, as well as a few murders here and there.
It doesn't matter who, again. But the point is that religion is the cause of most of the world's instability these days. It's as rampant as the hypocrasy that seems to plague written laws of these religions it seems... especially within the UnitedStates. One must ask why. There was a time when church was a legitimate thing to fight for. But in these days, there is not the same competition between them. There are rational explanations for each side. So why fight over them? Because someone's rationale is better than another person's? How doth thou draweth this conclusion? What difference does it make if you end up blowing up 50 people into dust in a street somewhere? You're only going to draw negative attention to your religion. Not to mention, you're dead. And you know what? Hell on earth continues. There's still war, there's still famine, and guess what? You prolonged it.

Why? because now, you've given different countries around the world a reason to label your country a "harborer of terrorism" and if your government doesn't agree, then you've given another reason for the capitalists to invade another country to capitalize off of their own branch of fear. And guess what? Nothing at all changes.

Face it, if there were'nt any centralized organized religion, this whole cartoon controversy would have been deflamed within the first few days. The same is true with the theocracies that exist today. If they did NOT exist, then the whole situation would not have escalated as it did. In Iran, the newspapers there asked for retalliation when they printed their want for cartoons depicting the Holocaust. THis is of course because the theocratic-run governnment instills fear within the people who are reporting the news, making the newspapers think they need only to promote their religion, and completely humiliate all others. In the case of the Danish newspaper, there is no worse one can go when he asks artists to depict Mohammed, when he knows full-well what the outcry could be. THankfuly, the Editor was fired, and things should have ended right there. But no. THe rest of the media decided that they would do the very same thing.

THis is all just a big huge circle of complete mindless BS, and it's either going to lead to peace, as people understand how stupid the whole situation is by fighting over it, or it will lead to more hate and violence... causing the deaths of several hundreds, perhaps thousands of individuals while they protest against each other, by the very people who govern them.

Either way, there is a prospect.... this likely will not happen again.

----------------

In other news, I hear that "Scooter" may possibly incriminate his former boss; Dick Cheney. I don't believe that man is trustworthy at all. BUt if what he's saying is true.... this is huge. It could reveal the corruption at its heart of the Bush administration when it concerns the war in Iraq, and .. it's just astounding! What would it start... what would it reveal... that Bush lied, and cost the U.S. unneeded amounts of lost lives in the War with Iraq, and too much money went down the drain. ANd for what? So he could have his little gang war in the middle east. for their oil... and also in an attempt to work America toward a new Empire.

Well, it worked for a little while. And even if he manages to get away from being labeled a liar, his efforts will only fail inevitably.

That is my rant for today. I hope everyone is doing well.

~David~

frustrated...

2006-02-07T08:33:00.000-07:00

I spent 2 days on the multiplication of rational expression modulation in Algbra II... I failed it maybe 10 times now. I barely finished my Memo last night, and I did not get my annotated bibliography done. My mind is being shred into a thousand peices... and as fast as I can gather them up and try to peice it back together again, the faster graduation seems to be going down the hill for me. How on earth am I to graduate with all of this un needed drama going on?

I'm so frustrated at Algebra right now that I am about ready to storm out of the room... I won't, but that's how I feel. I need a day off.

And I see that you can now get away with anything in the govt. by saying merely "it's legal" ...

to hell with you, Alberto Gonzales. You don't deserve the freedom you claim to be protecting.

Hope you're listening...

~David~

Subheadings for the Senior Thesis

2006-02-03T10:23:00.000-07:00

The introductory paragraph turned in, I can now focus on the body and following pages of the essay and the search that must go in them. My focus will definitely be on the science (or lack thereof) that’s in Intelligent Design, but I’m also thinking that I really need to define what science really is. That is to say, how science has defined itself as in the past centuries. Trial and error has worked, and science has perfected itself to a state where any question could be answered. Not many people know about the scientific process that has evolved in the past few centuries, and I believe that is one of the problems that people face when they consider Intelligent Design a scientific opponent to the Darwinian Evolution.

The best place for people to grasp the concept of scientific method is in the first paragraph following the introduction. The sooner that people realize what science really is, the sooner they can apply it to the reasoning in scientific theories as they stand.

The first heading is going to be broad, then. “What science really is” Not what it isn’t, just what it is, how it developed over the centuries. And most importantly, why it works as well as it does, why it brings up this conclusion, and not this one. So the paragraphs within that subheading will be the grassroots of what science –really- is.

