Monthly Archive for July, 2008Page 3 of 4
T.A. – sleep + unlimited internet access + 1 week paid leave = tedious, lengthy diatribe on “my thoughts, let me show you them.” Taken from an e-mail exchange with Holy Prepuce: If at some point in your upbringing you bought into the Catholic idea of a heaven or resurrection (i.e. that our conscious selves [...]
If Ray "Hold This Banana For Me" Comfort is Einstein then that makes me Jesus H. Fucking Christ.
That is all.
Idiot.
That is all.
Idiot.
Currently Reading:
The Heart of Meditation
by Swami Durgananda
Accidental Advice:
I was off-handedly told something today that was more insightful then the person who said it may have realized. "You know, if you opened your mouth 1/4 as much as you do now, you would be the kind of person that when you spoke, others would stop what they were doing and quietly listen."
At first my reaction was something like, "Yeah, and f*ck you too," through some giggling.
Be Cool:
Later I got to thinking about it, and wondered, "Why all the nervous conversation that leads to me saying asinine things?" I wasn't cool. What is cool, but a practice of acceptance.
Namaste,
CET
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the illusion that we are separate from one another." - Shakyamuni Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin
The Heart of Meditation
by Swami Durgananda
Accidental Advice:
I was off-handedly told something today that was more insightful then the person who said it may have realized. "You know, if you opened your mouth 1/4 as much as you do now, you would be the kind of person that when you spoke, others would stop what they were doing and quietly listen."
At first my reaction was something like, "Yeah, and f*ck you too," through some giggling.
Be Cool:
Later I got to thinking about it, and wondered, "Why all the nervous conversation that leads to me saying asinine things?" I wasn't cool. What is cool, but a practice of acceptance.
Namaste,
CET
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the illusion that we are separate from one another." - Shakyamuni Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin
For us atheists, there is not much to choose among superstitions, whether they involve a belief in the power of salt thrown over a shoulder, or of sending “up” prayers to a mystical being who died for our sins. These subtle and irrelevant distinctions are dwarfed by the enormous gap between their magical beliefs and the real world.
God knows (just kidding!) that organized religion has held back acceptance in this country both of scientific concepts like evolution, and of constitutional issues such as separation of church and state. But when it comes to acceptance of gays by the Anglican Communion, one religious group (the present Anglican church and liberal Episcopal churches in the U.S.) is on the right side, while the splinter group led by Peter Akinola and colleagues are attempting to roll back hard-won progress on tolerance of diversity in sexual orientation. This issue has significant real-world implications, and the religious liberals should be applauded for their efforts to further the full acceptance of gays in our world society.
So I was browsing around alltop.com, and noticed they had a category for religious news. I was shocked (sarcastically, of course) that there was no representation from the atheist community. Seemed like every faith was represented, but not the lack of faith. After a few email exchanges with the site moderator, I'm super excited to report that we are now the atheist representation for http://religon.alltop.com/! (Scroll to the bottom and you'll find us, I promise).
For those that haven't seen http://alltop.com, it's a really useful site to use a start page or a quick reference point, to see what's going on in the world, or in any niche news domains that you may be interested in. You can even remove certain feeds and limit it to what you like best. Cause honestly, who wants to read about atheist news all the time (except for me).
For those that haven't seen http://alltop.com, it's a really useful site to use a start page or a quick reference point, to see what's going on in the world, or in any niche news domains that you may be interested in. You can even remove certain feeds and limit it to what you like best. Cause honestly, who wants to read about atheist news all the time (except for me).
Currently Reading:
The Heart of Meditation
by Swami Durgananda
Said With a Loved One:
Namaste,
One day, I will die.
One day, you will die.
Precious are the few moments we have together.
Namaste,
CET
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the illusion that we are separate from one another." - Shakyamuni Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin
The Heart of Meditation
by Swami Durgananda
Said With a Loved One:
Namaste,
One day, I will die.
One day, you will die.
Precious are the few moments we have together.
Namaste,
CET
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the illusion that we are separate from one another." - Shakyamuni Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin
This is really cool: playing action video games increases math test scores. It works both for men and women, and could possibly be used to reduce the gender disparity in math. That's really cool, and another great example of how weird our brains are.
