This is a sequel to an earlier blog entry:
https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/obama-bashers-are-bigots/
That was in reference to left-wing attackers. Many right-wingers shared the contempt for Barack Obama, but had their own agenda. Here’s an example: Continue reading
Last night, I had an unpleasant experience on this blog. I sat down to check on it, like I do every day, and found no less than NINE comments on it awaiting moderation. And when I read the comments, I found several things noteworthy about them:
Now, I don’t mind responding to one or two comments at a time. I don’t mind several people posting at my blog at the same time, for that means it is getting a lot of attention from the public. I also like answering questions from a Christian about my beliefs, or lack thereof, as an opportunity to explain myself. What enraged me was that this guy, by posting so many comments at once, came across as fixated on me to the point of cyberstalking, making me feel threatened. Plus, most of his comments came across as nonsense. He had no respect for my positions at all.
So I approved two of the comments and rejected all the others, and then disemvoweled one of those I had approved, a technique I had learned from biologist and blogger extraordinaire P Z Myers, and finally banned the pest outright from making further comments. I did this because I knew it would be futile to engage the bigot in battle, based on many previous experiences with people of his type, and did not intend to waste my energy in another endurance contest. Especially not on Halloween.
What did this guy do next? Rather than take the hint, he proceeded to locate my MySpace account and sent me a message there. I read his message, replied to him, and finally blocked him there too.
Still not understanding how deeply he had offended me, Micheal continued to send me comments, which were automatically listed as spam. At one point, he even agreed to leave me alone, but then broke his word the next morning by spamming me some more.
I have no interest in having a “dialogue” with someone who thinks he is so superior to others because of his faith that he claims a RIGHT to post comment after comment after comment on my blog, even before I have responded to any of them. I was disgusted by Michael’s antics, especially since a more productive thing to do would have been to create an entry on HIS blog about me and my positions, and invite me to see them with just ONE comment that I would have read, responded to by making one comment on his blog in return, and then both of us could have gone about our business. Instead, he tried to be a cyberbully. He denies that was his intention, but I don’t believe his denials. When you have absolute faith in something, you can justify almost anything, however despicable, to promote that faith. I’m not about to excuse such rudeness from anyone, whether Christian or atheist. Michael should have known better! He has NO IDEA what a productive dialogue is!
Conservatives give us the impression that attempts to tax the wealthy at higher rates than the poor are somehow discriminatory, that those who work harder for their wealth should, as a matter of justice, be allowed to keep most of the money they earn, while those who are impoverished are that way because of laziness or ineptitude. No doubt, that is true of some members of both social classes, but hardly all, and that is where the problem lies, the issue of false stereotyping.
Suppose you have a society in which everyone starts out at the exact same level of living standard. Over time, some will naturally do better financially than others because they are able to get a better education and manage their money better than others. So in a society like that, all members should indeed be taxed the same rate.
REAL societies, however, are NEVER like this. Most wealthy people grew up in wealthy families and recieved their money from their parents or other older relatives and thus had access to more opportunities from the very beginning, not because of their abilities but because they were lucky enough to be born in the right families. (Paris Hilton is perhaps the most notorious example.) Meanwhile, those who grew up in poverty, even if they are just as smart, beautiful, and hardworking as the average rich person, tend to remain in poverty because they have less access to the money they would need to invest, to educate themselves, and to afford the latest technologies.
The reason we hear so much about poor people making themselves rich by their own hard work is because such things are extremely unusual and rare and the corporate dominated media tends to focus on the unusual. Why? Because it provides great entertainment value AND it serves the best interests of the upper classes by convincing the members of the lower classes that they too can be rich and powerful, if only they will work harder at it. Meanwhile, those who are rich, and already run the giant corporations that dominate America’s economy, make sure they those who are poor and work for them never get enough money to challenge them later. That’s why we have such low wages for workers, and they would be even lower if not for minimum wage laws.
It’s time to put an end to that centuries old scam and just tax the hell of most rich people and be done with it. NO ONE deserves to be billionaires, period! It is the height of perversity for someone who has millions of dollars, including a mansion, to insist on a “right” to acquire MORE wealth and to not contribute to the upkeep of their governments and to society in general! Even most religions condemn that attitude, so there!
See for yourself here:
Since when it is anti-American to have political, social, religious, and cultural diversity in your friendships or associations? How is associating with people who are not actually criminals, even if they have done or said questionable things in the past, anti-American? We have had Liberal Presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, and Jimmy Carter and no one questioned their love for America!