The second idea is going to be the introduction of Intelligent Design. A brief history of ID, and the basic ideas around it that proclaim to be scientific will also be discussed.

Subheading three will consist of the arguments most compelling for design, and then the arguments that will effectively refute them.

Subheading four will discuss very briefly the theories of how species originated, and also the Big Bang theory, both are theories that Intelligent Design claims to challenge.

Subheading five will go on to discuss what the point of ID really is, if it is indeed not real science. This will include the forefront of the movement (the schools) as well as the people who are leading this front (Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, William Dembski etc.) and why they are not really pushing for science, but for an ideology that is along the lines of science that has been refuted throughout the past 5 centuries. The goal for ID is to reform completely the idea of science, and how it is taught to the sponge-like minds of children in school.

The conclusion will obviously tie all of these together. First, Science is this, Intelligent Design defies this, Intelligent Design does this intentionally, Intelligent Design misleads because, and this will eventually lead to social corruption.

This is my basic outline in non-outline form. Just a brain storm in other words. Tell me what you think.

~David~

2006-02-01T11:39:00.000-07:00

So it wasn't quite as bad as I said that it was last night. Clearly I did over react a little bit, however, the perspective of things did not change. I do think still that the United States is one, big failing empire, and I do believe that George Bush's remarks last night was still yet more proof of this. After all, the reference to militarism in Iran only suggests that we will move there next, after Iraq, thus further expanding our enourmous global Empire.

ALl empires are domed to fail, in one way or another. The United States will be no exception. WIth 100's of bases placed worldwide, there is no doubt that it willl one day happen. Will it be a good thing? I don't know, I really couldn't say. On one hand, the idea of liberty, life, and happiness is a good one... or at least, it was a good one until about 75 years ago, when the U.S. began looking beyond its borders for political capital. It then decided that indeed the people who did not live in the U.S. were not worthy of being treated the same, but like dirt, as they took advantage of all of the lands through the world. Japan, Indonesia, India, various countries in Africa.

That era of imperialism has diminished. But, with the birth of this new-age militarism in the present, we are in our final stages of decline. It's obvious as one looks at the economy, as one looks at our domestic crises' and as one looks at the foreign politics effected by the decisions of the United States.

Life, Liberty, and Happiness are no longer acheivable as the founding fathers of this country once dreamed. INstead, it is in the hands of those very few (1%) who own everything in the country. The only happiness, in my mind, is to be able to get away from it all entirely. Until the inevitable tragic ending to the chapter in history called "Imperial Capitalism" comes to a close. Then it may be worth coming back.

Third block ends soon, and I doubt I'll get to finish at home, so my commentary ends here. For now.

~David~

oh my.... f*ing ... god.

2006-01-31T20:08:00.000-07:00

Well, I didn't miss the state of the union. Though I would have if I hadn't been reminded. I thought that this would be just like the one last year... grab a bowl of popcorn, and have a good laugh .... ooh, maybe every 30 seconds. But no... this one was chilling to the bone.

Reading "Nineteen Eighty-Four" really did put the President's speech into perspective. It's unbelievable. Some consider Bush's statements on Iran his most powerful knock out of the park. I saw it as "We are at war with Iran, we have always been at war with Iran, we will defeat Iran" ... it's a marching military campaign to Globalization. And, inevitably, the American Empire's doom. Capitalism's doom. What is this complete nugget thinking?

He talks about the failure of Social Security, but on the other hand, we should keep the tax cuts permanent. Whose fault is it that SS is failing? Whose fault is it that the U.S. is getting less money each year from these people? Whose fault is it that Healthcare is not reachable by anyone? It's not the people, it's these tax cuts driven by idiocy.

Make them permanent? Why? So that the rich people can keep outsourcing our jobs so we can drive the prices for goods down yet further... meaning more and more poverty?

But that's his foreign policy. What's crushing him (and me mentally) the most is his stance on domestic policies. Since WHEN do we have moral commitments to ANYTHING? Who the hell does he think he is to impose his moral standards on the rest of us? Who is he to determine when life is able to be distinguished, and when it should be extinguished justifiably? Who the bloody hell is he to be the one, all-knowing messiah to determine how I have a family?

I was torn between a fit of rage and tears tonight listening to that great oaf ramblingabout his imperial mind-set that he invisions... and I don't support it. Not one bit.

