Monthly Archive for May, 2009
However, a significant number of people freely choose not to vote. Further, many people vote along a party or historical line and attach their vote to a specific issue. In many cases, the reason for supporting (or opposing) an issue is not very clear as the voter has not spent much time understanding their view or the other.
Is it time to change the way we allow people to vote?
In Canada, once you reach 18, you are allowed to vote as long as you are a Canadian citizen. That's it. You magically become eligible to vote! Why are there no other requirements to be able to vote?
First, I don't like the 'regional representation' model of Canadian politics. Years ago, this made sense because travel and communication were limited. However, nowadays voters can easily vote on specific issues and don't necessarily need to be 'regionally' recognized. In fact, if political parties were assigned seats based on national support, minority parties would actually receive more seats since their support is usually thinly spread out and unable to gain power in any one region. Further, some voters may not vote for their preferred party recognizing that their vote will be useless if they are in a minority. Also, this would prevent 'defensive' voting (ie. voting Liberal just to make sure Conservatives don't get a lot of votes even though you support Green).
Professional Voters
I think voting on important issues requires an educated voter. The main problem with Democracy is that anyone can vote, even those who know little about the issue they are voting for! I'd like to see a system where people are required to learn about issues and then earn the right to vote on it. This class of people would become 'qualified' or even 'expert' voters.
The idea is to have a test that neutrally presents the sides of an issue. A potential voter must answer questions that show they understand the arguments being presented and then earn the privilege to vote. This does not mean that uninformed people cannot voice opinions, it simply means they don't vote.
Deciding Issues
Take the issue of Evolution in America. Should Americans 'vote' on whether it is taught in public schools? There are arguments for and against teaching evolution. However, due to the low levels of science education in America, does it make sense to have citizens, illiterate in evolution, to decide whether it's taught?
Imagine critics of evolution want to remove it from the curriculum. To gain support for their idea, they would need to educate those who agree with them not just on the anti-evolution arguments, but also the pro-evolution argument because they know the potential voter must pass a questionnaire to see if they really understand the issue. Only those who do will be allowed to vote on it!
My goal with this idea is to get public policy issues passed by those who are most qualified to decide them. This is very similar to the peer review process in science. In fact, it should ensure that future policies are decided by scientific methods and not on rhetorical arguments. Would you vote for that?
What. A. Fucking. Bigotted. Idiot
This man is a seriously nasty piece of work and I'm frankly disgusted that catholics allow this fat shit to speak for them.
Catholics; Grow some balls, develop some integrity and exercise this morality you keep telling us about and publicly oppose everything this man says. Or would you rather, as you normally do, tow the party line and try to cover it up?
Today the Supreme Court of California upheld Proposition 8, and many proponents and opponents of the measure have reacted strongly to the ruling without even bothering to attempt to understand it. I've already seen many bloggers condemn the members of court without even suggesting they've at all considered the actual issue under review. The court cannot simply overturn a free and fair vote without a very clear legal basis. If one reads the majority decision and honestly disagrees with the legal analysis, then I have no objection. If one simply laments the decision and its effects, I sympathize. But it's downright ignorant and irresponsible to condemn the six justices who supported the ruling as bigots without even knowing the rationale for the ruling.I know I'm only a second-semester law student, but I've really come to appreciate how little the general populace understands the concept of the rule of law. My first instinct upon hearing the ruling was to find a copy of the decision and try to understand the issue and the reasons for the decision. I've gotten lots of experience examining this type of document, and while I don't expect everyone to be able to understand it themselves, they can all at least find basic summaries in news stories. It's not at all difficult to educate oneself in the age of the internet.
Let's be clear: I'm a strong supporter of same-sex marriage – I voted against Amendment 2 here in Florida, which was stronger than Prop 8 because it also constitutionally prohibited civil unions and anything which resembles civil unions – but I'm an equally strong supporter of the rule of law. If the court could overturn this vote, then they could just as easily also overturn a future vote which would legalize same-sex marriage. With current demographic trends, it's only a matter of time until same-sex marriage is legal in California and, eventually, the rest of the country. I hope to live to see the day when it's legal here in the Bible Belt!
The court did its constitutionally appointed job, so there's no shame on them. There is instead shame on the Californians who voted for it out of bigotry and those outside of the state who organized and financed support for it. Your days as a majority are numbered.
