I'm sure it is no surprise I like to think, so I read this article and it made me think a bit. I believe that to many people, creationism and evolution are pitted against each other in an epic battle for which is absolutely right. I of course am not in the business of telling religious people what to believe, but I think that this antagonism is based on an oversimplification. Both sides are wrong. People believing in creationism think that if evolution is at all right then what they belive is all wrong, so they must fight it, and vice versa. No one should be so bold as to believe that they have a full understanding of how everything in history happened and how everythign works, whether it be a christian reading the bible or a scientist uncovering fossils. No matter what, a christian understands the world from the reading and interpretation of a book written by man, and a scientist understands the world from the examination and interpretation of evidence found based on previous evidence found. Neither one is absolutely correct. I tend to side with science because in the past, scientists have been willing to say, "Yea, we fucked up and had that backwards, let's move on." while some christians in the past have said "Fossil shows world created 4 billion years ago? You faked it or god must have planted it, either way shenanigans." There is no evolution vs. creationism debate, when it's presented it's always presented as "which of these is right and which is wrong," but the real debate is always "who is humble enough to admit they don't know everything." A creationist should be able to say, "Yea, that's compelling evidence, I can't say that's wrong but I still believe in god and creation of the universe so somehow the two must mesh," and a scientist should be able to say "Well, here's all this evidence, but there's no proof god doesn't exist, so I can't be so bold as to say those guys are totally full of shit, since you see none of us were there at the beginning of time to see how it really happened." Am I a hypocrite for being an atheist and saying scientists should tolerate religion? Maybe, even probably, though I think I'm pretty good about letting religious people be and not telling them to believe what I believe.

  Democracy has now failed. The problem with democracy in this country is that we have been too stubborn to adapt to technology. Allow me to explain. To me, Democracy (and in our case, democratic republic) means that the will of the people should influence the direction and policy of the nation. In the past, when the country was founded, the best way to gague public opinion was the vote, since for someone in Florida to have their opinion heard in Washington took 2 weeks on horseback. We got comfortable with this system, and through districting we learned how to manipulate it. Since not everyone could make laws, the republic system made the most sense, your area chooses someone to represent you and trust they'll act in accordance with your will. Now though, the world has changed and so has Democracy. Communication technology allows the will of the people within or outside the limits of districts to be known. Representatives are not chosen based on what they plan to do or how they will represent their people, but on how good of an image they can put on. They say what they need to say to get elected, then they do what they want and stop listening to their constituents. The election process itself has become a game, we refer to it as win or lose instead of selection. The ideal election should not be choosing who is "better" but instead which of the equal options is right at the time. The "loser" of an election simply was not selected, just like the chicken nuggets when you order a Big Mac.
  The party system shows how messed up the system is. The only way to get elected is to have the support of a party, and the party only supports one candidate. What happens if right now the two best candidates for the office are Hillary and Obama? What if more Republicans like Obama but more Democrats like Hillary, so it goes to Hillary and a Republican and the Republican wins? It's a stupid system. The Primaries are basically an election to the head of a mass marketing firm. And it pitts people against each other; I think Mike Gravel is awesome since he's so out of the box, but then he has to go out and bash his co-runners (like Obama, "Who would you bomb Barack?") rather than work together to come up with better policies. Man, I'd love to see Obama/Gravel '08.
  I'd like to see someone who is willing to implement a system to gague public opinion outside of the election. I'd like to see a president (or at least candidate) who is willing to say "I personally think more money should go to defense, but I have listened to the people as best I can and it seems people want money in health care and education, so I will work to make it so." Who knows how that is done, using the polls that exist through the private media companies, by making new polls as best as they can, by working to actually personally read and respond to mail (ok, I know that's not realistic), who knows. Clearly, ABC's polls and their treatment of Ron Paul and Mike Gravel prove private media polls are worthless. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that choosing a president is abotu the same as choosing an American Idol, once they're chosen we don't really pay attention to what they do since you know they have a bunch of projects planned, but no matter what they have to sing pop songs to get to that #1 spot.

  Now that things have cooled off a bit, I'd like to make a commentary about the Virginia Tech tragedy. I don't mourn, since I see death as such a common part of life. In fact, I think it's kind of odd when we spend tons of time mourning over certain deaths when others we simply brush off for whatever reason. Now, this presents two extremes, and I'd like to clearly delineate which of these I am on: rather than saying no one should mourne for anyone, I cannot justify mourning for one group when I didn't mourn for the others, such as the innocent people who on the same day were killed by drunk drivers or the soldiers who were killed in Iraq while there well past their campaign's end date.
  But, given that the world came together for the Virginia Tech tragedy and it has become something we can all relate to, I'd like to point out something which I found despicable. Repeatedly, people used this tragedy to justify personal agendas whether or not they were relevant. Several examples stood out to me.