The signing of the Declaration of Independence happened over 200 years ago. I have the awkward feeling that another such event will come up once more. Though it will be the fall of this declaration finally, after so long of arrogant and greedy imperialism that has plagued the planet for so long.

I've lost complete hope in America. I've gone from strong Nationalist to a Socialist in less than one year. What does that say about the situation?

Very sad, very bad news. I will go to bed tonight, thinking -.-

~David~

2006-01-27T10:48:00.000-07:00

My research paper was returned to me today. 22/25 ... not bad. But as Beksuki said in the coment in my latest update, I went into a little bit too much detail, and could shorten it a little bit by removing it elsewhere into the essay. I also seemed to be having trouble defining the basis of my research... whether it is analytical, Hierarchichal, Chronological, etc... so there will be much cleaning up needed for it. And yes, I am quite having fun with this. Especially the research is interesting to look over (INFOTRAC is a VERY useful resource.) It's interesting what articles you can find from when that have to do with the topic you are researching. Anyway.. I need to seperate my paragraphs is also another thing I need to think about when I am revising.

Right now, I am in my second-block class. The internet has been down for the past hour, so I had no time whatsoever to do any research except to read more of my book, "The Blind Watchmaker" ... which is interesting, but I could have used the time to find more articles having to do with ID. Oh well, hurray for high-speed cable connection in the home! :o

So on Google News, I found that Samuel Alito was confirmed to the chair for Supreme Court Justice. Dammit. I was hoping that the democrats could pull through with their filibuster. It looks like that won't happen however, and we will have a Supreme Court which is now right-leaning. Well, we'll be traveling back into the 1850's for a long time to come, This is the same ideological placement that denied African-Americans a fair place in societ. Recall the "Seperate, but equal" ruling. No matter, I won't be living here much longer to enjoy the fall of the American Empire ... after all, that's what this is all going to lead to.

It has come to my attention that Alito believes strongly in the Unitary Executive. Can anyone say "Roman Empire"???? It's coming soon, the end of Western Civilization. Though I hope not in my lifetime. So cheers, for a New World Order... of Chaos under the un-checked unitary executive of Imperial United States!

Bad news, bad news, and still more bad news. Ahh, well, what can we do.

~David~

NOTE TO SELF: http://proutworld.prout.org/features/falamemp.htm

Introductory Paragraph for my research essay...

2006-01-23T22:47:00.000-07:00

random news: I was completely taken aback by my art teacher's comments today. Inspired would be the better word.. but it quite flattered me.

Well here it is. The first paragraph. I tried to give a vague idea to the audience as to what will be discussed in the paper. I only hope it was neither too vague nor too in-depth as an introduction. I'm sort of questioning my placement of my thesis statement (bold/italic) but this is why we're turning it in early. Anyone who reads this blog, please leave a message after the beep.

Exploring Intelligent Design– A Secular Alternative?

“The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Carl Sagan said these words. Something a true scientist like Sagan would not tell you is that science is materialism. He or she would also not tell you that science is a religion, or that science has many interpretations. Only a scientist from the times of the medieval ages would make such erroneous statements. And yet, to this day, around every corner of knowledge that someone looks, there is a person claiming to be a scientist, that tries to hold back the progressive goal of science in favor of the traditional mind-set that has a majority of Americans ideologically entrapped. Such is not science. Science has forever been progressive, and only has ceased when that progress has been suppressed, such as during the medieval ages aforementioned as a specific example. The medieval ages seemed to have seeped into the heads of the modern pious population in particular of the United States. In order to make up for their ignorance, they will try to fill the gaps with anything and everything. In the recent centuries, these gaps of ignorance were replaced by a concept called “Creationism Science” that sought to teach a literal interpretation of the Bible’s Genesis, and apply “science” to it. There was, and still there exists today several flaws with this branch of scientific reasoning, none of which the least addresses the questionable objectivity of the argument. The goal of science is to prove itself, and not to continue to dispel the arguments from half a millennium ago that have all been refuted. Yet they still live on. Over the years, despite constant ridicule, Creationism has resurfaced as a new strain of pseudoscience, called Intelligent Design Theory. Allowed to continue, Intelligent Design will eventually evolve into something that defies all of the principles of science, and will abridge the meaning of Separation of Church and State in this country. There is a difference to be realized between science and ideology. To be science-driven is to objective, and mindful of all the possible variables out there. And many would argue that God could very well be one of those variables. Not only the idea of god, but any possible intelligent force out there which might have created the Earth’s creatures in their present form. The requirement however, of observable scientific data almost always undermines this notion of an intelligent designer, however. So what Intelligent Design (hereinafter “ID”) tries to do is to go a step further, to redefine science from its present sense to fit its own needs. The tactic that ID tries to use is known as the “Wedge Method” which works in a way which the name suggests. ID will wedge itself into society by any means necessary to try to redefine science, and to renew traditional ideas that would hold mankind at a scientific standstill as far as scientific knowledge and progress is concerned. The Wedge Document is the key to unveiling Intelligent Design, as will be the fallacious arguments used by many of the modern proponents of Design Theory. The advocating arguments of course will be the first to go; however, only after a thorough definition of what science is, and what it is not, is finally pushed out of the way once and for all.