The other was to post a very strange disclaimer on his website, in which he called Lynn and Weinstein "bone-heads," and defended his right to call himself "Chaplain," stating that he has a current endorsement as a "Chaplain and Evangelist to America" from the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches (CFGC). It was this statement that led MRFF to take a closer look at the CFGC, a chaplain endorsing agency headed by retired Army colonel and chaplain Jim Ammerman, and authorized by the Department of Defense to provide the ecclesiastical endorsement required by the military for all military chaplains, with several hundred of its chaplains currently serving in all branches of the military.The CFGC is the endorser for approximately two hundred chaplains. This endorser openly denigrates other Christians, Jews, Muslims, and the non-religious. The CFGC also advocates crazy conspiracy theories and the armed overthrow of the United States government. There is even a current chaplain, Army Major James F. Linzey, who is a member of something called the Prophecy Club. This website seems to be some sort of money making site, consisting mainly of ads for videos and their magazine.Right off the bat, MRFF found the expected stuff -- which alone provides ample reason to demand that the DoD to revoke the chaplain endorsing authority of Jim Ammerman and the CFGC.
CFGC should be disqualified as an endorsing agency because of its repeated denigration of all other religions and Christian denominations that aren't Charismatic or Pentecostal, which is completely contrary to Department of Defense Instruction Number 1304.28.
Maj. Linzey has made several videos in the past for the Prophecy Club and Jim Ammerman, his endorser. One video is called "Imminent Military Takeover of the U.S.A." showed by militia groups in the 1990's, and another is a radio interview for a show called The Edge.
The Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches should be removed as an endorser for the United Stated military forces. How can an association which advocates sedition and crazy conspiracy theories and associates with the militia groups associated with violence be allowed to place chaplains within the US military? These chaplains obviously support these ideas since they are endorsed by this agency.Maj. Linzey also went into all the conspiracy theory stuff about the "masonic, Illuminati wackos" who have gotten into government office by deception, and the 9-11 conspiracy theory stuff, but it's his statements inciting the taking up of arms against the government that are most disturbing.
Linzey first talked about his "friend, Jim Gilcrest, who's heading up the Minuteman Project," promoting the group with statements like this:
"I'm trying to avoid saying we need to take up arms and go take care of it ourselves, but it appears that we might be needing to head this way."
He also promoted militias in general because there will be "blood bath" when the "invasion from the south" and battle with foreign U.N. forces and the Chinese in the U.S. commences.
"I suggest that Americans get their arms to be ready to defend themselves and their own homes when they come knocking on your door, demanding your food, demanding your money, and raping your wives. The U.N. troops will be here to start patrolling the cities, the streets, the highways, and we will be under, basically, European rule."
Among his other fear-mongering claims are that there are detention camps already set up by the U.S. government for "patriots" who won't go along with the government's agenda, that these detention camps are equipped with facilities to kill the detainees by gassing the "patriots," and that the government already has a list of the "patriots."
This radio show is also one where Maj. Linzey directly stated that his military chaplain endorser Jim Ammerman knows exactly what he's out there doing.
When the interviewer asked Linzey:
"If what you are saying is true, wouldn't the government -- if the government is any way culpable to some of these events -- wouldn't they want to not have you, say go on a speaking tour or anywhere else, or even be on this show?
Linzey responded:
"Would they not want me to? Well, you know, probably not. Now -- but that doesn't matter. As long as I'm abiding within the law, I can say that I'm speaking as Jim Linzey, not in my official capacity as an officer or military chaplain, then I prefaced it right, and I can proceed. And Col. Jim Ammerman -- he's my endorser -- and he knows exactly what I'm doing, and, so, that's it."
But, of course, Jim Ammerman would approve of what Maj. Linzey is spewing. Ammerman's own "Imminent Military Takeover of the U.S.A." video contains the same kind of seditious incitement, which, no doubt, accounts for its popularity among militia groups.
I'm not surprised by the link between fundamentalist, usually Pentecostal churches and militia groups. I grew up in Louisiana, in the Deep South, where these links have historically been much more overt. Growing up in a small town, I learned which families were usually members of the Klan and milita groups. Not surprisingly, these families were usually involved in very fundamentalist, Christian churches, usually Baptist and Pentecostal (usually all-white Assemblies of God churches). Nowadays, non-denominational churches have joined the fun. I don't think that his has changed much in the 25 years I have been away.
Update:
Not surprisingly Ammerman is a part of the New Apostolic Reformation.
Colonel "Jim" Ammerman was listed as being an apostle in C. Peter Wagner's International Coalition of Apostles [see ICA prospectus] from the organization's inception in 2001 through to December 2008. The ICA is one of the main entities in Wagner's New Apostolic Reformation, a movement rapidly coalescing out of the Apostolic networks that have arisen in Third Wave Christianity.This type of Christianity is highly emotional and irrational.