This is the sort of innuendo and slander that supporters of Sen. John McCain have resorted to. Let’s send them a message: YOU DO NOT BELONG IN OUR GOVERNMENT ANY MORE!
http://www.censurebachmann.com/
It’s time to tell the truth about Liberals and about their Conservative opponents. Conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and now Rep. Michele Bachmann have been allowed to get away with slander, libel and hyperaggressive tactics for too long. Enough already! Liberals made America a free and independent nation, not Conservatives. Liberals fought to end slavery, not Conservatives! Liberals fought for women’s right to vote,, not Conservatives! Liberals, not Conservatives, led us Americans through two World Wars and even through much of the Cold War, before Conservatives Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. came along and just happened to reap the political benefits of presiding over the downfall of the Soviet Union. What have Conservatives done to make America great? Nothing, instead they only hold us back from being a more enlightened society, preferring one run largely by religious loons who happen to call themselves Christian!
Let George W. Bush be the last “Conservative” Republican President America ever has! I’be absolutely had enough of the hypocrisy of Conservatives and their outdated and increasingly useless dogmas. End their reign of terror, NOW!
For starters, I wish to state that in an issue like politics, extremism among some individuals is inevitable. There are two reasons for this. First, many people mistakenly apply religious impulses to politics and thus attempt to be consistent with a certain political viewpoint, even at the expense of ignoring or denying clear empirical evidence that is against it. Quite simply, it is easier (if you are intellectually lazy) to just blindly follow a dogma of some kind that happens to appeal to your ego than to dig for the truth, apply consistent logic to all issues, and thus have a perspective that is subject to change and moderation over time. Second, extremists on any issue tend to work the hardest for their chosen causes and thus tend to rise to leadership positions within political organizations as well as single-issue pressure groups, by virtue of their extensive track record of having done so much for their causes as well as appearing to be experts on the issues they represent. This explains why so many otherwise worthy causes, such as animal rights, get so absurdly corrupted by groups that claim to represent them, such as PETA or ALF, and people who might be motivated by natural compassion to support animal rights are repelled by seeing extremist groups like the aforementioned ones claiming to be the best examples of those causes’ representatives. Let me assure you, they are not and I would be quite happy to see them destroyed without thinking for one second that this would be damaging at all to the cause of animal rights. If you, by your words or actions, make a cause look loony, that’s the best way to ruin it, and you might as well just oppose the cause altogether.
Did Bush Jr really think he’d get away with demanding a $700 billion bailout to the banks of America, the same institutions that have been screwing with the American people for decades?! Well, he didn’t! The bill FAILED in Congress and now I can only hope that simular such bailouts never are allowed to be even considered.
Can someone explain to me why we should not give that $700 billion to the American people instead? I have calculated that every man, woman and child would get about $2,300. The last time we got money back from the federal government it was about $600 for every taxpayer. So this begs the obvious question, how could Bush Jr be more generous to the banks that get so much money in interest from credit card debts? How could they still be failing, then???
Let’s not forget that Bush Jr scammed us once before with his false claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Are we going to let us be scammed again, especially with Bush’s last term almost up?
Phyllis Schlafly is remembered as the one who leads the Eagle Forum and fought to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and 80s. For that, she is condemned by progressive women as being of the same character as Benedict Arnold. Indeed, Phyllis’s whole career is one of staggering hypocrisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly#Criticism
The feminist activist Gloria Steinem and the author Pia de Solenni, among others, have noted what they consider irony in Schlafly’s role as an advocate for the full-time mother and wife, while being herself a lawyer, editor of a monthly newsletter, regular speaker at anti-liberal rallies, and political activist.[30][31][32] In her review of Schlafly’s Feminist Fantasies, de Solenni writes that “Schlafly’s discussion reveals a paradox. She was able to have it all: family and career. And she did it by fighting those who said they were trying to get it all for her… Happiness resulted from being a wife and mother and working with her husband to reach their goals.”