*beep*

~David~

(un)intelligent (re)design

2006-01-11T08:06:00.000-07:00

Off-Topic sort of things first. I'm rather annoyed with my parents right now. IMHO, if they say they are going to do something big for me, and even get me quitee excited about it.. I dunno, they should live up to it, shouldn't they? -- I broke my toe over the weekend, and you know it's sort of a law that since that happens, you absolutely NEED to hit it at every single opportunity available. -- I'm blazing through my Geometry lessons... my curriculum should be done before next week ends. And that's all I can think of for the moment.

And NOW, our featured presentation...

Yes, it was bound to happen, but since I am doing a research essay on this topic anyway, I figured I'd rant about it right here on my blog.

I may divide this up into parts... as I'm doing with my school rants. If that's the case, this is going to be the introductory one.

For the past few months, starting this summer at the earliest, I became more aware of the trickery presented in Creationism "science" displayed by many of its advocates. This was mostly due to a huge forefront of high-profile officials from school districts and from the scientific community began to support a pseudoscience called "Intelligent Design". There is no better way to explain it than an overwhelming wave as scientists across the country tried to stop it from destroying everything upon which science stood on, to it's very concrete foundation. Hundreds of school districts across the country including Kansas, Delaware, Texas, and New Mexico passed policies which in some way or another promoted the Intelligent Design (ID) movement.

Of course all of this controversy took people by surprise, and now everyone is talking about it. Is it science? Is it religion? Who supports it? Do they make sense? Are they real scientists? What is a real scientist? WHAT IS SCIENCE??????

Of course each of these questions can be answered only by those who have made science their lives. And they have answered these questions every single day. Yet people are persistant, and because they have such an immense access to information via the web, these issues stay red-hot for weeks, and the arguments keep evolving because they cannot be allowed to die until after the climax has taken place. The case with intelligent design seemed to have ended with a court room and a judge ruling that ID was indeed a religious cause trying to work itself into the public school stystem as science.

Rightfuly so too, because every single scrap of evidence from the Discovery Institute's goals (mainly stating the deafeat of of "Materialist science" and reinstating traditional values) to the personal statements made by senior (and allegedly non-partison) members of the Institute points to a Christian ideology, a Christian crusade of sceintific progressivism, and reasearch from the past 100+ years.

What these people do not realize is that god had his chance. Any and all attempts at explaining him throught the naturalistic scientific process has failed. And this alone is the reason that he is not considered to be among the variables in the scientific method. It may come as a hard-hitter to the religious.... or maybe not. Why do they have faith anyway? What is faith but the ability to believe in something without having the hard evidence for which to base these beliefs? What happened to the argument "I don't need to see to believe"? The DI is playing to people's ignorance. They are trying to get people to react to the fact that Evolution cannot explain everything in the developement of life quite yet.

But god can, and he has not been considered in the intense research done by scientists over the years. And people do, and they have reacted to it. Indeed, it is one of the hottest debates in the country right now. Just what Intelligent Design wanted.

Now they have the nation's attention, and they will not back down for anything. Why not? They have been refuted time and time again for the past few years, dating back from their creation in the early 90's by mainstream science. They keep going by marginalizing such great minds as Gallileo, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, Carl Sagan, and Stephen J. Gould ... and yet, they quote these same people out of context to support their views. What is it they really want from the world?

It's the Christian mind-set... and they want it forced upon every mind of the ignorant Americans. And they are willing to rape and pillage every known scientific discovery to date to accomplish their goals. And they start with Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution.

I will discuss how they intend to do this at a later time, but class will end in a few minutes.

