Creationists: Do Your Research

I have found that Creation "Scientists" seem to have no interest in even learning the basic fundamentals of the three theories of the origin of the universe, life and species (respectively, the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution.) The problem with this is that this leads them to make incredibly stupid and easily irrefutable statements.

Take for example, Ben Stein. Mr. Stein wrote the smash hit Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which recieved a whopping score of 10% out of 100 on Rotten Tomatoes. He frequently seems to equate evolution with the Big Bang Theory and with Abiogenesis and often with gravity, as pointed out by Thunderf00t in one of his many anti-creationist videos.

The problem with this is that it shows that these people have absolutely no understanding of what the theories state. Evolution is not the origin of the universe. Evolution is not the origin of life. Evolution is the origin of species, which is the title of Charles Darwin's famous book. Evolution describes the diversity of life and how it came to be, not how it originated.

The theories are as follows:

The Big Bang:

The Big Bang describes the origin of the universe as a massive expansion that still continues today. 13.7 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was in one single point called singularity. This singularity was extrapolated using Albert Einstein's general relativity theory. I won't go through the details but the theory is there was a massive amount of energy and matter and it was expanding rapidly. This matter and heat ultimately formed into subatomic particles and meanwhile the four fundamental forces of physics came into being (strong force, weak force, elecromagnetic force, and gravitation). The universe was full of quarks and antiquarks which annilated each other on contact but there were an overabundance of quarks so matter won out. Where this overabundance came from is still disputed. Ultimately, the quarks became subatomic particles which became hydrogen, and helium and eventually stars, planets, quasars and everything else in the universe (source, I'm not a fan of wikipedia, but I could not find the National Geographic that had the Big Bang article from a few years back).

Abiogenesis:

Best described in one of my past posts here.

Evolution:

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations (source.) Thus evolution describes how organisms change to better suit their environment over time. The title of Darwin's book is On Origin of Species and species is about the diversity of life, thus the title is saying "how life diversified into various species."

Now that we understand these three theories can we please stop confusing them with each other?

Even still, there are several misconceptions about evolution, several arguments that are used ad nauseam, even after being proven wrong. And yet, these arguments only require a high school level understanding of evolution to see why these arguments are wrong.

1. Dogs give birth to dogs! Cats give birth to cats! Dogs can't give birth to cats! Thus speciation (the process which occurs that causes an organism to evolve into a new species) can't occur!

Well the problem is here is that the creationist assumes several very erroneous things. First, he assumes that dogs are directly related to cats genetically. They are not. Dogs and cats don't share the same genes, obviously or they'd be the same species. Secondly and more importantly, speciation occurs in very gradual steps. It'll take many, perhaps hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions (depending on the organism) of generations before a new species develops. A dog will not give birth to a new species. Rather, a dog gives birth to a dog with a beneficial mutation, who passes on that mutation and gives birth to another dog. Thousands of generations and thousands of mutations later, we have a new species of animal develop that is no longer the same species as that first dog.

2. I'm not descended from a monkey!

Very true. Humans and monkeys are cousins, and monkeys are not our ancestor. However, we do share a common ancestry with primates (apes, chimps, monkeys, etc.) Take the chimp for example. We have a 94% (Scientific American) similarity within our genes with chimpanzees. We both have 4 limbs, fingers, similar faces, abilities to use tools and can walk upright. The evidence of our relationship is in our genes. Chimps are our cousins, not our ancestors however. We do however have a common ancestor.

3. But why do monkeys still exist?

Because, ignoring the fact that modern monkeys are our cousins, not our ancestors, evolution does not require that the parent species go extinct. Perhaps one population in the species became isolated and evolved one way while another population evolved in another way. Evolution evolves to fit the environment and will go in different paths in different environments.

4. There are no transitional fossils!

A transitional fossil is a fossil of a creature that is transiting from one species to another, like a fish becoming a new species of fish.

And there are transitional fossils. In fact, we've found the fish that climbed on to land just a few years ago. Meet Tiktaalik Roseae, found in Greenland in 2006.

Of course, Kirk Cameron, actor and born again Christian took his own approach to the transitional fossil question. A few years ago on a debate with his pal Ray Comfort (who proved God's existence with a banana, completely ignoring that bananas are heavily modified by man [thanks again Thunderf00t]) against two athiests. Kirk, in all his genius claimed that if evolution had in fact occured, one of these would exist:



He then went on and added the bullfrog (part bull, part frog) and the sheepdog (part sheep, part dog), submitting not pictures of the actual animal, but computer generated images of the two animals mashed together, like Crocoduck above (source.) This video here (not made by me) sums up my reaction to this (warning, an f-bomb or two). I was astounded but more to the point, this proves that Cameron does not even have a basic understanding of evolution. Otherwise he would understand that crocodiles and ducks are very distantly related, and I mean very. Birds and reptiles both go back to the dinosaurs certainly, but there is no way a modern crocodile and a duck would ever fuse under evolution's mechanics to form "crocoduck." That thing wouldn't even survive in the wild, much less evolve into existence and if it can't survive to reproduce and pass on its genes, it can't evolve. Bulls and frogs are extremely distantly related, one is a gigantic mammal (compared to frogs) the other is an amphibian. Sheep and dogs are both mammals but still very distantly related. In all three cases, the situation in which that combination occurs would NOT happen. The lack of their existence is not proof that evolution doesn't occur. It simply proves that Cameron's imagination is a bit overactive.

Its similar to saying that because the unicorn (horse and narwhale) doesn't exist, evolution doesn't exist. Or how about I just pick two unrelated animals, combine them and complain that evolution doesn't not exist because that animal doesn't exist? NO! Do your research first. And Cameron, go back to acting.

4. There has to be a creator!

One of my favorites. It's a syllogism that goes like this:

• Something created must have a creator
• The universe was created
• Thus there must be a creator

which raises the question, who created the creator? Thiests usually counter this by saying there wasn't one, god is infinite. If there is no creator for the creator, then nothing created the creator, thus overriding the assumption that something created must have a creator, thus destroying the argument.

5. Evolution = Atheism = Evil!

And this is the fun one, the one where the creationist equates athiesm with immorality. And then they equate evolution with atheism, claiming that evolution is an atheist evil. Yet, if one goes to the wikipedia site on evolution and does a search for the word "god" all you find is "goddard" and "godfrey" in the references. Why? Because evolution makes no claim about god. It neither proves nor disproves him. It doesn't care about god nor does it consider him in any way. The reason for this is simple, god is supernatural. Evolution only explains naturalism and thus cannot prove or disprove god. If it could, then god would not be supernatural.

Furthermore, this argument also claims that atheism is evil and immoral. In a past post, I talked about this. Atheism is morally neutral, while religion can be morally bad or good depending on who is using it. Sure, Stalin was an atheist and an evil man, but he was evil because he was a paranoid lunatic, not because he was an atheist. Atheism does not teach morals, creationists are correct about this, but religion does not hold a monopoly on morality. People can learn to be moral without religion. We can learn it from our mistakes, from our elders and from our instincts. And we are not the only animals with a sort of morality built in.

In fact, morality is partially given to us through evolution. As explained in this video, we needed morality to survive as a species for the one million years we survived as hunter gatherers.

In the end, religion is not the only source of morality. Atheists are humans. Most are moral, some are immoral, as it is with all different human groups. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism and being an evolutionist neither makes you an atheist, nor does it make you evil.

In fact, most religions believe in evolution. Heck, in 1950, Pope Pius declared that there was no conflict between the beliefs of a catholic person and the theory of evolution. Pope John Paul in 1996 reaffirmed the Church's stance on evolution. Overall, the Church's stance on evolution has been more positive than negative (same source as above, next paragraph.)

In fact, most objections against evolution seem to be from American protestants, but I digress. Point is, people of any faith support evolution, and they can be moral or immoral, it has no bearing on the validity of evolution.