  Jack Thompson Attacks Video Games I feel this one is excellent since he's already made such an ass of himself, he was so quick to blame video games for violent behavior before learning any facts, facts that proved that the killer owned NO GAMES. A tragedy happens, everyone reacts and asks what the government is going to do in response, and of course the one person advocating a plan of action since the beginning of time immediately says "see, my plan of action is and always was the solution!" Sickening.

  Atheism Is Weak In The Face of Tragedy Ok. First of all, if you didn't notice, PETA, WOW, MADD, Scientology, and a barage of other groups also weren't yapping their mouths, though you don't have a problem with that. As atheists aren't really a group, but instead individuals claiming to not be part of a group (with a few stand out individuals) I don't know who this writer expects to be hearing from. I can think of several reasons Atheists didn't make a scene: 1) Atheists are the least trusted individuals in America and know it, if you were just in a tragedy and someone you didn't trust came up to you and started saying things, I bet you'd be pissed. 2) Atheists have nothing to gain by making a public statement, the best I could see is individuals giving individual condolences to others, no big public statement. 3) In his article, he talks about how it's difficult to bring god into tragedy, but it's apparantly even harder to bring a lack of god into this tragedy. Though he seems to elect Dawkins as the leader of the atheists, I propose a different reason atheists don't respond - we understand that some people just suck and that some things that happen are bad, we don't need to shove it in anyone's face, it sucks and we're sad too but either you're an atheist and are taking condolences in individuals around you or are religious and are taking solace in your faith, neither of which has room for atheists. Just because we understand we're not invited to the party doesn't mean you should call us a loser for not showing up, especially since we know you're gonna throw drinks at us if we do.

  Satan May Be Here! I don't feel like analyzing this, it's just funny that apparantly it's elements of the Devil that caused it.

  I watched the coverage of the incident, and I noticed that on the first day, everyone blamed everyone for everything. Very few facts, tons of conjecture. The second day, everyone pointed fingers at each other's coverage. Finally, on the third day, facts became clear and the videos were released, another media frenzy day. On the fourth day, people used the facts to either confirm their immediate assumptions, or use the lack of facts to somehow prove they were right despite the lack of proof. Jon Stewart criticized Bill O'Rielly's coverage, who criticized Howard Stern's coverage, who criticized Dr. Phil's coverage, who criticized Jon Stewart's coverage! My head is spinning! People, in the days after this tragedy, I heard lots of potential leaps into action, one that notably frightened me: the suggestion of retracting laws allowing resident aliens to own guns. First of all, an in place law in VA prevents individuals who have been involuntarily committed from owning firearms, proving how effective the gun control laws were in helping this case. (BTW, just to be clear, I'm against gun ownership personally, I wish no one had them, but I have to respect people's rights to own them, I think they're harmful but then again so are sodas and glue and cars, I don't like the government telling citizens how to live) Second, the Columbine kids were white male citizens, clearly demographics are not reasons to change laws. There's a good sumamry article for all this here.

  I have been accused of making premature opinions and never changing my views, but conservative presidential candidate Ron Paul made an awesome observation on the reactions to this tragedy. I don't agree with his "more guns less crime" attitude, but I think he's spot on in being cautious of removing citizen's freedoms as a response to one incident. And he says it in a terriffic way, I'm not gonna vote for him but you should listen to him. Benjamin Franklin, who I consider to be one of the greatest Americans in history, profoundly said "Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither." The reactionary attitude of people enable the government to take away freedoms, not protect them.
I've said it before, is our being in Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan really stopping us from losing freedoms? Or is it a futile effort to prepare for every contingency when in fact it has resulted in a dramatic step towards a fascist system?