~David~

part one: School: Why I don't Stand...

2006-01-03T15:40:00.000-07:00

Today, we returned to school. I was generally extremely tired today, having went to bed around 3:00 AM last night (due to a raped sleeping pattern adapted over the Winter Break...) I woke up around 5:45 AM this morning, took a shower, got dressed, got all my shtuff together, and hopped in my dad's truck to go to school.

This semester is truly going to be hell. First block, Math. Hopefuly I can get Geometry over with in the first 4 1/2 weeks. And the rest of the time I prey to whatever deity that I can get Algebra 2 done, and over with, with at least a C- ...

next block is my humanities class. And I don't think I ever groaned so loudly about an essay. The good news: It's due at the end of the semester. The bad news: It's a College-level research paper that needs to be minimum 10 pages. Probably not much for some people, but for those who don't know; I'm lazy as hell. I barely get homework done anyway. Oh well, I'll manage, and hopefuly I'll have fun with it. In fact, I'll even post my progress here.

Lunch ... to put it bluntly ... sucks like hell. I have A lunch, which aside from eating lunch at bloody 10:40 in the MORNING, I don't know anyone. So I basically buy lunch, and walk around for half an hour 'til lunch ends. But today I visited my 11th grade humanities teacher, and that took up a bit of time. She's happy to know that I'll be graduating this year.

Anyway, bell rings, lunch ends, third block begins, and I'm still tired despite the food and drink. This is the class where I'll be making up THREE credits in 18 weeks. Including World History, Biology, and some sort of technology credit. The teacher is cool, Mr. Daniels really knows how to work with the students. And as for my work... I apparently get the "short version" of World History, which is from the Renaissance up to present. Which doesn't make much sense to me, because what's the point of World history if you're only going to look at the latter parts if it, and not its roots? I don't particularly care, since I know about most of it anyway, but it's still quite odd. And sometime soon I will start the biology. And I'll do something for Technology. Possibly HTML, I don't know.

The Bus Ride home as usual boring, and then I arrive home, and watch a bit more of The Lion King, that I didn't watch last night, then sign onto the internet like I always do.

So, this is now my mind-numbing daily routine for the next 18 weeks... and like a cheetah, I'm sure it will go blurringly fast.

And now the feature of my posting this afternoon: Why I do not stand for the pledge of allegience.

First, a little history lesson. In the 1950's what the United States was more afraid of than anything was Communism. Particularly that of the USSR. Now, Socialist Russia was by default, Atheist. So now we have a reason to fear Atheism-- because it's Socialist, and defies everything that America supposedly stands for. Here we go, now the church has a reason to convince the government that we NEED to give religion a boost... to undermine Atheism, and to give Christianity prominance in American History... a FAKE prominance.

It was a petition by the Knights of Columbus in 1954 that got the phrase "Under God" put into the Pledge of Allegience, and according to Dwight D. Eisenhower "... reaffirmed transcendence of God in our nation ... etc...." which couldn't be any less true when put into context.

Yeah sure, our founding fathers used the Bible as a reference to form the constitution, but neither the bible, nor god, nor even religion Dictates the Constitution ... AT ALL. Are we worshipping the Ancient Greek or Roman Gods when we say the Pledge of Allegience? No, we aren't. So why should I be forced to be patriotic and worship the Christian one?

Sorry folks, but I won't do it. I don't stand for that, and I would not like my country to stand for it, be under it, or even be represented by something so oppressive as the Christian God. I don't mind standing for a secular country which at least attempts to defend my rights as a human being, but I will NOT stand for a country which doesn't even represent the human in me! That defies the very principles of the country, and to put it bluntly, it really pisses me off that such legislation has passed 5 decades and 2 years ago, give or take.

Because after Under God was added, the phrase "In God We Trust" was added to our currency... which also was a crusade by the religious idiots who used communism as an excuse in the 1950's ... And yes, I do cross out "GOD" on my money. Our nation is secular, our founding fathers said it, our constitution has said it, and many of this country's best presidents have recognized it.

Until our country starts to represent me, I may consider standing up again, but until then, the country gets none of my respects. I always like to bring this up: A pledge of allegience should include everyone while excluding no one. A country should represent everyone. Otherwise you'll have people like me who just don't want to live here anymore.

That's all I have for now,

See you everyone.

~David~

P.S. I'm tired so pardon any typos.

Happy New Year... and stuff.