6. There is no observed instance of speciation!

Oh yes there is!

And they have more!

7. But it is 'just a theory!'

There is a colloquial meaning for the word theory and that is "an educated guess, a hypothesis."

This is not what scientists mean when they use that word. They use the scientific meaning of the word theory. A theory is an explanation for a phenomenan, that is well supported and well substantiated through facts and observation gathered through the scientific method. Gravitation, for example, is 'just a theory.' Gravitation is an explanation for the attractive pull one mass has on another and it is well supported and well substantiated. Hold a ball in the air and let go. Earth's mass produces a massive gravitational effect on the ball and the ball is attracted to the earth. The ball also produces a gravitational effect on the earth, but the difference in mass is so vast that such a force is entirely negligible, a fraction so small that it isn't worth discussing. Evolution is the same way. Evolution is an explanation for a phenomenon, it is well supported and well substantiated.

Evolution has been tested, observed, and has a mountain of evidence. It is out there for these creationists to look over and base their arguments off of. They have NO EXCUSE in this age of the internet to make arguments that can be easily disproved with google, wikipedia and youtube. I could source these links but why should I work for their laziness? All they need to do to find the mountain of evidence is visit GoogleScholar, EbscoHost, or any academic search engine and immediately find hundreds of thousands of hits. Or they can visit a library and look within numerous books on the subject. There is no excuse for them to continue to make idiotic statements because they didn't do their homework before opening their mouths. Reading an evolutionists paper doesn't mean you have to agree with him guys. There is no way to win an argument if you don't understand the basics of your opponants argument. None. And all of you are losing this argument because you don't understand the scientific viewpoints on the origin of the universe.

These 7 points aren't the only mistakes they've made. Not even close. I could mention the genius who believes that evolution is false because peaunut butter doesn't come alive but I'm tired and frankly, the stupidity speaks for itself.

Do your research creationists, BEFORE opening your mouths.

"Carl! What if I accept evolution! Will you stop shooting me? Please?" Kirk Cameron
"No because you've spread intolerance for years and made people dumber on account" Carl Sagan (not really but funny video I found)


J Kuhl Signing Off

God In Schools? Umm . . . Which One?

There has been a lot of debate about how God needs to be put back in school, to which I sarcastically ask why. Did he fail a graduation requirement?

In all seriousness, which one? The people who ask this are typically Christian fundamentalists, and even some of the moderates. What they don't seem to understand is that this is a multicultural nation. There are many different religions here and if the Judeo Christian God is represented, then ALL gods must be represented, including Vishna, perhaps Zeus, and Allah, and Ahura Mazda, and the pagan gods that the Native Americans worshiped and so on and so forth. Every single one. Rather than getting into the mess of lawsuits that would come out of this, it would be better if schools focused on education rather than religion.

If you as a parent are so intent to have your children taught a particular religion, either teach him yourself, or send him to a private school. Public schools cannot play favorites to any religion, it is unfair and unconstitutional. It is for this reason there is no religious education or mandatory prayer in school. It is for this reason why Creationism is not to be taught in a science class.

Prayer in a school is fine, so long as it is not mandatory and not sponsered by school officials. It is also fine so long as non-participants are not put down, demonized or ostrasized (otherwise it becomes discrimination.) Christmas is also fine, so long as the school only focuses on the secular parts of Christmas becausethere could be non-Christians in this multi-cultural nation!

Some people claim that taking God out of school leads to an increase in violence and delinquency in school children, as if religious folks are any more or less moral than non religious folk. This is a flawed argument because religion isn't the sole source of morality. Morality comes from making good judgements based on what experience and wiser elders have taught. God and other religions can certainly help to forge a moral code, but it isn't the only way. Athiests can be moral and immoral as well. People are people, selfish and greedy no matter what their religion and thus any rise in violence isn't due to God being removed from schools but due to a lack of discipline or a lack of education of morality and ethics.

If you want God to be taught in schools, fine, so long as I can come to mass and teach Chemistry and Evolution.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Texting and Driving

This should not be a law written in the law books. This should not be a statute.

This should be common sense.

I really don't understand the epidemic of idiots who text, or even use a cellphone, while driving. It's depressing that we actually have to make a freaking law for this. This is a really simple concept folks, when you are behind the wheel, you should be driving. Not texting, not talking on the cellphone, not reading a newspaper or a book (I have, to my eternal depression, seen all four of these things happen on the interstate.) You should be driving.

Except in the case of an emergency, there is no excuse to use a cellphone or text while driving. None. If someone calls, let them leave a voice message and call back later. If it's urgent, pull over.

Driving while texting or otherwise distracted is at the least irritating to other drivers and at the most, deadly and nearly as dangerous as drunk driving.

Please people, common sense.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Is Obama Doing Enough?

The media has been asking if the President has been doing enough about the current Iranian crisis and my response to this is yes, he is.

First of all, every single time we've meddled in the Middle East, it backfired on us. From the first coup in Iran, to the hostage crisis, to everything we've done 'for' Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan, and so on and so forth has backfired on us, creating a hotbed of hatred and terrorism directed at us. Thus I think it is high time that we just sit on our asses and let them fight it for themselves.

It is their fight, not ours. The election crisis is an internal affair and it is up to the Iranians to solve it, not us. Who appointed us? We are not the world police. And besides, they don't want or need our help. They never have.

There are two possible outcomes in this crisis, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad win and the revolution is crushed or they lose and the revolution puts up a moderate (probably Mousavi.) Whatever the outcome, neutrality is our best option. If we claim support for the revolution and the current Iranian government prevails, then we will be shooting ourselves in the foot if we want any diplomatic concessions from Iran in the future. They will refuse to cooperate. If the revolution succeeds, then opponents throughout the middle east will claim (as they currently are doing) that the revolution is just a sham perpetrated by the US and there'll be suspicions against their legitimacy. Thus neutrality is our best option here. Let them fight it out, we'll stay out of it.

Perhaps we need to keep up pressure on the current Iranian government to let them know the world is watching them and judging them, as a way to try to keep them from going too far, but I really don't think there is much we can or should do.

Let Iran fix Iran's problems.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Good Thing We Don't Name Ourselves

The internet can sometimes show some powerful insights to the human psych, mostly in how we behave when we're reduced to nothing but anonymous names on a forum. But one thing that I noticed were the names we give ourselves.

And I wonder if, in 2120, when the whole world is connected to this enormous Internet network construct or whatever, if we will be naming ourselves with screen names. And that is a scary thought.

A brief rundown on names from a random thread on Fark.com gives us names like:

House of Tards
Remove all Republicans
Alien Robot
thisispete
HempHead
Fluorescent Testicle
neongoats
heinekenftw
Spanky_McFarksalot
Fart_Machine

Now just imagine how fast society would crumble if we all had names like this. Imagine the republicans putting up a guy named 'Fart_Machine' and the democrats respond with a guy named 'Remove all Republicans.' A candidate named Flourescent Testicle would probably be worse. Or imagine meeting a really hot blond chick who really likes you and then you learn her name is 'neongoats.'

Hopefully, in 2120, there'd be some standards as to what people name themselves, but it's a damn good thing that people can't do this right now in 2009.

They certainly give very strange names to diseases. -Plato.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Smokeless Movies?

A group wants an R-rating for any movie with smoking on it, claiming that children watching people smoke in the movies will make them want to smoke. CNN

This is absurd and ridiculous. First of all, watching a character smoke on a screen won't cause children to start smoking, and if they do, then there are greater problems than just watching movies. Creating a zero-tolerance policy towards anything is subject to failure and always has been and putting such a policy on movie ratings is asinine. Children will encounter smoking in real life just walking down the street as much, and probably more, than they'd encounter in movies. Sheltering children isn't going to solve, or even help, the problem. This isn't even a bandaid fix.

