June 14, 2006

This blog's days are numbered

Because I've moved!! Visit my new digs here: My new blog

It's still very light on content - I'm still moving in. And, I'm not totally back. Just tinkering around until something inspires me again.

June 06, 2006

Burnout

Taking a break for a while. While I still love all you delicious immoral godless heathens out there, there's comes a point where "overwhelmed" becomes an overused word.

Need to take a break.

It's spring. The flowers are blooming, the sun is out. My bf looks hot shirtless and in shorts.

Life's too short.

Going out to enjoy it.

See ya in your comment sections. ;)

June 05, 2006

When There Is NO Plan B

via Political Animal

"WHEN THERE IS NO PLAN B....The Washington Post ran a provocative item today from a 42-year-old happily-married mother of two, identified only as "Dana L.," who became pregnant unexpectedly. She had tried to prevent the pregnancy by taking Plan B emergency contraception, but her doctor refused to write her a prescription.

Ultimately, Dana had an abortion she didn't want. With some justification, she's blaming the "conservative politics of the Bush administration."

My anger propelled me to get to the bottom of the story. It turns out that in December 2003, an FDA advisory committee, whose suggestions the agency usually follows, recommended that the drug be made available over the counter, or without a prescription. Nonetheless, in May 2004, the FDA top brass overruled the advisory panel and gave the thumbs-down to over-the-counter sales of Plan B, requesting more data on how girls younger than 16 could use it safely without a doctor's supervision.

Apparently, one of the concerns is that ready availability of Plan B could lead teenage girls to have premarital sex. Yet this concern -- valid or not -- wound up penalizing an over-the-hill married woman for having sex with her husband. Talk about the law of unintended consequences.


According to Political Animal - it's worse than that.

"About two years ago, an FDA advisory panel voted 23 to 4 to approve over-the-counter access to Plan B emergency contraception. One FDA panel member called it the "safest drug that we have seen brought before us." The scientific evidence was overwhelming that access to Plan B would curtail abortion and unwanted pregnancies. This was a no-brainer -- right up until the administration blocked the medication anyway, under pressure from its far-right base.

Ever since, the Bush gang has struggled to come up with a coherent explanation for the decision. Initially, then-Commissioner Lester Crawford cited FDA concerns about selling the drug to younger teens as a reason to keep Plan B off shelves. Then we learned Crawford was lying and the FDA had no such concerns.

A month later, the FDA released an internal memo showing that one high-ranking FDA official was sincerely worried about adolescents forming "sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B." Seriously. (mod: oy. veh.)

The evidence, which may not be relevant to the Bush administration, shows no link between access to Plan B and risky sexual behavior, worse yet "sex-based cults." How Bush-appointed "scientists" come up with such nonsense is a mystery.

If the administration said, "We're morally opposed to emergency contraception," we could at least have a reasonable debate. If the administration said, "We could go for this, but the Dobson crowd would kill us," we would at least be facing political realities.

Instead, the Bush gang insists on a bizarre approach, in which they claim to base decisions like these on science, but ignore their own experts, hide embarrassing facts, and then lie about it. In the case of Plan B, the result is more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.

For reasons that are unclear, the GOP's religious right base seems to think this is a great idea. Maybe more of them should have a chat with "Dana L."

(end)

Oh . . . Canada . . .

Toronto terror plot foiled -- Canada
A taste:
TORONTO, Ontario (CNN) -- Canadian police said on Saturday they had halted a "real and serious" terror threat in and around Toronto.

Twelve men and five youths said to have been inspired by al Qaeda were arrested in the operation involving hundreds of officers, authorities said.

The group was "planning to commit a series of terrorist attacks against solely Canadian targets in southern Ontario," Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell said at a news conference.

"This group took steps to acquire three tons of ammonium nitrate and other components necessary to create explosive devices," he said.

"To put this in context, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people took one ton of ammonium nitrate."

The detained suspects are all males, Canadian residents "from a variety of backgrounds" and followers of a "violent ideology inspired by al Qaeda," said Luc Portelance, assistant director of operations for Canadian Security Intelligence Service. (Full list of adult suspects)

The adults ranged in age from 19 to 43, and all lived in Ontario, according to Canadian police. No information was released on the youths.

The charges they face include participating in terrorist group activity such as training and recruitment; the provision of property for terrorist purposes; and the "commission of indictable offenses, including firearms and explosives in association with a terrorist group."

The targets were all in Toronto, CNN's Jeanne Meserve reported at least one source as telling her. Authorities did not release information on targets except to say they did not include the Toronto Transit Commission.

"This group posed a real and serious threat," McDonell said. "It had the capacity and intent to carry out these attacks."


