A little bit of sillyness

Get your own valentinr

Can I get an AMEN?

How about instead we pass a constitutional amendment that defines a family as a group of people who love one another and don't do harm to each other. That way it would be unconstitutional for people to verbally and physically abuse their own.

Hmm

http://www.komotv.com/news/entertainment/5334051.html

A movie, that through peicing together of scenes, you understand that a young girl is being raped. The move doesn't portray it in a positive light, it's a scene, in a move, that's described as dark and Gothic. I suspect that the scene in question is just one of many things that happen to highlight the suffering of the character.

People are decrying it as 'child pornography'. It seems they'd be much happier shoving under the rug even the implication that this happens to our children.

I could name, with a small bit of thought, a good dozen movies where children die...but imply that someone can violate them sexually, and suddenly it's 'porn'. Sheesh.

Wow

This is a quote from someone who grew up a religious fundamentalist:

As frustrating and pathetic and dangerous as fundamentalists can be, please rememember that they are afraid. For them, God's love is conditional, and his punishment is collective. I know that it is no excuse to deny civil and reproductive rights to others - but what they really need is to know that they are worthy of love, and have love to give, no matter who they are. That is something that they say, but do not really believe. God(dess) help them.

Olbermann for President

If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene? Would you at least protest? What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them? What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them — and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?

You say you want a revolution...

A freind of mine is a very devout Christian, and where we diverge on beliefs, he doesn't beat people over the head with it. His idea of Christian is one who follows a Christ-like life.

So I have a habbit of emailing him links to what I tend to call Stupid Christian Tricks. You know the ones, like what the Phelps morons are up to lately, or why the park service can't talk about how old the Grand Canyon is.

So he asks me "Why you send me this stuff - just so I don't want to call myself a Christian anymore?"

And my honest response was "No, so you will. Your faith is stronger than a hundred of those goobers, and it's people like you who will make things like this fade into obscurity, by reminding the world of what real Christianity is."

I wanna see all the non-freaky Christians of the US start standing up and telling the hard core fundamentalists, the so-called Christians who'll stop at nothing to see that the US becomes their way or the highway, that they are Sick and Tired of the "religious reich" being the public face of Christianity. I want to see them stand up and show the world that the extremists are not the soul of the path.

Why Uru Live Matters

I think Uru's power, and the reason the gaming industry should stand up and take notice is twofold:

First, it got brought back to life on the power of the concept, and the enthusiasm of the fan base. This has never happened before, usualy once a game gets killed, especially if the boxed bversion is on the shelves already, it stays dead.

The only real analogy out there is the Browncoats and Firefly. Uru Live is the Serenity of the gaming world.

It took GameTap's willingness & vision of reaching out to smaller companies, rejected by the Big Name Publishers, to make it happen. David Reid of GameTap mentioned this in his PAX interview.

If GameTap does continue in this vein, it will (Gods Willing), bring back unique and innovative game designs. No more cookie cutter, barely different concepts and gameplay, because that's all the big publishers will pay for and produce. Smaller companies will be able to push boundaries, because there's a place for them.

Which brings me to the second item:

Uru pushes boundaries of what people expect a multiplayer online experience to be.

The first question Joe Gamer asks is "What is there besides PVP and collecting loot and leveling?"

Gamers have been conditioned to expect nothing else out of their MMO experience. Nothing. Check every single MMO out there right now, and they are ALL the same concept in different packaging. They are fun, enjoyed by the people who play them, visually stunning, but they all follow a basic framework.

Uru doesn't, and that confuses people. They can't wrap their brains around it. Is the world ready for an MMO where the story and interaction is the focus? It better be, because it's about to get it.

(feel free to link to this, or C&P it with my name)

thoughts from the VaxJedi

Often, he says things I was thinking, much better than I ever could:

... RWAs [right wing authoritarians] are angry with us because they've been told to mistake our tolerance and flexibility for moral unseriousness.
- From Orcinus, a liberal blog

This is really the key to a lot of things, including the perception of polyamory. What a lot of people see in polyamory (even many of those who take a 'hey, if it works for them, I guess that's okay' stance) is permissiveness. Too often, the argument that "people should be free to do these things" is not seen as a choice borne out of ethical behavior, but rather a laxity of moral character - "yeah sure that's okay - it's not a big deal." The same with non-traditional families, gay marriage, etc.

The point is that polyamory needs to be described as a choice that is rooted in ethical consideration. By and large, poly people are poly not because they can 'get away with it.' They are poly because they feel that this is the best choice - because they feel it's the right thing to do. That's the key. For poly people, being poly is, in their life, not a loophole, but a moral imperative. This imperative tells us that things like love, family, intimacy, connection, shared joy and shared resposnibility, these are the moral high ground, even when their form falls outside of societal norms and common definitions. I refer to the phrase "God is love" a lot - I find it an incredibly concise description of what I believe. And thus, I do not deny God when he comes knocking at my door - even if he is dressed funny.