Why have we as a society gotten to the point where other agencies have to make decisions for us? We are told what we can't show our children, we are told what we can and can't eat, we are told what to do and where to go and how to do it. And the worst part of it all is we allow them to do stuff like this because we are too lazy now to admit to any responsibility. Its illegal to drive without a seatbelt because people are too stupid to buckle up. It is illegal to text while driving because people are too stupid to put their cellphone away. If the US becomes a nanny state, it will be our own damn fault.

Its time to seriously start thinking about nanny laws and nanny groups and perhaps grow up as a society.

J Kuhl Signing Off

This Nation Has A Real Issue with Race

Everywhere I've looked after the announcement that Souter was retiring, there have been comments left and right that the new justice should be such and such a race or ethnicity or some such. I've heard arguments that he should be a WASP. I've heard arguments that he should be gay. I've heard arguments that he should be latino. I've heard arguments that he should be a female. What I hear shocking little of is that he or she should be qualified.

With the impending confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor, I hear a lot of 'oh wonderful, a Latino woman.' To be fair, there is also talk about how she's qualified. But it makes me wonder, do we care too much about race and ethnicity? Personally, I don't think it should matter. I don't care where Sotomayor is from. I don't care if she's Latino or Asian or African or Jamaican, complete with dreadlocks and a love for reggae music. All I care is that she's got the qualifications required. Is she good at interpreting law? Does she understand the consequences of her decisions fully? Will she be fair and unbiased and true to the Constitution? These are the questions that should be asked.

We shouldn't be worrying about her ethnicity or her skin color. These things won't make a difference in the long run.

Heck, I felt this way when Obama was running. I didn't give a care about the fact that he was black. All that concerned me was how I felt he was going to run the office of the President.

I feel that this nation seems to either discriminate minorities or simply try too hard to diversify. Diversification is something that occurs naturally. If we can stop discriminating and stop worrying about who is of what race, diversification will happen on its own. There is no need to force it.

Sonia Sotomayor seems like a good pick, I've only read one article about her, but she seems to be experienced and intelligent. And I really don't care if she's Latino or not.

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. -H. L. Mencken

J Kuhl Signing Off

Why I No Longer Go To Church

Walking into church is like walking into a relic. A mausoleum. Sure, there is often an interesting history, sometimes a progression of priests or peculiar congregations but a mausoleum nonetheless.

Church is old. Ancient. It doesn't cover new ground. It loses much of its meaning when week after week it is the same scripture readings, the same message and for what? So I can be blessed? I don't know. I don't get anything out of church. I don't relate to its message, its gods, or its ceremonies. Certainly, it has a good message at times, in terms of ethics, but this is not unique to church, or even religion. These are moralities that could be taught in school with no mention of God.

In this advent of modern science, mankind finds itself in a unique position where in the first time in history, educated people are able to question the status quo using logic and reasoning. No longer does such a church have any authority. And without this authority, the church cannot stop us from questioning. And then the questions arise, the biggest one being, where is the evidence for all of this? Or are we all just sheep? I eat the communion bread and it tastes like bread. I know I should take all this on faith but why? Why isn't there something, some teaser to let me know that I'm not just going through the motions for nothing?

And here's another one, what makes the Bible right and the Koran wrong? What makes the Koran right and the Rigveda wrong? Why is Allah false and Ahura Mazda true? How do we know who is right? Why should we be following some invisible being when there is no reason to believe one exists? I cannot default to the positive assumption of existence without some means of evidence or some logical conclusion. I can't simply believe in a religion without knowing it exists. Blind faith does not work for me.

This is why I don't go to church.

If God lived on earth, people would break his windows. -Jewish Proverb

J Kuhl Signing Off

Heaven and Alfredo Sauce

I never understood the whole Christian idea of playing a harp for the glory of Jesus when I die and go to heaven. Personally, listening to a harp for the rest of eternity is my idea of hell. I'd rather have a noisy accordion and a crowd of people who hate accordions that I can annoy. I can be my own polka band, with one irritating note after another. My heaven is your hell.

Also, in heaven, we do not sit on white puffy clouds. Oh no. Clouds are boring. Who wants to sit on a puffy cloud all the time? Clouds are wet, cold and windy. Clouds suck. If you want clouds, Lucifer has a decent supply of those where he lives, 666 Hell Ave in HELL. No clouds. In lieu of clouds, we have beer. Lots of beer. Beer fountains, beer rivers, beer volcanos and occasionally, it rains beer.

The local diner in Heaven is never out of chicken lasagna either. You can get all the chicken lasagna you want. For free. And you never get fullunless you want to be full.

As to God himself, god is a black man. He's elderly with grey grizzled hair, wise brown eyes and a sharp white suit. On Earth, God has played several roles, such as Lucious Foxx, Red from Shawshank Redemption and he's also played Morgan Freeman in real life. Oh to listen to the deep and soothing voice of Morgan Freeman for all of eternity, praise be Mr. Freeman!

Hell on the other hand is a large city, like Boston in that there is a starbucks on every corner. And the local diner also has plenty of chicken lasagna. But in hell, the coffee and the lasagna costs money and in Hell, you don't make much money. The only food you can afford is from McDonalds. Greaseburgers for an eternity of service to Lucifer.

Of course, you could save your money, but it takes weeks and weeks of saving and you'd have to starve yourself. Of course you can't die, but starving pains are terrible. If you pull through with the thousands of dollars for a warm cup of coffee or a chicken lasagna, they've run out. Starbucks sits on every corner of Hell City, taunting you, mocking you, holding out that rotten carrot.

Of course, this is only your time off. Work in hell is basic. You get to make coffee. Lots of coffee. And you serve it to Lucifer's demons. But you aren't allowed to drink it. Your lips grow shut, kinda like in the Matrix when the Agents hold Neo in that cell. And your job is long and tiresome. And you want it. You want that rich nutty coffee. But you have no mouth. Oh! That tantalizing smell! How dare it tempt us!

And once your mouth grows back, the coffee is available, if you can afford it.

But you can't.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Fox News Can Stop Pretending

Please Fox, stop pretending to be 'fair and balanced.' You are a conservative news network. Admit it please.

Once again, Fox News is practically endorsing the far right nutjob tea parties.

Fox News now giving publicity to Republican Governors' "Tea Party 2.0"

Fair and Balanced my ass.

J Kuhl Signing Off

In Defense of Atheism Again

This is not a Christian nation.

People of the Christian faith, who believe otherwise, need to take a good hard look at our nation and realize that his nation is not, and never was meant to be a Christian nation.

The Founding Fathers, hundreds of years after the intolerable and intolerant Puritans landed on this continent wanted a nation where people would be free to express their religious beliefs from any point of view. Men like Jefferson were deists, believing in science and in an uninvolved God. They ensured that the Constitution stated that there would be no abridgment to the freedom of religion in this nation whatsoever, no establishment and no prohibition. The government would, and should, remain secular.

The United States is, and always should be, a multi-religious nation. To show any favoritism to one religion (especially Christianity, which is the majority religion) would disenfranchise nonbelievers, making such an act unconstitutional. This violates separation of Church and State and violates the First Amendment. In an indirect way, showing favoritism to a religion prohibits and restricts other religions by giving more privileges to one. This is the reason why the government must be secular at all times.

This means no prayer, no funding for faiths, nothing whatsoever, in a mandatory fashion from the government. We are too diverse to practise any religion as a government, for it is an all or nothing situation.

This includes the followers of atheism and agnosticism, the nonbelievers. Atheism, of course, is a lack of belief in God and agnosticism is the idea that we cannot know that God exists. Atheists deserve the same respect and tolerance that anyone of any religion gets. Religion doesn't automatically make someone better or worse than a non-believer, all it means is that they approach life in a different matter. Religious folks look for a supernatural system of belief, atheists and agnostics approach life in a different manner, usually in regards to science and secular philosophies.

I hate to say it, but most of the ignorant crap that goes on in this nation comes from the religious. Mind you, I was raised by Catholics and went through twelve years of Catholic schools (good schools). The vast majority of Christians are good people who actually listen to what Jesus has to say. But the loud, screaming minority ruins it for everyone. And it is from these vocal idiots that the ignorant crap tends to come from. Religion is but a philosophy, but it can be abused by little people enticed by power.

Crap like Fred Phelps who, I am sure, is declaring that all Mainers, Iowans, Connecticutans, Massechusettesers, and Vermonters are on their way to Hell. The entire religious right is thumping their bibles declaring gay marriage a 'sin' (and I'm sure they eat shellfish). Meanwhile, religious nuts on the Texas and Kansas school boards fight to bring creationism into a science class and weaken/remove evolutionary theories from textbooks. And then you have discrimination (ABC) against atheism simply because one dares to not believe in a god. Not only is it a problem in the US but across the globe where terrorists actively seek out to destroy the world so they can implement Islamic sharia law.

Not only do atheists need to speak up, but the silent majority of all religious folk need to also speak up and over throw the loudmouthed bigots who ruin the good things religion can bring to us. Religion offers hope, morals, decency, compassion and good works, and while it isn't the only source of these things, it is a source and a motivator. But so long as men like Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter spread hatred in the name of religious dogma, religion will be stained. People need to expose these people for who they really are or we need to ditch religion completely. As I am sure most Americans don't want the latter, then we need to gain some common sense and speak up against the abuse of religion for bigoted agendas.

Lets end the anti-science platform, lets end intolerance in the name of religion, lets end the hate, the lies, the superstition and lets leave religion to be a matter of personal faith between an individual and his beliefs, if he has any. Religion can be a great thing. Lets turn it into that.

J Kuhl Signing Off

There's A Storm Coming (Colbert Report)

Colbert is one of the greatest satirical minds of the century.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Hey Mr Taliban - Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide

“Osama Bin Laden Bomb Song”

Words by Craig Williams, “Sweet” Al Miller, Andy Kaye and Doug Marsh

Day-o! Daaa-yo!
Daylight come, and we drop the bomb

Pay — we say pay, we say pay, we say pay, we say pay-o!
Kick your ass, then we gonna come home

George Bush says that revenge come
Daylight come, and we drop the bomb
Load dem bombs til the morning come
Airplane come and we drop the bomb

Come, Mr. Taliban, turn over bin Laden
Colin Powell gonna bomb his home
Come, Mr. Taliban, turn over bin Laden
Payback come, and we drop the bomb

Lift one bomb, two bomb, three bomb, four!
Payback come, and we drop the bomb
Six bombs, seven bombs, hit the floor
Cruise missile knocking at your door

Come, Mr.Taliban, turn over bin Laden
Colin Powell gonna bomb his home
Come, Mr. Taliban, turn over bin Laden
Payback come, and we drop the bomb

Lift one bomb, two bomb, three bomb, four!
Payback come when we drop the bomb
Six bomb, seven bomb, hit the floor
Cruise missile knocking at your door

Pay — we say pay-o
Kick your ass, then we wanna come home

Source

J Kuhl Signing Off

On Race

An African American student was booted out of med school for claiming he was African American. The reason why? Because he had white skin. The student was from Mozambique, but had come to the United States and received his citizenship. It turns out, he is definitively African-American.

It is ignorant to assume that every African in Africa is black. While black skin certainly makes the majority, it isn't the rule. There are many white people who live there and lived there long enough to call themselves African. Two American celebrities with white skin are African-Americans. Dave Matthews and Charlize Theron was born in South Africa. Heck, Charlize Theron's first language is Afrikaans. There is also the Seychelles, a group of islands off of the coast of Africa, north of Madagascar, entirely peopled by French and English colonists. (Making the Seychelles the only European colony where the Europeans didn't oppress the shit out of the original inhabitants, it was uninhabited when they arrived). White people do live in Africa. And the student in question here is one of them.

The term 'African American' is frequently wrong anyway. First of all:

This is Chiwetel Ejiofor who played the Operative in the movie Serenity, an American made film produced by Joss Whedon. What race is he?



The kneejerk answer is 'African American.' However, he's British (Source: Maddox).

Here's another black man. He's the famous singer Bob Marley. What race is he?



Bob Marley is Jamaican. Again, to say African American would be wrong.

And this doesn't only go for black people. What about Asians? Siberian Russians are Asians. So are Indians. And Afghanis. And so on and so forth. And yet, when people say asian, they think of people with Chinese facial structures, black hair, and very pale skin. Asia is bigger than China, and heck, there are differences between Japanese, Chinese, and Korean (and so on) and they have similar facial structure. It is more than a difference in appearance, but also a different culture. Lumping people in one group, under one label, over this vague idea of race does not work. We are too diverse for that.

This whole business with race is getting pretty stupid. Race is entirely a cultural construct. There is no biological difference between any races (besides petty and unimportant traits such as skin color, eye color, etc) and they are all a part of the Homo Sapiens species. Why can't we just treat other people with respect that they deserve from their actions and their personalities and not from the color of their skin or the slant of their eyes or whatever irrelevant trait.

This is why I don't like Affirmative Action. It is a program that sounds good on the outside, giving minorities protection from discrimination and diversifying the workforce. However the problem is inherent when an individual from a minority turns out to not have the necessary skills for the job he's working or applying for. He has the power to file a lawsuit, even if the employer is honestly acting on the employee's lack of skills, because he can cry out "discrimination!" and pressure the employer to keep him on. This keeps a man without skills in a job when an employer could find another (of any race, ethnicity, religion, etc) who's better qualified. It gives extra power to certain minorities. If a minority is truly being discriminated against, of course he should have the right to sue. But if he's being fired for being late ten times in a row, he should not be able to use his race to protect himself. Race should not be a qualifier or a disqualifier for a job or college slot. Whether or not you are a minority, you should get a job or a college slot based entirely on your knowledge, skills and abilities. We should be beyond racism, to the point where all that is important about a human is his actions and his character. Skin color and appearance don't matter.

And forcing a kid to lie on a form because he doesn't conform to stereotypical standards is beyond ignorant, it is stupid.

"Now, I don't see race … People tell me I'm white, and I believe them, because I own a lot of Jimmy Buffett albums." -Stephen Colbert

J Kuhl Signing Off

Rhinoceroses Will Save the GOP.

Dick Cheney stated on Face the Nation that he'd rather have Rush Limbaugh, the corpulant, neocon extremist talk show host, than Colin Powell in the GOP. He did all but label Powell as a RINO, Republican-In-Name-Only. At the same time, FreeRepublic members attacked Governor Crist of Florida when he announced his bid for the U.S. Senate for being a RINO.

But honestly, what the party needs is the moderate GOP elements that they are driving out, not the extremist GOP nutjobs that they are pandering to. When a member of the GOP is moderate, he is labeled "RINO," which is a title of scorn. The current republican party is a party of obstructionism, sabotage, and outright ridiculousness. This is now a party where President Obama is scorned as 'elitist' for asking for spicy mustard at a hamburger joint. This is a party that refuses to give Minnesota its constitutionally guaranteed representative by being unable to claim defeat. This is a party that organized tea parties, protesting taxes for the rich, which none of the protesters had to pay.

The party of fiscally conservative, small government, grassroots conservatism, is dead. It is in the hands of the moderates who are voiceless and rapidly fleeing the GOP for independent parties, or worse, the Democratic Party (I say worse because we are headed for a one party system, which would be unhealthy for this nation.) If the GOP wants to survive, they need to turn around and began pandering to the moderates.

A more moderate GOP, which cares about fiscal conservatism, small government, and personal responsibility has a place in this nation. A GOP that will keep the liberals in check is important. A GOP that will complain about mustard on a burger is not. We need a second party, or ideas will not be challenged and Congress will run too smoothly and no one will be around to criticize what they do. Even if they do, they'll be powerless to stop them. This nation must have at least two parties. A moderate GOP will help ensure that the budget is more conservative, that the government doesn't involve itself too far in private affairs and ensure that we maintain a defense against foreign threats.

The current GOP does none of these things. George W Bush was the biggest spender until Obama, who's spending due to an emergency. Under Bush, a surplus left by Clinton was brought to a deficit. The GOP claimed to be a small government party, but they stick their noses in the lives of gays and tell them they can't get married. They wiretap and watch everyone with suspicion and gave the executive branch powers to hold prisoners. The GOP right now is extremist and does not deliver on its promises at all. This is why the moderates are fleeing.

If instead the party listened to the moderates and shut out the idiots like Limbaugh, then perhaps they would not be in this situation. They'd have a viable platform and the ability to filibuster. But they'd rather see them turn tail and run away. Dick would rather have the corpulent Limbaugh than the intelligent Powell.

In other news, the Republicans in congress are trying to pass a bill to declare this year the Year of the Bible. I have a real problem with this. This is a nation of three hundred million people where roughly 20% are not Christian or Jewish (the Jews being included as they can relate to the Old Testament). That's around sixty million people who are not Christian. The bill is nothing more than a resolution, however it is unfair and unconstitutional. This crosses the line between separation of Church and State. It shows favoritism of one religion over another, which I believe the Founding Fathers wanted us to avoid when they stipulated "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof." Sure this does not literally establish an official religion, but it sends the message that the Christian religion is the one preferred in Congress, so in a way it does.

This is a multicultural nation, founded by secular humanists. This is not and never was suppose to be, a Christian nation. This is suppose to be a free nation where any religion is respected and practiced (within reason, obviously if your religion includes ritual sacrifice of young virgin females, there might be a bit of a problem) with no influence or bias from the U.S. government.

If this resolution passes, I will petition congress to declare next year, Year of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's only fair. To refuse would be discriminatory against my religion.

"Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power." -Bobby Henderson, founder of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

J Kuhl Signing Off

The Piscatiqua River Bridge

Coming home today from Manchester New Hampshire, I was traveling down I-95 North. The traffic was typical, the truckers were obnoxious and the slow folk were in the fast lane, forming moving roadblocks and police were at every bend. It was a long and boring journey, but one that was headed for Maine, which is home.

As I went through Portsmouth, I-95 bent out of sight between the two walls of trees. Gloriously and majestically, the Piscatiqua River Bridge, a triumph of engineering and a construct of green iron and grey concrete, rose into the sky. The Bridge has always been special to me. Going west, it was a symbol of adventure, leaving the borders of my home state. And going east, it was a symbol of comfort, returning home.

But today was different. A rainbow had landed right into the direct center of the Bridge. Topless men were cheering and hooting along the side walks. Nervous, I locked my doors and stepped on the gas. Above me, thunderclouds rumbled.

As I came closer to Kennebunk, the storm clouds burst. Rain began falling in buckets. I pulled into the service station to take a leak. The rainbow was still visible behind me, though the Bridge was some 20 miles behind me. As I shut off the car, I belted myself with a chain and a padlock to protect myself from surprise gay sex.

And then there was this tall, muscular, handsome man in a soaking wet tshirt. I tried to think real hard about a girl I found attractive, but all I could do was imagine his well toned pecs. Please McDreamy, please take off your shirt.

It was official, Maine had gone rainbow and the horrors of The Gay had been unleashed.

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." -Lynn Lavner

J Kuhl Signing Off

The Laws of Video Games

Video game designers are an interesting bunch. They have a complex job. They must make a playable game that is entertaining, but challenging at the same time. They walk a fine line. Since the invention of the video game (Pong,) game theory has become more and more complex and more solidified to the point where now it is a college degree.

Of course being a gamer, one notices that there are numerous little rules that call programmers should follow or be forced to play their dumb game for the rest of their lives.

1. Cinematics and movies should all be skippable, at least on the second viewing. I like a game with a good story, but damn, when I want to sit around shooting zombies in a game I've played before, I don't need a ten minute video I've seen that I can't skip or fast forward. Any stretch of time where the player is doing nothing and can do nothing should be skippable World of Warcraft had these flight paths where you'd just sit for 5-15 minutes, unable to do anything.

2. Saving should be available at any point in a game. Nothing ruins a game more than achieving something difficult, then dying at the next turn and having to start all over again simply because you can't save.

3. Loading a new level should not automatically start a new level. So I'm playing Warcraft III, the campaign mode, and I beat a level. The game loads the next one. Since this takes a little time (not much, it is a 10 year old game after all), I'm likely to have left the computer to take a leak or grab a drink or something. When I come back, there is a button: Press here to start or something like that. I like this because it allows me to get up and stretch and not start in a firefight or something while I'm on the john.

4. Games need continuous action. A break here and there is fine, but no longer than one or two minutes at a time. It starts to get boring if I'm walking around and not taking out zombies.

5. Have an easy mode. Games require a learning curve. I've had Jedi Knight Dark Forces II for almost a decade now. It's a great stress relief because I can play it with my eyes shut. And it's great because it's easy mode was easy, but challenging, when I first started. However, Warcraft III only has normal and normal is actually difficult for a newbie to defeat in skirmish mode. Games need to address the learning curve and give an easy mode for people just starting out.

6. At the same time, don't make it too easy. I can beat most Age of Empires II civilizations in 30-40 minutes and take maybe one casualty, if I play the Spanish. I've beaten a civilization with my army consisting of 10 conquistadors and 10 paladins. On the hardest setting. It was a 20 minute battle, they only had villagers. Not exactly a difficult fight.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Swine Flu? More like Zombie Flu!!!!

I fear I was dreadfully wrong in my recent post about the Swine Zombie Flu. As it turns out, this is no ordinary flu. This is it. This the final Zombie apocalypse and we have maybe a week before the victims rise from the dead to kill us all.

I have spent the last few hours setting up my fortress. In the basement of my house, I have stockpiled thousands of shotgun shells for my Remmingtons (plural, because I have 26 of them) and I have sharpened my machetes to such a fine point, they can split hairs. I am ready.

My basement has been retrofitted with the newest technologies. A heavy blast door has been installed and there is a window slit where my mini gun sits to pour deadly fire on the zombie hordes. There is only one other exit, a mile long escape tunnel that comes to a secret opening in the middle of the forest. The door cannot be opened from the outside.

Should there be a breach, there are wall mounted turrets. These turrets use infrared, so if anything without a human heat signature (such as zombies) moves, they will fire with near perfect accuracy. These line up my escape tunnel with perfect accuracy.

The freezer has three years worth of food. By the end of three years, the virus will die as it will have no more hosts to consume and then we survivors will be able to emerge and rebuild civilization from the ashes.

I am ready for the zombie hordes!

J Kuhl Signing Off

Somalian Pirates Fail.

Everyone's heard of these so-called pirates off the coast of Somalia, causing disruption and mayhem. However, I must point out, for the good name of pirates everywhere, that these men are not true pirates.

Let us take a look here:



As you can see from the photo, this is a Somalian pirate. But as you can tell, he's doing it completely wrong. He has no eyepatch, no peg leg, no hook. He doesn't wield a saber, scimitar, or a pistol. He doesn't have a knife in his teeth. He doesn't wear a tricorn hat or a bandana. He isn't visibly drunk, nor is he singing about booze and tavern wenches. He also is not gloating over his booty. He could have at least gotten a parrot.



This is a pirate. He stands proud above his treasure, adorned in the finest clothes his riches could buy him.

And what of the Somalian ships?



The hell is this? This is little more than a boat with an outrigger motor! Where's the Jolly Roger? Where are the cannons? Where's the masted corsair? Aw come on!



This is The Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard's ship. It's got billowing sails, cannons, and all the works. THIS is a pirate ship. You can't take some little boat, slap on an outrigger and call it a pirate ship. No, it has to have style.

Pirates are all about style. The Somalian hooligans are thieves with boats. You have to be a pirate in order to be a pirate. It is an adventure, a romance with the sea, a love for danger. Arr, we be swashbucklin' pirates, sailin' the seven seas. We plunder by day and drink by night and each time we make port, we be gettin drunk in a tavern with some wench, arr, a pirates life for me.



In other news, the story of Blackbeard.

"When you marooned me on that god forsaken spit of land, you forgot one very important thing, mate: I'm Captain Jack Sparrow." -Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp)

J Kuhl Signing Off

Swine Flu! EVERYBODY PANIC!

A couple of days ago, I went over to CNN to find out what was going on.

Swine flu.

Then I headed over to MSNBC

More swine flu.

ABC? BBC? CBS?

Swine flu! Swine flu! Swine flu!

Once again, after the Avian Bird Flu and the SARS epidemic, yet another disease has arrived to kill about a hundred people, causing the media to incite a global panic over nothing. So far, 86 have died, but most who suffer from this mild, drug-responsive disease, have lived. No one outside of Mexico has yet died. I guess the media got tired of reporting on the economy so they inflated this thing.

I can understand the CDC getting a little worried about a new disease and taking precautions, but as for the media, it's absurd that they're taking it to this proportion, speculating the possibility of a pandemic which isn't going to happen. I guess fear sells.

"The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They're about getting ratings, about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover." Al Franken

J Kuhl Signing Off

Canon - Guitar - Jeong-Hyun Lim

Obama Shakes Hands with Hugo Chavez

The right has been barking like a mad dog about the recent visit Obama made to Latin America, especially when he shook hands with the bellicose socialist President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. They claim, once again, that the president is subjecting himself to Chavez by being polite to him.

This I don't understand. For the last 8 years, Bush has decided he'd rather ignore his foreign opponents than sit down and talk with them. We all saw where that lead. America is looked on with resentment by foreign nations. Iran for example was shut out by Bush's unwillingness to talk and Iran is full of people who like American values such as democracy and liberties. Talking to a leader is not surrendering to their whims! Shaking hands with Chavez was nothing more than a polite gesture.

In other news, right wing pundit, Bill O'reilly recently commented that the US was going to become a socialist nation, much like Sweden. And so in curiosity, I looked up Sweden. On a quality of life chart, Sweden is number five and the US is number thirteen.

Doesn't sound like a bad place to live.

And I'll leave you with this gem from the Huffington Post:

Sean Hannity offers to be Waterboarded For Charity

I'll do [the waterboarding] for charity. I'll let you do it. I'll do it for the troops' families. -Hannity

J Kuhl Signing Off

Vaccine and Willful Ignorance

I hate needles. But I appreciate them once they are out of me and their protective juices are flowing through my veins, tricking my immune system into creating anti bodies so that when a real disease hits, I can fight it off without nothing worse than a sneeze. Sometimes, you don't even notice you've been infected.

Of course, with everything out there, there is always a conspiracy. Lately, supposedly needles cause 'autism.'

This has been disproved in several reports. No correlation has been found between incidents of autism and needles.

Report 1
Report 2

Astonishingly, people still believe that needles cause autism. People who are political donors and influences. This guy, Gary Kompothecras, honestly believes his kids got autism from needles.

I'm sorry his kids have autism. But going against overwhelming scientific evidence is asinine and it disturbs me that people who refuse to accept scientific evidence are given influence and power. Needles do not cause autism, no correlation has been found at all.

No harm comes from enforcing vaccinations. It keeps society healthy and prevents epidemics of disease. Needles, as creepy as they are, are a boon to society. They keep us healthy without weakening our immune system. They ensure that when little Billy gets a cold, it dies out before it can spread to other kids. To be afraid of vaccines over a debunked hypothesis, such as "vaccines cause autism" is willful ignorance, which we have enough of in our government.

And why is it always Republicans coming up with crazy notions like this?

J Kuhl Signing Off

Taxed Enough Already

“A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence” - David Hume

J Kuhl Signing Off

Obama and Wiretapping

In recent news, Obama has backstepped on the wiretapping issue, giving 'national security' as an excuse. I'm no politician, but I want to say this:

I vote for Obama so nonsense such as wiretapping would come to an end. It is an immoral, if not illegal, invasion of a person's right to privacy and should not be used without a proper search warrant.

This current issue, I can understand, we don't want all these security details being released to the public. However, his current turn around on wiretapping had better ONLY be because of this technicality and he had better be seeking another way to end the secret wiretapping on innocent civilians.

I did not vote for him to continue any of the Bush policies. This development is a disappointment and if more of them crop up, I might have to vote third party or not vote at all in '12.

Change, Mr. Obama. You promised it. Don't renege.

In other news, Chuck Norris is to be the first president of the Lone Star State.


Y'all need to put your money where your mouth is and revolt already. I bet y'all ain't got the stones to secede (again.)

“I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the war, but I could not. The North was mad and blind, would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came.” -Jefferson Davis

J Kuhl Signing Off

Where were the Anti-Fascist Tea Parties

When Bush was in office?

When Bush:

Invaded a sovereign nation on false pretenses?
Allowed wiretapping of innocent citizens?
Put detainees in Gitmo with no Due Process?
Allowed for waterboarding, or worse, of suspects?
Put cronies in places of power?

Bush increased the executive branch's power way beyond constitutional limits.

And where were these activists then?

What. The. Fuck?

A tax raise of 3.3% for the upper class. Most of the tea party goers aren't even going to see a tax hike.

The other issue they have is the spending. Not spending is the worst thing a government can do right now. Not spending freezes the economy further. As to the bail outs, it's fascist for Obama to demand that the leaders of bailed out corporations be responsible for the money the taxpayers give them?

I love how this is about government spending and it was Bush who overspent, didn't even budget for Iraq, and turned our surplus into a massive deficit! Where were these activists back then? Where were the activists when Paulson pushed TARP? Where the FUCK were they?

Has the right completely lost it?

Oh and the huffing from Hannity and his pundit friends is tiresome. These tea parties are "patriotic" but liberals who protested Bush are "anti-american?"

Go blow it out your ass Hannity.

J Kuhl Signing Off

(sorry about the swears, but this is just so f**king stupid)

Chairman Obama to Open Gulags in US

Recently, a nutjob US Rep from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann, stated her fears that Barack Obama was going to open 're-education' camps.

I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.-Bachmann The Minnesota Independant


I find this funny. John Stewart, comedian commentator from Comedy Central brought up an interesting point on his April 07 2009 show, that while the Republicans are claiming Obama's a fascist, they sat back and supported George W Bush for wiretapping, torture, invasion of Iraq, indefinite detaining, Gitmo, the No-Fly list, the strengthening of the TSA, and so on. And people who spoke out against Bush were often labeled as traitors, unamerican, unpatriotic. The Dixie Chicks in 2003, for example, were boycotted en masse for saying they were ashamed to be from Texas, just a few days after the invasion of Iraq. It's odd how the Republicans can support the expansion of executive branch powers under Bush, but turn around when Obama allegedly does the same. I agree entirely with Stewart on this point.

It seems that Republicans are desperate to scare people away from supporting Obama, only they've become crazy. Fascism? Totalitarianism? Obama's the fascist? Funny how a quick google search finds The 14 Points of Fascism, a left wing website about George Bush. But fascism was 'patriotism and love for the US' under Republican rule.

I read an article the other day, blaming Obama for polarizing the US. I call bullsh*t to this. It is not Obama, but crap like Bachmann accusing Obama of fascism, that is causing the polarization. The obstructionist, saboteur acts of today's Republican party is the cause of the polarization. Look at what they do. Everything Obama does, he does wrong in there eyes. They'll never admit when he does something right, they'll twist everything he does as being wrong for the country. And they spread their vitriol against the President amongst those who'll listen, fans of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly and people who buy Ann Coulter's books. As I've said earlier, most of their criticisms have been either fearmongering, like this fascism thing they've got going, and nitpicking non-issues. This is the cause of the polarization. The partisanship of the Republican party is doing far more to divide the nation than anything Obama's done.

As I said before, Obama isn't perfect, it is fine to disagree with him, hell I don't agree with him on a few subjects. But to accuse him of Sovietesque fascism? Do you people want to be re-elected? The party of right wing crazies continues to amaze me. Critique his policies, state your opinion on how well/terrible you think he's doing. But please, enough fearmongering. Enough spreading obstructionist bullshit. Each time you do something crazy like this, you polarize the nation further, and further drive more moderate republicans into independent parties.

We are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. -President Obama

J Kuhl Signing Off

The Mobile Treadmill

Oh lord . . . the treadmill that allows you to go places by walking

Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless. -Sinclair Lewis

J Kuhl Signing Off

Double Standards

At the G20, Barack Obama bowed to the King of the Saudis as a sign of respect. Of course, the republicans went berserk on every pundit show and every newspaper they could get on.

I think the above picture speaks for itself in terms of Republican double standards.

"When [Obama] uses the word “respect,” in the context of a waist-bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, for example, and talks about respectful language, which is code for those who adhere to Sharia that we will submit to Sharia." -Frank Gaffney, rightwing commentator.

J Kuhl Signing Off

The Score Between Creationism and Evolution

Oh and, as to the "teach the controversy" argument, pictures speak a thousand words:



The only thing that scares me more than space aliens is the idea that there aren't any space aliens. We can't be the best that creation has to offer. I pray we're not all there is. If so, we're in big trouble. -Ellen DeGeneres

J Kuhl Signing Off

Hilarious Geico Gecko Movie

EMBED-5 Geico Spots - Watch more free videos

And there is more to it than just the guy with the headphones at the beginning, watch beyond him, trust me, it's funny.

Oh and this is not a rickroll.

This however, is a rickroll.

J Kuhl Signing Off

The Rock that Can Save/Destroy the World

Uranium.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Good Hates Iowa

Iowa Supreme Court has ruled unanimously to uphold gay marriage in Iowa.

Iowa Goes Rainbow

Que in Fred Phelp's reaction, it will be coming in a few days, if it hasn't already. As you can see by the title of my post, I already predicted exactly what he'll say.

The thing of it all is that I cannot think of anything outside of Biblical verses as to why I should be against this. Gay marriage does not affect me, nor does it hurt me, nor does it affect or hurt anyone else. Children growing up in gay households won't 'catch the gay' from gay parents. Provided that a gay couple can raise a kid in a loving and caring manner, I don't see how sexual preference will affect the kids.

So I don't see why I should deny the right of being in love to gay people.

In other news, 70% is too hard for students to achieve in school.

70% Is Too Hard For Precious Snowflake Students

Three parents Pennsylvania complained that the eligibility requirements for staying on an extra-curricular activity is too tough. The standards are being raised to a shocking 70% (C average).

Apparently, getting a C is too hard to achieve.

"It's overzealous that (students) have to carry very high scores through every class," said parent Wayne Zimmerman of Yorkana.

A C is considered a "very high score."

Give me a break.

Is it too much to ask for parents to encourage their students to do the work in school? Honestly, school wasn't hard. I took maybe an hour or two every day to do homework and I did fine, mostly B's with a few A's and C's (An F was a 65.)

A C average is not a difficult achievement and I don't think it is overburdening a student to expect him to maintain a low grade such as a C.

Zimmerman also said that students may quit co-curricular activities in order to focus on their studies, as his daughter did.

Guess what pal, the purpose of school is to educate. Co-curricular activities are not as important as the actual classes being taught. The education is far more important than the other activities that schools offer and it actually frightens me that some parents don't understand this. The focus at school should be on grades, not footballs and dance recitals.

And people wonder why Europeans and Asians laugh at the American education system. We should not be coddling precious snowflake children, we should be encouraging them to learn. Standards need to be high so we have intelligent people entering our societies.

Hell, colleges lately have to dumb down entry-level classes for students who don't grasp things that should be taught in high school, like algebra and basic English composition. It's shocking.

My high school required two algebra courses and a geometry course as a minimum for mathematics. I went up to Pre-Calculus and was glad I did when I hit college because I was ready for College Algebra and Introduction to Calculus.

Schools need to have at least a passing average standard or our system will fail.

Obviously, this all has to be done with special ed in consideration, but honestly, if you think 70% is too hard to achieve, you aren't even trying.

Finally, I think this is relevant: George Carlin on Children:

Child Worship

J Kuhl Signing Off

A Message to Phillip Johnson

I have problems with this guy. He's Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of the current creationism movement here in the US.

You can read more about him here: Phillip Johnson. Oh, and just to get an idea of his scientific credibility, he's an AIDS Denialist.

Lets look at his quotes shall we:

"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."

Glad you admitted this, Mr Johnson. Now then, if it isn't about science, why do you want it taught in a science class?

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into schools."

Two major problems here. First of all, God. This nation is a nation where there are hundreds of different religions that people worship. We may be, by majority, a Christian nation, but by the Constitution, we are not. Look at the First Amendment, Mr. Johnson. I believe there is a bit there about Freedom of Religion and the establishment cause. Public schools are NOT suppose to teach a mandatory class on religion, because this violates the establishment clause. If you want God in schools, found a private school. Government funded schools cannot teach about God and it should not because this is a nation with multitudes of religions.

Secondly, the academic world does not want god in their studies. Scientists, even scientists who do believe in god, have all agreed upon the theory of evolution and the big bang. They do not want god in their studies, because god is supernatural and science deals with the natural.

"The objective he said is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs the non-existence of God. From there, people are introduced to the truth of the Bible, then the 'question of sin' and finally introduced to Jesus."

Oh boy. First of all, there is no 'Darwinism.' No one worships Darwin, no one prays to Darwin. Adherents of the scientific theory of evolution, are called 'evolutionists,' a ridiculous term, but thanks to the creationist movement, we need it. Funny, people who believe in 'gravitation aren't called 'gravitationists.' And yet, gravitation is a scientific theory, just like evolution. Even more so, gravitation lead to the theory of the big bang, another theory you Creationists don't like. And yet you don't argue against gravitation. I wonder about this, but I digress. Adherents of a scientific theory are not similar to followers of a religion, rather they are people who have studied the theory and decided that the evidence for the theory is solid. Those who disagree with theories, within the academic world, don't simply disagree on a whim, rather they disagree with a theory by either providing evidence of an alternate theory, or by stating that the evidence for the theory is unsound, following rationality and logic.

When one disagrees with a theory, one provides scientific evidence for the disagreement. The Bible is not scientifically validated. The Bible cannot be tested thus it is not a science book, nor is it full of scientific principles. If the academic world had an argument against evolution, they would not be looking at the bible, but at something that can be observed with empirical senses and testable hypothesis's.

Also, if evolution was entirely discredited, you still will not have proven creationism until you have found empirical evidence or created a testable hypothesis which supports creationism. The academic world will continuously reject creationism as a science until this happens. And until then, it remains outside of a science class.

Secondly, evolution is not atheistic. Evolution is agnostic when you think about it. An atheist claims there is no god. Evolution makes no claim whatsoever. It does not disprove god, nor does it mention there being one. Evolution is an agnostic theory, in terms of god. Agnosticism means, 'without knowledge' and evolution is without knowledge of God. Again, God is supernatural, why would a naturalistic theory contain the supernatural?

Third, we do not want the debate of atheism vs theism in a science class or in a publicly funded school in a mandatory class. Establishment clause, First Amendment. This argument belongs in a separate, non-mandatory, philosophy class, not in a biology class.