Now her son, Andrew Schlafly, is continuing in his mother’s footsteps, and is making an absolute fool of himself as the head of an biased web encyclopedia known as Conservapedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
Here’s an example of Andrew’s foolishness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#Lenski_dialog
On June 9, 2008, New Scientist published an article describing Richard Lenski‘s 20-year E. coli experiment, which observed the bacteria evolve the ability to metabolize citrate — a rare and complex mutation.[65] Schlafly contacted Lenski to request the data. Lenski explained that the relevant data were in the paper and that Schlafly fundamentally misunderstood it. Schlafly wrote again and requested the raw data. Lenski replied again that the relevant data were already in the paper, that the “raw data” were living bacterial samples, which he would willingly share with qualified researchers at properly equipped biology labs, and that he felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia, which he saw as brusque and offensive, including claims of outright deceit.[66] The exchange, recorded on a Conservapedia page called “Lenski dialog”,[67] was widely reported on news aggregate sites and weblogs. Carl Zimmer wrote that it was readily apparent that “Schlafly had not bothered to read [Lenski’s paper] closely”,[68] and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite not having a plan to use it nor the expertise to analyze it.[69] Consequently, editors who began to ask too many questions about the issue and about specific links “not allowed in Conservapedia”, were censored and permanently blocked. [70]
Andrew founded Conservapedia because he claimed that Wikipedia was biased to the left, but in fact, being a right-wing extremist, he naturally sees anything even slightly to the left of him as unacceptable, and Conservapedia is a manifestation of his own bigotry.
If people like the Schlaflys ran America, we wouldn’t have a free country at all, but a theocratic empire in republican clothing, and where women are allowed to have careers, but only under men’s terms, not their own. They must be discredited and buried forever!
Let me be frank and blunt about this matter of the Republican Vice-Presidental nominee of 2008: She is an IDIOT and a disgrace to all responsible women in America, if not the entire world!
She has five children and her oldest daughter Bristol, only 17, is already expecting a child of her own. So in essence, Sarah Palin illustrates that women, even highly achiveing ones like her, are still expected to be breeding machines as well.
I find that absolutely disgusting!
How can anyone, knowing the vast environmental destruction humans have caused around the world, because of our growing populations, ever put their trust in anyone that herself contributes to the problem?
How can anyone think that her assumptions about birth control and abortion are in any way applicable to places that are overcrowded, just because they seem justified in lightly populated Alaska, the state Palin is governor of?
How can anyone, claiming to be Christian, be so damn materialistic as to favor the exploitation of Alaska’s mineral resources to make people richer, at the expense of the wildlife that live there? Jesus constantly denounced that attitude! So do I, despite being non-Christian.
How can anyone, having so strong sexual urges herself that she would crank out five babies, seriously think that abstinence before marriage is an option for teenagers with their own raging hormones, including her own daughters? One of them has obviously rejected that. If those values didn’t work for the Palins, why should they be applied to anyone?
Nevermind that Bristol, the pregnant daughter, is planning to marry her baby’s father. Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of teen marriages end in divorce. In any case, she is at a disadvantage in moving on with her education, and even if she does that, many teen mothers, lacking financial resources, would not be so fortunate.
Nature made our sexual urges strong for a reason, that being that REPRODUCTION, the purpose of sex, is what perpetuates all species. Unless we eliminate those urges, we will inevitably give in to them when opportunities present themselves. I think anyone who says otherwise is a LIAR.
Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church, advertising its priest and nuns as celibate and therefore “pure” and totally dedicated to the church and nothing else, is lying to us all. And so is Sarah Palin.
Her daughter Bristol is living proof that her values on sexuality are a failure. And that being the case, her values about economics and the environment, issues which are affected by human population growth, are also discredited.
We need to BURY this loon before she destroys us! IMMEDIATELY!
That is what one would think, based on this news story:
Report: Israel to build settlement in West Bank
Israel radio reports that Israel has given preliminary approval for the construction of a new Jewish settlement in the West Bank.
It would be the first new settlement established by Israel in several years.
The report says a committee has given the approval for the construction of 20 housing units in Maskiot and that Defense Minister Ehud Barak is slated to grant final approval soon.
Calls to Israeli spokespeople requesting comment were not immediately returned Thursday.
The news is certain to anger Palestinians just as the sides try to work out a final peace agreement by the end of the year.
Israel has committed not to establish new settlements in the West Bank, which the Palestinians want to include in a state.
Not only is the building of a new Israeli settlement in the West Bank a violation of the international agreements that allowed Israel to form in the first place, but the peace process can only move forward if Israel agrees to remove any Jewish settlements in Palestinian land that were established earlier.
The Zionist dream of having an independent Jewish homeland has already been fulfilled. But some extremists among the Jews don’t know when enough is enough. And they, along with all their fellow Jews, will ultimately be the losers if they are not stopped from stealing any more Arab land. The Arabs will surely strike at Israel and set back peace in the Middle East by several decades. And the United States needs to stop blindly supporting Israel and put firm conditions on any future aid it may offer any nation in that part of the world.
