truth or consequences…

ReligulousI wanted to finish off the recent spate of documentaries with the high point of the series… One that we’ve been wanting to see ever since it came out. Of course I am speaking of Religulous! This movie is Bill Maher’s attempt to understand how people of faith can be people of faith (basically). In it he goes around the world to ask various people of faith to ask them how/why they believe the things that they do. Though he is focused on people who follow the various Abrahamic religions, the ground that he covers is quite wide-ranging. It includes: a trucker’s chapel (yes, at a truck stop), a holy land amusement park in Florida, a mosque in Jerusalem, a Moslem gay bar, an orthodox rabbi, some ex-Mormon’s in Salt Lake City, the Vatican and a U.S. congressman!

He makes it quite clear to these folks that he doesn’t for a minute believe that any of it is true and that he is just dying to know why it is that they do. This tact leads to quite a varied group of responses, though except for one of the “worshipers” at the truck stop, most of them do earnestly try to explain the foundations of their faith. These responses vary from interesting (in a somewhat startling fashion), entertaining, befuddling and downright insulting and scary (in the case of the congressman when he suggests that if it weren’t for the ten commandments that people might not have come to the conclusion that it is bad to kill each other).

Some of the most outstanding bits are the earnest attempts at explanation from the fellow who portrays Jesus at the amusement park, the woman at the amusement park who says that when Armageddon comes she’ll be flying through the sky on a big white horse, the bit about it being a miracle if it starts raining when you want it to and, my favorite, the priests at the Vatican who don’t seem to think that anything in the bible is meant literally.

While you could say that he is trying to be objective, I think that in a situation like this you can only be so objective… For a person not-of-faith to have a conversation with someone who is of-faith about their beliefs can be interesting, but having those conversations with dozens of people who all firmly believe in ultimate truths that contradict the other peoples ultimate truths, well, I think you would have to take most of they people say with a big grain of salt. Of course, as Maher has to have a point that isn’t just his opinion but also of greater import, he covers the dangers of faith… Specifically the danger inherent in people who actually want the end of the world to arrive because they believe that something better will come for them after that. Not really the safest way to think considering what kinds of weaponry modern civilization has at its disposal… Even if it were true, it still wouldn’t be a good thing for anyone whose belief system didn’t happen to be the correct one.

reality bits

Taking advantage of the Netflix and streaming, we had a nice week of so of documentary watching. Of course, as we streamed them, their were some that we couldn’t get to much into and so felt quite free to halt. The ones that we completed though, consisted primary of these…

The King of KongThe King of Kong. Man, I’d been wanting to see this for a long. Time! The story of Billy Mitchell, the fellow who got the Donkey Kong world record (among many others) in the early 1980’s and another fellows recent attempt to defeat that record. Donkey Kong was one of the first games that I was “good” at (until that fateful day at the Red Robin on Burnside when punk-ass Jon beat me and I moved onto other games), so it was fun to watch this story… It was also somewhat gratifying to have them especially cover the difficulty of the Third Elevators as that level was my fatal downfall. What becomes somewhat surprising is the politics and cliquishness of the scene. The same major player have been around since the old days (including the fellow who is in charge of official records keeping) and they don’t seem to take to well towards new comers trying to unseat the champ.

CrawfordCrawford. Uff. Man. The story of what happens to a small Texas town when the Governor of Texas decides to by a ranch in the town as he makes his play for President. I found that theme to not be as interesting as it was to listen to the things that these people have to say in general. Primarily non-analytical pro-government, pro-military, pro-god, anti-peace… I am always torn in that way that I do (or at least want to) appreciated the reputation of genuineness and community spirit shown by small town America, but also mortified by what they sometimes say in their attempts at honesty. I would almost rather that they behave in decent ways that are dishonest to themselves then have them believe that we can go and bomb all to hell any foreign country that we want for no legitimate reason. All in all, somewhat disturbing. In the few high-point’s to this town are a thoughtful teacher who tries to teach her students to think about things and be somewhat analytical and one youth who really does try to understand the truth and express it. By the end of the movie, neither of them are living in Crawford anymore…