Fourth, the 'truth' of the Bible. What gives the Bible more authority than any other religious text? How is it more authoritative than the Qu'ran or Hindu scripts or anything else? Because god said the Bible is the only word of god? But that's what the Hindus say about their scriptures and what the Muslims say about the Qu'ran! The Bible bases its authority on itself and that principle is inherently flawed. It's like me saying I'm the King of England because I bloody say so!

Last, it introduces us to Jesus. That's great. I learned about Jesus in world history in high school, just a cursory glance at him, after all, he is a historical figure. The class was secular and objective. And that is how anyone should learn about Jesus in a publicly funded school. Give him as much of an introduction as any other historical religious figure, such as Mohammad. Both he and Mohammad did make a major mark in human history, no matter what you believe about the two.

But to claim he's the Son of God? To claim he's the savior of mankind? Save that stuff for the pulpit, Mr. Johnson. If kids want to learn about the divinity of Jesus, they can GO TO CHURCH.

"I have built an intellectual movement in universities and churches that we call the Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers the program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."

An intellectual movement. Really. With stars like Kent Hovind who believes the world was wrapped in an ice shield before Noah and the flood (Kent Hovind) and also believes that base pairs have genes inside them (other way around, asshole). This man was a high school biology teacher and he didn't understand the basics of dioxyribonucleic acid? He also claimed that, before the flood, iguanas could grow into triceratops. Or how about the guy I posted in an earlier video who claims that dinosaurs roamed around with primative men five-thousand years ago?

An intellectual movement which ignores mountains upon mountains of evidence, developed by intellectuals in the scientific community, brains like Einstein, Darwin, Oppenheimer, the list goes on, in order to indoctrinate children with Christian mythology? This is is madness! (this is Sparta?). This is an anti-intellectual movement. Did you know, Mr. Johnson, that every extragalactic star is over six thousand light years away, proving that the universe is a tad older than 6000 years? But no, you look at the starlight and claim 'god made it in-transit.'

The Wedge. Great, now you admitted your strategy. You intend to push and shove and move goalposts around until your little Bible fantasy story fits neatly into a science class. This tells me that you know creationism is not science and merely wish to push your beliefs on children in America, corrupting and weakening our science curriculum by injecting your malicious and sinister indoctrination. This is more than wrong. This is a purposeful intent to deceive impressionable minds into believing what you want them to believe. This is beyond unconstitutional, this is beyond immoral. This is evil.

Last, science is materialistic. This the nature of science. It deals with the materials of this universe. What the hell else is it for? Science cares about how, not why. Philosophy is why. If a non-materialistic course is what you want, try philosophy.

Stop trying to poison the minds of students across the United States.

Stop making the US educational system the laughing stock of the world.

Stop this evil madness.

Creationism. Is. Not. Science.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Obama Gives Queen An iPod, Hysteria Ensues

When Obama visited the UK a few days ago, he gave the Queen a gift, an iPod with videos and photos and speeches of both the Queen and himself. A gift that has the right wing in an uproar at this moment, claiming that an iPod is cheap, that she already has one, that Obama wasn't thinking, that Obama's a narcissist for giving her an iPod with his speeches on it.

But get this:

The Queen of England wanted a new iPod. And she's happy with it.

Once again, we see the dying Republican party flipping out over nothing, playing the partisan, simply because they can't live with the fact that Obama won the election. They're playing this game of sabotage at every turn. And it is ridiculous.

I already said it, this focus on trivial matters will kill the republican party if they don't grow up.

But I doubt they will. The GOP isn't a party for the United States of America, the GOP is a party for the GOP. They look out for number one and that is all they do. Look at Coleman from Minnesota. He can't admit that he lost the senate race for fear that yet another Democrat will take a senate seat, holding his entire state hostage for the party.

They don't give a damn about us. They don't give a damn about Americans. They care about themselves and their stupid party. They are an obstructionist group of middle aged white men, willing to act like children who aren't getting their way. It is disgraceful.

Eight or more years of Democrats if they keep this up.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Free Speech Denied at Free Republic

There is a neo-con website called Free Republic where extremist right wingers hang out to discuss issues.

Of course these people, named 'Freepers,' are right wing to the point of irrationality, which is beside the case.

A few weeks ago, I went to Free Republic and created an account and posted an opposing viewpoint in one of their discussion boards. I was civil. I did not attack or flame anyone. And a few hours later, my posting priviliges were revoked.

Now I have to ask, why is Free Republic terrified of a debate? If they were sure of the issues upon which they stand, wouldn't they be able to defeat any argument they encounter? Stifling an argument, to me, means that their positions and their arguments are weak.

Further more, I find it ironic that a group that wants to create a conservative Republican America, deny free speech, when free speech is a basic tenant of human rights, protected in the US Constitution.

Then again, these are the idiots who believe that Obama is a Muslim and that George W Bush was the greatest president since Washington.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Firefox vs Opera vs Internet ExplorerFailure

Firefox has been my prefered browser of choice since the dawn of . . . well, I can't remember when I first got into firefox, before college I think. Anyways, I liked FF because the browser was fast, secure, and userfriendly. And tabbed browsing knocked the socks off of Explorer so bad that Explorer had to copy it a few months later. Even then, Firefox was already well ahead of Explorer


First of all, Explorer is slow. Not as in connection-slow, but browser slow. It seems to lag and catch while loading webpages or when switching tabs or opening a new window or whatever. Firefox was faster and smoother. Explorer made that annoying clicking sound every time you clicked on a link. Firefox was silent. Explorer interrupted what you were doing once a webpage opened or when you opened a new tab. Firefox silently loaded what you wanted and didn't bother you until you came around to opening it.

Another thing that pisses me off about IE is every single box that pops up. I typed in "Abraham Lincoln" once in Google using IE, which gave me a pop up asking me if I wanted to send this information over an insecure channel. Tell me, how exactly is "Abraham Lincoln" a security threat? Now if I was typing my credit card number (2787-5478-3782-7488 for those who are curious, security code 738), I'd understand. And IE does this a ton of times.

Of course, suddenly FF decided to be a jerk on my computer. It won't open any more. And by not open I mean, literally wait 2+ hours to open and then freeze when it finally does, so I was stuck using the craptastic peice of fail made by the morons at Microsoft (good company? HA! Glad they also had to screw up Microsoft Office up with the brand new layout you idiots. Now I can't even figure out simple formating basics. Don't fix what ain't broke, morons) Anyways, since FF won't open, I was using this failure browser until i got so sick of it, I downloaded Opera.

Been using it for ten minutes but so far, its power is on par with Firefox. It opens new tabs swiftly and silently, without making clicking noises or interrupting what I'm doing. It doesn't lag or take time. It's a clone of the good ol' days of Firefox (about two days ago). Opening a new window even takes only a split second, thats a few whole seconds faster than IE.

After using Opera for a bit more, I found that I enjoy the speed dial feature. However, it has a pop up every time it wants to save a password. I liked Firefox's handling of this better with the little, non-invasive bar. Also, Firefox saves password information into certain websites and I like that (really not to worried about someone hacking into my cracked.com account). Saved me typing. Still, I like Opera as an alternative. Much better than IE

But Firefox in the end has a cooler logo.

IE: 3/10 //Functional, used when all other browsers fail
Opera: 8/10 //working pretty good so far
Firefox: 9/10 //still a tad better though.

"The internet: where the men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI agents" - Anonymous, but common advice

J Kuhl Signing Off

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis

This was a fascinating video on the theory of Abiogenesis, which is the theory of the origin of life, not to be confused with evolution, which is the theory of how living things change by natural selection.

It shows how simple lipid vesicles were able to trap simple polymers that could self-replicate, reproduce and even eat other lipid vesicles, long before they were even living things. It shows that it was all chemistry.

Perhaps there was a god with a guiding hand to make sure all of this stuff happens right, but he definitely did not create the universe the way the Bible literally states.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein

J Kuhl Signing Off