Don't know why this little story problem jumped in my head, but here you go.
The number of people who are homosexual seems to be around 4.5% of the population (wikipedia says 2 to 7%). The percent of people who are left handed is about 10%. For males, being gay increases your chance of being left handed by 36% (90% for females) [link]. So if you meet a left handed man or woman, what are the chances they are homosexual?
Pulling out my book of Bayesian spells....
P(h) = 0.045 # probability of being homosexual
P(l) = 0.1 # probability of being left handed
P(l|h) = 0.1 * 1.36 = 0.136 for guys (or 0.19 for dames)# probability of being left handed if you are a homosexual
What we *want* to know is P(h|l) (probability of being a homosexual if you are left handed). For you Bayes newbies you must resist the temptation to assume that P(h|l) = P(l|h).
By Bayes theorem:
P(h|l) = P(l|h) * P(h) / P(l)
Or
P(h|l) = 6% for dudes and 9% for the ladies.
I'm not sure what use this information is, but you are welcome anyway.
The number of people who are homosexual seems to be around 4.5% of the population (wikipedia says 2 to 7%). The percent of people who are left handed is about 10%. For males, being gay increases your chance of being left handed by 36% (90% for females) [link]. So if you meet a left handed man or woman, what are the chances they are homosexual?
Pulling out my book of Bayesian spells....
P(h) = 0.045 # probability of being homosexual
P(l) = 0.1 # probability of being left handed
P(l|h) = 0.1 * 1.36 = 0.136 for guys (or 0.19 for dames)# probability of being left handed if you are a homosexual
What we *want* to know is P(h|l) (probability of being a homosexual if you are left handed). For you Bayes newbies you must resist the temptation to assume that P(h|l) = P(l|h).
By Bayes theorem:
P(h|l) = P(l|h) * P(h) / P(l)
Or
P(h|l) = 6% for dudes and 9% for the ladies.
I'm not sure what use this information is, but you are welcome anyway.
This sums up my thoughts on FISA perfectly. Best part:
Damn right.
How can even one senator on either side of the aisle in good conscience vote in favor of this law that does nothing to enhance our security and everything to diminish our rights as a free people?
Damn right.
This week we review a new social network that's been getting some attention in the blogosphere: Atheist Nexus. An member named vjack submitted the story to The Atheist Spot just today (you can read it here).
The Atheist Nexus social network looks to have been built on top of Ning, which was founded by Marc Andreeson (the founder of Netscape) in 2005 to help niche communities connect and develop online. A perfect fit for us godless atheists!
Being built on an established platform link Ning, the site comes ready with some nifty features including real time chat, a video archive, a message board, and something that most excited me...a projects list. Currently the list of projects is all hypothetical (e.g. scholarships, library donations, recycling programs), but just the thought of sponsoring students and community programs in the name of atheism sends chills down my spine.
In the end, the fate of a site like this, and in reality most any site, lies in it's ability to keep its members coming back. The fate of most upstart social networks looks like a reverse hockey stick curve. Lot's of excitement up front (mostly early adopters), lots of new members, and then a pretty quick dropoff as people forget they ever signed up and move on to the next shiny site. I would say there are two keys to creating a long term success:
My humble advice to the owners of the Atheist Nexus:
I recommend everyone check the Atheist Nexus out for themselves, give it a spin. I have no doubt the site owners crave feedback as much as we do (as hard as that may be to believe), so share your thoughts with them or leave your comments here.
In our minds we trust,
Lenny
The Atheist Nexus social network looks to have been built on top of Ning, which was founded by Marc Andreeson (the founder of Netscape) in 2005 to help niche communities connect and develop online. A perfect fit for us godless atheists!
Being built on an established platform link Ning, the site comes ready with some nifty features including real time chat, a video archive, a message board, and something that most excited me...a projects list. Currently the list of projects is all hypothetical (e.g. scholarships, library donations, recycling programs), but just the thought of sponsoring students and community programs in the name of atheism sends chills down my spine.
