Compilation of World Leaders Getting Into Fights

"I confess, for my part, that it greatly delights me. I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing. Does it exalt dunderheads, cowards, trimmers, frauds, cads? Then the pain of seeing them go up is balanced and obliterated by the joy of seeing them come down. Is it inordinately wasteful, extravagant, dishonest? Then so is every other form of government: all alike are enemies to laborious and virtuous men. Is rascality at the very heart of it? Well, we have borne that rascality since 1776, and continue to survive. In the long run, it may turn out that rascality is necessary to human government, and even to civilization itself – that civilization, at bottom, is nothing but a colossal swindle. I do not know: I report only that when the suckers are running well the spectacle is infinitely exhilarating."

-Mencken

Pascal's Wager Re-Visited

Since Pascal's Wager is almost certainly going to be brought up when you discuss god's existence for any length of time, I thought I'd post a response to the wager for reference. In fact, there is so much wrong with Pascal's Wager that I quickly became bogged down. However, I ran across this detailed response to the argument by John Loftus that included the same points I was going to make here. Click the link for the full article.

“The evidential objection concerns how much evidence Christianity should have before I must take seriously the claims of Christianity. Keep in mind that the only brands of Christianity that make the wager a strong argument are the ones that promise an everlasting conscious torment in a fiery hell. Other brands of Christianity don't even apply, those affirming annihilation, or universal salvation, since there is not much to fear if one is wrong. In any case, I judge that conservative Christianity has about a .00001% probability of being correct, or 1 in 100,000. This is something I think one can conclude from the arguments in my book. Given that I might be wrong in this judgment, since I've been wrong before, I'll up it to a .0001% probability, or 1 in 10,000. This probability has nothing to do with how many other religions and gods there are. It's a probability based solely on the merits of the evidence and arguments themselves.

Keep in mind what this means. It means unless there is a religion with a greater amount of probability then there is a .0001% chance this life is all there is. It means that there is a 99.999% probability that Christianity is delusional and that Pascal’s Wager is an argument akin to someone crying "wolf," or someone else yelling "the sky is falling." Why should I place that bet even if the payout is an infinite amount? If the bet was some money, wouldn't I be throwing money away? Sure, people are not being unreasonable by placing a bet on these odds, but what reason would we say that a non-gambler should bet based on these odds?

And what are we to bet? According to the Christian faith I must bet it all, my whole life. I must die daily. I must take up my cross and follow Jesus. I must be totally committed and have total faith. That’s what I’m called upon to do, daily, even to the point of guarding my very thoughts. I must sacrifice that which I think about and I should not lust, hate, covet, nor entertain any doubts.

I can understand betting a few dollars to win the lottery even though there is a 1 in 80 million chance to win. But I would never consider betting everything I own based on those odds, even if the payout was 800 trillion dollars, nor would I want to bet my whole life on a 1 to 10,000 chance of eternal bliss.

Still, I'll admit Pascal's wager has a good deal of force, the evidential objection alone notwithstanding, since the payout is an infinite amount with an eternal bliss if correct."

...2) "The many gods objection almost eliminates the force of Pascal's wager, I think, since now we have many religions and many gods all clamoring for our obedience; Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on, and so forth. One religion claims that if you don't follow its god you will fry in hell, while another one makes the same claim. Since many gods are threatening us with hell if we don't believe, then Pascal's Wager cannot help us to decide between them. All of them offer an infinite payout, too. All of them demand belief and obedience. Whom should we believe? Whom should we obey? Pascal’s Wager does not answer this objection on its own terms. We still must judge which religious viewpoint has the most probability and such judgments are based on the accidents of birth, as I’ve argued.

The third objection is what I call the the gambler’s objection. Anyone who plays the very popular poker game called Texas Hold'em , for instance, knows what I’m talking about when I say there is a distinction to be made between the actual odds and the pot odds. Actual odds are the mathematical odds of our hand winning the pot. Pot odds concern the relationship of the money in the pot to the actual odds of our having the winning hand. If, say, in order to bet on our hand we only need to bet $5 more to win a pot of $200 (or a ratio of 1:40, which is known as the pot odds), then that’s a good bet even if the actual mathematical odds of winning the hand are not that great. If, on the other hand, we must place a bet of $50 to win the same pot of $200 (or a ratio of 1:4 pot odds) the bet is a bad one unless the actual odds of winning the hand are much greater.