Swine Flu Scam Alert
You might also want to visit the site- it is packed full of excellent interviews and podcasts.
While I'm at- I found this over on the site - a most excellent pamphlet indeed!
I'm about 99.9% certain I know who it was. On the .1% chance I'm wrong, I'm not going to publish his name, since he's the vindictive sort anyways, whether this specific incident is his work or not. But let's face it: we both know it was you. You've never been able to call my work into question, given that it is at all times beyond reproach and in keeping with my responsibilities to the children and young adults I have entrusted to your care as a vendor. You've never addressed any problems to my face, or even in a direct email to me. Having failed to find satisfaction by whinging to my superiors or unprofessionally "snubbing" me at meetings -- as if I gave a crap about your manners -- in front of parents and sister agencies, and having no grounds to call my professional life into question, you chose to try to impugn my personal life, in the hopes that my superiors were as petty as you are. Unfortunately, for you, I work for people of character.
Whether you're who I think you are or not, you're a coward. You're not even a bully -- bullies, at least, try to confront their targets. If you have something to settle, let's settle it like men, instead of this penny-ante adolescent girl crap. Hell, an adolescent girl would at least be effective in trying to stab someone in the back. What's next, filming me singing in the shower and posting it on YouTube? Whoever you are, why don't you speak to my face? There's a comments section appended to this post -- bring it here if you're too weak and afraid to do it in person.
Sadly, you do get to win a little: My language will be a bit more circumspect from now on, and in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, long-form post drafts will be published when completed, instead of saved from my nighttime writing jags and published throughout the day. If readership falls, so be it. So, coward, go ahead and read that sentence a couple more times while pleasuring yourself. At least it'll be better than slamming your fist into your crotch repeatedly to kill your erection while Googling my name.
Well, I guess I wasn't quite done being less than moderate in tone. The challenge stands to my craven schoolgirl, though: You can email me, comment here, call me, hell, even walk up to me. We can take it into the parking lot. Or you can accept that your sad, pathetic obsession with me has led you nowhere, and move on. Me, I have better things to do.
It sounds like a cliche but reading it brings tears to my eyes- I also don't cry often - what I do do however, is therapy for kids and adolescents who have been abused- I hear stories of abuse every day and want to run and punch the dad or mum or other carer that has perpetrated this abuse on these vulnerable and scared kids that sit in front of me begging me- in actions but never words - to help them, so incoeherent with rage against the world that allowed this to happen to them that they can only communicate it through anger and destruction.
These Christians have carried out sustained and systematic torture of children over decades and they are going to get away with it- why? because they are part of that 'grand' institution the 'catholic church'. No other institution would get away with it- if a bunch of social workers under the guise of caring for kids in group homes were to do this they would not be able to hide, to keep their names out of the report - they would be named, they would be prosecuted, they would never again be permitted to work with children- what do these fucking priests get? Anonymity - well lets give it back--
Anonymous- I challenge you to turn away from the useless hounding of scientology and actually do something useful - start doing to the catholic church what you have done to scientology.
Protest outside the abbeys, the churches, the cathedrals, the seminaries where these people indoctrinate the massess - hand out the leaflets warning people against what the catholic church can do to a family- they have after all been doing it far longer and with far more success than the scientologists will ever do.
Please set up protests- I will join- i know members of my family will join. I believe the only way justice is going to be won against this monstrous institution is for the world to protest and to let the catholics know that it will no longer be tolerated.
So come on Anonymous- get off the wagon of scientology and make some real change in the world- you are a group that is already geared up for protests of this sort - you are perfect for the job- accept the challenge!!
It occurs to me, as it may well have occurred to you at some point, that the very idea of anything “supernatural” existing is self-defeating because anything that blatantly defies our methods of analysis and understanding would totally undermine the entire show. Thus our system of understanding which is so incredibly consistent that it’s able to convince electrons to run such complex mazes that the whole internet results, would be fatally flawed if even the smallest miracle were possible.
The application of logic has yet to be shown to fail. The world has never thrown up any scientifically verifiable evidence of anything outside of our model. Thus there has never been any evidence for any god, any miracle, any ghost, any anything supernatural.
Yet its not as if God (as rep for all things supernatural) is deliberately covering his tracks. If He was, no one would know about Him. Clearly his followers have detected some “evidence” – but amazingly no science or logical analysis has ever trapped any of it.