I wrote this during a discussion about a friend of mine:
“I try to make subtle distinctions to be as accurate as possible. I’ve noticed that when I do this, people who think in the opposite way slam me for being inconsistent. Take Israel, for example. Israel-bashers take the real examples of Israel’s dismal treatment of the Palestinians and translate that into outright labling of the Israeli state itself as criminal. When you do that, you are expressing prejudice. So even if the human rights violations by Israel ended, the Israel-bashers would still demand that the Jewish state should not exist because the act of establishing it displaced some Palestinians.
What they don’t tell you is that if Israel had never come into existence, the Jews still living in Palestine would be under ARAB rule and would be subject to whatever treatment the Arab rulers felt like doing. Given that most Arab states even today are either absolute monarchies or military dictatorships, how can efforts to establish a democracy for Jews like what was done in 1948 not be justified?
So I will slam Israel for specific acts that are excessive, but defend its right to exist and protect its citizens within lawful limits.”
And that’s the only decent way to operate. Anyone who takes a different route is a hypocrite, looking for excuses to have a second Holocaust in the Holy Land.
What else would you call it when certain people portray God as no better than Satan?
Since 1955, Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) has taken forth the precious from the vile, and is therefore as the mouth of God (Jer. 15:19). In 1991, WBC took her ministry to the streets, conducting over 34,000 peaceful demonstrations (to date) opposing the fag lifestyle of soul-damning, nation-destroying filth. In response, america bombed WBC. Now, God is america’s enemy, dashing your soldiers to pieces. 4,122 dead. 29,978 wounded. America crossed the line on June 26, 2003, when the Supreme Court (the conscience of the nation) ruled that we must respect sodomy. WBC believes her gospel message to be this world’s last hope.
http://www.godhatestheworld.com/
Click a completed country (how do I zoom?) to find out why God hates that country, and why this world is doomed. “And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” Revelation 19:15.
http://www.godhatesamerica.com/
God Hates America. This is a profound theological statement that any God-fearing person will recognize as truth. America is on a path to sure destruction, and there is no remedy available to Her anymore. She was once a great nation, like Sodom and Gomorrah, blessed with great propserity and power not before seen in the modern world. And, like Sodom and Gomorrah, she has spit in the face of God until His wrath has been brought down upon her with fierce anger. “Thus shall mine anger be accomplished, and I will cause my fury to rest upon them, and I will be comforted: and they shall know that I the LORD have spoken it in my zeal, when I have accomplished my fury in them” (Ezekiel 5:13). America is the spitting image of ancient Israel and Judah “But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy” (2 Chr 36:16).
http://www.godhatesmexico.com/
WBC Thanks God For 900,000 People Made Homeless By Flooding In Mexico
Viva La Flooding- See This Article About The Flooding Done To Evil Mexico
Sodomite Mexico is fast reverting to the vile Satanic ways of the filthy fagot Inca and Aztec empires, which were obliterated by God Almighty because of their sins: Mexico – Land of the Sodomite Damned. Ezekiel 16:3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite. Mexico is even in a worse state than Doomed america is; at least america has the prophets of God (though they be a small remnant). Mexico doesn’t have even that one lone voice crying in the wilderness. Mark 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
http://www.godhatescanada.com/
WARNING!!!
To God’s Elect: Leave Canada NOW!!!
“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Rev. 18:4
Fags have a 3 point agenda: 1) decriminalize sodomy, 2) add fags to the protected classes as victims like blacks, and 3) criminalize Gospel preaching against fags. Canada’s doom is now irreversible!
On April 28, 2004, Canada hoisted a filthy fag finger in the Face of God by passing a law making any criticism of homosexuals a crime punishable by fines and imprisonment. The churches and preachers of Canada tried massive last-minute lobbying and protests on Parliament Hill to defeat the bill — too little, too late!
For years, WBC has warned that Canada is a homo-fascist state where the filthy fag agenda has become the law of the land. WBC members have been arrested at Ottawa’s International Airport upon entering Canada to picket Parliament and burn the Canadian flag. In Albert, WBC members were ordered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not to carry “God Hates Fags” signs on pain of arrest and prosecution. When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada’s approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and “widely reviling” her Gospel message.
There is no hope for Canada. God hates Canada!
With God believers like these, who needs atheists or Satanists?