Welcome to MacintoshWelcome to Macintosh. Now this is a good Macintosh documentary! Way better than that terrible Macheads that we watched a while back! It is a history of Apple, of the Macintosh and its development and of the followers of the mac. Covering Apple’s successes and missteps with interest and sincerity, it also has some good speakers, including Guy Kawasaki(!), Apple engineers, bloggers and a lot of people who were around Apple and the Mac in the old days. The filmmakers are obviously big fans of Apple and though they are strongly supportive of Steve and though they wisely tie the success of Apple to his vison, personality and his person itself, they aren’t blindly mired within his halo effect… Though some of the people interview in the movie are.

Forgiving Dr MengeleForgiving Dr Mengele. This was an interesting and enlightening story. Forgiving Dr Mengele is the story of a woman who had been a prisoner in Auschwitz. Her and her sister where twins so they we, um, enlisted to be some of Doctor Mengele’s experimental subjects for his genetic testing. The women, now elderly, has decided that to continue on with her life she needs to put it behind her and forgive Dr Mengele. Not because his actions should be forgiven, but because she doesn’t want to spend the rest of her life under that cloud. Of course her decision is not taken well by a good portion of the Jewish community. There are some interesting other side trips… In one she starts a holocaust museum in the little town that she lives in and goes about educating the local school children and, two, she takes a trip to visit Palestinians. I thought that was most interesting as they primarily wanted to talk about the harm that has been done to them by the state of Israel, and she was really quite disinterested in hearing anything about that.

Following SeanFollowing Sean was alright. The story of a fellow who lived in the Haight area right at the peak of the hippie thing who befriended a smart four year old hippie boy who lived upstairs. At one point, he asked the kid some questions in front of a camera and Sean mentioned some things about drug use and other hippie stuff. When the filmmaker originally released that footage way backl when, he got famous and his movie got acclaim and criticism. Now, many years later, he decides to go back to San Francisco to see what all of those folks from old days are up to. It really didn’t spark much interest in me and the results of his quest aren’t particularly surprising or compelling.

my ten issues

I was over at Stupid Evil Bastard where I found him dissing on the anti-fluoride crowd. While I had to punch out a (not-too-brief, of course) comment to that, it also got me to thinking… What are my pet peeves with humanity. And could I come up with ten? Then, if I could, should I list them politely? Or not-politely? Anyway, as a last minute, late-night list, here they are in (approximate) order of precedence:

1)  Religion. No, I don’t mean “organized religion” or Christianity… I mean any kind of belief in: a supernatural world, a “creator”, life after death, reincarnation, omnipotent immortal beings, other planes of existence… Anything that ignores the reality of the physical universe or that insults or undermines the great (potential) powers and abilities of humanity. I don’t like it. I can’t stand it. Though I find it funny when used as a tool to control or profit off of naïve people… Go Trinity!

2) Violence and killing. By which I mean primarily war, but also any other stupid hostile antic that people do either for profit, glory, self-edification, or because they don’t know how to control their frustrations, from bar-fights to street gangs to organized armies. Of course, this also includes killing animals because you think that they taste better than things that don’t have to have their heads cut off and be bled dry (admittedly, this all relates back to my “insulting the potential of humanity” issue in problem 1. Well, I guess that all of these points do).

3) Non-personal pride: Nationalism, ethnic pride and stuff like that. The tiring debate between people on other sides of the hill saying “our side of the hill is better than yours, so we’re going to throw rocks at you” is very annoying, especially with how destructive modern violence has gotten.

4) Homogenization of business and culture. The lazy desire to have everything and to have it all the same everywhere you go (aka, the spread of Starbucks, and the demise of small-town businesses so that people can save some money on crap that they don’t need at Wal-mart).

5) Always kowtowing to the “official” line and then criticizing people who dare to question what those in power say. This goes along with letting the government and businesses engage in practices that are damaging to our people or environment and not at least questioning their motives. Especially relevant in the era of Bush Jr and his endless misleading of people, which seems to be eerily effective.

