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/
Monday, February 27, 2006
Friday, February 24, 2006
Ignorance....
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~
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~
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
TIME OUT!
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~
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~
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
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~
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~
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
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
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
Thursday, February 09, 2006
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~
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~
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
frustrated...
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~
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~
Friday, February 03, 2006
Subheadings for the Senior Thesis
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~
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~
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
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~
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~
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
oh my.... f*ing ... god.
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~
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~
Friday, January 27, 2006
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
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
Monday, January 23, 2006
Introductory Paragraph for my research essay...
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~
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~
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
(un)intelligent (re)design
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~
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~
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
part one: School: Why I don't Stand...
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.
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.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Happy New Year... and stuff.
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~
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~
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
*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~
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~
Sunday, December 11, 2005
The war on Christmas
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!
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!
Friday, December 09, 2005
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 :)
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 :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)