Silly Old Bear, also known as Henric Jensen, is one of my best online friends. He is Jewish, Swedish, married, a transexual, and one of the best human rights activists I’ve ever known. He was also one of the most hated people in Care2. Hated because he was a firm opponent of Israel-bashing, which he saw as anti-Semetic, and was just as eager to defending men’s rights even before angry feminists who seemed to have a grudge against all men. Continue reading
Take a look at this first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FnTXmYyUMY
I once swore that I would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton to be the next President, for two reasons:
But after hearing from so many former Hillary supporters that they still would never vote for Obama, I understand why. Voting for Obama now for them would be swallowing their pride, and that’s even more painful for some people, male or female, than giving birth. It would be unfair of me to demand of them what I wouldn’t do myself if the situation was reversed. Continue reading
Imagine the irony of learning today that Jesse Helms, retired Senator from North Carolina, died today. Today being July 4, Independence Day, which we use to celebrate our freedom. Continue reading
Natural selection describes the process by which variations in a population of organisms are edited over time to enhance the ability of the individual organisms to survive and reproduce in an environment. Even if over 90% of all mutations, being random, are harmful to the next generation, natural selection can still eliminate those and keep those others that are beneficial, thus countering the destructive effects of mutations in general.
It is the same with the scientific peer review process. Because science has made so much progress over the past few centuries, most people have the impression that scientists are unusually brilliant, nearly infallible, and totally objective in their views and methods. But in fact, that is simply not the case for most of them, at least as individuals. Scientists can be just as mistaken, corrupt, dogmatic, and failing in their efforts and assumptions as the rest of humanity. A few of them can even be downright stupid!
If that is true, how can science be trusted to produce reliable facts and theories? Because the scientists use peer review as their means to test any new ideas put on the table by one of their number. No scientist’s word need be taken at face value. In order for his idea to be accepted as anything beyond a speculation, he must show observational or experimental data, clearly defined, that supports it. Thus, it should always be possible for other scientists to duplicate the results of the first scientist making the claim. If attempts to duplicate the observations or experiments do not produce the same result, the idea is rejected.
Sometimes the peer review process goes too far in its skepticism, and a valid idea, such as continental drift, is rejected and even ridiculed by scientists even though it explains all the data collected and is contradicted by none of it. But that’s why repeated testing of that idea is required, as long as it is not outright falsified. Continental drift WAS accepted in the 1960s once an overwhelming amount of evidence was found to support it and those geologists who had been bigoted against it in the 1920s had died or retired, and a new generation had arisen that was more open-minded. Those who supported the continental drift theory were able to come up with a mechanism, plate tectonics, that explained it, and once they did opposition to it faded away rapidly.
Individual scientists may fall so deeply in love with their own ideas that they refuse to accept the peer review process when it rejects their ideas. Then they become cranks who no longer do science, but instead put out propaganda to appeal to the scientifically illiterate. This is especially true of Creationists and global warming denialists who happen to have science degrees. They even go so far as to attack the peer review process itself! But it must be noted that they can never produce anything that would produce superior results in terms of seeking objective data in the universe and explaining it.
Scientists who refuse to recognize that an idea of theirs is wrong are like a population of organisms that are too specialized in their lifestyle to adapt to any sudden change in their environment, resulting in their extinction. Fortunately, the progress of science continues even in spite of such incidents, just as life on Earth has continued despite the mass extinctions that have wiped out most species that evolved on Earth before.
As much as I despise Ben Stine for making that idiotic Expelled movie that attacks evolution as an inspiration for the Nazi Holocaust and portrays Intelligent Design promoters as martyrs, what’s even worse is when some deranged psycho slams Stine himself for attacking racism as well. I think I’ll just copy and paste the entire piece of nonsense to show what was done. I hope you have your bathroom door open, in case you feel like puking!
I’ve never seen such a blatant attempt at denial of academic freedom! Now, if the people being attacked were committing libel, this lawsuit would make sense. This is a clear example of hypocrisy!
http://www.pacificjustice.org/resources/news/focusdetails.cfm?ID=PR080512a
Considering that most of the opposition to evolution is based on religious bias, it is ironic that evolutionary concepts are most useful for explaining the history of religion. It is common knowledge, for example, that Christianity evolved from Judaism, Buddhism evolved from Hinduism, the Baha’i Faith evolved from Islam, and that Christianity has diversified into hundreds of sects including Roman Catholicism, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Thus religions themselves illustrate the concepts of common ancestry, mutation, and adaptive radiation as well as mass extinctions (many pagan religions died out as Christianity and Islam expanded, leaving behind “fossils” in the form of published records that are today dismissed as “myths”).