In the end, the fate of a site like this, and in reality most any site, lies in it's ability to keep its members coming back. The fate of most upstart social networks looks like a reverse hockey stick curve. Lot's of excitement up front (mostly early adopters), lots of new members, and then a pretty quick dropoff as people forget they ever signed up and move on to the next shiny site. I would say there are two keys to creating a long term success:
1. Getting to a "critical mass" number of members. I wish I knew what this number actually was, but I would say it is some percentage of the active atheist community. If enough people are members of the site, they will naturally bring it up in conversation, which will continue to spread the message of the site, and bring in a steady stream of members. It wouldn't hurt to have some atheist celebrities as members. As with most Web 2.0 sites, this is a Catch-22 situation. New members won't join until there are enough friends on the site, but there won't be enough friends on the site until more people join. But just note that every popular social media site started this way too, and they survived.
2. The more difficult of the two, and something that any new site has to deal with in some way, is to have a compelling reason for members to keep coming back. Since a typical social networking site doesn't actually produce any original content (not that there's anything wrong with that :), the site owners need to work hard to leverage the social aspects of the site to bring it's users back. Even trickier is to convince members to use the site instead of or along side a facebook or a myspace, where most members will probably already have accounts and be unmotivated to have two identities to maintain.
My humble advice to the owners of the Atheist Nexus:
1. Keep doing what you're doing. No matter what happens, this is a good thing for the atheist community, and I love the fact that so many atheists are so able and willing to use their tech expertice to further "the message". Just make sure to keep the interface as clean and simple as possible. It's too tempting to add features and more features. Control yourself!
2. Having said that, you must focus on the people and the community over the technology. What will make the site last will be real people connecting in real life, doing real things for the world, and making a real difference. Especially in a community such as this (as opposed to a tween oriented myspace).
3. Don't compete with the facebook's and myspace's. You have to learn to live with them, and somehow leverage them to further your site's power. Maybe create a facebook group driving people to your site, or a myspace widget with recent posts or videos. Just don't spend time trying to convince people to choose your site over facebook. Encourage people to choose both.
I recommend everyone check the Atheist Nexus out for themselves, give it a spin. I have no doubt the site owners crave feedback as much as we do (as hard as that may be to believe), so share your thoughts with them or leave your comments here.
In our minds we trust,
Lenny
Inspired by a new reader pointing out that Heretic's Altar is the #1 hit when you Google "Ray Comfort is retarded," I am bringing back my Ray-Bashing posts. I'll try to hit this place with at least one a week. The hard part is trying to figure out which is the worst of Ray's atrocities against reason and language each week. Seriously, this guy is that bad. Here you go, enjoy:
Dear Ray,
Thanks for telling all of us stupid atheists what we know...or what you think we know...or what you say we can't possibly know...or what you are pretty sure we aren't certain of...or...you see where this kind of "reasoning" is going right? It's all nonsense, Mr. Comfort. To refresh everyone's memories, here is what one of your recent posts says:
First of all, genius, I don't know one single atheist worth his/her salt that takes anything for granted because that is what one out-dated book (with fifty+ different translations over millenia) has told them. You run around in circles trying to...hmm I don't want to use the word "prove" here because nothing you have ever said amounts to proof of anything but your own pathetic grasp of humanity...You run around in circles trying to convince people that an optical illusion is proof that nothing is true but your bible. You use some pre-school style philosophy to try and tell us that what we see may not be what we see. And you do all of this without ever considering your own glaring contradictions that everything you say applies to your OWN FUCKING BIBLE! Wow, someone show me a louder, more self-deluded and annoying street preacher...I just don't believe it's possible.
Please, Ray, put down the Kool-Aid and tell me how one self-contradictary book can be "true," while things like rocks being hard can be subject to interpretation. If I wouldn't get arrested for it, I would love to show you what the "concrete definition of 'hard' is," preferably with concrete.
Finally, Ray Comfort, aside from being the true definition of a religious nutcase (yeah "true definition," I said it), you have made one of the same tired old arguments that atheists are sick of hearing...For some reason (there I go using that "R" word around your name again), all your type seem to think that the burden of proof rests with us. *sigh* We are not trying to prove anything fantastic. We are not positing the existence of the supernatural. We learn. We ask questions. We never take the first or easiest answer as truth. We ask more questions of more sources and are never satisfied with "the gist of things."