This goes for larger liberal/progressive ideals - tolerance, flexibility, relativism are not ethical shortcuts. They are definitive moral stances. I think that even liberals forget that sometimes.

Best Quote About Homosexuality Ever

From Tom Smith:

"And the only difference between them and other people is, they prefer romantic and sexual partners of the same gender rather than the opposite."

That's it. That's the only difference. And yet that one tiny, insignificant thing has become an excuse for some to treat them like less than human. Like they're less worthy of having rights than others. How sad.

Buh

The world is...fucked up. And it has nothing to do with religion. It's not messed up because more people are X, or not enough people are Y, or people Z are creeps...

It's because we're forgotten how to treat other human beings with dignity and respect, no matter who they are.

ATTENTION US MILITARY PERSONNEL

Reposted with permission fron the Making Light blog. Clarification and comments are there.

ATTENTION US MILITARY PERSONNEL

You are not required to obey an unlawful order.

You are required to disobey an unlawful order.

You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The Constitution states (Article VI):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Here is article 3, the common article, to the Geneva Conventions, a duly ratified treaty made under the authority of the United States:

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is straightforward and clear. Under Article VI of the Constitution, it forms part of the supreme law of the land.

You personally will be held responsible for all of your actions, in all countries, at all times and places, for the rest of your life. “I was only following orders” is not a defense.

What all this is leading to:

If you are ordered to violate Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, it is your duty to disobey that order. No “clarification,” whether passed by Congress or signed by the president, relieves you of that duty.

If you are ordered to violate Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, this is what to do:

1. Request that your superior put the order in writing.

2. If your superior puts the order in writing, inform your superior that you intend to disobey that order.

3. Request trial by courtmartial.

You will almost certainly face disciplinary action, harassment of various kinds, loss of pay, loss of liberty, discomfort and indignity. America relies on you and your courage to face those challenges.

We, the people, need you to support and defend the Constitution. I am certain that your honor and patriotism are equal to the task.

Healthy People 2000 initiative from the CDC, Item 14.8: "Reduce the cesarean delivery rate to no more than 15 per 100 deliveries" (15%) (having failed to meet that goal in 2000, the Healthy People 2010 initiative merely says "reduce cesarean amoung low risk patients", but still sets a goal for first time mothers of 15%. However, it fids a repeat cesarean rate of 63% acceptable)

The World Health Organization states: "There is no justification to have a caesarean section rate of higher than10 - 15 %. Vaginal deliveries after a caesarean section shouldbe encouraged."

Babies Delivered by Cesarean More Likely to Die
Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed over 5.7 million live births and nearly 12,000 infant deaths over a four-year period.

Now, compare those to the 2005 Cesarean Rates for Seattle Hospitals

The Stuff of Chaos

Added a new link to the collection on the side:
Department of Swag for the Foundation for Neo-cognitive and Ontological Research and Development

Athiests' Good Works-Part 1

Quoted from a reply to my other blog:

From www.positiveatheism.com, in a conversation on the topic:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9553.htm

Atheist Centre of India
The Atheist Centre was founded in 1940 by the Gora family, who were associated with Ghandi and the nationalist movement for freedom. They provide counseling, are fighting against the caste system and for the abolition of child marriages, helping ex-prostitutes, and protecting widows from inhumane customs. They also dispell superstitions by scientific demonstrations, and are asked to calm witchcraft hysterias. They provide sex education and family planning, are carrying on a rural development program, and have a center for free cornea grafting operations which is giving sight to the blind.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/tocindia.htm

Atheist Charity
This is a new, small charity run by atheist volunteers. They currently give money to other charities for the poor, are involved in forming a non-discriminatory alternative to the Boy Scouts, and later will start natural disaster relief projects.
http://www.atheistcharity.org

EARTHWARD, Inc.
Earth's Atheist Resistance To Holy Wars And Religious Devastation gives humanitarian aid to victims of religiously motivated violence.
http://earthward.net

Humanitas
Dutch organization for social care an community development, based upon humanistic principles with projects in the fields of child-care, elderly homes, support for the homeless, care for the disabled, visiting and empowering the lonely, and grief counseling.
http://www.humanitas.nl

Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries
Hivos is an organisation working to promote: democracy; economic development; cultural development; human rights, including equal rights for women, in the developing countries of Africa, Asia, Latin-America and South-east Europe. It also combats poverty and the spread of AIDS in those areas.
http://www.hivos.nl/

Furthermore, humanist organizations such as the International Humanist and Ethical Union at
http://www.hivos.nl/
have been cooperating with the U.N. in promoting global human rights and social progress. Several people named Humanists of the Year by the AHA (American Humanist Association) at
http://www.humanist.net
have been leaders in the U.N. and/or helped draft human rights documents.

~~~~~~~~~~~
They raise the idea that there are few athiest charity organizations for the several reasons. A) Religious charities utilize their works as prolethetizing and recruitment/conversion opportunities, and thus are very vocal about them (And they are self-perpetuating for this reason.) B) The lack of belief in a diety does not bond individuals together in the same way that an organized religion does, etc.

Morality

rsjm brought up a sermon on 1st Corinthians, where Paul is telling the Corinthian church to behave.

Paul says, "Just because society thinks it's ok, doesn't mean God does". I accept that as a fundamental of Christian belief, and don't see any problem with a Christian chosing to live their life that way.

Paul says that God's rules are for God's people. That's a very Judaic way of thinking, too, and an area where Christianity changed from Judaism. Jews believe the rules in the Torah are for them, and they're the only people who should live by them, and too bad about those other folks.

Christianity, OTOH, expects *everyone* to live by their rules, and some are willing to impose those by force and law.

And that's where Christianity and I break. They (in the general theological sense) accept their morality as the only morality, and no one else is living a moral life but them. And, especially recently, power-holding Christans are willing to enfoce their morality through the law. This, in my mind, risks puts things on par with the thecracies of the Middle East, and other places where religion is state-enforced. Especially in America, no one religion should have the right to enforce its beliefs on the populace.

I think until Christianity as a whole begins to understand that people of other faiths can be moral beings, and that morality is much more about how we treat the people around us, and less about arbitrary rules, there will always be a cultural rift between Christians, and non-Christans.

PSA

Reguarding the use of 'public' information in order to defame or otherwise disparage me and mine:

I have said my piece. Blade has said his. If the perpetrator wishes to continue trying to justify his mudslinging, he'll need to come out of his safe little cave and engage in public debate, where everyone can see his behavior.

Please know that I bear no ill will towards other members of his family, or others who enjoy his company and his community, unless, like some, they have used the sheild of his power there to attack me directly.

pot, meet kettle

People would tell us that they were warned to stay away from us... And some did actually listen... The other people who came over here anyway were shunned after that... Or looked at strangely in the community. And all it took for that to happen was to come to a place and say hello to a few people...

Even on place that still took place... It sure felt nice having people who have never even met you claim how horrible you really are...

Gee, I'm sure I'd have no idea how *that* feels...to be condemned just for the people you hang out with, or be branded with a certain label because of unfounded rumor and overreaction. Or have people hate you without ever talking to you, because their 'leader' said to hate you.

gotta love to hear something like that out of the same group of people who've been running a hate campaign on you for almost 2 years.

Clothes make the...

Glitzy t-shirts with suggestive slogans. Hip hugger jeans. THONG panties, for ghus sake. And now padded bras in sizes that would fit my 6 year old?

You will hardly find another person on the planet more apt to wave the flag of sexual freedom and being able to wear clothes that make you feel sexy, and I've happily reclaimed slut as a title of pride. Sexuality should be enjoyed, not hidden from.

But 'slut' clothes for girls who have barely entered puberty is too much. For one, it's giving girls the wrong message about themselves, that they have to be sexually suggestive to be attractive. Two, it makes it damn hard to advocate for free sexual expression in adults, when that image is being marketed inapproprately.

How can we say it's OK for a woman to dress in a clevage-baring shirt, and that she still has rights and boundaries, when little girls who havn't even got actual breast tissue are being encouraged to show off their 'assets'.

They have no idea what message their clothing sends, they have no idea that these things can be interpreted sexually, they just see the glitz, and that it's what their favorite -fill in the blank- wears.

Today

I honor Liam Colhoun, and all of the innocents who have ever lost their lives because of someone else's religious or political fanatacism.

This comes from the blog of Cyantist Ryan Warzecha, an all around nifty guy:

Consider this a quest... no, a request... We have a great number of people signed up for the beta; however, I am a one of those types of people where there can never be enough. Call me crazy but I want a number that I spit out my morning coffee out when I see it. I want a number that when I say the number in the morning meeting that someone has to give Moke The Heimlich because he choked on his juice. I want a number that it gives Mark D night sweats worrying if the server will stay up. I think you get what I am getting at. This does not mean I want you to sign up with every email address you have. Some one might ask if Turner is going to base funding on the number of people in beta.That is not the case. I just want the numbers for my own personal vendetta to say "Hey World .. We are back... and guess what, this time its personal"

Completely seperate from the giggles I get at the thought of Moke snorting Orange Juice out his nose, everyone should sign up for beta :)