And now I wish to dispel one of the most common misconceptions about evolution: That because humans evolved from ape-like animals, that humans are by nature superior to their ape cousins. And that evolution is a ladder of progress in which all decendants are by nature superior to their ancestors. It is ludicrious to suggest that fish are inferior to mammals. Both fish and mammals are animals well adapted to their environments. If they were not, they’d become extinct. Most fish cannot breath air and thus cannot survive out of water, but the reverse is true of most mammals, which would die if they could not breath air. So from a fish’s point of view, a mammal must seem inferior, even the whales, which must also rely on their lungs to breath, not gills. Evolution is all about change, not progress. A fish is merely different from a mammal, period.
Likewise, Judaism is different from Christianity. There is no reason for Christians to think themselves or their faith superior to the Jewish faith, except by their own arrogance. Judaism has been in existence longer than Christianity, but it has also evolved just as Christianity has. For a Christian to convert to Judaism is not to take a “backward step”, merely to adopt a different set of teachings.
Thus, I totally reject the Baha’i concept of “Progressive Revelation” that implies that the Baha’i Faith is the supreme religion because it came after all the others, and that other religions are valid but destined to be replaced by the Baha’i Faith. Must we assume that because mammals came later than fish, they are destined to replace all fish? NO, that is nonsense! In my view all religions must be seen as equal because all of them have evolved and adapted to their environment. Until this is understood by nearly everyone, wars and discrimination based on religious bigotry will remain a serious threat.
One of my biggest concerns is the blatant inequality of wealth in many societies and how that often translates into total injustice. Those who are raised in wealthy families tend to remain wealthy. And where there is wealth, there is also power. Meanwhile, those who come from poor families tend to remain poor. Because there are a finite range of resources in any society, those who already have wealth also have access to the highest technologies sooner than others, thus enabling them to maintain and even increase their wealth still further at the expense of the impoverished. And I’m not just talking about individuals, but about nations as well. The United States is far, far richer than Afghanistan and will probably always remain so. Thus, while America is on the cutting edge of technology, the people of Afghanistan still live largely like they did a century ago, because they simply cannot afford the latest computers, cars, or private jets.In a capitalist economic system without any restraints, the rich will get richer and the poor remain poor until finally you have a few ultra rich and masses of the poor that will never have a chance to get better. And because cash flow then drops to minimal levels due to the tendency of the rich to hoard their fiances while the poor cannot even spend much money, the capitalist system collapses under its own weight.Karl Marx forsaw this. His mistake was to assume there was no way to prevent this and it was actually a good thing. Wrong! A restrained capitalism in which the government taxes the rich highly to prevent them accumulating too much wealth for themselves and does not tax the poor at all is both just and more productive in the long run. That is why I cringe whenever I heard about President Bush taking credit for his tax cuts for the wealthy helping the economy grow. Such growth will not last forever, of course. I’d rather have economic JUSTICE and STABILITY rather than merely GROWTH.
When I look at Communism, I see a system that had entirely good intentions in the beginning but also had flaws that became more and more obvious as it was put into practice. It is ironic to me that the proposed solution to the abuses of capitalism, resulting as they did from the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few, was to take that wealth and power and transfer it all to the GOVERNMENT! That’s a bit like treating a burn by putting the burn victim into boiling water. So the whole point of Communism was a farce from the start, but those who followed it acted like religious fanatics, never allowing its contradictions to really impact their minds until it was too late. Yet they claimed to be atheists? What HYPOCRITES!!!
Communism failed because it had the same results as extreme capitalism, concentrating power in the hands of a few elitists. If the cure is as bad as the disease, why bother?
A skeptic is defined as someone who reserves judgement on an issue until enough evidence is found to support a claim beyond a reasonable doubt and also clearly defines what would make him disbelieve a claim. This is scientific thinking.
By contrast, a denialist has no such defined limits, either of belief or disbelief. The denialist starts from a position of dogma, asserting opposition to an idea by presenting a contrary idea as absolute truth and interpreting all evidence according to that unalterable dogma, rather than draw conclusions based only on the evidence. This is the opposite of scientific thinking, although denialists often use scientific terminology to make their positions seem legitimate to fool the ignorant.
Denialism vs geuine skepticism is found in debates over evolution vs. Creationism, global warming, religion, and politics. If there were no denialists, most of those debates would have either ended long ago, or would be a lot more cordial than they tend to be.