Real atheists do not deal in absolutes when it comes to things outside of our understanding. I have written and read plenty of poetry and I can absolutely say that a sonnet is fourteen lines of prose. Wow...I do know something. Here is something I cannot absolutely say: Ray Comfort is a retarded monkey-man with half of a brain. I just don't have your IQ scores, MRIs or genetic sequence...but I can guess...I suppose that makes it something I can take on faith, right?
One more thing (I know I wrote "Finally" earlier, but I wasn't absolutely finished), "For all you know, you might be insane and have twisted perceptions of what others see as reality." If I could, I would pray to your god that this be the case and that you are just a psychotically induced delusion...But, I don't have much faith in that.
Dear Ray,
Thanks for telling all of us stupid atheists what we know...or what you think we know...or what you say we can't possibly know...or what you are pretty sure we aren't certain of...or...you see where this kind of "reasoning" is going right? It's all nonsense, Mr. Comfort. To refresh everyone's memories, here is what one of your recent posts says:
As a professing atheist, you can’t be "sure" of anything. You don’t know that there is no God. You don’t know if Hell is a reality. All you have is your beliefs (faith) that God and Hell don’t exist. You have faith in what you believe. You can’t be sure that the sky is blue (it’s not), or that the sun rises (it doesn’t). You don’t know for certain that the blue or the red that you see is actually the same colors that others see. You don’t know if evolution is true, or even if a rock is "hard," because you have no concrete definition of what "hard" is, other than what a dictionary tells you and what you have come to believe from the beliefs of others. For all you know, you might be insane and have twisted perceptions of what others see as reality. That’s why knowing God is such a wonderful thing. It’s because He knows the thoughts of everyone that has ever existed, and He is ever-present on every planet to determine if there are or are not green leprechauns.
First of all, genius, I don't know one single atheist worth his/her salt that takes anything for granted because that is what one out-dated book (with fifty+ different translations over millenia) has told them. You run around in circles trying to...hmm I don't want to use the word "prove" here because nothing you have ever said amounts to proof of anything but your own pathetic grasp of humanity...You run around in circles trying to convince people that an optical illusion is proof that nothing is true but your bible. You use some pre-school style philosophy to try and tell us that what we see may not be what we see. And you do all of this without ever considering your own glaring contradictions that everything you say applies to your OWN FUCKING BIBLE! Wow, someone show me a louder, more self-deluded and annoying street preacher...I just don't believe it's possible.
Please, Ray, put down the Kool-Aid and tell me how one self-contradictary book can be "true," while things like rocks being hard can be subject to interpretation. If I wouldn't get arrested for it, I would love to show you what the "concrete definition of 'hard' is," preferably with concrete.
Finally, Ray Comfort, aside from being the true definition of a religious nutcase (yeah "true definition," I said it), you have made one of the same tired old arguments that atheists are sick of hearing...For some reason (there I go using that "R" word around your name again), all your type seem to think that the burden of proof rests with us. *sigh* We are not trying to prove anything fantastic. We are not positing the existence of the supernatural. We learn. We ask questions. We never take the first or easiest answer as truth. We ask more questions of more sources and are never satisfied with "the gist of things."
Real atheists do not deal in absolutes when it comes to things outside of our understanding. I have written and read plenty of poetry and I can absolutely say that a sonnet is fourteen lines of prose. Wow...I do know something. Here is something I cannot absolutely say: Ray Comfort is a retarded monkey-man with half of a brain. I just don't have your IQ scores, MRIs or genetic sequence...but I can guess...I suppose that makes it something I can take on faith, right?
One more thing (I know I wrote "Finally" earlier, but I wasn't absolutely finished), "For all you know, you might be insane and have twisted perceptions of what others see as reality." If I could, I would pray to your god that this be the case and that you are just a psychotically induced delusion...But, I don't have much faith in that.
Well fucking hell...This shit is crazy, I really fuckin' thought I cussed a shitload more in these rants than what this bullshit meter assclown thing says...oh-cocksucking-well...here's my fucking girly and piss poor pathetic result.