6) Official hypocrisy, by which I especially mean the American hypocrisy of “don’t question the government”, “the president is for jesus”, and all of that other crap that violates both the letter and the spirit of what the “founding fathers” put in place.

7) “Fashion”, fixation on entertainment celebrities, commercials and anything that makes pop culture the wasteland of irrelevant, irresponsible, mind-numbing, maturity-slowing crap that it is.

8) Unneeded movie remakes.

9) Racism, sexism, homophobia and anything that entails judging people on some made-up criteria that ignores who they actually are.

10) Homeless people who sit on the street all day (generally waiting for handouts that involve making them sit through christian sermons) and throw garbage down on the ground for others to pick up, when there are garbage cans just a few feet away that they could just put their crap in, if they had the respect for themselves and the society that they live off to actually stand up and utilize them.

As an added bonus, my remaining pet-peeve relates to so many issues above that I figured I’d just keep it separate. It is “colonialism” and “domination of already occupied territories”: Ireland, Tibet, Palestine, “Kurdistan”… I don’t understand the desire to go somewhere where people live and claim it as your own (well, I understand the motives behind Israel, but…). It leads me to understand why America was as thorough as it was in annihilating the native populations, because there isn’t really a large enough remaining native population to give the America’s back to, or to make a big enough stink about it. But it is a ridiculous and crazy idea, to go to someone else’s land and claim it as your own.

news that rocked the world…

Well, some news browsing over lunch led me to some “news” stories that bear repeating. From my main news source again, Slashdot, there was a sad piece of information from my younger days… Gary Gygax has passed away (if you don’t know who he is, don’t bother looking him up, you probably won’t want to know who he is… Honey, this means you.). A pivotal influence over many of my teen years, and those of a good number of folks I knew. Its not a shock or a tragic accident, but I still felt the urge to bring it up.

Also and more sad and tragic, a legislator in Florida, recoiling from the state requiring the teaching of, of all things, the theory of evolution, is pressing for a bill that would allow teachers to have the “right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution.” Basically, to be able to teach whatever they want. Of course, it shouldn’t allow that, since I believe that “scientific” is generally held to mean investigating through evidence and reasoning, both of which are missing from creationist dogma.

Read here: Will the battle on science and evolution move to the Florida Legislature?.

Sure, there may be some issues with the evolution theory, but the concept is quite undeniable… After all, many creatures have been observed to change in accordance with their environment in recent memory (flu virus, anyone?)… The truth is hardly deniable, regardless of its stature as a “scientific theory”, as opposed to a “stupid theory” like these “(ahem) intelligent design (amen)” fans keep wasting everyone’s time with…

Hmm.. I suppose every teacher should be able to teach every subject exclusively in accordance with whatever personal beliefs they have, or have made up. Personally, if I am going to live in a fantasy land, I’ll make it up myself (or borrow it from Gygax) and won’t be concerned with what the courts and the public schools say about it… And I certainly won’t try and force it on school children. But on the positive side, I like to take i.d. as a sign that the christian creationists have finally come somewhat to grips with reality. After all this time of saying that Adam and Eve and the garden where true stories (even though they were just taken from the Babylonian myths anyway), the i.d. factions among them have basically agreed that those stories aren’t true after all (or maybe they are trying to pull another fast one on us non-believers, like Jehovah did with those dinosaur bones).

And, then finally (as my lunch break should be over now) from the Sunday Herald, this tidbit on how email is for old folks and too formal… “For most South Koreans, email is fit only for addressing the elderly, or for business and formal missives.”…

Read here: Why e-mail is so old-fashioned.

Sure, e-mail may be for old people now, but I must challenge the “too formal” claim. E-mail is way too informal, to say nothing of the crud that gets texted. I already have a hard time with how sloppy and informal e-mail is (in a hundred years will capitalization just be a forgotten theory?), the thought that people are going to get worse and lazier…

While I see the truth behind their points, I think (of course, speaking as an old person) that those are some sad truths. But I guess that society always changes and moves forward (technologically at least) and those of us who have already grown up tend to like to keep things that way that they were. Like Still listening to classic rock radio now, 30 years after the fact…

oh, and that creepy bush administration…

While in Maine I saw this creepy TV ad. It seemed to be about teens waiting before sex. Now while this is a fine notion, waiting until they are mature/informed enough to make good decisions regarding: choice of parters, birth control, std’s, etc… This ad ended up following none of those angles. Its angle was only that they should “wait until marriage”.

Well, now that is a bit different. While that theory does follow the “good old American dream” stereotype, in this day and age, when some people have no interest in marriage or children and some people have children and life long committed relationships without marriage and some folks cannot legally get married? It seems a bit dated.

But not just dated… Please let me know if this is incorrect but the only actual reason that I am aware of for people to wait until “marriage” for sex is one of religious belief. A notion of sin? Now while that alone doesn’t make this ad bad, as religious entities are well and free to make advertisements expressing their views… This ad was paid for by the US Government!

To have the government espouse religious views is not only offensive to those of us who follow no religious creeds, but it seems to cross the line of what is generally considered to be the appropriate separation of church and state. As in, it seems to be the federal government suggesting that people should follow the beliefs held by some particular religions. And while we know that the current Government believes this way (mandating religion) as one of their “many signs of illegitimacy”, broadcasting this stuff so blatantly on television ads is certainly gall of a higher degree.

everybody’s writing…

Going through book catalogs the other day, I noticed that Chris Hedges has a new one coming out. Now normally, this would seem a good thing. As he is both from the town in Vermont where I plan to live, but also his books (none of which I have read) seem to espouse values that I support: opposition to the misdeeds of the Christian right, opposition to war. But his new book, I Don’t Believe in Atheists, I don’t know.

First off, I find the title a bit snotty (not that I should complain after supporting the title of Hitchens’ new book) but also, some of what I read in the catalog rubbed me the wrong way. Seemingly accusing Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc, of having some kind of evil agenda. At least that is how I remember thinking it. Of course, I haven’t read any of those either, but still, it seemed a bit misleading.

In curiosity I looked him up and stumbled upon his column for Truthdig. This entry was his opening statement for a debate with Sam Harris and it is quite thoughtful and well done, but it has some of what I would consider inaccuracies that I feel need addressing… He seems to imply that these authors are narrowly (and inaccurately) categorizing religion, but then he does the same. In defense of religion he states:

God is the name we give to our belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world’s chaos, randomness and cruelty. To argue about whether God exists or does not exist is futile. The question is not whether God exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence.

While that is a nice sentiment, it is plainly not true. While for some folks “God” may mean the notion of “what is” or some other nature-oriented thought, it is an undeniable fact that for a great deal of people “God” means something different. “God” is a force, a power with specific desires and opinions, and who communicates and enforces these. Atheists are not challenging the notion that people can worship “reality” as being great because it is our reality and labeling it “God”, no, I think most atheists are challenging the notion that there is a conscious force that has some connection to creating the worlds, the people and the events of our lives

He also states:

Faith allows us to trust, rather, in human compassion, even in a cruel and morally neutral universe. This is not faith in magic, not faith in church doctrine or church hierarchy, but faith in simple human kindness.

That isn’t “Faith” so much as it is humanism, which should not be construed as any kind of belief in a “God” concept. There is a big difference to saying that people are here and are inherently good and have great potential (what it sounds to me like he is saying) and calling that religion (which Websters defines as: “the service and worship of God or the supernatural”). Sadly, I have that faith, but that isn’t what a good deal of religious folks mean when they say faith. To them, faith actually means that some magical, unprovable and thoughtful thing is watching their decisions, is judging them and that it will have an effect on them after they die.

Anyway, he says some good things about people, and I believe in the goodness of people quite strongly, but I believe that the image of religion that he is using to challenge these atheists is not the same image of religion that most religious people hold and is also not the notion of religion that is being challenged by these books.

Faith is not in conflict with reason. Faith does not conflict with scientific truth, unless faith claims to express a scientific truth.

Well, I would have to disagree/agree, in regards to each. In my experience, Faith does claim to express a truth. A truth about how everything got here, about what for, and about what one should do. Faith isn’t a feeling that people are good, so much as a feeling that people are beholden to some great alien force, and one not nearly as exciting as the Great Cthulhu, but still with powers of creation and destruction. I think that notions of faith and God run completely contrary to science, to nature, to humanity and to my notions of goodness (being well-behaved in the absence of coercion). Saying, in this situation, that “God” is everything and calling out those authors for disbelieving everything is a cop-out, inaccurate and misleading.

stare into the fist of dredd…

And speaking of that… Some reflections on faith. I have always thought that no matter how idealistic are ones religious notions, that there is an inherent fraudulent aspect to faith. After all, “faith” is the belief in that which is not rational or provable, hence, the belief in the unbelievable, otherwise, you wouldn’t need faith to believe it. I imagine that when anyone who has “faith” really thinks about it logically, they must realize that there are no gods to have faith in and hence, must either abandon those beliefs or continue on for some other personal or social reason. After all, the Pope knows darned well that he doesn’t communicate with “god”, he is just there to interpret that book… Those frazzled remainders of many edited and intermixed scrolls written thousand of years ago by some old men in the desert, seeking justification for their power and ways to keep society together in a way they felt desirable.

Since no one really believes any of that stuff, yet most folks pretend that they do, it always gives me a little tickle when things pop up that rattle it. The discovery of texts that implied that Judas was in cahoots with “Jesus” rather than against him, as some ploy to help him on his martyrly mission, that really throws the two thousand year hatred of poor old Judas for a spin.

And now? Mother Teresa (for more on her, be sure to read Christopher Hitchens Missionary Position… regardless of what one may think about Hitchens, the Vatican did call on him to be the devil’s advocate in the beatification of Teresa)? In a soon to be published book, Teresa’s writings show that she questions her faith (with such great ones as “What do I labour for? If there be no God _ there can be no soul _ if there is no Soul then Jesus You also are not true.”) in a rather dramatic fashion… “They” are claiming that atheists may misinterpret it? Well, it’s pretty straightforward, from what has been released so far, that she hadn’t believed in some god for decades but continued on in her work, one would imagine for other reasons.

On to funner fictions and more relevant things…

I was disappointed, yet relieved that my disc of Judge Dredd was not actually 183 minutes long as the case stated, 90 minutes really is enough. Though, don’t get me wrong, I’ve been fond of Judge Dredd since I first came across the Eagle comics versions in the early 80’s. While those were exciting action comics with a humorous side, these filmmakers sure forgot the golden rule of action movies: Action and comic relief don’t mix! Stallone is almost perfect as Dredd, and he has a great backing cast of much seriousity: the always fantastic Max von Sydow, the maybe-not-fantastic but always tensely exciting Jürgen Prochnow and the humorously bold Armand Assante were out to take care of business! But then, wait, what is this gnat under Dredd’s arm? Annoying both him and the filmgoer (and doing endless damage to the suspension of belief that is necessary to enjoy these kinds of films?) well, it is the always excruciating and untalented Rob Schneider! Pretending again to be comic relief, when he hasn’t a twinge of comic sense. Ruining the mood and soiling those wonderful sets!

But the movie? Well, it makes me think of lots of other movies, but the first one is Conan, even starting off with the narration and said narration being by James Earl Jones! Aside from that, the basic story: bad guys frame Dredd, Dredd escapes and comes back to set things straight, people die left and right. Megacity One is reasonable, although 12 year old CGI doesn’t really do it, the story follows all of the expected twists and turns and it is pretty dumb, but it’s fun and Stallone, his manner, his physique, his voice? I think they do a great Dredd.


body by stallone, suit by versace

Oh yeah, we also watched Little Children tonight. One of those that was a good movie, but one I never want to see again. Why? Well, the subject matter revolved around multiple infidelities in a very serious manner and also had brushes with a child molester and with harassment, parental death and with people who’s lives were falling apart to the point where they had few options left. But it was a well done drama and quite involving story of two married people who start having an affair while their spouses are at work, the children who are the pivot around which this affair rests and the local sex offender.

We also, I am reminded, watched The Linda McCartney Story. It was alright. At least it had George Segal who is fine. But the actors freaked me out, it was like they tried to hard to make them look like the Beatles, so they ended up just looking creepy and weird… And, while not ever having been a Beatles fan, I don’t take sides, but they really do take Paul’s side and make Yoko out to be a weirdo and a terrible influence on John and make John look like some kind of drugged up spazz.

forgotten pleasures…

Ok. I know that this is old and has been posted all over the internet, but I was rifling through my years of old emails at work and I stumbled on this and I figured that maybe it was old enough that folks could still get a little chuckle out of it…

Supposedly written by a Professor at the University of Virginia in response to a “god says no to gays” comment by Dr Laura…

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

American Infidel

One of my greatest personal gains in my two year quest to give our store the best Atheism/Humanism selection in bookland (well, outside of stores specific to that) has been the discovery of Robert G Ingersoll. All of that new stuff we’re selling: God is not Great, The God Delusion, God: The Failed Hypothesis, The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, Breaking the Spell, Atheist Manifesto and all that great stuff from Promethus Books… It is very exciting and I’m glad that they are selling as well as they are, but personally, I have no reason to read any of them (well, I might try God is not Great, because I do like Christopher Hitchens and the subtitle, “How Religion Poisons Everything”, is awesome to see on the cover of a bestseller)…

Anyway, the best part for me (and the only one I really feel like reading) is Ingersoll. Just this week I found my “holy grail”! I’d been looking for a used copy of “Some Mistakes of Moses” and I found it in it’s best form… A nice copy of his Lectures, published in 1900. A cool old book filled with great witly wisdom. I highly recommend this work! The 19th century intelligentsia wit and the take no prisoners attitude behind his, “Just listen to what you’re saying!” stance is refreshing. It’s not your normal Christian bashing thing, but instead it is a point by point analysis and refutation of the nonsense that is the old testament. Such brilliant lines as:

“Theology is not what we know about god, but what we don’t know about nature.”

“The truth is that Moses was mistaken, and upon that mistake the Christians located their heaven and their hell. The telescope destroyed the firmament, did away with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered the ascension of our Lord and the assumption of his mother infinitely absurd, crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New Jerusalem and in their places gave to man a wilderness of worlds “

Anyway, more on this later, when I’ve finished, but right now, hearing him take on the statements in Genesis with logic and reasoning is laugh out loud funny. The serpent? I know, I’ve never read this bible-thing so maybe it won’t come as such a shocking farce to those better read then I, but Man… The trouble is, he seemed to think that humanity would grow out of this… Which I’m not sure that it will.

Robert Ingersoll

Robert Green Ingersoll

in all honesty

I need to spend more time futzing with this code stuff, or get a better sense of aesthetics. I can futz around with these themes to my hearts delight (which, yes, does delight my heart some) and never like how they look.

Oh well, maybe I need a picture? Maybe I should try and stay away from black (yeah, that’s likely)? Well, whatever. Just another annoyance…

Like how I can never, ever, never get the to actually register the songs I play on my iPod (which is where I play my songs). I’ve tried 3 different scrobblers to get those songs to, two of them worked… Once.

So I stick with the album quilt, but that never changes. Some of those albums I played one song weeks ago and the same darned album is still appearing.

I feel like saying, “how come no one can get this right (mainly the application for not supporting iPods) “, but then again, that wouldn’t be fair, since I haven’t done it either…

And I am thinking that black is a bad color for links…

In more exciting news, the folks at pesky’apostrophe have some entertaining quotes in honor of the passing of The Most Reverend Jerry Falwell. Fun reading!

« Previous Entries  

    offsite links



Click to view my Personality Profile page

You scored as: atheism
You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul.
Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.
Vitruvian Man


Which religion is the right one for you?
created with

You are Hulk
You are a wanderer with amazing strength.

The Incredible Hulk
Green Lantern
Iron Man
The Flash
Wonder Woman
Click here to take the "Which Superhero are you?" quiz...