Racism has always disturbed me, but I have discovered a blog that seems to take special delight in the suffering of white people, especially at the hands of black people.
http://ghettobraggingrights.wordpress.com/
This message celebrates the robbing and murder of a white girl by black men: http://ghettobraggingrights.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/families-savage-slave-history-avenged-in-pursejacking-slaying-of-privileged-daughter-by-slave-ancestor/
This message says that white girls are fit to be raped and murdered by black men: http://ghettobraggingrights.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/special-feature-its-the-new-in-thing-white-girls-the-black-death-by-sexual-torture-death-wish-was-channon-christian-emily-haddock-asking-for-it/
This message blames Jews for Micheal Jackson losing Neverland: http://ghettobraggingrights.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/michael-jackson-lashes-out-jews-stole-neverland/
This message pokes fun at white people’s skin: http://ghettobraggingrights.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/white-peoples-skin-looking-worse-worse/
This message attacks communication expert Dr Lillian Glass, calling her racist for no reason: http://ghettobraggingrights.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/dr-lillian-glass-thinks-all-blacks-look-alike-worse/
And I thought the Ku Klux Klan was hateful! This blog actually makes the Klan look respectable! And maybe that’s the actual point.
No one deserves “ghetto bragging rights”, whatever that means. The very idea is ridiculous. As human beings, we need to do all we can to lift each other up, not tear each other down. Indeed, I seriously doubt that blog was made by a person of African descent. It looks instead like the sort of thing a white racist would make to depict black people in the worst possible light. How sad.
The crazy thing about debating with Creationist hypocrites is that they have ZERO facts that actually support their case, but plenty of rhetorical tricks. I was reminded of that by a “Sirius Knott” who plastered some lame comments on one of my blogs. Here’s the confrontation between him (SK) and me (DH), for those who care to follow it:
I just found a blog that is so outlandish in its statements that I question the blogger’s mental state.
In the Care2 group titled Hot Debates and Shocking News, which is one of the oldest and most respected groups in Care2, a member named Simon W posted a link to a story about supermodel Naomi Campbell visiting Venezuela, ruled by Hugo Chavez, to check out the reforms he has made under his socialist government. While I find some of Chavez’s actions towards his political opponents highly questionable, I found it commendable that someone in America, rather than just take her government’s propaganda at face value, would actually go to Venezuela to check out the facts for herself. But this did not seem to impress one bigoted observer.
Tony S: i didn’t respect her much before … i certainly respect her less now … reminds me of the old billy martin line … ” one’s a born liar, the other convicted”
Later, he said: well i’m sure simon put this post up because he is a fan of chavez … but to me chavez is an enemy to the u.s. and a tyrant in his own country. campbell’s visit to me and other celebs who have gone there, just make me sick. well pretty much most of hollywood makes me sick. but to me it reminds me of hanoi jane cuddling up with the enemy .. maybe not that bad, but close. any visit gives him propaganda and a look of validation. and like i said … chavez is a born liar, campbell convicted… if these are hero’s to anyone that’s pretty sad.
So I answered him with one of my deadly “brief and to the point” replies.
Dale Husband: And you think Bush Jr is any better than Chavez, Tony S? If so, you are no less naive than Naomi Campbell.
I got into a debate over religion in a Care2 group that is specialized for such things. Based on some of my writings here, its easy for one to conclude that I despise all Christians and regard them as idiots. But in fact I never paint any group of people with the same brush. What’s my REAL problem with some religious people?
I am always sickened by those who claim that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is God’s Word and that it has no errors and does not contradict itself. Well, maybe if you exclude one of these two verses from it, that may be somewhat true. Otherwise, the Christian fundamentalists should SHUT UP!
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. – Deuteronomy 24:16
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. – Romans 5:8
Conclusion: PAUL WAS A TRAITOR TO THE TORAH! And NO Christian can claim to be a true spiritual descendant of the ancient Hebrews!
And it gets even worse! See this:
This was taken from an anti-Creationist website:
http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/AtheistMorality.xhtml
One of the most popular creationist attacks upon evolution theory (and science in general) is the moral attack. As the argument goes, science, evolution theory, and atheists are immoral, so they must all be wrong. This is a bizarre and logically indefensible argument; there are a lot of things about nature which are brutal and which may strike us as immoral, but that doesn’t change the fact that they exist!