(Although, some may say my lack of swearing elevates my posts above all of the others who just cuss and insult people incessantly...fucking retards!)
Created by OnePlusYou
(Although, some may say my lack of swearing elevates my posts above all of the others who just cuss and insult people incessantly...fucking retards!)
Created by OnePlusYou
I'm finding it very hard to disagree with this list of things Obama should do to remind himself of what got him to where he is, and what he should be doing now.
IT'S A FUCKING PUPPY! These are the things that make it completely unrealistic to take anything that fundamentalists (of any religion) seriously. Maybe they should have instead sent a postcard with a beheaded journalist on it...obviously that's not as offensive as a puppy. Here's the story:
Muslims in the Scottish district of Tayside are outraged by the appearance of a wide-eyed, 6-week-old puppy on postcards distributed by the local police force, according to the Daily Mail.
Postcards showing police dog-in-training Rebel, a German shepherd born in early December, are causing a furor among the region’s Muslims who believe dogs are "ritually unclean," the Daily Mail reports.
The cute cards were meant to notify locals of a new telephone number for non-emergency phone calls but instead have become a flashpoint for a clash of cultures. Shopkeepers are refusing to display the offending ad and a Dundee city councilor is calling for an investigation.
"My concern was that it's not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards," said Dundee councilor Mohammed Asif, according to the report.
The Tayside police force said the police puppy, the force’s "newest recruit," was not intended to cause offense.
"His incredible worldwide popularity — he has attracted record visitor numbers to our Web site — led us to believe Rebel could play a starring role in the promotion of our non-emergency number," said a police spokesperson.
Sickening. Perhaps the best thing to do is to just leave the police out of these neighborhoods all together...I mean, we wouldn't want to accidentally offend anyone. So Scotland, do your duty and stop offending moronic islamic fundies by patrolling their neighborhoods.
I was watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit! last night, the episode about gun control, and they said (something to the effect of), "Sure, the police can protect you from a criminal, but who can protect you from the police?"
That question is becoming more and more relevant.
The sad thing? That's one of the more benign cases of police abusing their power I've ever seen.
I'd go into how wrong this all is, and how we need so much more oversight of police forces to prevent this kind of thing (and the more terrible abuses), but the entire thing makes me too angry and depressed. It's just amazing that this kind of behavior happens in the USA.
That question is becoming more and more relevant.
The sad thing? That's one of the more benign cases of police abusing their power I've ever seen.
I'd go into how wrong this all is, and how we need so much more oversight of police forces to prevent this kind of thing (and the more terrible abuses), but the entire thing makes me too angry and depressed. It's just amazing that this kind of behavior happens in the USA.
Fortunately, you don't need faith to be an atheist. In fact, sir, I think it's safe to say you don't really grasp the concept. Part 1 (1h31m), Part 2(1h31m)
This guy really spent some time addressing this book...
I don't know why I love listening to Christian apologetics so much. I guess it's sort of like watching a car wreck. Except it's a human brain spinning wildly out of control.
This guy really spent some time addressing this book...
I don't know why I love listening to Christian apologetics so much. I guess it's sort of like watching a car wreck. Except it's a human brain spinning wildly out of control.
Having recently discovered Achewood I've been catching up by reading it from the beginning. Truly a masterpeice. Here was today's entry (for me, catching up):
Comedy gold. I totally need to get a bible printed with coupons and tear out adds. I think this is now my life's work.
Comedy gold. I totally need to get a bible printed with coupons and tear out adds. I think this is now my life's work.
For some reason, our political culture disdains the so-called "flip-flop", as though changing one's mind on an issue were the worst thing ever. Labeling a true change of mind brought about by new evidence as a "flip-flop" is both asinine and counterproductive, as demagogues are made into saints by their consistency, while the thoughtful are smeared.
That being said, when a politician changes their position on an issue because of simple political expediency, there's something wrong. Those issues need to be addressed, and the politician needs to be called out on them.
So that's what I'm doing. But first, I want to say a couple of things.