  I understand why people are reacting the way they are to this tragedy; if we can find a single cause, then we can create a prescriptive solution to the cause and prevent this from happening again. But let's be honest, there is no single cause, this kid probably got picked on in school and internalized, was probably pushed to succeed by his parents but when in the real world didn't succeed and became depressed, he probably got ideas for violent imagery from not just video games and movies and song lyrics but also tv (news, this kid grew up during Desert Storm and Kosovo) and newspapers and everything, he probably had early exposure to weapons not just through media but possibly through his parents and just the public (ever see a big neon sign for "gun show?"). Point is, there's no cause, there's a million factors that build the individual and we can either take ALL of them away or none of them away, and I certainly don't think it's worth it to take all of those away for a little security. Statistically, something like that is going to happen every once in a while and it's very sad, but remember, if it never made it to the news then there wouldn't be any glorification or copy cats. He said it himself, he sent those videos to NBC so his message could be heard, and he was damn successful and anyone else who wants to be heard now knows that is a viable method to be heard. I truly believe incidents like that should not make the news because it prevents copy cats, takes real violent images off the television, and because it doesn't allow people to have peace on their own. At the very least, there should be a delay. Additionally, it's irresponsible to promote these stories just to promote a personal agenda. I don't believe this should be a law, I simply think a responsible media would adopt some sense of self-restraint instead of the frenzy attitude that presently exists. It is the fine line between news and tabloid, one that is increasingly disappearing.

  Today is ash wednesday, meaning it is the beginning of lent, and I am upset. In the last week, I've heard tons of people debating what to give up for lent. I don't want this to call anyone out, but I can't tell this story without examples. "I could give up alcohol. . .on second thought, nevermind, that's not fun." "I'm giving up Pepsi by limiting myself to one can a day." "I'm giving up meat. . .but I hear you're allowed to cheat on Sunday." "I can't give up smoking since that's an addiction, maybe I can give up something like shopping." I call bullshit on all of you. Normally, I don't like to meddle in religious affairs, but this one is so blaring I can't leave it be.
  Originally, the forty day period is symbolic of the forty days spent by both Moses and Elijah in the wilderness. Later, Jesus is said to have retreated into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Jesus fasted for forty days and forty nights. Afterwards he was hungry and the devil tempted him. Jesus overcame all of the devilish temptation of the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life by citing holy Scripture to the devil. The Devil left him. Holy Angels ministered to Jesus, and he was able to begin his work as a minister spreading the word of god, the result of a living form of rebirth. As a result, individuals celebrate the 40 days and nights before Easter by giving up something dear to them. The intended effect of this deprivation is the sensation of success against temptation; once one can be immune to temptation, their faith may be renewed and they can re-emerge into the world. I may be an atheist, but not believing in god means nothing about not understanding doctrine.
  So here's my problem. So many people are willing to take this religious task so lightly as to skirt the responsibility of full deprivation. Comparatively, if you believe that Jesus literally walked in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights, giving up alcohol or meat shouldn't be such a strain. The truth is, faith isn't about specific doctrine today, it's about integrating doctrine in such a way to operate in a functional way with ones life. I understand this, and I also understand deprivation. In 2003, as a test of self discipline and possibly on a mission for some sort of existential lesson that was never fully realized, I gave up chocolate, soda and caffiene, cold turkey and from January 1 to January 1. All 3 of those things weren't trivial things I gave up because I had to, they were things integral to my life and completely inconvenient, both since I was physically addicted to caffeine and because they're part of our culture. Nevertheless, I succeeded for the year and have resumed my addictions. If I can do that for a year with no god over my head, why can't someone under the observation and absolute authority of god go all the way for a mere month and a half?
  More importantly, why is it that when it comes to personal sacrafice we can change doctrine and tradition as theyr'e convenient, yet when it comes to gay marriage people can stick so firmly to doctrine that they promote fear, hate and legislative intolerance?

EDIT: Once again always convict the atheist. This post is NOT anti lent. Not is it anti christian. It is anti intolerance. Ask people, I've encouraged them to give up something hard, and if they did, I'd help them however I could. I don't want to take your christianity away from you, and I support everyone's right to choose their lifestyle, christian or gay. Nevertheless, convenience is a poor excuse for choosing when to spread intolerance through doctrine.