Let’s say you need a particular winning card to be drawn, which could be a spade (for a flush), or an Ace, or a King, and you calculate the odds of one of those cards being drawn are about 1 in 3. Let’s say there are five players and you must decide whether or not to bet $4 on a pot that has $36 in it. That’s 36 divided by 4 equals 9; or 9 to 1 pot odds. At that point you must ask yourself whether you should place that $4 bet. The actual odds are against you 1 to 3, but the pot odds are in your favor 9 to 1. Because of the pot odds you should bet the $4, and here’s why: If you faced this same situation seventy-five times and bet $4 each time for a total of $300, and you won one time out of three bets (the actual odds), your gain would be about $900 because of the pot odds.

Now let’s consider the actual odds and the pot odds when it comes to Pascal’s Wager. The actual odds for the Christian faith, as I calculate them, are 1 in 10,000, being generous. The payout is an infinite amount; an eternal bliss (the pot odds). With the pot odds so extremely high I should always make the bet, it’s argued. But here’s the problem. Pot odds only come into play if the gambler plays a certain number of hands. If the actual odds for a winning hand in Texas Hold’em are 1 in 3, it does not matter what the pot odds are if he must bet everything he has, and if this is his last hand! Pot odds only matter when the gambler can play a number of hands and when he’s not betting it all. It’s the number of hands along with the size of the bet that make the pot odds what they are.

How many times can a gambling religious seeker go “all in” on a bet that has a chance of winning the eternal bliss pot, when the odds are 1 in 10,000? He can only do this one time! There are no second chances. The poker game will be over for him no matter what the result is. The actual odds are extremely low for his bet. With those odds he will undoubtedly lose everything he has on this one bet! It’s only if this religious gambler can make 10,000 lifetime wagers and that he has something leftover to bet each time that would make the pot odds worth the bet!

Given the actual odds as I calculate them, I would have to sacrifice 10,000 lifetimes for the pot odds of an infinite bliss in heaven to be worth the bet. Not just one life. 10,000 lifetimes. But I will not have 10,000 lifetimes to make that bet worth it! So I must bet on the actual odds, and I do.

For this reason gamblers who play Texas Hold’em do not bet everything they’ve got unless they are pretty sure they have a winning hand, with the actual odds being over 50% or more, preferably 60% to 90%, depending on several other factors. Since I calculate the odds at much less than this and because I must bet on the actual odds, going "all in" on a bet like this is simply a bad bet.”

 

In God (some of us) Trust

The current national motto for the United States is "In God We Trust," which was adopted in 1956, holds sacred status among right-wing Christians and conservatives because it re-enforces their pet notion that America was founded as a "Christian Nation." Despite it's very recent history, many people associate the motto with the founding era of our nation. This view may be incorrect but, hey, what's the big deal? A national motto doesn't have any binding power in our government. Most of the citizens of the United States do believe in god; so why does this abhorrent statement cause me so much personal anger?


It is because of my great respect for the my country of birth and the principles which shaped it's formation that I react emotionally. This subject in particular really cuts to my core values. I think that America is the greatest nation conceived so far. It took humans thousands and thousands of years to develop values like equality, freedom, and representative government. America is revolutionary in that it was the first nation in the world to implement these brand new ideas in a grand experiment. The constitution makes no mention of god and acknowledges that the laws established within are not based on any religious ideology. There is a good reason for this; our government must represent every single citizen equally. You don't get your ten commandments put up at the courthouse because it's my courthouse too! We do not divide; we unite. "In God We Trust" is the exact opposite of all of this. 


Historian Thomas Foster writes about the history of the national motto,


In July 1776, almost immediately after signing the Declaration of Independence, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were tasked with designing a seal and motto for the new nation. In August John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail, that he had proposed the “Choice of Hercules” as the image for the seal. Adams believed that individuals should choose to lead moral personal lives and to devote themselves to civic duty, and he preferred a secular allegory for that moral lesson.

The other two committee members proposed images that drew on Old Testament teachings, but neither shared the beliefs of those today who assert the role of God in our national government. Benjamin Franklin, a deist who did not believe in the divinity of Christ, proposed “Moses lifting up his Wand, and dividing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh, in his Chariot overwhelmed with the Waters.” This motto he believed, captured the principle that “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

Thomas Jefferson, who later created his own Bible by cutting out all mentions of the miracles of Jesus Christ (as well as his divine birth and resurrection), envisioned “The Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by day, and a Pillar of Fire by night, and on the other Side Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon Chiefs, from whom We claim the Honour of being descended and whose Political Principles and Form of Government We have assumed.” Of all of his accomplishments, Jefferson selected just three for his tombstone, one of which was writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which established a separation of church and state.

The three men worked in consultation with an artist, Eugène Pierre Du Simitière, who rejected all of the ideas of the three committee members. His own first attempt was also rejected by Congress. It would take years and several more committees before Congress would approve the final design, still in use today, of an American bald eagle clutching thirteen arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other.

Only the motto “E Pluribus Unum” (“from many, one”) survived from the committee on which Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin had served. All had agreed on that motto from the beginning.

In adopting "In God We Trust" as the national motto for the United States, the 1956 congress chose the most incredibly ass-backwards slogan imaginable. They did this to divide US (good Christian Americans) from THEM (evil godless communists) The original national motto, e pluribus unum, meaning "out of many, one," very accurately reflects the central reason our government was so world changing. While the previous motto expresses the spirit of our national values by seeking to unite those that would otherwise be divided, "In God We Trust" explicitly excludes. There are many Americans that don't believe in god and also some that believe in lots of gods. Do us non-believers just have to live with the fact that our national motto clearly does not include us? Are we not also citizens deserving of equal representation in their government? Non-believers are part of the "We," therefore, the motto is not only stupid but also completely false.

A country that cherishes freedom of thought and expression should not have a divisive and partisan statement of falsehood as it's motto. What if the motto was "In Odin We Trust?" Christians, would you feel like the government with this motto represented you equally? This is America; we all trust in different things, but we agree to live and work together as neighbors under secular law. We need to change to motto back to e pluribus unum; a creed that reflects true American values, and not paranoid theocratic posturing.

Vertical Farming

   
     In the very near future most of the world's population will be living in cities. Feeding that huge mass of humanity is going to be a challenge. With the availability of suitable farmland declining rapidly, some are suggesting that we grow our food in urban settings. These aren't merely a city rooftop garden; Vertical Farms are sky-scraping industrial capacity breadbaskets able to recycle waste and generate its own energy.

I think it's a really cool idea. It's a big plan to solve a big problem. We may see something like this in cities within the next few decades. Look out for Japan. They have very little space to spare in their immense urban centers. The investment involved in building a far like this makes to become a reality only through some kind of public works project. 

3 Arguments Against The Singularity

     Charles Stross let's us know what he really thinks about the idea of the singularity:

"Uploading ... is not obviously impossible unless you are a crude mind/body dualist. However, if it becomes plausible in the near future we can expect extensive theological arguments over it. If you thought the abortion debate was heated, wait until you have people trying to become immortal via the wire. Uploading implicitly refutes the doctrine of the existence of an immortal soul, and therefore presents a raw rebuttal to those religious doctrines that believe in a life after death. People who believe in an afterlife will go to the mattresses to maintain a belief system that tells them their dead loved ones are in heaven rather than rotting in the ground.


     I first heard of this concept  in Charlie's book Accelerando and it is one of the most interesting takes on the subject. I strongly suggest that any fan of sci-fi read this book immediately. Also his new novel Rule 34 drops on July 5th!

The 2012 Election: "Send In The Clowns!"

   
      The election is more than a year away and it is already shaping up to be the most comical that I've ever seen. Obama is still in governing mode: a special mode which makes it a nearly impossible task to get even a little excited about anything he has to say. Once he switches to campaign mode (ie. a strong progressive), maybe people will start to pay attention to the Democratic side, but as for now, the Republicans candidates are at the center of all the attention. There have already been two debates and it still looks unlikely that they will pick a nominee that will have even the slightest chance in the general election.
     2012 is going to if not exciting, at least hilarious to follow. More to come...

     In the meantime, enjoy this video which lays out the case for the drastic state of nation and what needs to be done to fix it.

Beautiful Image

Love beats violence.

Et tu, Mitt Romney?

                                                                         Et tu, Mitt Romney?

This is Why Free Speech has to be Protected by Law

A good example of the way that free speech should be thought of as a principle.

"I want teabaggers to demonstrate. I want the KKK to hold rallies. I want the Nazi party to speak out. I want the labor unions to march and to strike. I want social justice organizations to hold street fairs and have marches. I want Greenpeace and PETA to hit the bricks and the airwaves. I want everyone of all political and social stripe to have their say. I'm not going to listen to all of it and most likely, I'm going to ignore a lot of what is said because I disagree with it. But I'm not about to tell someone they can't say something because I disagree with it."

Great Evidence For Old News

This isn't really that new, but is one of several surveys conducted that yielded the same results: that viewers of Fox News were statistically more likely than others to be misinformed about important issues. It may convince the tiny portion of Fox News viewers who care about evidence to find their news elsewhere.

"WPO found one bright spot in its lengthy report: “Those who had greater exposure to news sources were generally better informed. In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.” However, there was one exception, Fox News:

There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

– Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) (91 percent of those who watch Fox News “almost every day”)

– Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points) (72 percent)

– The economy is getting worse (26 points) (72 percent)

– Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points) (60 percent)

– The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) (63 percent)

– Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) (49 percent)

– The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) (56 percent)

– When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it(12 points) (38 percent)

– And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)(63 percent)"

Abuse In Church/State Separation Case

From Bastrop Louisiana

Wow! That's a Good Question.

Answer: For the same reason that Americans descended from Europeans and there are still Europeans.
Question: If rational people descended from Christians, why are there still Christians?

Awesome Onboard Video Of Shuttle Boosters Falling From Space

Skip around if you want to but you're not going to want to miss a single second of this amazing footage.

The Bigots Are On The Wrong Side Of History Once Again

"Blacks are 3/5ths of a human being" -DESTROYED (1865)
"Females are too fickle with their uteruses and such to be trusted to vote" -DESTROYED (1919)
"It's worth it to spend the extra money building a negro-only restroom" -DESTROYED (1964)
"Racial mixing is against my...I mean.. God's will!" -DESTROYED (1967)
"The queers' wrists are too limp to fire a machine gun" -DESTROYED (2010)
And once again it seems that the arc of history in a free and open society favors equality for all. (coming soon to a state near you)
One Man, One Woman; Americans Disagree

On the 34th Anniversary of Star Wars

Happy Anniversary George Lucas! And may the gods strike you with syphilis if you ever come within 100ft. of a movie camera again!
34th Anniversary

Paul Ryan Wants Your Grandma to Eat Cat Food!

Nothing like a little hyperbole in the morning. But seriously, freshman teahead Paul Ryan's budget plan which already passed the House looks like it will be dead in the Senate. Maybe its unpopularity has something to do with the fact that it cuts Medicare, a program that provides healthcare to millions of America's ailing seniors, and uses the money to buy 100 pizzas for every single citizen in the country! Hazzah! Except instead of pizza, it really hands the money over to the wealthiest people in the country. Here are some places where you can read up then discuss:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88984/the-root-cause-the-gops-huge-mistake
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55691.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-republicans-stand-by-plan-to-overhaul-medicare/2011/05/25/AG4LKZBH_story_1.html

Everyone in the comments should suggest one thing that we could spend the money on besides John Kerry's new yacht. How about a coast to coast floating monorail? Or; a beer volcano that covers the entire state of Ohio?

On Obama Creating His Own Army

                                                                 (Image unrelated)

Media Matters is an excellent website that documents for posterity the proof that there was a time in America in which someone could say the most outrageously false and absurd things on national television and be taken seriously by more than two nutcases in tinfoil headgear. Case in point: the idea that Obama is creating a civilian military force to do his bidding.
Ailes And Beck Agree On Lunatic "Civilian National Security Force" Conspiracy Theory

Data Raps About His Cat

I love Star Trek and sci-fi in general. Besides politics history and religion, I'll be posting sci-fi stuff too. This is in no way serious just funny if you're into TNG.

He Loves Me? He Loves Me Not.

I am in love. 

Hopefully, everyone falls in love in their lifetime. Because it is the most intense human emotion, being in love can be the most wonderful and most agonizing experience imaginable. People do incredibly stupid things when they are in love. It allows a person to completely deny their own needs in favor of someone else's. True love is completely selfless. True love is illogical. Think about how you feel when you love someone. Whether it is romantic love or familial love, the seemingly inescapable feeling of love is a by-product of human beings' social nature. It binds us with every other person on the planet. To love is to truly be human. 

Growing up, I was taught that God loves us. And we, as Christians, were supposed to unceasingly thank him for that fact. We are His creation after all. Almost everyone has heard "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son." It's a favorite of Christians and almost universally across every denomination. However, unlike a large percentage of Christians, I am familiar with the book from which this quote is taken, and nothing about the character "God" it describes strikes me as loving. Even though I didn’t always see it clearly, I've always felt at least a slight discrepancy in the back of my mind with the lack of sense this statement makes. 

"God loves you!" is an endearing assurance uttered by almost every Christian on a regular basis. In fact, Modern Christians trump up this aspect of their theology as a way to distinguish it from other religions and to prove that theirs is superior. However, saying that God loves you and then handing you a Bible is like saying the planets and Sun go around the Earth and then handing you Galileo’s Mechanics. Even without knowing anything about the Bible, the basic facts of Christian theology do not demonstrate that.

Let’s go back to John 3:16. I suppose sacrificing the life of someone else for the sake of another might be considered a loving act. But what did God really give up by sacrificing his son? Not a damn thing. Jesus isn’t dead and God doesn’t have to deal with the pain of losing someone he cares deeply about as so many millions of us go through every day. Jesus didn’t sacrifice anything significant either by dying “for us” because not only is he not dead, he’s the ruler of all creation! He didn’t even pay the supposed price for our sin. If the wages of sin is death, then Jesus would be in Hell being tortured forever like everyone else God has condemned! If someone made me an offer: you can be tortured and crucified and it’s a 100% guarantee that you will end world hunger - I’d take it in a heartbeat, even if I didn’t get to be God afterwards. So in trying to make us Christians feel guilty, we are sold the idea that God is giving up something incredibly dear to him when a child can figure out that He loses nothing.

Here’s a question that I’ve never in my 20 years of being a Believer gotten a satisfactory answer to: Why did Jesus have to die? Couldn’t the God that can do anything just forgive us without requiring a human sacrifice? If any Christians end up reading this I’d really like to know an answer to that question. Please leave a comment.

 Would you lock your own children in the basement and torture them forever simply for not loving you back? Would you require your spouse to submit to your will every day or threaten them with punishment if they failed to do so? Would you refuse to speak to your true love directly and instead have others speak for you? The truth is that calling God’s relationship with humanity, as described in the Bible, "love" is to pervert the meaning of the word. I love my wife, Nicole. And one thing that I would never do is to constantly remind her of her unworthiness of that love. Yet, this is the basis of the Christian religion! It’s a classic pattern of paternal abuse to constantly tear the other person down so that they will feel unworthy of the little they are given. God is worse than an abusive father. He judges us guilty of a crime committed by a stranger long before you or I were born, then demands we spend our lives groveling for his love and thanking him for his mercy. We must be thankful He does not do to us what we really "deserve". God is not a loving father, He is egotistical. He is a sadist. He is a tyrant.  

Love is giving of yourself completely. Love is sharing everything of yours without needing anything in return. Love is being hopelessly devoted; not demanding, on pain of eternal torture, hopeless devotion. Love does not insist upon obedience. Love is given freely; not earned. To love another is to be human. To require blind worship is to be God

Mission Statement

I've decided to give blogging a shot. I think it will be a good thing to get some thoughts of mine out there even if no one reads it for the sake of my own catharsis. I'll be blogging about random things but I want to focus mainly on politics and religion. I'll also post a huge amount info links to stuff I think is interesting so even if you don't care for what I write, there will be a plethora of information available here for anyone who is interested in these subjects. I'll try to post everyday. Here we go!