So, these men are all Canadians brought up in the west. They aren't poor. They aren't uneducated. They aren't oppressed. Exactly what could have prompted them to formulate a plan to blow up innocent fellow Canadians? Exactly where did they learn to hate those in a country that bends over backwards to avoid slighting anyone - a country they were born in? Exactly what makes Canada - of all places in the world - a enemy candidate for terrorist attacks?

HMMMMMMMMMMM.

But, to be fair, there are those speaking out against it. "Any threat to Canada poses a threat to Muslims in Canada as well," he said. "Thus, we are relieved that the alleged plans to attack targets in Canada were thwarted."

Southern Ontario is a second home to me. It is extremely close to my actual home. If these moron wanna-be terrorists want to make it personal, they're doing a good job.

Oh an btw - NYC and Dc weren't the only cities possibly getting their funds to fight terrorism cut Buffalo may lose 50% of it's budget. Southern Ontario is a 5 minute bridge ride away from Buffalo. Feeling safe?

May 30, 2006

Lookie what the boys at GiFS found for me

Linkie

And last, but most definitely not least, Ron discovered that our own Lya Kahlo was quoted by none other than the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review for her post O’Reilly: “This is the U-Whited Whites of White-merica”:

It is Bill O’Reilly’s recent immigration-related press criticism that has Lya Kahlo at God Is For Suckers up in arms. O’Reilly’s offending words (uttered May 16th in the “Memo” portion of his Fox News show, “The O’Reilly Factor”):

[The New York Times] and many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed. According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will. This can only happen if demographics change in America. An open-border policy and the legalization of millions of Hispanic illegal aliens would deeply affect the political landscape in America. That’s what the New York Times and many others on the left want. They might get it. And that’s the “Memo.”

Here is Kahlo’s reaction (well, the politer part of it): “… I can’t even pretend to be surprised that O’Reilly would say these things. It’s been a few days since his name was in the papers. And, since it looks like his political masters are going to lose big time in the next round of elections, he’s got to start lying early if he hopes to help dupe the stupid into voting for them again.”



It irks me a bit that they only quoted that paragraph because that wasn’t really the point of the post. I was trying to point out that the current climate of intolerance and hate-mongering that the Bush Admin and it’s worshippers have given us is making it ok to be a public bigot. I have no desire to make windows into men’s souls; I’m not trying to say that people can’t be bigots if they want. It matter little to me if someone is that intellectually lazy. But it is not “okay” to make this part of public discourse. I am not trying to advocate censorship moreso than we already have in this country. If this country is supposed to be by and of it’s people, than all must have their say. But not if it is designed solely to slander, lie about or defame a group you disagree with.

Those like O’Reilly, Coulter, and that pill-poppin’ hypocrite Limbaugh, et al, do little else. They offer nothing of substance, no truth, no humanity and no sense. Which I guess is why why appeal to Bush supporters. He doesn’t either.

But I do get a kick out of the "(well, the politer part of it)" bit. Yep, I'm just as bad as the rest of them. But I have the benefit of not having anyone pay attention to me. ;)

May 25, 2006

An Open Memo to Bill Frist

From Huff Po

A taste:


"I basically say, Mr. Vice President, right now marriage is under attack in this country," Mr. Frist said. "And we've seen activist judges overturning state by state law, where state legislatures have passed laws defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that's being overturned by a handful of activist judges around the country.

And that is why we need an amendment to come to the floor of the United States Senate to define marriage as that union between one man and one woman."

-- Insight On the News, 5/23/06


Memo
TO: Bill Frist
FROM: Ellis Weiner
Re: Marriage

You're right, of course. Marriage is under attack. But what isn't? There's a War on Christmas. There's a War on Easter, or at least the enemy has made threatening gestures toward Easter eggs. There are invasions, incursions, and insurgent uprisings against Tu B'Shvat, Penguin Awareness Day, National Podiatry Week, National Hot Breakfast Month, and Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole Day (March 26; Hawaii). Everything good and decent in this country is under constant, unrelenting, murderous attack, all the time. You can't go to a TGIF beer blast without stopping shrapnel and taking casualties.

So I'm all for your plan to want to define marriage as being "between one man and one woman." But there's a dirty little question hiding in the heart of this thing, and neither you nor any of our other brave, selfless, patriotic defenders of what's right have seen fit to confront it. And since no one else seems to have the guts to talk about it openly, to your face, I'll presume to do so right now:

PRECISELY WHICH MAN AND WHICH WOMAN GET TO BE MARRIED?

Because, obviously, I "get it," okay? Somehow, one Representative Man and Woman, a man best qualified to stand for all men, and his female counterpart, are chosen to enact, for all Americans, the sacred ritual of marriage.

(see link above for whole article)

Let's play Spot the Logical Fallacy!