2006-01-01T00:26:00.000-07:00

Yeah... out with the old, in with the new.

About the old.... a lot of sh*t happened that really shouldn't have. For example... Bush didn't get impeached. Yeah, that needed to happen. Oh well, maybe this year. In fact, that will be one of my resolutions: Get Bush impeached. That would not only benefit me, but the entire nation and world ~.^

This year ... well, I can only hope for a better state of the wolrd, and I couldn't ask for a better personal experience than what happened last year. So... cheers!

Happy new year!

~David~

2005-12-13T08:14:00.000-07:00

*yaaAAAAAaawn*

So I am tired this morning, and a bit annoyed, but what can I say...

A few things about traditionalism popped through my mind. And also some more thoughts about the importance of a secular society.

When does Liberalism become conservativism? Or when do new ideas become tradition? It's something that was brought up during a humanities class discussion a few weeks ago... "The Liberals of the sixties are the conservatives of today" which isn't obviously entirely true; after all, we still have Ted Kennedy, don't we? It's an interesting idea. Once someone's liberal wishes have been fulfilled, they do not want to change them, do they? Do they wish to go on with what they pursue? Of course the new ideas do spring up with every generation, but the older generation thinks things are fine the way they are.

My opinion is that society should always be scientifically progressive ... so that we may constantly gather knowledge about ourselves and about our surroundings. Moral restrictions should be lifted if they are irrational. For instance, Stem Cell research is only condemned because of the destruction of a few human embryo cells. Science explains how these embryos can be used to save other human beings. Religion explains how these cells could become possibly another human. Science is reason. Religion is faith. Science offers a naturalistic explanation for our world and the surrounding Universe. It's the only thing which can explain who we are, where we came from with empirical fact.

"staying the course" as a traditionalist might say, might work for a while, but in the end, we'll always have to evolve with the times. If we stick to an ideology, yet still posess knowledge that could make us a beter society in the long-run, then what is the use of humans even existing at all? This is double-think. It's irrational to hold onto false information when you know that there is a better way to approach something. To make humanity better as a whole isn't just a secular idea, it is the general goal of most faiths as well. The problem is indeed traditional ideology. We can't stay the course, we have to keep moving and picking up new tricks along the way. If it works, then we will keep using it until we find something better.

This merges now with my rant about secularism...

it's important to work for the common good of humanity rather than self-interest. But it can't be denied that in order to work for the good of humanity, you have to be good yourself. What is good? Is it in an all-knowing book, or in some prophet somewhere? Does it lie in history, do we even know what it is? I believe it lays in society. The United States is what it is because of the laws which define it. Japan is who it is because of the laws which define it. This can be said with every country on earth. The UK has some of the most advanced technology on the planet. They also have one of the most progressive societies, always taking on social issues with leaps and bounds of human understanding. For example, compared to the United States, there is lesser and lesser discrimination of minority groups. Because there is little propaganda pushing for their social discrimination.

Why is this discrimination so popular in the United States? Because gays are against the bible. because women have always been the maid of the house. because Mexicans haven't done a damned thing for this country. Because Blacks commit the most crime out of anyone. It's ideology, traditional ideology, that will not go away because we won't let it. We can't be a scientifically innovative country if we don't let the fact go that the Earth is NOT 6,000 years old! That the increase of the Black population isn't the cause of more crime! This too is another example of Double-think. To know that there is evidence against something you think is fact, and yet having no evidence yourself, and still holding on to that belief. Of course, that is faith, and everyone is entitled to that....... in their own home. But this kind of ideology being posessed on a national level is dangerous. So dangerous that people are killed from it. Not only through discrimination, but because the potential to save other human beings' lives is lost completely ... just because someone said "Stem Cell research is wrong", and that someone told a friend, who believed him. It's not right to let such information travel through the ears of people and have them believe it without question. People have the right to know the truth, and that's exactly what traditionalism deprives of people. Organized religion is traditionalism ... we could do without it.

class is about to end, so I cut this rant short.

maybe more later..... maybe not
~David~

The war on Christmas

2005-12-11T16:54:00.000-07:00

Christmas time ... again ...