Obama did not flip-flop on the recent Supreme Course child rape case. He came out in favor of the death penalty for child rapists in The Audacity of Hope (from here, as I don't have access to my copy):
The other flip-flop he's been accused of is on Iraq, which is absolutely absurd. Here's the argument:
This might just be me, but I think that condemning MoveOn for an add isn't showing support for the person they condemn, simply a distaste for MoveOn's actions (which I think Obama shares with many people). The article continues to say that, due to the surge, the situation has changed enough that Obama will modify his withdrawal proposal. Fair enough, it may happen (although I doubt it, for several reasons beyond the scope here), but citing a possibility for the future as evidence of his flip-flopiness is absolutely inane. I wonder if the Editorial board at the WSJ has had their brains removed recently, as that's the only explanation I can see (as for The New Republic employing a guy who fails to see through this charade, I can only hope his previous work was better).
Now, the real change of mind (I'm not going to bother arguing about the gun-rights stance, as I totally agree with both Heller and Obama's tepid take). Obama has completely reversed his opinion on the FISA compromise, which he voted against previously, but now would support this virtually unchanged bill. To be fair to Obama, due to its support from the leadership in the House and Senate, it makes opposition difficult. Difficult, but still right. It's incredibly disappointing that he can't use his new-found eminence in the Democratic party to take a stand against Republican fear mongering. With telecom immunity, we will almost certainly never find out the sordid details of Bush's spying program. Making them pay for their complicity is a secondary concern, and to many (including myself) not a priority at all. The American people deserve answers about what happened.
In the meantime, the President is perfectly capable of conducting all the surveillance he needs to in order to prevent terrorist attacks. If you don't think so, just look at the 911 Commission's findings, of which I was totally unaware until recently. It's simply a matter of fact that the Bush administration's incompetence allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen (see, for example, under the "Criticisms" section of the Wikipedia article). The new FISA bill is nothing more than a power-grab, it's entirely unnecessary, and we need some Democrats to grow spines and explain this to the American people and the fear mongering Republicans.
That being said, when a politician changes their position on an issue because of simple political expediency, there's something wrong. Those issues need to be addressed, and the politician needs to be called out on them.
So that's what I'm doing. But first, I want to say a couple of things.
Obama did not flip-flop on the recent Supreme Course child rape case. He came out in favor of the death penalty for child rapists in The Audacity of Hope (from here, as I don't have access to my copy):
"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."
The other flip-flop he's been accused of is on Iraq, which is absolutely absurd. Here's the argument:
Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org's attacks in 2007 that he was "General Betray Us." Perhaps he had a late epiphany.
This might just be me, but I think that condemning MoveOn for an add isn't showing support for the person they condemn, simply a distaste for MoveOn's actions (which I think Obama shares with many people). The article continues to say that, due to the surge, the situation has changed enough that Obama will modify his withdrawal proposal. Fair enough, it may happen (although I doubt it, for several reasons beyond the scope here), but citing a possibility for the future as evidence of his flip-flopiness is absolutely inane. I wonder if the Editorial board at the WSJ has had their brains removed recently, as that's the only explanation I can see (as for The New Republic employing a guy who fails to see through this charade, I can only hope his previous work was better).
Now, the real change of mind (I'm not going to bother arguing about the gun-rights stance, as I totally agree with both Heller and Obama's tepid take). Obama has completely reversed his opinion on the FISA compromise, which he voted against previously, but now would support this virtually unchanged bill. To be fair to Obama, due to its support from the leadership in the House and Senate, it makes opposition difficult. Difficult, but still right. It's incredibly disappointing that he can't use his new-found eminence in the Democratic party to take a stand against Republican fear mongering. With telecom immunity, we will almost certainly never find out the sordid details of Bush's spying program. Making them pay for their complicity is a secondary concern, and to many (including myself) not a priority at all. The American people deserve answers about what happened.
In the meantime, the President is perfectly capable of conducting all the surveillance he needs to in order to prevent terrorist attacks. If you don't think so, just look at the 911 Commission's findings, of which I was totally unaware until recently. It's simply a matter of fact that the Bush administration's incompetence allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen (see, for example, under the "Criticisms" section of the Wikipedia article). The new FISA bill is nothing more than a power-grab, it's entirely unnecessary, and we need some Democrats to grow spines and explain this to the American people and the fear mongering Republicans.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