As many of my readers know, I am also a blogger for the God Is For Suckers Blog. That site gets a lot more traffic, which means it also gets a lot more theist spam. And sometimes, it's too deliciously stuff with logical fallacies and ignorance to ignore.

Edited only for paragraph breaks because apparently Gawd doesn't like proper grammar.

Because we have not personally experienced something doesn’t mean it isn’t real. Because you have not seen good or evil spirit, angels or demons, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Because you can’t see something doesn't mean it doesn’t exist, whether far away planets we see more of with stronger telescopes, or the microscopic that can only be seen with powerful electron microscopes. Because we have not seen heaven or hell, also doesn’t mean they don’t exist and are not real.

Do you really believe man is nothing more than a sophisticated accident, though we still don’t fully understand it because it is so complex and that we just die like a dog and rot like a log and there is nothing more? If there is no life after this life, then there is no reason to live at all and life is useless and meaningless and there is no reason not to just end it all now if I will never know the difference after I die.

You go ahead and believe that because you won’t wish to consider that their just might be a God who created and gave life that we will one day be accountable to. It makes far more sense than the insanity of evolution. Do you call that fiction, science? Real science totally disproves the possibility of evolution. Science is something you can prove and recreate.
The second law (real science) of thermodynamics is the law of entrophy. Energy, the subject of the first law of thermodynamics and entrophy, the second law, and their relationship are fundamental to an understanding not just of physics, but to life. The fact is all things are winding down, going from more orderly to less orderly. Look at man and sicknesses. Today millions of children in America have diseases that were not heard of in children 50 years ago.

Look at anything, the sun, the stars, your health until you die, all things are winding downward not getting better. With all our increasing knowledge and medicine we are not getting healthier there is sure no evolutionary process upward that has ever been seen or proven. Oh, there are evolutionary processes, within species, but the idea of one becoming another, that you came from some primordal soup. Ha. That is greater faith and religion than believing in a God who can create it.

Believing that all things are just accidental and of nature is the insanity I see, not logic. Logic says a creation demands a creator. We have things because men make them, build them, create them. You don’t get something from nothing, life from non-life, complex things from simple things accidentally. An explosion creates chaos, nor order.

You can believe that belief in a God is crazy, but logic says that there is more to life than accident and hapenstance. But look at it this way. IF, you are wrong and there is a hell and eternal punishment for the wicked and you live life your way, you loose, forever. IF, one believes in God and morals and lives a good and right life and there happens to be no eternal life, no loss, for after death you wouldn’t know the difference. But if one who lives that way because they believe in a God who will judge is right, they gain everything.

So, you see, faith is the only possibility with something to gain and nothing to loose. Unbelief has nothing to gain and everything to loose. Play our odds if your a gambler, after all it would be 50-50, or is it? If a house was on fire and you could save someone, but did nothing to do so, does that make you responsible for the lost lives you could have saved, or at least tried to save? Is it any different with faith in a God?

Will you delete this because it isn’t more athiestic, hateful babble.


Actually, Asshat, it got deleted because it broke the rules. But don't let that stop your psychotic persecution complex.

Let's play Spot the Logical Fallacy! (I am not going to respond to everything as a lot of this is just repetition - ironically proving that this is nothing more than this weirdo's indoctrination.)

Quote #1: "Because we have not personally experienced something doesn’t mean it isn’t real."

*bzzt* What is appeal to ignorance?

In part, this is true. However, absurdities are (or rather should be) easy to detect. You haven't seen the refrigerator stuffed of baseball sized diamonds in my backyard, either, so by your logic, you don't know and can't tell me it doesn't exist. Even though you have not been to my backyard, even you know it's not there.

Angels, Demons, Heaven, Hell - these are archetypes and mythologies. As Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and Brigadoon.


Quote #2: "Do you really believe man is nothing more than a sophisticated accident,"

No.

*Bzzt* What is argumentum ad ignorantiam?

Cont: "though we still don’t fully understand it because it is so complex and that we just die like a dog and rot like a log and there is nothing more?"

Yes.

Cont: "If there is no life after this life, then there is no reason to live at all and life is useless and meaningless and there is no reason not to just end it all now if I will never know the difference after I die."

I'm sorry you're so depressed. But thank you for highlighting the self-obsessed nature of faith. For you, life is meaningless if there's no eternal beach party in Heaven with JC and the Holy Bunch. It's pathetic and tragic that you can't find joy in THIS life HERE AND NOW, because there isn't a big reward FOR YOU at the end. Selfish. Completely and totally selfish.

Quote #3: "You go ahead and believe that because you won’t wish to consider that their just might be a God who created and gave life that we will one day be accountable to. "

*bzzt* What is a Strawman?

We don't believe that we're an accident - even a sophisticated one. Learn a little about evolution before telling us we're accidents. Most of us don't believe in an afterlife, but again, we don't believe in Flying Purple People Eaters either. Absurdities don't deserve that much respect.