So if you believe in God, how can you have any faith in such a poor system, that can’t detect this God you see so evidently? The system so good it cures diseases, determines the compositions of distant stars and genetically engineers mice so they glow in the dark can’t see something so big and important three quarters of the planet believe in it.
There is indeed an elephant in the room.
I inhabit a post-theistic world. God or the idea of God has long-since lost its influence on my thinking – my morals, my emotions or my research. I am thus not so much an atheist as a “post-theist”. To me the debate is over, so the categorisation into the do’s and do-nots is now only an interesting study of human gullibility rather than a deep & heart-rending dilemma.
Anyway, I thought it would be good to put into words my position on the whole God-vs-Science debate, which is really rather important and most certainly cannot be ignored.
I have frequently been tempted to write about this topic, but have opted to keep my powder dry, because I was not sure which approach would actually increase the net happiness in the world (groan away, but what other approach is better?). Options included:
- Explaining how I came to be an atheist: my idiot christian school taught me about other religions, and I quickly added two-and-two and realised if they were mutually incompatible they were probably all false
- I could go on about the scientific implausibility of the whole show. The total lack of evidence, not to mention the blatant disregard for logic.
- I could explain how there is evidence human brains are designed, by evolution, to believe in concepts like God.
- I could go into the details of infectious memes, and how religion is a darn good example of a viral idea that has all the properties you would try to put into a computer virus if you made one (which I did once, for a HP48s, a once popular calculator).
- Lastly, I could come out like a raging fundamentalist pointing out how religion is the ‘root of all evil’ (to borrow a phrase) – how religion justified the great wars and the subsequent suppression of nations /women / freethinkers / witches / etc.
However, I realise that Hecht, Dawkins, Harris and several others have walked this path (rather well) for me. Perhaps I should focus my efforts on subjects not yet so well covered? Some would argue that atheists need to rally together and ride the current wave of interest and publicity – we need to gain the critical mass.
This is the real question. What would help?
I don’t know! Please help…
DPRJones was suspended (apparently, permanently) two days ago because he received the third inappropriate video-flagging in a short period of time. Anyone who has reviewed the subject videos is aware that they did not breach any YouTube guidelines and were 'false-flagged'. Many of us suspected FrankReturns was responsible for the false-flagging campaign.
And now, in a supreme act of pwnage... DPRJones' account is back and FrankReturns has been suspended... AWESOME!
Funny, I sent FrankReturns a message yesterday that simply said, "Goodbye, FrankReturns". My prediction was true! All hail ME, the new Messiah!
Then again, leave me alone, I'm busy buying lottery tickets...
Replay predates the movie Groundhog Day by a few years, and uses a similar high concept. I love that movie, as I love most sci-fi that involves time travel or other creative reorganizations of time. As in Groundhog Day, Replay involves a main character trapped in an unexplained time loop. Unlike Groundhog Day, where the scope of the loop is one day, the book has its character reliving 25 years of his life.
It opens with the death of the main character, Jeff. Trapped in a loveless and childless marriage and an unfulfilling job, Jeff experiences a heart attack at the age of 43 in 1988, keels over, and awakes to find himself trapped in the past, striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that the next leap will be the leap home. Oh, wrong story. But you get the idea.
Jeff lives his life about five times that are noteworthy. As Bill Murray did, Jeff goes through various stages in his attempt to come to grips with what's happening. He uses his knowledge of the future to become insanely rich. Then he tries to fulfill himself with a better committed relationship, which works out pretty well but is entirely erased on the next round. Then he spirals into hedonism and drug abuse, then finally meets a kindred spirit who understands what he's going through. Then they try to save the world.
Unlike Groundhog Day, a fair amount of time is devoted to speculating about the real cause of the time loop, but the effort is largely wasted because they never come to anything resembling a conclusion. In fact, the whole book didn't feel like it had much of a conclusion. Jeff wanders from one life to the next and does a whole lot of stuff, and makes some effort to throw out philosophical thoughts about the implications. But the book just ends, and nothing that happened seems all that significant. Jeff's learned something, I suppose. And there's a one-off epilogue that seems to try to make it feel more significant, but didn't much work for me.
Replay was still an enjoyable read. Ultimately it's simply about a whole bunch of stuff happening, and the stuff is interesting to read about. I don't feel like I got a greater message out of it in the end, so I'll categorize this as a good diversion. It does make you think about what you would do with multiple lives, though.
*** (out of 5)


Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription

