Wednesday, December 28, 2005

iraqi democracy. good idea || bad idea?

Jacksonville is no New York City (as if it wasn't obvious). Driving from the airport back to my house, Bush/Cheney 2004 and yellow "support our troops" ribbon stickers peppered every SUV and truck that passed us on the bridge. The last time I came home, it was for Thanksgiving. I ended up getting into a fight with my friend's little brother over politics. If you want an insight into how Bush won a second term presidency with a majority vote, talk to him.

No he didn't offer any stunning insight, nor is he a borderline genius just waiting to be uncovered; he represents the predominant American response towards 9-11 terrorism, fear. He kept snickering at me, "liberal". When I pushed him a little deeper, you know hot button topics of the day like Iraq, he tossed back at me that he couldn't understand why I didn't just let it go, "we're there, give it up". When you have a brother in the Marine Corp. who one day in college simultaneously became the head of a frat, avid listener to country music, and ardent republican, it's almost like having Rush Limbaugh living with you. Southerners are tacitly interested in politics, most things are gung ho attitudes left over from the last presidential election or some flare up ala Cindy Sheehan or gay marriage.
Everyone supports the troops, the world is different after 9/11 (we have to think with a different paradigm), we're in Iraq so deal with it (no one even bothers to debate the decision to go in the first place), George Bush is no-nonsense you whiny liberal.

I really had had enough. I really pushed him and he got red in the face. Ask probing questions like, "ok so we're in Iraq, what do we do now?" after a few minutes of trying to make a semblance of an answer I got something similar to, we can't pull out troops because that strengthens the terrorists. I almost thought I was watching FOX news. Push a little harder. "So you just want to sit in Iraq, you think it's ok to have a refill 30,000 troops and maintain a presence in Iraq? You think its ok for your brother to have to get his stay in Iraq extended? Make a deadline, what needs to get done, Constitution, Government, etc. then withdraw slowly, you don't need a hard timeline, what's so wrong about that?” He stared at me. I thought he was going to cry, in an argument you feel good when you win; there is nothing feel good about crushing a 16 year old. I ended with, "you keep telling me to let it go and that I am criticizing what you passionately believe in, I don't think you actually know what you believe in". I think I went too far. It's too bad I'm pretty sure I was right, I felt pretty terrible.

My point in relating this anecdote was that there are somethings that we as the American public just take for granted. We can usually tell the two sides of a coin, we know hot and cold are opposites, we have a basic sense of right and wrong, we know that our democracy is better (at least for us) an oppressive authoritarian government. So when we proclaim that we are sending our troops out the Iraq and the middle east, even as partisan as we are, as much as half the country thinks that marching into Iraq and deposing Saddam was a good idea, deep down we still kind of think that spreading democracy is a good idea.

I had an epiphany one day as I was lying in bed. Maybe invading Iraq was a good idea. I couldn't remember the exact reasoning but over the next few days I pieced together that it was similar to playing a RTS game like Civilization 4. If you want to start expanding your influence and having a section of the world become friendlier, you can carve out some land and use it as a beacon for your world view. We have a democratic haven next to Iran and Saudi Arabia by which we can effectively pursue and drive out terrorism.

I entertained that idea for about a week before reality stepped in and I realized just how similar that idea actually was to a computer game, an idealized version of reality and its mechanisms.

Liberals like myself, started off the criticism of the Iraq invasion by saying that democracy isn't good for every country, different strokes for different folks. Conservatives said we were digging our own graves that thinking like that was creating too much headway for terrorists and their harbor states.

That approach wasn't the right way to look at the situation as I've recently discovered. The real question is, is democracy a curse in disguise, and is it actually a threat to American security?

Iraq recently had its parliamentary elections; everyone in the administration patted themselves on the back. Looking at the election results we see the clear winner, religious fundamentalists: Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds. With a Shia dominated parliament, it is difficult to say that we are better off, "we" being Americans. We have not created a bastion of democracy in the Middle East; we have created an Islamic Republic.

There is nothing wrong with Islam. It's just that that neighborhood isn't full of potlucks and picnics. Iran new ruling party openly wants to blow up Israel, so two years down the road, pair up Iran that wants to blow up Israel, Sunnis who aren't exactly our best friends and have been leading Iraqi resistance, Saudis that wouldn't mind blowing up Israel, and Palestine's Hamas and you have one big mosh pit of fun. So in the name of democracy, we've allowed the people to build the foundations of an Islamic state, a concept which is still rather fundamental (Islamic democracy, that is). With only a basic premise as to how an Islamic democracy would work, the people will default to a religious Islamic state and with that comes the specter of possible continued terrorism and Middle Eastern conflict. Did we just accidentally tip the religious balance in the region? Israel, watch out.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

interesting articles.

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27261950.shtml

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html

The second one... I admit, I haven't read it yet, but it's an expose on Diebold and their voting machines.

I don't understand the way electronic voting machines are being handled in our country. President Bush, after his election, the first one, promised that there would be no more, alleged voting scandals. We would have clean elections, Katherine Harris would update everything so Florida wasn't the laughing stock of the nation, etc.

What happened though? I'm sure the article offers insight into it. Katherine Harris hasn't done anything, well other than help Bush get elected. Florida hasn't updated anything, in my county, Duval, we can't even provide enough voting stations in our downtown area.

If we truly truly wanted to fix the voting in our country, and we were dead set on making it electronic we could have done it, we can still do it. We have the most brilliant computer scientists at our top universities, who I'm positive, wouldn't mind working on a project like this. So here's my list of how to fix elections to make them clean.

1. Electronic voting machine software is completely open source. this allows academics to look at it, hackers on the internet to look at it, and your armchair computer scientist to look at it and assess vulnerabilities, code weakness and tampering. Why shouldn't the code be open to inspection? The secrecy makes no sense, how can we expect to trust the government if they are so secretive?

2. Ask nation's top computer scientists to pitch in, provide a grant for their time.

3. Paper trail.

What's so difficult about this? You'd think after all of the software malfunctions and machine failures, we'd think, ding ding ding, what we've got doesn't work. That is of course, if the powers that be actually want the voting process to be fair and accurate.

Monday, December 05, 2005

round 2005. fight.

I was trying to write a witty boxing match intro between Christianity and Atheism... (not just atheism, but every other religion practiced in the United States), but that turned out to be a lot lamer and a lot less funny than I had though.

Has anybody been catching the O'Reilly factor, Fox "News", or maybe just www.crooksandliars.com lately? If you have, you might have noticed that there is something going on called "the war on Christmas". If you're like me, you have no idea what the hell, the war on Christmas is. Last time I checked, the only war we were waging was the one on Terror (with a capital "T"), and that wasn't going so well.


Sidenote (vaguely amusing):
from www.anncoulter.com - "The only Republican congressman who did not offer to have sex with John Murtha on the House floor was Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio. While debating Murtha's own proposal to withdraw American troops from Iraq in the middle of a war waged to depose a monstrous dictator who posed a threat to American national security"

Since when did we wage a war to depose a monstrous dictator? I thought we waged a war against the terrorists who flew a plane into the World Trade Center a hundred and some blocks south of me. Also I thought we already established that he did not pose a threat to American National Security. Sometimes you wonder when these people, Bill O'Reilly, Coulter, etc. claim to be fair and balanced, are they just talking from underneath the payroll of the Republican party? If they were I wouldn't be suprised, these days, who isn't?


Moving on. Christmas. I was wondering since when has the United States been waging a war on Christmas? I must have missed the email. Fox News posted just recently a talking point that "economic disaster if liberals win the war on Christmas". Apparently there is some sort of secret plan by the political left to "undermime" the holiday season as apparently in America, Christianity has monopolized the month of December in all forms of material wealth (I thought Jesus wasn't big on material wealth). The big outrage apparently is that the right says that the left believes that since we live in a country whose constitution (at least by most people's interpretation of the First Amendment) does not embrace one religion over another's we should not be so blatant about Christmas, aka our tax dollars don't go toward funding a giant Christmas tree in the middle of NYC when not all of us are Christians. Bill O'Reilly gave a lot of heat to Boston for their short lived use of the "holiday tree".

At what point do we realize that the Christmas Tree has nothing to do with Christ? It's funny that such things are never mentioned in the Bible, yet we are brainwashed into believing so. Christianity was an aggressive animal during the outset, it was smart and calculating and realized it needed to incoorperate other beliefs if they ever wanted to increase their flock with the as of yet unconverted pagan masses.

At what point do we realize that Christmas, for very few has anything to do with Christ, but has everything to do with your bratty sons and daughters hoping that they find an Xbox 360 under their Christmas Tree? Christmas, the ultimate celebration of materialism and excess.

But war on Christmas? To me it sounds like an excercise in political correctness and making sure we follow the constitution.

The war on Christmas is entirely fabricated and designed to embolden everyone to buy more. "Gosh those fucking liberals don't want Christmas, we'll show them how much we love Christmas, let's goto Wal-Mart kids!". Democrats in the Senate and the house, I don't even need to research before saying that most of them are Christians and celebrate Christmas and have Christmas trees, etc. I would go so far as to say that the majority of this country is Christmas and uses all the Christian terminology for the late December time frame. So who is behind this left wing anti-Christmas conspiracy that threatens, according to Fox News, to spell immenent economic catastrophe (funny because if Bush's economic strategy continues to stagnate... we can blame those crazy now Christmas people)? Scare tactics. We've had our ups and downs for major retailers forever, there is no 1% of the population war on Christmas that is going to make a difference.

The funny part is Bill O'Reilly is advocating for a boycott of all stores that don't use "Merry Christmas" in their advertising, FOX blames radical lefties for not supporting the economics of Christmas time. flip flop flip flop.

The left is stupid if it keeps fielding people to go on FOX to further pronounce this war on Christianity. It doesn't exist, stop falling into the trap.

Let's actually do research for once.
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/DTT_DR_HolOut2005_Nov05.pdf
Deloitte Consulting has put out their 2005 Holiday season prediction on consumer retail spending. 65% of companies expect stagnant sales. They have reasons why the Holiday season spending will be lower this year, here's a hint, it's not the "war on christmas" conspiracy. Thank god FOX isn't in the consulting industry. All of their inaccuracies and outlooks leave me wondering, how are so many academics fans of Fox news? It bewilders the mind. The deviation in data and conclusions from FOX and EVERYONE who does this for a living is astounding.

Reasons for Holiday 2005 downturn:
Here is an interesting paragraph-
Since the spring of 2003, retailers have enjoyed a strong selling environment. The combination of steady job growth,stable prices, tax cuts and low interest rates pushed real consumer spending up at an annualized rate of 3.8% over this 24 month period, well above the 2.4% pace of the
previous 2 years. However, this overall performance was somewhat below average for the typical upswing of an economy recovering from recession.
The business cycle does not remain in the upswing forever. After 18 to 30 months of improving sales growth, any pent up consumer demand is spent. Consumer debt levels rise, income and employment growth slows, and, with them, consumer
spending grows at a more tepid pace.


And here I was thinking that Republican economic policies were largely long term plans that I didn't understand, this makes it seem like all of our economic policies during Bush Term II have been patches and temporary fixes.

1. Hurrican Katrina
2. Energy Prices
3. Real Wages deteriorated
4. Employment Growth low
5. Savings and Debt (near 0 and getting larger, respectively)


"Real wage growth has turned negative, employment growth has flattened, and
savings rates are approaching zero."


What happened to stimulating the economy? What happened to the administration claiming we were creating more and better jobs? Truth is that we created lots of temp jobs, wages are going down, people are saving less... I think it's about time to get serious about the economy. We live in a spend spend spend spend lifestyle, we aren't as competitive in the global market anymore, we are hating on intellectualism, pushing religion as actual science, have we gone crazy?

Christianity is just political capital?

Get the IRS OUT of My Church
Bradley Whitford

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bradley-whitford/get-the-irs-out-of-my-chu_b_11672.html

I have been a member of the All Saints Church in Pasadena for over ten years. The recent revelations of an IRS investigation into its non-profit status as the result of a sermon given a week before the last presidential election by Rector Emeritus George Regas has outraged and galvanized our congregation.

The support we have received from across the spectrum of faith communities, including traditionally conservative evangelical leaders, has solidified our resolve—the United States government has no place in our houses of worship, and the selective targeting of churches who speak out on the issues of the day sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the religious freedom of every citizen.

The sermon in question explicitly refused to endorse a particular candidate. It did, however, hold George Bush and John Kerry up to the high standard of Christian values. Both were found wanting.

Values not put into action are meaningless, no matter how lofty they are. It is the obligation of our spiritual leaders to not just articulate those values, but to make them a reality.

We live in an age where describing oneself as a “person of faith” carries with it a tremendous political advantage. But too often in the public arena, being “religious” is defined only as a search for personal salvation and a willingness to adhere to dogma.

Declaring oneself a Christian is easy. Putting Christian values to work in a dangerous and violent world is not.

Perhaps the best response to the tragedy of 9/11 was a preemptive war against a country that had nothing to do with the attacks. Tens of thousands of deaths later, perhaps it is still the right decision.

But it is not Christian.

Perhaps it is good economics to give me, an actor on a television show, over a quarter of a million dollars in tax relief over the last five years as the poverty rate climbs, as we burden our children with structural budget deficits and cut services for our most vulnerable citizens.

But it is not Christian.

Perhaps the death penalty is an acceptable way to punish criminals.

But it is not Christian.

Jesus Christ was the Prince of Peace, not the Prince of Preemptive War. He was an advocate for the poor, not of supply-side economics. And let’s not forget that Jesus himself died in a bogus death-penalty rap. His was the original “bleeding heart,” yet I am afraid he would be described pejoratively by many today as a “do-gooder.”

President Bush proudly proclaims himself a Christian and tells us that his faith has changed his heart. Perhaps one day his faith will change his policies. Until then, I am proud to be a part of a congregation that seeks to hold all public officials to their easy— and too often empty—proclamations of faith.

Sunday, November 20, 2005

us-china relations

President Bush, what are you doing?

The more the days go by the more I find myself saying that to the digital bouncing head on television that is our President. President Bush's actions abroad range from hawkish pushes for war to strange olive branches of peace. Today Bush met with Chinese President Hu Jintao. The big thing they discussed was American <-> Chinese Trade. After reading a few articles, a few papers, I found the whole thing slightly humorous and actually quite scary.

"In a day of talks, the president called on China to expand religious, political and social freedoms and urged steps to reduce Beijing’s huge trade surplus with the United States. President Hu Jintao promised steps to resolve economic frictions.

The two leaders conferred at the Great Hall of the People on the edge of Tiananmen Square, and Hu said they both sought an outcome of “mutual benefit and win-win results.”


America exports very little to China. Yes that figure is around $35 billion, growing every year, but take a few things into account. Middle class Chinese are becoming wealthier and... you really must look at what we're exporting. In my opinion the biggest area of growth in China is trending towards consumer goods, with a rise in middle class income, middle class Chinese have been salivating for luxury items. Unfortunately for us, these aren't predominantly American. Who are the makers of luxry items? D&G, Prada, Gucci, Salvatore Ferragamo... all European. What do we export to China? We export, airplanes, power generation equipment, medicine/medical devices, and electronics.

Maybe it's me, but I see a big problem here. Airplanes, how many do airliners buy each year from Boeing, etc.? Not a whole lot, and the thing is they aren't things that must be upgraded every year, so until China develops a capitalist environment where airline companies line up to compete with each other, this recent 70 737's to China is going to be a one time deal... at least for now. Electronics? Being an electrical engineer who is looking for a job in a few months, I see the big problem, we are doing most, if not all of our electronic manufacturing abroad. It's cheaper, of course we would do that. HP and every laptop brand we have has its laptops manufactured and designed in China/Taiwan. China/Taiwan now have the most advanced pcb and chip fabrication plants on Earth, and we rely on them, they are like the OPEC of silicon.

They can manufacture their own, they are very competent at designing their own, what's stopping them from making the entire industry their own? Not a whole lot, maybe a few MBA's with vision. Bush tells China we want trade parity, we want China to revalue their currency, the problem extends beyond trade parity and currency, it stretches to, how long does China actually need us to be a trading partner? The top 3 exporters to China are their neighbors, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, why require the culturally, politics, ambition disimilar America to come in and say what needs to be done? America is lucky our medical device ingenuity is so strong or we really would be in the red.

I think the only thing they are missing right now is imagination and leadership. Once those components are there, it's not a "world is flat" scenario championed by Friedman, it's back to cold war type spheres of influence. The US will have Latin America, South America, Canada, Europe. Europe will have... Europe and the US. Africa well... I don't know anything about their trade. Asia will have Asia. Can you imagine having 3-4 EU type establishments? The EU, the AmU,AsU... It'll be like playing Risk.

“The spirit of the Lord is very strong inside your church,” Bush said.

In the church’s guest book, Bush wrote “May God bless the Christians of China.”


Why do I cringe at that? Not so much because I have a problem with organized religion in general, but because of the pointed content of the statement. When the President addresses our religiously diverse country, he says "May God bless America"...not "Christians of America". God only blesses the Christians of China? I know it's only a guestbook, but that seems to be a political slap in the face, a faux pas if you will.

With so much attention diverted to Middle Eastern Terror, are we spending enough effort strengthening our own ability to stay competitive at home? We keep talking about increasing jobs, let's be honest, the jobs that are being created aren't the jobs that are going to keep us afloat on the international boxing ring. We have to be at the head of technology again or we're screwed. (A lot of Asian women who were polled said they weren't interested in buying the Motorola Razr... if we can't even sell cool now, what can we sell? Surely not bootleg Hollywood films)

Thursday, November 17, 2005

blog status & probability

I wish I had something to write about. I just wanted to have something new on this site to let people know that I'm not dead. I've done a lot of really fun things... if you could ever consider school work fun. First off, as of 20 minutes ago, my main page has a slightly new and cleaner look and my resume is updated. If by some off chance someone is looking to hire me, my pdf resume is available to oggle.

As for school, I think what I've been doing is extremely interesting. I've been modeling neurons in the brain as electrical circuits. The most baffling part, and Professor Lazar could give you the mathematical details, is that we discover that the neurons and dendritic trees in your brain are non-linear circuits BUT they can be very accurately modeled by linear circuits. Go figure, the man is a genius. It really makes you think though, how good the model we are using is. We modeled the neurons as time encoding machines, they hit a threshold and spike and we take the spike times and recover a signal. You really must wonder how closely organic structures like neurons behave just like... common electrical circuits, like a sample and hold circuit, how the dendritic trees and axons are like antennas.

The more you delve into this, the more you wonder how much is "intelligent design" and how much is trial and error that nature slowly progressed towards. I didn't do so well in my Probability class, but the more you look at the world as probabilistic events, the less you, well, at least I, believe in God. Observe the initial example and I'll get to something else later:

0th order Markov (each character generated independently and identically distributed with frequencies matching English text):

OCRO HLI RGWR NMIELWIS EU LL NBNESEBYA TH EEI ALHENHTTPA OOBTTVA NAH BRL

1st order Markov: (each character generated with frequencies depending on previous character)

ON IE ANTSOUTINYS ARE T INCTORE ST BE S DEAMY ACHIN D ILONASIVE TUCOOWE AT TEASONARE FUSO TIZIN ANDY TOBE SEACE CTISBE

2nd order Markov: (each character generated with frequencies depending on two previous characters)

IN NO IST LAT WHEY CRATICT FROURE BERS GROCID PONDENOME OF DEMONSTRURES OF THE REPTAGIN IS REGOACTIONA OF CRE

3rd order Markov: (each character generated with frequencies depending on three previous characters)

THE GENERATED JOB PROVIDUAL BETTER TRAND THE DISPLAYED CODE ABOVERY UPONDULTS WELL THE CODERST IN THESTICAL IT DO HOCK BOTHE MERG INSTATES CONS ERATION NE
VER ANY OF PUBLE AND TO THEORY EVENTIAL CALLEGAND TO ELAST BENERATED IN WITH PIES AS IS WITH THE

This is the power of Markov Chains. Markov Chains is the key behind genetics and proteins. DNA sequences are largely iterations of markov chains, after you reach a high enough order, the coherency and meaningfulness of things is almost ridiculous. There was a point in studying for my genomics midterm that it dawned on me that Markov Chains are glaring evidence against the existence of God. Too bad it's 6:30 am and I don't remember the details so I can walk everyone through the thought process. Maybe some other time. In the meantime...

I was trying to generate a short Matlab function yesterday that would allow me to plot a set of cosines to approximate output intensity degradation with angular misalignment for a LED. What I got was a loop screw up. Cosines produce some crazy shit.
This is how simple the code was:
clear all;
theta=0:0.01:pi;
m=0:.5:10;
for n=1:length(m)
for l=1:length(theta)

a(n,l)=(cos(theta(l)))^m(n);
end
end
plot(a)

This is the end result: eek! how about that for "intelligent design"?


Monday, October 03, 2005

poverty of the soul

Watch romanticized movies like Pride and Prejudice, it gives a view of egalitarian and priveleged society being refined and stately. Columbia has its fair share of the economically well off, after all, not everyone is in the financial aid crowd, what the Columbia elite suffer from however is not class struggle. The shortcomings of Columbia students is far more basic, it doesn't extend anywhere as far as Republican Bake sales, a certain sports columnist's inability to write more than two sentences pertaining to sports, cartoon racism, Columbia's downfall is its students' complete absence of awareness of surroundings and urbanity.

I finished my bagel and orange juice in Ferris Booth this morning, trailing behind a student in a wheel chair. He opened the door and glided through the door and down the ramps of Lerner. I proceeded to throw away my trash and leave. I proceeded down the stairs and out of the corner of my eye I saw the wheel chaired student approaching the door. I walked through and held the door for him; not even one glance at me, no acknowledgement, no thank you, just a smug look as he rolled past me. That hadn't been the first time. I hold the door for the person behind me because that's how my parents raised me, I do it out of courtesy for most people. At what point do people stop saying thank you, as if they expect you to do things for them. Imagine if I had just let the door smack shut into him. Shit storm.

It happened on the way out of Lerner, it happened on my way into EC. This example is just a microcosm of Columbia's lack of politeness. There is also one stop on the NYC subway where subway protocol is largely ignored. Every other stop, the train stops, the people waiting for the train wait on the sides of the door and let the exiting passengers out, not 116th St., people stand directly in front of the door, completely baffled when flustered people push past them out of the train. You walk up the EC ramp, the ramp is easily more than 12 feet wide, should I be suprised that the class that just finished in IAB walks down the ramp engulfing every square inch of walking space, the suits get mad when your shoulders bounce of theirs. You just have to stare them down. You have to wonder why in Lerner nobody has a sense of their surroundings, thinking its a great idea to have a bland and monotonous "Hi how are you, I haven't seen you in so long, how is your self important life going?" conversation in the middle of the stairwell.

I came to Columbia and New York City because I felt that it was leaps and bounds closer to real life than any other bubbled college atmosphere. Although that's been true for me, many still live in their bubble, they don't know who is around them, they don't know where they are, they just stand, waiting for the next character in their solipsistic reality to bump into them. It's not NYC, it's Columbia.

Friday, August 26, 2005

more terrible things to read:

"You have a group invitation awaiting confirmation. Peanut Butter Belly"

These are the sort of facebook group invitations that I receive. To tell you the truth, those are the sort of groups that I enjoy being in, if only to convey to the digital public that I am not some conceited self-absorbed douche bag.

But groups on facebook celebrating the self-absorbed masses of the American university system are plentiful. At Columbia alone, which is not particularly well known for its good looking men and women has countless versions of:

- Fabulous People
- I Look Good In Sweatpants and a Popped Collar - You Don't!
-Hot Boys - Columbia University's Ultimate Studs
-I'm the Shiznit and You're Not.
-The Oyster Collection (i Rock a Rolex and You Don't!)

Gosh. The entire thing makes me want to puke in my mouth a little bit. Let's face it, sweatpants and a popped collar? No that's not looking good, that's just wearing sweatpants and a popped collar and looking like a douche, that and... telling everybody you're a fucking idiot for spending $100 on Juicy Couture sweatpants. My next $100 something, is going towards Sennheiser HD555 headphones, those are way more bad ass than asshugging sweatpants and a Lacoste polo.

But the most disturbing part is that Columbia's class of 2009 has already jumped on the bandwagon. There are some people who already have 150+ "friends" by virtue of... oh I don't know, I'll take a stab at it, you like Coldplay and Modest Mouse and poked them. It is pretty vile and ...somewhat telling that there is a group named "the hottest freshmen girls of 2009" which was started by a certain individual who took a year off and used to take off his shirt and do pull ups on ceiling pipes in wein. Perhaps I just don't understand the complexity and deepness of the group, student of 2008, originally 2007, starts a group providing a daily affirmation for its member girls that they are in fact hot (some of those girls are poor choices, whoever the 'talent scout' is has awful taste in women).

One look at the profile of the owner of the group and you start to cringe. We will start at the wall:
entry: from a freshman
"Well your life story is amazing and its awesome that u feel close to me already. Cant wait to meet you next year so we can party in NYC!!"

Did the Columbia campus just do a collective shudder or was it just me? I almost find it hard to believe that we share 20+ friends in common as just glancing at the profile makes me cringe.

Interests:
-Crashing the 745Li (what kind of idiot crashes a 7 series? Is this an acknowledgment of stupidity and recklesness, or just a tacit reminder to everyone that he is rich and can afford to crash $100k cars?)
-girls with protruding hip bones
-girls wearing only my oxford shirts and boy short underwear
-ann coulter (WTF)
-arguing with liberals
-girls in cowboy boots
-existential philosophy
-going to the gym at 5 am and having sex right after coming back from the gym
-ordering food after not eating for days (what?)

oh oh. this one is so touching i almost cried at how deep he is.
The feeling I get when I look out my window at the christmas tree lights on College Walk in the winter: Its magical, and there are only a few of you who understand what that feeling means to me.
give me a fucking break.

Clubs and Jobs: I get paid to wear Abercrombie & Fitch clothing. And now also Adidas.

About Me: You bitches wish you were me. That's right. I bet you don't even know how to sail.


This is the profile of a refined man. It kind of hurts the soul to see these kinds of people. really. oh god. I just puked a little in my mouth again.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

dorm decorations 2005-6





And so.... I want to blow these up to 11x14 and frame them with the glass plate & clip frame. 2006 dorm decorations.
dormdecor1 Posted by Picasa

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

the terrible things you read.

"You have a friend request awaiting confirmation. To confirm, click here."

I click to see who it was, my neighbor and one of my best friends while I was growing up. We had gone to elementary school together for a few years until he moved to South Carolina. Our families were close, we sent Christmas cards back and forth... but then after a while distance took its toll and it was silence.

You can learn a lot about a person by what other people have to say about them. Sure everybody's facebook profile is going to be the same, everyone lists Coldplay and Jay-Z and everyone lists Office Space and the Big Lebowski. That kind of stuff isn't insightful, scroll to the 'wall', this is where things get a little more interesting. I believe the most telling thing about a person is their first impression to you when they are five feet away from your face. The way they walk, the way the carry themselves, the expression on their face, the ambition that may be hiding or glittering behind their eyes. Sometimes if you're lucky you might get a glimpse of that from the facebook wall.

Tonight I learned a little too much. Nothing sexually innapropriate, but quite the opposite; a sobering dose of reality. I'm suprised Sean remembered me, to tell you the truth, I thought that part of my life was far behind me, but people always remember. Sean joined facebook on May 9th, 2005. The first message was from a girl, she told him how amazing he is, how much she wanted him to hang out with her and how much potential she saw in him. It's nice to know that people care that much about you.

Eight revisions to the wall later, how much had he evolved as a person, did this girl still think the world of him? June 24th, 2005. Another friend left the message, "I wanted to tell you you did a great job reading her eulogy". God I've been there, I remember sitting under the dome outside of Hartley/Wallach in front of the steel gates. I was sitting on the concrete throwing ice packed snow at the wall. I've been there, poor kid, it's like I just talked to him yesterday and caught up, it doesn't even feel like I got the facebook fastforward version.

"confirm."

Monday, August 22, 2005

milk

My doctor always told me to make sure I drank enough milk. She said that at some point people just stop liking the taste of milk, and that I should get past that and get calcium one way or another. Luckily I never stopped liking milk. In the past three months though, apparently I've become increasingly lactose intolerant. I had heard tales of things like this. Things like asians lack particular stomach/liver enzymes to break down alcohol so they turn really red, or asians didn't have cows in their area so they never developed lactose processing enzymes.

This evening I realized that I hadn't been to the grocery store in a month. I had subsisted off of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and pears, not paying attention that they were very close to dissapearing along with all the steak that I had. For dinner I had fettucine pasta and a can of chicken broth I had laying around. For a little flavor I ate half a block of pepper jack cheese. I've been farting since 10 pm. God have mercy on me.

Saturday, August 20, 2005

the new yorker

In the newest issue of the New Yorker there is a piece by Joel Stein about the army's new recruiting pamphlet.

Wait. I just found it on the internet for free... why the hell did I drive to Barnes & Noble to go read it then? Oh, to buy the new GQ. Anyways. The article is a little unfair to the army but it was really funny. (Did anyone know that Condé Nast puts out the New Yorker AND GQ? I had no idea). http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/articles/050822sh_shouts

After reading the article and drinking my grande iced coffee, I had a dire need to use the toilet. There was another man using the urinal (I had to ask Leslie what this was called... I referred to it as the 'upright man toilet' out of ignorance) so I proceeded to use one of the stalls. I looked down, aimed, and then looked up again. At some point in between my looking up and actually peeing, I thought of the New Yorker article again. God it was funny. I peed on my left foot. Thanks New Yorker, jerks, you too Joel Stein.

Friday, August 19, 2005

Scientology: Alien genocide and religious "artifacts"

for your reading pleasure, this blog has been rewritten AND spellchecked AND has gone through one draft! holy shit this is a Wang. blog first. consider yourselves lucky.


What if I told you that my pop-tart was a reincarnated embodiment of an ancient warrior; a pastry that hurtled from the heavens to earth, only to be set free by a toaster setting of two… or lightly toasted. Now imagine I convinced three of my best friends that it was true and said that the only way we could hope for the ancient warrior race to come to earth and save the pop-tarts was to slather ourselves in a sticky concoction of unsalted butter and ‘I can’t believe it’s not butter’. I’ll call it the Church of Trans-fat-pastry-logy. Sound stupid? Well it should and I’m not likely to have any support, government or public. It’s too bad though, I could potentially save thousands every year by not having to pay taxes and having the IRS give me a deduction for educating my new members about proper buttering ritual. I think that’s just really unfair.

What is scientology anyways? Scientology tries to present itself as is one man's epic legacy of melding science with religion; a hope of making the world a better place and purging our minds of irrationality. However, what it tries to combat is exactly what it is at its core, an irrational body of thought.

“In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true. An individual discovers for himself that Scientology works by personally applying its principles and observing or experiencing results.” [from Scientology.org]

There must be something that sets Scientology apart from every other religion on our planet, something other than just good will, life improvement, and moral foundations. From what I’ve seen in Times Square, they have a secret weapon, the “Electropsychometer”, they tout it in the subway as a free stress test. The E-Meter is a tabletop box that supposedly measures changes in your mental activity as an auditor pelts you with stressful questions. How does it do that without MRI technology*? That answer surely will be answered when you become part of the fold.

Aside from using the E-Meter and an auditor to help you purge the bad humors from your body, after donating about $10,000 you learn that a long time ago our galaxy became overpopulated and an evil warlord sent the overpopulated masses to earth in order to hydrogen bomb them-interstellar genocide. The souls of these beings entered humans and are the cause of all misfortune, disease, radiation, etc that human beings face on a day to day basis.

If there was an overpopulation problem, why send them to earth and bomb them? Why not send them to the sun, why not burn them alive? Overpopulation for the galaxy would account for A LOT of organisms; a hydrogen bomb blast killing them off would have to be pretty ginormous. Where are the signs of explosion? Oh I get it, it killed off the dinosaurs. Next time on Unsolved Mysteries. Dun dun dun.

I think it is perfectly rational to believe that aliens visited our planet; you might even go so far as to say they kick started the absolute miracle that turned amino acid soup into organisms. In my humble opinion, Scientology’s claims are hardly believable and are more in line with science fiction than any kind of organized religion. Organized religion usually is thoughtful enough to be based on something, a dusty book, scrolls in a time capsule, the bible, something… anything. Scientology is based on the lifework of a professor/sci-fi writer, a Mr. Hubbard. It is a big mystery to me how the supposed fastest growing religion, maintain its members if you are presented with alien genocide and invasion of the body snatchers; assertions that are based off of zero factual or nonfactual proof, just one man's 'theory'.

Public acceptance of Scientology feels disturbingly similar to the Doomsday Aum Cult that was responsible for the 1995 sarin nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway. How many normal Japanese professionals and college students were sucked into that, paying for stupid things that their "guru” assured would lead them to further enlightenment (such as a vial of his piss to drink). Their uptight workaholic culture prompted widespread buying into the cult, but it is amazing how many people gave in to the teachings and beliefs of someone who fabricated the entire thing for monetary gain. Hollywood, although not subject to the uptight day-to-day of the Japanese businessman, seems to be on the same track. Theirs is a culture of buying into the newest fad; how many people can be recruited by a fad? I shudder to think, but it’s already gotten an entire page in Teen People. Be warned, Teen People knows all.

I dedicate this journal to freeing Katie Holmes from the clutches of shorty mcshortsalot Tom Cruise.

*Notes:

From [scientology.org]
“E-Meter is a shortened term for electropsychometer. It is a religious artifact used as a spiritual guide in auditing.”

“What makes the E-Meter react is the impingement of these mental image pictures against the body. A person receiving auditing holds two plated cans which are hooked up to the electronic components of the meter. The meter sends a miniscule electrical current (approximately half a volt) through the body, about the same amount of current as in the average battery-powered wristwatch.”

These sorts of things kind of make me cringe. I thought about it after writing this journal and it became very obvious what was going on. It is impossible for there to be a religious artifact of Scientology since the religion was spawned out of Ron Hubbard’s head. Scientology, at least in their literature, proposes a way to live ones life, how to cope with stress, how to deal with drug abuse. At surface value it’s very pragmatic but in no way shape or form did it ever claim to be based off of anything previous to Hubbard’s formulation, it is obvious that there is no such thing as a religious artifact of Scientology.

What is this E-Meter? At first I thought maybe they put a band around your head. That’s not what they do at all apparently. According to the website, they hold conductors in their hands and the meter sends a current through the body. (Not to nitpick, a volt is not a measure of current) What they are actually doing to “measure brain activity” is put an electrical meter across the human body and ask questions that are stressful. The stress causes people to have sweaty hands, sweat which increases or decreases the amount of resistance that the meter sees across the body. This is no religious artifact; it is an analog ohmmeter that they painted red.

Monday, August 15, 2005

the extreme right....

The extreme right is so far to the right that they should be careful of falling off of the page altogether. If they continue to claim to be indicative of the majority of our nation then we need to do some serious self-examination.

All we have to do is look at today's Washington Post. If you're conservative, forget the notion that the Washington Post is some liberal hate machine spreading vile propaganda. What I pulled out of the article are just the words from the horse’s mouth. Let us read:

"Rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork warned that the high court has defined homosexuality as "a constitutional right . . . and once homosexuality is defined as a constitutional right, there is nothing the states can do about it, nothing the people can do about it.""

First of all, homosexuality IS a constitutional right. If you are gay, I'd advise you to call your senator or congressman, or Bork for that matter and get an apology. This is just unacceptable rhetoric, forget the liberal bias machine, this is just base pandering to further brainwashing people. We should turn to our First Amendment, as so many people like to do.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Oh look there it is. Right under Amendment I, Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Homosexuality is not explicitly written into the constitution, it shouldn't have to be, nor will it ever be. I don't think anybody needs to turn this into serious discussion, it's not even a deep first amendment issue, it's pretty cut and dry. Moving on.

"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said "activist courts" are imposing "state-sanctioned same-sex marriage" and "partial-birth abortion" and are "ridding the public square of any mention of our nation's religious heritage" in what amounts to "judicial supremacy, judicial autocracy."

At times I wonder at Tom DeLay. Who is he kidding, I mean really. Our nation's religious heritage was one of deism. The founding father's, the majority of which were either atheist or deist, strictly wrote into the first amendment that we have a freedom of religion but also one where congress does not respect an establishment of religion. This was because Christianity's own troubles of having more flavors of Jesus than Coca Cola. We have a heritage of tolerance if anything. If by ridding the public square of our religious heritage we mean not imposing Christianity on everybody in the United States and their kid sister, of putting up statues of Moses and the 10 commandments in front of government buildings (where the constitution actually says that the government wasn't going to favor one over the other). To say that we have a history of religion that we should respect is to hide the true motive of the religious right. One should be hesitant of simply calling them "religious", they are extremist Christians. If a history of religion is signified by no more than a tacit mentioning of 'God' than... they might want to go look for something new to throw out there. Respect for religious history is not being truthful; it means a broader stranglehold on the United States' religious demographic, which includes Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, etc. If there is one thing that is scary is that the Christian PAC's are so strong, while at the same time we advocate a culture of religious tolerance. May we be weary that Jesus be written into law and "Moses is god's prophet" be cause for federal crime. That is a little outrageous, but that is the direction we are heading in. Serious nominees for the Supreme Court, our nation's highest court, should even in the strictest most literal reading of the Constitution, should know that the advocacy by the extreme religious right would not be sound legal policy in anyone stroke of life.


In Supreme Court rulings, DeLay said, "rights are invented out of whole cloth. Long-standing traditions are found to be unconstitutional. Moral values that have defined the progress of human civilization for millennia are cast aside in favor of those espoused by a handful of unelected, lifetime-appointed judges."

I think perhaps Mr. DeLay may want to apologize for these sorts of comments too. To say that long-standing traditions are found to be unconstitutional is saying what? What sorts of traditions in America have been found to be unconstitutional? Slavery? oh oh oh I got one, segregation? Wait... no. These are the words of Rep. John Lewis who puts it better than I ever could:

"Where would we be as a nation if Congress in 1954, fifty years ago, had radically amended our constitution to uphold segregation or the separate but equal doctrine? I further ask: Where would we be as a nation if Congress in 1967 made it unconstitutional for interracial couples to marry?”

Well shit. I can't think of anything else that has been found to be unconstitutional if not slavery, separate but equal, segregation, or interracial marriage. I can't tell if DeLay is just pandering to the Christian base or if he is a white supremacist... or maybe he's just hinting that these "activist judges" would turn over some other tradition... He was probably talking about abortion (I know I know) ... then again anti-abortion wasn't exactly an American tradition.

Speakers compared the civil rights movement of the 1960s to demands now by Christian groups for restoration of traditional morality. "It's time we move to the front of the bus and that we take command of the wheel," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League.

In light of the last two quotes, one by DeLay, one by Donohue, I think it is important to remember that our societal ethics was largely decided not by Christian religion, but by common sense secularism. If we were following by the book bible morality, we'd be stoning women to death, taking the rod to our children, and generally just killing everyone who didn't agree with us. I'd rather Bill Donohue not have Bill Donohue pretending that he is anyone similar to Rosa Parks. There is a weird belief that is becoming pervasive in American society that believes that Christians are somehow the minority in the country, that they are the intellectually, economically, everything-ally repressed. They forget that they compose 80% at last census of 288 million people. This could be why I and most other people can't help but wonder with that big incredulous look on our faces when we are told that they are "at the back of the bus".

Newsflash to Tom DeLay: You're about to be fired, and Patrick J. Fitzgerald is coming after everybody else.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

religion is god's population control

A few weeks ago, I wrote an email to conservative AM radio talk show host Michael Graham for his comments on Islam. He had said that we were at war with Islam, that Islam because of the actions of extremists should be labeled a terror organization. He likened this rationale to the Boyscouts of America, if two boyscouts were suicide bombers than the BSA would consequently be a terror organization. Obviously this logic is flawed, but over the past few weeks his premise, that we are at war with Islam, still bothers me and just may be true.

I've had my problems with the Church since my mom started taking me when I was in middle school. We went to Presbyterian church for a few years before it became tiresome to show up every Sunday and the message didn't hit very hard. Was I to believe that human beings are born sinners and that by supernatural forces Jesus died for my sins thus absolving human beings from their inherent troubled nature? Every sunday was a play from the Jesus Christ rule book, while there were often mentions of church members ongoing missionary and humanitarian efforts in Africa, the rest of the time was spent on how to get to Heaven, how not to goto hell, how we should let go and put our faith in god. How long has religion, spirituality, been about avoiding hell at all costs and not about a personal relationship with god? This has to be the most basic premise of religion, one that seems to have been avoided, or not examined very deeply, who/what is god. Without having a concrete understanding of what we believe to be God, it seems difficult to have faith in anything else that we are simply supposed to 'have faith' in. God; omnipotent, omniscient, bondless.

This is difficult to come to terms with. There is one undeniable, regardless of god, evolution, nature, etc. human beings have the unique ability to reason and express reason, our brains are built to cognize environmental stimuli and this information is processed to allow us to walk, to see, to build vast capitlist empires, to engineer bridges that span the seas, to travel to distant planets. Our greatest faith, is our faith in ourselves, in our ability to take advantage of our mental abilities and put them to use. I've been a student of science and philosophy for almost eight years now, my day to day job is to apply my knowledge of physical phenomena to useful application. My mind like everyone elses function by means of reason. Science has taught me verifiability, philosophy to analyze belief, history to look at our past,and anthropology to determine how we as a species got to where we are today. In the end I have every reason to dismiss the traditional faith based conception of god as the man in the sky, constantly imposing judgement on me and placing me on the scale of postmortem destination. I've had to ask myself for a long time, why do you still believe in god? you have every reason not to, yet you cling, faith defies reasonability and has effectively placed itself above questioning.

My definition of god is not the grand master smiling to you from the sky. God, I believe, is that which is outside of human beings ability to cognize in the brain. Many philosophers spoke of seeing objects. but not knowing if we were actually seeing what was actually there. Does the world actually exist as we interpret it, I think that is beyond our ability to cognize, we are only able to understand the world and function in it as far as we see it through our eyes, but pragmatically this is all that matters. In pursuit of truth, what we can't see seems to be the higher truth, the truth we are oblivious to, limited by our biological construction.

Why do I call this beyond human capability of reason and brain function God? That's a good question, why reason that this is my definition of god rather than just call it what I see it as, reality outside of our cognitive ability. It never had to be "god", but why maintain that I believe in god if I really don't in the traditional sense, perhaps it's a social conditioning to be weary of atheism.

As I was researching/writing my previous thoughts down on religious fundamentalism in the sphere of sexual contraceptives, the more I read the more I was surrounded by lack of fundamentalism by self described fundamentalists. http://www.columbia.edu/~sfw2003/journal/2005/08/religion-always-finishes-second-but
I think it was only natural that I stumbled onto a book last week, that I hope will answer a lot of questions of my own 'faith' or at least affirm what has been stewing in the back of my mind for the past few years. I read an article on www.huffingtonpost.com the other week by author Sam Harris, a Stanford philosophy graduate now working on a neuroscience doctorate. I ran out to by his book, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terrorism, The end of Reason".

Three chapters into Harris' book and looking back on my life, I am convinced that it is a product of social conditioning that leads us to religion. I was brought up in the South, Jacksonville, Florida isn't the deep south, but it has its own part as a breeding ground for conservatism and souther baptists. Being Christian and believing in God was something that gets instilled in kids from the day they are born. My family was never deeply religious, my mother and her mother did not turn to God (although my Mom shares the same critical attitude and disillusion with organized religion that I do) until my grandfather died, a man from the Billy Graham organization visting alongside the rest of the family. Elementary school kids ask you what Church you goto, it's almost a given that you goto church. Highschool and middle school all the cool kids goto 'Young Life', a Christian youth group, a group that is well... more of a group to find hot girls,boyfriends, and go on ski trips than it is to worship god. If you were atheist you were most likely that weird kid that didn't talk much in the back of the room, a product of the hot topic phenomenom, or you were the dirty old school punk rock kid with the "A" for anarchy drawn in white-out on your backpack. Everything in the south devolves into a stereotype, either you believe in god, or... you're somewhere on the fringe of adolescent society.

Fundamentalism is bred from social conditioning and family tradition. Conviction to that degree requires literal interpretation to be drilled into your head. Literal interpretation that is only if we think about it, literal for purposes of hate and bigotry, other more unacceptable passages conveniently skipped over. The danger Harris says, is that we as a society, especially that of religious moderates have been led to believe that it is taboo to criticize the religious belief of others. This comes from our high minded Constitutional first amendment giving everyone, or rather, recognizing our freedom of free speech, excercise of religion, and freedom of expression. This constitutional right was written to protect religious persecution, the unwritten acknowledgement that religion dictated a foundation of morals and ethical structure that would guide our society. Belief that the Constitution is not a living document, one in which interpretation is (not) subject to the evolution of society like Biblical literalism is dangerous for the rights of American citizens and global status quo. The constitution is a document to preserve our rights, not systematically deny them, I would hope that people remember this.

If I told you that Oregon was a state on the east coast, disease was caused by bad humours in the body, or that the Earth moves on a plane of ether in the galaxy, your brain would automatically critically analyze my statements and assert that I was incorrect. My statements were not conjecture, they were simply not true. Alternatively discussion in the realm of religion does not reach this point of discourse, some part of our minds in having been conditioned suspends critical analysis of religious statements. We see this all the time on the floor of the Senate, Congress, and from the President. Religion is the final word in every argument. Harris sees this as a free pass, and I'm incline to believe him, as religion has largely supplanted itself in the American consciousness and has survived better than a roach during a nuclear storm. Religion is kept afloat by the belief that it provides a sense of community, a foundation of morality, spiritual experience that cannot be gotten from anywhere else; it has avoided widespread criticism by pushing religious violence and war to human conditions of greed and self interest. I think as students of a wide range of study we can see this is simply untrue in both cases. Ethics and morals are products of secularism and humanism and have functioned as such probably from the emergence of our race. Relegious wars? I think we can easily categorize the Crusades, Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, Sudan, Northern Ireland, Serbia/Bosnia, and the United States/War on Terror....aka Struggle against Religious Extremists, into the wars of religion category.

So are we at war with Islam? I think the larger issue is that we are at an ideological crossroads, we are struggling with religious fundamentalism on all fronts. On the American Christian front we are struggling with Christian fundamentalists trying to assert more influence to divert our country far more conservative than it already is. The Bible is literally interpreted to provide ethical basis for attacking abortion, gay marriage, contraceptive use, stem cell research, and a host of other issues. Though the Bible is not literally interpreted to provide a basis of acceptability for slavery, stoning adulterers, killing those who sway you from god or to false idols. Our absolution of these beliefs is a product of secular belief and as Harris says, scriptural ignorance, most people who are religious and consider themselves moderates(not fundamentalist) have taken the good parts of religious texts putting themselves in the strange position of not being true to their faith (which god says in many books to take his word as presented in the bible to be truth and to be followed to a T) or their reasonable mind. We don't stone children or women, we don't keep slaves, these sorts of things in modern day America are totally unacceptable and unethical. Thank secularism for seeing that killing off people that indiscriminantly is probably not the best way to have a functioning society. Effectively people have the same situation as myself, we have taken aspects of religion as a framework for our secular livelihood, yet in our secular application we remain devoted to the idea of god. It that vein we must wonder why we don't apply rational scrutiny to relgious beliefs, if fundamentalists have already made so many concessions to their own 'literal' interpretations of the bible, are they still fundamentalists? How is it that perfectly rationale people even become fundamentalist, from science and history we have the facts, the bible wasn't written by god(this is obvious, why would an omniscient, omnipotent being write a book in the first place?), it is written in far too many writing styles to be the product of one pie in the sky man. If anything, the Bible was written by man, and at the farthest stretch, their writing was divinely inspired by god; even still man is imperfect and subject to interpretation and thus cannot be directly the word of god. Religious tradition is also an area of contention as there are few religions if any on this planet that are completely of their own. Christian religion at its heart is an amalgation of religious and secular/pagan tradition that it has processed to its own benefit and growth. The 'truths' that you learn about the 10 commandments in church is after examination not as clear cut as the church would like you to believe, religious scholars to this day are at odds trying to reconcile the multiple appearances of the 10 commandments in the Bible, which are... quite different from one another. Even Jesus himself is disturbingly similar to the Shakyamunk Buddha, egyptian god Horus (the similarities which are... if only by coincidence is too close to immediately dispel), Mithra of Persia, krishna of india, but this is all neither here nor there. http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

What we as people in the modern world must be conscious of is that religious fundamentalism has trumped science. Many will tell you that the President's approach to say Stem Cell research is ethical and in everyone's best interest. I believe this is the correct approach as well, but not to the degree that he and others are sidestepping science. Many have advocated that they would be willing to accept abortion if presented with scientific facts. The truth is that the scientific facts exist, it is debate on "human-ness" that needs to be debated, but the conversation has been stifled by religious fundamentalists and the half and half religiousity of religious moderates. To be very blunt, there will be no adequate conversation about the ethical-ness of abortion until we abandon the notion of a soul, for when we bring the idea of a soul into the conversation that is the end of the conversation. It is true that science does not have all the answers, everything that we as scientists can hope to do is put up theory and conjecture, because like insulation within the realm of the reasonability of our cognitive brain functions, we can only prove factuality to such a degree, to be cliche, there is no absolute truth. This is where science is flexible though, science is pragmatic and is always able to adjust, if we one day find more reason to believe that electricity isn't the product of the moving potentials of electrons than with adequate evidence we can embrace a new understanding of the world. The foundation of science is progressiveness, when we embrace religious fundamentalism, this is at its root and impediment to progressive thinking. For religions in all of its spouting of truth, has no answers. Religion is at best a method (a foundationless method) of critique that proposes no answers aside from faith in the almighty.

What the suspension of reason in religious conversation has done is a paved way for violence. In the United States the limits of religious fundamentalism and extremism is set by our legal system. A legal system, which I would argue has more of a foundation in the Sumarian code of Hammurabi than it does the 10 commandments. It has been made clear by the law that freedom of expression does not include excercising a literal interpretation of religious texts that gives you freedom to endanger the lives and welfare of others. We may see the occasional abortion clinc bomber and scores of church goers bringing their five year old children in front of football stadiums on sundays with signs saying "AIDS is the only cure for homosexuality", but that is about the worst we see. This is because to some degree our secular humanism has created an ethic that regulates through law, religious extremism. Religious moderates myself included have been accepting of other religions, and why not? Unless your local jewish rabbi or student of the Koran is threatening to blow up your house, there is nothing that compels you to impose your faith. But it is also the truth that we accepting individuals, who ascribe to our Bibles, Torahs, Korans, look at non-believers and those of other faiths and smile, cringing at the fact that our religion damns them to hell. This is a strange nuance of society, we must interact for our livelihoods, yet spiritually there is such a divide that it is amazing that anything gets done. Islam like Christianity has much in it that applauds martyrdom. Unlike in American however, Islamic extremists and their followers find it acceptable to take their own lives in a suicide bombing. This is dangerous as we are fighting a war in Iraq, trying to systematically eliminate our opposition with secular weapons. Islam is so uncriticized in terms of possible interpretation that I fear for the future of our global society, where the only future I envision is more religious moderate Muslims making the conversion to fundamentalism and joining the extremist cause. When fighting the extremist wing of the second largest religion on the planet, one has to be weary of an unending source of struggle.

Global progress depends on our re-embracing of reason. Without it, our progress in the sciences, in diplomacy, etc. are stymied. I find it unoptimistic that only 20% of Americans believe in evolution as the source of our existence. Truth be told, evolution may not be the end all origin of species, but at least it has a foundation of proof. I find it difficult to believe that my origin is directly from God, the timeless being stopping into discrete time to make me in god's image. Me, a descendent of Adam and Eve, who were forced to cover their bodies, not for protection from the weather and environment but because they ate an apple for a snake. This is coming from a society that believes God's birthing from clam shells and throwing lightning bolts is silly. I have yet to completely let go of my belief in god, but if God does exist he has quite the sense of humor. The only way that I can rationalize god is that he gave us powerful minds that would change our physical environments, change them to the point where natural evolution has been trumped by our ingenuity to change our environments and not ourselves. If got does exist he unleashed opposing beliefs and religions upon the human race for the purpose of population control. He knew that we would eventually triumph over disease, take sex as a pleasurable recreational activity, the only way to effectively have a reliable means of population control is to let us kill each other by means of the unreasonable.

Monday, August 01, 2005

religion, always finishes second but gets the gold medal

For the last few days I've been trying to reconcile fundamentalist Christian views with scientific progress. More specifically the question of what is natural and what is not, in terms of sex.

If we look back through the years, it has always taken the Church and its more ardant supporters a long time to embrace scientific discovery. Although science is not mentioned often in the Bible, somehow the the church was able to establish its own acceptable explanations for unknown phenomena; everything revolved around the Earth, the world is flat, sickness is bad humours in the body or the devil manifesting himself through you, and the list goes on and on.

This policy seems rather familiar if you pay attention to the daily news and politics. Come up with a definitive answer now, prove or disprove later, but try your hardest to defend your original claim. The lag between claiming and proving are those people hoping to apply their moral relativism in a way that is no hypocritical to their faith, to not blur doctrinal lines, to maintain that one book has all of the answers.

The hardest thing for me to understand is fundamentalist views on sex. The policy advocated by the President as well as the Church is abstinence before marriage. The extreme being, that such things as birth-control, condoms, etc. are not to be used and are unnatural and not the way god intended for man and woman... or man and man, woman and woman for that matter, to have sex. I am not sure where this extrapolation comes from as I don't believe there is a chapter in the Bible called Sex Education 1:1.

The Bible never mentions birth control and sexual protection because... well it didn't exist at the time. What is natural? The human body was designed to repopulate the earth, post-... 'other species like dinosaurs' time. Over-population wasn't a concern as much as repopulating was, how many examples are there in the Bible of kings having at least a dozen children? The conditions and culture they lived in was best accomodated by reproducing as frequently as possible, to maintain the status quo of the rich and to preserve the family legacy.

The Bible is not the US Constitution, it is not persay a living document as much as it is a representation of the moral and ethical values of the time and people it was written for. As a religion however, it must be able to adapt, a strict reading gives too many oppportunities for clashing with modern day values.

As humans built upon the technology of each previous generation, we arrived at where we are now. We have arrived at a junction point where many have began to create a societal backlash against the progressiveness of the new era. God they say, did not intend for us to hinder the miracle of life with rubbers and latex, pills that regulate hormone cycles. How can we operate on the premise that human technology and progress is not normal, when our daily lives and pragmatic morals are deviations from the "normal" that is presented in the Bible. One cannot expect to be living 2000 years in the past, that is what is unnatural.

Jesus did not deal with overpopulation. People died in natural manners, disease, poor hygiene, infection, etc. all things that modern man has learned to combat (save overpopulation). Through science that lifespan of man has increased by at least 30-40 years. Disease is treatable, soap is plentiful, and overpopulation can be controlled by sexual protection. Sex and orgasm is pleasureful because it was meant to be done as much as possible, spreading the seed is the goal, from single cell organisms to the spores on a dandeliion and to man, we reproduce, that's our thing. But there is always a trade off. Disease is natural, in exchange for having the science to ward off disease, nature's natural overpopulation control has been trumped in a sense. The only thing that nature may rely on is death from aging as humans struggle to live longer and die less frequently. Without disease weeding out the weak like the occasional wild brush fire clearing out the forest, we continue to push on at a rabid pace. To control overpopulation we as a species must rely on what got us in this situation in the first place, science, ingenuity, and a bit of judicious behaviour.

For 'moral' pharmacists, who will not only not dispense the morning after pill, but not dispense simple birth control pills, they are doing the world a disservice. If we are to live the "natural" god intended life than we should do away with processed foods, we should do away with vaccines, we should do away with organ transplants and muscular reconstructions. To claim unnatural you must be willing to accept the entirety of the picture, the scope of your statement, I don't know of many that are willing to take that leap. If say god invented plaque, who are you to brush it away, to remove the natural decay that was intended for you? You can't pick and choose how fundamentalist you want to be, if you want to live in the world you must adapt to that world.

With this sort of attitude, you may be thinking that you could justify just about anything like this. A lot of people would be at odds with how do you apply science like abortion, are we able to just kill fetuses at whim for the sake of population control? Morality has always been a product of society, not of the Bible. In the end, it is science that drives morality forward as new invention always strains the question of is this acceptable, are we ok with this.

The fallacy... no no... difficulty lies in the belief in a soul. Through science you can draw a line, however grey between what is and what isn't a person. At one stage the developing bundle of cells is nothing more than a bundle of disorganized cells, comparable to a finger nail that you nervously chew off as you go about your day. During the first trimester and before the second, organ systems begin to form, there is a semblance of a brain, by the second trimester a discernable brain can be seen and perhaps neural activity. In my opinion you could call this too much of a person to abort. However, before? There is room to abort a blob of cells. But, if you introduce the wild card of a soul, you are forever without an answer.

The other day, there was a comment on www.huffingtonpost.com where a man wrote in saying that many pro-lifers would be willing to cross the line to pro-choice if science was able to withold some facts and answers about person-hood. The fact is science yields many answers that you could base your viewpoint on, the difficulty is the soul. If the soul is within the 'baby' at consumation, then you're stuck. To my best knowledge, soul=person. Until people are willing to put faith into sciences hands, while maintaining natural society created morality than science will be forever at odds with religion. Religion forever playing a game of catch up, trying to dig out morality and immorality at every turn. Fundamentalism is a hinderance on any sort of progress.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Islam is a terror organization

"If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 Scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder --and the scoutmasters responded by
saying 'Could be' -- the Boy Scouts would have been driven out of America long ago.
Today, Islam has whole sects and huge mosques that preach terror. Its theology is openly used to give the murderers their motives. Millions of its members give these killers comfort. The question isn't how dare
I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not." - Michael Graham 630 WMAL ( I don't know... some radio station that carries Bill O'Reilly, Mr. Graham, and Rush Limbaugh.)


[To Michael Graham at michaelgraham@630wmal.com]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Read it back to yourself and ask yourself if you actually believe the words that come out of your mouth. If 10/1000 boyscouts practiced suicide bombings they would not be considered a terrorist organization, they would be called terrorists who happen to be boyscouts. Your logic is impeccable. "If the boyscouts refused to kick them out, that would make the case stronger... handbook, justified, blah blah blah driven out of
america". Ok maybe. To call the BSA terrorists because of 1% of their scouts is stupid and irresponsible. It is an entirely different story if their handbook justified murder in some way, but it wouldn't matter as boyscouts and Islam are completely different. Apples and oranges, your middle school english teacher should have given you an F.

Why not compare Islam to something comparable. How about Christianity? So you're saying that if 10/1000 Christians practiced suicide bombings they would be considered terrorists? Are you saying that? What aboutthe abortion clinic bombers we hear about every now and then that pop up in the news? How about the good Christian boys that murder people because of their sexual orientation? Are they murderers and their entire religious community as well? Of course not. But that's what you're saying. So Perhaps it would make the argument stronger if the
Bible had language that defended murder, etc., and priests responded by saying 'Could be', would they have been driven out of America a long time ago?

[from google search, you can check the Book references references, sure they are out of context, a different place, a different time, but isn't that the case with Islam? Extremists?]

1) In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it's OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens.

2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.

3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war.

4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins.

****5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill
anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.****

6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their
disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.

7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

It's a shame that people actually listen to people like you and take what you say to heart. Your arguments do nothing to form an American cohesion or stabilize touchy social relations, if you wanted to say that Islamic Organizations haven't done enough to condemn terrorism, just say it. If you want to say every Islamic organization should issue a fatwa against Osama Bin Laden and followers, just say that.

Don't call Islam a terrorist organization. Like I said, I hope you don't take yourself seriously; I hope you're just doing it to pick up your dwindling ratings. Nobody could be that stupid.

Stephen Wang
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen,

Thanks for the thoughtful email and for giving my stuff a read. I appreciate it.

So, since you've dismissed out of hand the idea that Islam is in any way linked to terrorism, how do YOU explain why every single suicide bomber from 9/11 to today is Muslim?

Coincidence?

Thanks for listening!

Michael Graham
630 WMAL
9am-Noon Weekdays
(link)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael,

Thank you for replying. I'm starting to wonder if that response you gave me was a cookie cutter one that was sent back to anyone with a tinge of disagreement in their email.

Let's take a step back. Before I get to your question, how did you come to the conclusion that I have dismissed the idea that Islam is in any way linked to terrorsim?

It is hard if not impossible to dimiss the link between Islam and the terrorists we have been at war with. I have not dismissed the link, what I do not believe is that Islam is a terror organization as you so brazenly stated. The suicide bombers are extremists of the Islamic faith, I think we can agree on that. There are approximately 1.3 billion muslims in the world, that is about 20% of the world's population, for you to say that an extremist sect of Islam defines an entire religion, mind you the second largest religion in the world, is
not only wrong but irresponsible.

The link as I said, is difficult to dimiss. I implore you to say what you mean and not add some firestarter at the end of it. Had you said that the Koran or the teachings of Islam give room for extremist interpretation would have been debatable. Had you said international Muslim leadership isn't doing enough to denounce Islamic radicalism, that would be debatable.

What you have spread to the american public is known as a syllogistic fallacy.

To answer your question, every single suicide bomber from 9/11 to today is muslim because we are at war with radical Islamic militants. Whether our presence in Iraq is supressing it or fueling its growth among the non-extremist Islamic community is something that YOU should be focusing on, not making irresponsible comments like Islam is a terror organization. Is this fact a coincidence? No, it's a moot point. It is not a coincidence because we are at war with terrorism, more specifically with Islamic radicals. Were you trying to get at a deeper meaning, because that was a stupid question. That's just like asking why all of the gorillas fighting in the Vietnam War were Viatnamese. There are no other suicide bombers because nobody else is
in conflict or you just don't hear about it on the news.

So what is your deeper point? The IRA isn't bombing the UK because of successful police action in the past and they aren't quite as active as they were in the past. Is there violence elsewhere in the world? Of course. Is there violence in Darfur and the Sudan? Sure. Is their violence and bombings in Haiti? Sure. The more I think about it, the
more I realize you have no idea what you're arguing about.

How do you explain why every single abortion clinic bomber is right wing Christian? Is Christianity a terror organization, a religion that promotes that folowers eliminate sinners? Come now, nobody is that irresponsible, the people who bomb abortion clinics are extremists. People who take their own interpretation of their religion and mold it to fit their own socio-political agenda are extremists, just like the suicide bombers.

Do some math. Abortion clinic bombers, say there are about 100. 100 out of a couple of billion is a tiny tiny percent. Islamic terrorists, say there are about 10000 that's still about a thousandth or a percent of the whole.

So what are you trying to say when you say Islam is a terror
organization? What do you want to do? Deport all muslims? Should we interrogate US citizens who are muslims? Should be infringe people's civil liberties because they are Muslim? Do you want to put all Muslims in jail? Because that is what you are saying. You are saying, Islam is a terror organization, all muslims are terrorists. Think before you spout something else out that is blatantly ridiculous. It's sad that people believe you. You are priveleged to be in a position
where you can spark discussion, but you turn it into some kind of post 9/11 witch hunt. great job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, July 14, 2005

color relations

"They gonna drive out the black element to make the galaxy quote/unquote safe for white folks. And Jedi's the most insulting installment. Because Vader's beautiful black visage is sullied when he pulls off his mask to reveal a feeble, crusty, old white man. They trying to tell us that deep inside, we all wants to be white!" - hooper x

And so it goes, that's all I heard for years in Florida while I was growing up, people trying to be something they are not. Asians wanting to be black, blacks wanting to be white. Where the truth is there isn't such thing as 'being white' or 'being black', well at least in my opinion (they are social constructs, yeah). So you have people psycho-analyzing Michael Jackson, Kanye rapping about people saying he's too white, examples are all out there.

I was walking through Union Square last weekend with Matt when we stumbled upon basically a public demonstration comdemning Israel's actions in the West Bank against Palestine. We walked into the massive crowd that was growing around the orators, one man in his organizations blue t-shirt was arguing with a young couple, one guy with long really knotty hair that could have turned into dreads if he fumbled with it a bit more and his girlfriend. They both could have been your average hipster punk nyc amalgamation that you always see in Union Square, the conversation turned to race and history. The Phoenecians, Hamurabi, Jesus, etc. all black the blue t-shirt man said, "you sir, Israeli, not a caucasion". I got the finger though, pointed right at my face, "he's a caucasion".

And so for the next 45 minutes until we got too hungry Matt and I listened to this man talk about not about how the black man wants to be white, but how the white man is jealous of the black man and how culture is entirely derivative of the blacks, how the moors civilized spain, how the Phoenecians civilized everyone with law and culture.

The crowd got some choice lines.

"I hate liberals more than anyone else. A republican will come up to my face and say fuck you nigger. A liberal he will try to identify with me, try to tell me that my color doesn't matter. I would much rather be a nigger than for you to take marginalize my color. Liberals like that Israeli girl who was just here will try to identify, 'Oh I like rap and hip hop music too, bitch I don't give a fuck what you like'. White people always want to be black, look at your cultural history. Baggy pants? the black man. Rock and roll? Jazz and the black man. Many countries even advocated being fairer skin, but not America, not the white man, getting a tan, being blacker is the aesthetic. everyone wants to be black, they are all jealous".

I don't think anybody is denying the impact that anyone has had in America, surely all minority groups contiributed in some part.

Enter, two older guys, must have been late 30s.

"Man you don't know what you're talking about, I don't want to be black, I'm fine just the way I am"

"Do you know what Melanin is? Do you know what Melatonin is? I'll give you 5 bucks, goto the bookstore and educate yourself so I don't waste my time talking to you"

After a while it comes out that those 2 guys are doctors. I'm skeptical because it didn't seem like they knew shit.

"Of course I know what Melanin is, it comes from your skin cells"

"But mother fucker, melanin is produced by melatonin which is created by the pyneal gland. white people don't have any melanin, they sell this shit in bottles now, where do you think they harvested it from? the black man!"

"But sir, you're talking about two different things, I think you're getting confused"

"mother fucker, go ask for a refund, you didn't learn shit in med school. do you know who epycurious is?"

"why? does it matter? who is lskjdflksjdf? i don't give a fuck"

"these guys are doctors and don't know who epicurious is, didn't you guys take the hypocratic oath? do you know who hypocrates is"

"sure, do no harm"

"you took the oath but you don't know who epycurious is"

"you don't have to take the oath anymore"

"you don't take the oath? these fuckers don't know who hypocrates is"

"wait but i do..."

"tell me what the first 5 lines of the hypocratic oath are, I bet you can't do it"

"I don't know what they are, it doesn't matter, can you recite to me the first 5 lines of the US constitution? how many more trivia questions are you going to give me"

"First 5 lines of the Constitution? I don't' give a fuck. It's all bullshit anyways. You white people have no accomplishments save two things, colonialization and disease. They say AIDS/HIV came from Africa, NO! where did it come from? 1967 it was created in a lab, the human retrovirus. Black people reproduce too quickly, gay people don't reproduce at all, the white man just wanted to even the playing field because he couldn't keep on pace with the black man".

Ok it was at this point that I got too hungry and we left.
If you go on the internet there are quite a number of articles detailing congress asking for a virus that shuts down the human immune system in a defense appropriations bill. all the population control sounds like way left-field conspiracy, but it is entirely possible, in my opinion that AIDS was created by accident. There are numerous accounts of people trying to study similar diseases in sheep and monkeys in an attempt to protect against something similar and in many cases they thought they discovered something new only to find out their experiment was contaminated by samples from the blood they did with the monkeys. Laboratory testing was not anybody's strong suit at that time. They were trying to cure Hepatitis B at the time, could some HIV contaminated stuff gone into the vaccine for hepatitis, i don't think anyone would have thought to check for it or known what to look for, but it's entirely possible that when they gave immuninazation shots to the gay populace of nyc that they inadvertantly passed them AIDS. all conspiracy theory, but... the more you read, the more a few main ideas seem entirely plausible.

Other notes. the guy is a whack job. Melanin and Melatonin are completely not related, at least in the way he was talking about. Melanin is produced by skin cells, melatonin isn't even for skin coloration, it's for sleep regulation and wake/sleep rhythm. Even if they got melatonin from somebody and put it in a pill, the more melatonin you have the less melanin your body produces. Just goes to show, you can tell a crowd anything if you have a loud enough voice and you tell your opposition to shut the fuck up a couple of times.

Welcome to Union Square. Where everyone has something to say, but hardly half know what they are talking about.

Friday, June 24, 2005

tom cruise and the idiocy of scientology

what is it about human beings that requires them to grasp onto the irrational and treat it as if it is the rational? i used to have to write paper after paper about this phenomena in barbara kitcher's class that examined kant's critique of pure reason. recently this sort of thing has been popping up in the daily news, the culprit? tom cruise.

what is scientology anyways. if scientology is a philosophy so be it, but it is not, and that is the root of the problem. what scientology tries to present itself as is one man's legacy of melding science with religion, making the world a better place, it strives that we must purge our minds of irrationality, but that's exactly what it is, an irrational body of thought. it's like a dog chasing it's own tail.

scientologists promote their religion by saying they are striving to make the world a better place. that's fine if that's true, but there must be something that sets them apart, every religion to some degree wants to make the world a better place, woopeteefuckingdoo. here's the kicker, apparently some of the truths that you learn after donating about $10,000 is that a long time ago our galaxy became overpopulated and they sent the overpopulated masses to earth and hydrogen bombed them, the souls of these beings entered humans and are the cause of all misfortune, etc. first of all that statement itself has all sorts of unfounded inconsistencies and has lunancy written all over it.

i think it is perfectly rational to believe that aliens visited our planet, you might even go so far as to saying that perhaps they kick started the absolute miracle that turned amino acid soup into organisms. scientology's science fiction is hardly believable. first of all, they present themselves as a tax exempt religion, religion usually has to be based on something, a dusty book, scrolls in a time capsule, the bible, something. scientology is based on the lifeswork of a professor/sci-fi writer, a mr. hubbard. how can the supposed fastest growing religion maintain its members if you are presenting something like alien genocide and invasion of the body snatchers that is based off of 0 factual proof, just one man's 'theory'. people give enough of a bad rap to christianity for following the world's greatest history book, but this? this is insane.

first of a belief in souls is irrational, it is faith. scientology is supposed to be rooted in the science that developed the atomic bomb (as they say on their website, they also claim he was a physicist and war hero). second of all, if their was an overpopulation problem, why send them to earth and bomb them? why not send them to the sun, why not burn them alive, why bother sending them to earth? overpopulation for the galaxy, that's going to be A LOT of organisms. a hydrogen bomb blast killing them off would have to be pretty ginormous, so where is the explosion remnants. oh i get it, it killed off the dinosaurs.

in an interview with matt lauer on the today show he went nuts on him about people using anti-depressants and any kind of drug. "By his account, Tom Cruise owes his cool head, defeat of dyslexia and, in a way, his unstoppable stardom to Scientology."

ok. a. cool head, jumping on a coach on oprah saying your in love with katie holmes is not a cool head.
b. there are two kinds of dyslexia he could have had or still have. primary dyslexia which is a dysfunction of the left side of the brain, which does not change with maturity and is genetic, and secondary dyslexia which is caused by hormone imbalance during fetal development that diminishes during maurity.
it is impossible for scientology to cure dyslexia, taking vitamins and breathing in and out and whatever the hell they do, does not cure gene related dysfunctions. they can be dealt with by alternative learning processes but you don't persay learn like everyone else does. If it was a hormonal imbalance, sorry tom, it wasn't scientology, you just got older.

either way, he is speaking of the impossible, it wasn't a miracle either, there are no miracles in science. the fact that 8 million people are scientologists is disturbing, the fact that their teachings are so secretive is disturbing. why would a religion not want to be public with it's beliefs, while touting it is the fastest growing religion in the world?

this all feels disturbingly similar to the doomsday Aum cult that was responsible for the sarin nerve gas attack in tokyo subway in 1995. how many normal japanese professionals and college students were sucked into that, paying for stupid things that their "guru" said would lead them to further enlightenment, such as a vial of his piss to drink. their uptight workaholic culture prompted that but it is no answer for how rational people gave in to the teachings and beliefs of someone who fabricated the entire thing for monetary gain. we're seeing it again, who are the scientologists and why are so many people believing what they have to say? i don't want to be a conspiracy theorist but i hope that this is a product of tom cruise and his hollywood associates being stupid and not some sort of masterminded plan where our mental faculties are weakened by something in the water.

i dedicate this journal to freeing katie holmes from the clutches of shorty mcshortsalot tom cruise.