  I'd like to address a question that has been pit in my face a lot recently: Am I crazy? Well, that depends on your definition of crazy. All of a sudden all these concerns have been voiced that me referring to myself as crazy on my website will prevent me from ever getting a good job or winning a lawsuit. Allow me to clarify; I have nothing to hide, and if this website is one day the cause of my demise then I at least want my self description to be accurate. If crazy means singing imaginary songs to myself while standing naked in Wendy's, I'm not crazy. If crazy means I hear voices in my head telling me to collect every blue pen I see, I'm not crazy. If crazy means I constantly as you if there's a blue elephant on my shoulder, I'm not crazy. If crazy means I invest lots of time and passion into non-traditional interests for no objective gain, then I'm crazy. If crazy means I have an understanding of the world dramatically different from that of the people around me, then I'm crazy. If crazy means I battle severe depression and anxiety attacks, then yes I'm crazy, though I recognized my problems and took steps to alleviate stressors and acquire coping skills, and I personally think you'd be crazy not to do that. If crazy means I take small issues and turn them into personal affronts to my abilities and then commit myself to early failure, I am distinctly crazy. If crazy means I live a hectic life that I am somewhat stuck in due to my circumstances but recognize I just need to struggle through until I'm finished, then I'm crazy. Most importantly, if crazy means ridiculous coincidences and situations seem to happen at a much higher frequency to me than to other people, then I'm crazy. I call myself crazy, but not in a ::they're coming to take me away he he:: kind of way, in a ::everyone's a little crazy, I just have a double side helping of weird:: kind of way. And if telling my problems to the world turns me into a monster to an employer or litigator, then it probably wasn't a place I would have wanted to work at anyway and even more faith in the legal system will have been lost. This last year and a half sucked, everything I held as consistent got flipped on its head, the tolls on my health, money and relationships are irreconcilable, and I developed a fairly negative attitude about the events of my life in Tallahassee. I'll get over it one day, probably quickly after I leave this place. But when I describe myself as crazy, it's because using one word to describe my hectic state is much easier than telling the whole story every time.
  I was thinking about death and how sad we get when an old person dies, or when a stack of people die from a disease. Yea, it's sad when it happens to you, but really one person should die for each person born otherwise we'll overpopulate. I never really got sad with death, and I get uncomfortable with other people who are sad with death because I have trouble empathizing. Of course I don't wish it on anyone, but things like miscarriages, accidents, diseases and old age are simply mechanisms that keep us from outgrowing our food; it's almost irresponsible to be happy at the birth of a baby and sad at the death of a geriatric, you're asking for 1+1=2 instead of 1-1=0. Now, of course, there's the issue of involvement; people usually don't have a problem with other people's family members dying (maybe a passing "oh, that's sad" will suffice) but we have much emotion about our own. While this is a completely natural subjectivity, ask yourself if you can suspend it for a minute, either grieving for everyone who dies everywhere, or just not mourning.
  While on the topic of death, I read a news story about extremists (I know that makes it not applicable to regular life, but it serves as an example) in religion. Some 50 year old guy killed his roommate by shooting him so full of bullets his head was literally disconnected because the roommate was an atheist. The shooter repeatedly said he was an eagle scout and a Christian, and was not repentant about his act and acknowledged he would probably spend the rest of his life in jail. But the problem is his logic; he is fine going to jail because what is the cost of 25 years of inconvenience when doing the lord's work has earned him a lifetime in heaven. He reportedly actually saw the devil in the man's eyes right before he shot him, saying the roommate was Lucifer himself. In the trial, the family of the deceased was repeatedly accosted by the family of the accused, to the point the court had to provide security detail for their protection. This is a huge fear I have of Christianity; I have no problem coexisting, but at any point someone could in their head reach the conclusion that the consequences for me and them on earth are meaningless in the scope of heaven and hell. I don't believe anyone I know would commit such an act, I used to know people who told me I was a bad person for reading Harry Potter but I don't talk to them much anymore, but it still scares me. I just want to be on Earth doing my thing, since I believe there's nothing after life I have to make the most of my time, but the threat of people literally intervening in my life because their belief in an absolute truth with absolute consequences alleviates them the burden of restraint constantly frightens me. Especially now that the connection between church and state has never been stronger. I know I tend to be an extremist myself, but I kind of have to be, since atheism is an extreme viewpoint. I think about this when I talk about becoming a boat captain or interplanetary colonist; isolation or cohabitation with like minded and belief-holding people would make me feel so much safer. America scares me because what was once ideas and concepts are now historical artifacts in a vault somewhere deep in the castle on the hill we have become. Escape from religious persecution has become defense of state sponsored religion, justified by historical context. Having a dream of all men created equal has become all men created equal, so long as they meet an approved ethnicity (Black, White or Asian) and conform to affluent standards. I keep getting on these soapboxes, maybe I should get into politics. I think the government's role in the people's lives is not to protect them from every little thing that can hurt them, but instead to provide services that work to best maintain order and to adjudicate conflicts of freedom between one party or another. We should have no place in foreign affairs unless the people, not the government, ask for our aid. And national security should really consider the security of the nation, not act as a roaming crosshair justified under a pleasant sounding title and opportunistic pouncing on public fear.
  So, here I am, trying to get my life together, I plan on doing the best I can to keep my head up in these last few months, I've so far gotten past having my luggage lost for a few days and returned soaked and having my starter die and need a 300 buck replacement, and though I had small episodes I'm making it through. I'm working on sleeping better, I've been eating better, exercising more and Jenn and I are doing better. So, off I go.