Well... I'm an Atheist, and frankly, I am a bit annoyed when some pious person comes up to me, and persistantly tries to buzz around my ear explaining to me about Jesus and how December 24ht was his birthday, and that's the reason we should celebrate.... but that does not happen when someone tells me "Merry Christmas" any more than when someone tells me "Bless You" ... no, this is just a corporate tactic to get more people into the stores this holiday so that they will buy more of their crap. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't care if "Merry Christmas" OR "Happy Holidays" is said, as long as I can open my stupid presents on Christmas eve and Christmas day, and get this whole stupid season over with!

Fairly, on one side, the season is indeed a strongly Christian one. People should say "Merry Christmas" when they are so inclined to do so, and they should not be blasted off the earth from it. On the other, these corporations want to bring in as many people to buy more of their crap than the last year... how are they going to keep this bureaucratic government runing if none of the Atheists, Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists are going to their stores!? It's the corporation's decision, let them make the decision as they want to, AND JUST BE HAPPY OUR COUNTRY ALLOWS US TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO CELEBRATE!!!!

Happy Holidays to all of us. Doesn't offend anyone really, that's the reason that these corporations made the decision to put "Happy Holidays" on the banners. And honestly, it's not a new phrase. People have been saying "happy holidays" for decades. Why is it just now that people realize, "hey, it doesn't say CHRISTmas?!?!?!?!?" it's a pathetic thing to fight for. If you want to celebrate Christmas, go ahead. If you wish to celebrate Hannuka, go ahead. If you want to celebrate "Christmahannukwanzica" you may do that. But to keep everyone around you happy, do it in your own homes. That's the secret of keeping everyone happy. Nobody's religion is better than the others, so there's no reason to be trying to push yours to the top.

And the people who are actually PUSHING for this politically correct language to include everyone should keep it down. "OMG IT SAYS CHRIST ON IT!!!!!!" no, moron, Merry Christmas is no more a religious saying these days than "Bless you" is. There is no goal in saying "happy holidays" ... it's a way for a corporation to get more money every year than their competitors, and nothing more. Leave it up to these rich bureaucrats to make that decision, because you're just adding uneeded gas to the flames. You're being just as intollerant as the people pushing for "CHRISTmas"

The government should also enforce its secular ideas by saying "happy holidays". unlike the corporations, the government SHOULD include everyone without excluding anyone.

Since I am a good secular, Atheist American, I have to say to you all;

happy holidays!

2005-12-09T11:26:00.000-07:00

Well... I'm at school, and this idea of creating an official blog has kind of popped in and out of my mind as of recently. I was convinced today when I searched for someone who allegedly owned a spot here. So I said, what the heck. I was quite surprised that the school had not blocked this website from being viewed. So kudos to them.

What will I do now? Well, I ask myself this question now, and I come up with the answer, whatever. Probably my political thoughts more than anything. Nobody is interested in my social life, because I don't have one. But anyway, I am in my last year of high school, and I have many thoughts about the Universe, the world, our region, this country, the state, the local government, and sometimes my school. It would be nice to have a place where *everyone* can look to this place when they want to know what's on my mind. So that's my justification. That said, please keep all comments appropriate for public viewing ~.^

this isn't like my LiveJournal ... so yeah.

currently, I am bored, and listening to music, and browsing wikipedia, and thinking- as I do all the time.

here's a broad idea passing through my mind:

what I am thinking about has relevance to what my wikipedia window has displayed upon it --> History of Bosnia and Herzegovina. More specifically I'm reading about the Bosnian war, where several thousands of people were killed off by the government while the lot of them tried to flee for their lives. It's interesting to read, however very tragic, to think about how such an act can be justified by a government. Power corrupts, but behind each and every power, there are people who feel just as the people they rule over.

sigh

that such power is atainnable by anyone is the precise problem, yet there is no conceivable way to hold back that power. Essentially, one would need power to suppress power. And that would mean power would have to be given to that supressive power to hold back the opressive power. Quite confusing to think about. The essential question then is: do we just let these different levels of power live, through a bureaucracy perhaps? The other choice of course is to try to rid ourselves of it altogether. I perrsonally believe that this can be acheived with Socialism ... where everyone holds equal power, and no one but the document which supports it (constitution) has absolute power.

If only people were more willing to work for the greater good...
They would be, of course, if there wasn't so much temptation in the world today. Everyone must have this, they must work for this and this only, they will not work for anyone else because then they might get this before them. No, I could possibly not imagine a greater Utopia in my mind than one in which all human beings are cooperating to help each other ... if I just close my eyes and imagine it... perfect.

now 20 minutes left of class ... I think I will go now.

see you later :)