Quote #3: "It makes far more sense than the insanity of evolution. Do you call that fiction, science? Real science totally disproves the possibility of evolution. Science is something you can prove and recreate.

The second law (real science) of thermodynamics is the law of entrophy. Energy, the subject of the first law of thermodynamics and entrophy, the second law, and their relationship are fundamental to an understanding not just of physics, but to life."

*bzzt* What is argumentum ad ignorantiam AGAIN?

And it would be great if you bothered to learn about either before wasting our time with these tired old lies.

First: Talk Origins That website will help you be less of an ignorant dumbass.
Second: The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability This will shred your assertion that evolution violates this law. Nice try, Creationist.

This link: An Index to Creationist Claims Will debunk all the other inane and painfully stupid creationist claims you no doubt spout as well.

Quote #4: The fact is all things are winding down, going from more orderly to less orderly. Look at man and sicknesses. Today millions of children in America have diseases that were not heard of in children 50 years ago.

Look at anything, the sun, the stars, your health until you die, all things are winding downward not getting better."

Okay, instead of dealing with the claim in this sentence: Class, can anyone guess where this is going?

That's right, the woefully stupid "one species turning into another" crap.

Quote #5: "With all our increasing knowledge and medicine we are not getting healthier there is sure no evolutionary process upward that has ever been seen or proven. Oh, there are evolutionary processes, within species, but the idea of one becoming another, that you came from some primordal soup. Ha. That is greater faith and religion than believing in a God who can create it."

*BZZT* What is composition fallacy?

It sure would, if that's what the Theory of Evolution said. You're grave ignorance is showing again. No surprises there.

Nowhere does the theory state on species magically transforms into another. Humans and Chimps (like Bush - I kid!) came from the same ancestor, that's undeniable - well, it's undeniable for honest and informed people. But no one is suggesting that monkeys magically transform into humans.

But thank you for showing us that humans do turn in to shit slinging monkeys.

Quote #6: "Believing that all things are just accidental and of nature is the insanity I see, not logic."

*bzzt* What is a Strawman AGAIN? We don't believe that.

Quote #7: "Logic says a creation demands a creator. We have things because men make them, build them, create them. "

*bzzzt* What is confusion of correlation and causation?

The Blind Watchmaker Goodness. Do you people EVER read anything about evolution (that's not written by other Cretinists) before writing long, ill informed posts about nonsense? Are you ever honest enough to give it even a quick spin before coming to show us how clueless you are? Ever?

Quote #8: "You can believe that belief in a God is crazy, but logic says that there is more to life than accident and hapenstance."

*bzzt* What is begging the question?

Right, an how exactly does that automatically point to god? Even if evolution is a horrible fallacy, that does not automatically make god the only other option.

Quote #8: "But look at it this way. IF, you are wrong and there is a hell and eternal punishment for the wicked and you live life your way, you loose, forever. IF, one believes in God and morals and lives a good and right life and there happens to be no eternal life, no loss, for after death you wouldn’t know the difference. But if one who lives that way because they believe in a God who will judge is right, they gain everything."

*bzzt* What is Pascal's Wager

What if when you get to your eternal beach party, you meet not whatever god you believe in now, but a different one. If you're a Christer, and you meet not Jesus, but Allah, we'll see you in hell.

See, this argument only works if your god is the one the exists. Since humans have worshiped thousands upon thousands of gods throughout history - and, more notably have failed to produce a single shred of evidence for any of them - you stand a much higher chance of being wrong then we do.

Quote #9: "So, you see, faith is the only possibility with something to gain and nothing to loose. Unbelief has nothing to gain and everything to loose."

*bzzt* What is argument from adverse consequences?

Cont: "Play our odds if your a gambler, after all it would be 50-50, or is it?"

The odds are VERY FAR from 50/50. See Pascal's Wager answer.

Quote #10: "If a house was on fire and you could save someone, but did nothing to do so, does that make you responsible for the lost lives you could have saved, or at least tried to save? Is it any different with faith in a God?'

*Bzzt* What is non sequitur?

It is Very different. First, if there was a house fire and I did nothing, not even calling the fire department, that would make me (at best) immoral and (at worse) guilty of manslaughter - or murder if I also started the fire.

But this has nothing to do with faith in god. I can see a house fire. I can hear people screaming for help. Therefore, I am compelled to respond.

You have not one single shred of evidence that god exists. Or heaven, or hell, or demons or angels. You choose to believe them, or you were indoctrinated to believe them. And you do so only to get your ass into heaven. Yours is a selfish faith.

This is in NO WAY related to a house fire. Bad analogy.

Lastly, read this: Sam Harris Responds to A Christian for a little more insight.

So, fellow heathens? What's the score?