Even if we were to accept the nonsensical argument that a scientific theory can be judged by the morality of its proponents, would the “moral argument” hold water? In order to for it to hold water, one would have to first show that atheists are immoral, and not only have creationists never produced a shred of evidence, but they’ve never even tried. As far as they’re concerned, it’s an unquestionable truth and no evidence is required.
In “1984”, George Orwell’s totalitarian state altered the language and created “NewSpeak” because its leaders understood that if you can control the language, you can control the way people think. Did Orwell invent that idea? Hardly. Any student of the English language can see that this is precisely how religionists have been subtly influencing people’s thinking for centuries. The growth of the English language has taken place under the care of evangelical Christians, and it should come as no surprise that it was deliberately designed to glorify religion and vilify rationalism. The word “materialism” refers to the idea that the material universe is all that exists (ie- the atheist viewpoint), but it is also synonymous with greed and selfishness. The word “faith” describes religion, but the word “faithful” describes trustworthiness and loyalty. In other words, the English language itself subtly reinforces the idea that religion is virtuous and atheism is immoral!
The English word “atheism” has a literal meaning, which is simply non-theism. Therefore, it is defined in most dictionaries as the absence of theism, or the refusal to believe in a God or gods. However, the Third Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (copyright 1992,1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company) still retains an older definition which happens to be quite convenient for the fundamentalist hate-mongers:
Atheism
Noun.
Did you notice the third definition? According to the American Heritage Dictionary as of 1996, atheism is immorality! What is it about America that breeds Christian fundamentalism? Why should it surprise no one that the “American Heritage” dictionary still shows the ancient 18th century definition of atheism as “immorality”? Whatever the reasons, America is a land of overt hostility towards atheism, and the continued use of the above definition is only a minor symptom. Perhaps the Minnesota Atheists put it best:
“Religionists regularly slander atheists as immoral and it goes far beyond a difference of opinion. Because of our supposed immorality, for which no evidence is ever given, we are barred from admission to organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the VFW and the American Legion. We are insulted publicly by clergy of all faiths, who seem to consider us unworthy to be citizens of the United States. A climate of opinion is created in which the chances of a known atheist being elected to office, no matter how ethical and well qualified, are slim to none.”
They aren’t exaggerating. In the 2000 federal election, both prospective leaders loudly and repeatedly bragged about their piety, in an obvious attempt to court the religious bigot vote. Newsweek magazine commented that it doesn’t matter which religion a candidate belongs to, as long as he is religious. The notion that “religious piety = moral fortitude” is deeply ingrained into the public consciousness, and no one ever stops to consider how hateful its consequences are: if piety is morality, then a lack of piety (ie- atheism) must be immorality! And with that, millions of Americans are instantly slandered as immoral, perverse degenerates who are unfit to hold public office. In fact, the state of Texas is one of several states which has even enshrined this bigoted policy into law: its state constitution bars anyone from public office if he does not acknowledge the “existence of a Supreme Being”.
Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever for religionists’ bizarre assumption that atheists are immoral, and while it would be considered hateful to make similar attacks upon Jews or Muslims, no one raises an eyebrow at this continued, public mistreatment of atheists. These pages were written with the goal of explaining, in some detail, the following points:
Personal note by Dale Husband: My own experiences tend to support this. Athiests, as well as Christians, can be either enlightened or bigoted, and religious affiliation, or the lack thereof, seems to have nothing to do with one’s moral character.
A few days ago, another member of Care2 introduced himself to me as “an anti-Zionist Jew” and he stated that Israel “has been a brutal, vicious, occupying, racist bully since day one.”
Since Jews are not a race (the idea that they are a race cames from anti-Semites, not the Jews themselves), the idea that Israel is in any way a racist state is moot. It does have policies favoring Jews over non-Jews, but likewise most Arab states have policies favoring Muslims over non-Muslims. Yet Israel-bashers never discuss that fact.
I looked at his profile and saw that his religion was listed as “Athiest”.
http://www.care2.com/c2c/people/profile.html?pid=101600802
I would suggest that this person’s hostility to God-centered religions is a bigger factor in his dim view of Israel than anything that Israel might have done in fighting against its Arab enemies. But what do I know? I’m just an agnostic who is wary of all expressions of anti-Semitism.
If the state of Israel had not been founded, the Jews living in the Holy Land would have remained a minority in an Arab dominated state ruling their own ancestral homeland, just as they had been for centuries in the past. Somehow, that makes no sense to me.
If Israel is so evil, and the Palestinians are merely its innocent victims:
I find it strange that Israel bashers never want to address these issues.
Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants 