« November 2007 | Main | January 2008 »
December 19, 2007
Geek the Vote. . .
From Popular Mechanics, Geek the Vote is a great resource for comparing the policy positions of the major Presidential candidates from both parties.
Have a look-see, Geek the Vote!
Found via the blogfather.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 14, 2007
Tis the season for the atheist take on. . .
Each year round about this time, various "atheist groups". . . .
[Let me make a hard stop here and talk for a second about "atheist groups". There are a number of organizations out there that claim to be "atheist" in their theological construct. I don't consider these groups or any of their members (even the venerable Christopher Hitchens) to be actual atheists. Instead I look at them more as anti-religionists or perhaps more accurately anti-monotheists. It's my firm belief that atheism is a singular psychological position, and "groups" of "atheists" cannot accurately hold an atheist position. When any group organizes and expounds as a group a specific construct (even if that construct is devoid of a traditional god-construct) they have ceased to actually be atheists. When these groups organize they are merely replacing what would normally be a theocentric set of dogmatic rules and customs for a anti-theocentric set of dogmatic rules and customs. By creating their "anti-religion" they've in fact created just another "religion" and are merely substituting one god-construct or god-form for another concept or form (many times, it's the exact same concept or form, just with a different name). By organizing, they effectively destroy their individual central common themes and put into place simple substitutions for the artifacts and constructions of whichever religion(s) they are rebelling against.
The true atheist exists in a singular psychological space, it is a private battle to come to grips with atheism and it's a battle which must be undertaken alone and without resorting to simple substitution for the sake of substitution. This is a much larger topic than I wish to tackle right now so back to . . . ]
Round bout this time of year, the "atheist groups" get alot of airtime for their annual War on Christmas, they also usually feint at a Supreme Court run on topics like "In God We Trust" on our money, or they might go after Christmas trees and nativity scenes on public property, or they might just make a nuisance of themselves by complaining about the use of the word Christmas instead of Holiday (which is even more offensive to a real atheist than the word Christmas).
These attacks are usually doomed to failure, and the troublemakers know that their effort will most likely fail, however winning isn't really what they are after, they're after converts. Part of organizing atheists involves getting more members for your anti-church/group. Holding a rally round the local Christmas tree and calling for it's removal is a proselytizing function (again, this function is anti-thetical to true atheism). Simply put, Christmas is a good time to find people who have a beef with Christianity (most declared atheists are running away from a Judeo-Christian faith) and who might be good leads to join your group. More members means more donations, more donations means more protest actitivity which brings more leads to convert into members, which leads to more donations, etc etc etc.
A couple of years back I wrote up my take of an atheist's view of Christmas with particular attention to the word "Holiday". Simply put, if you ever happen to run across an atheist who wants you to use the phrase "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", you should simply inform them that they must not indeed be actual atheists because if they were, they'd realize that "Happy Holidays" is actually more offensive to a true atheist than Christmas is.
Christmas is simply one of the major holy days in the Christian religion. As a true atheist, I have absolutely NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER, with Christians (or anyone else for that matter) celebrating Christmas. I also have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with a nation (in this example, the U.S.) recognizing that the dominant religion within the population has a major holy day and providing reasonable accomodation for such a holy day by declaring a legal holiday.
Did you catch that, my meager readership. Did you see that connection between "holiday" and "holy day". Most of you probably didn't realize when you read it, but in fact the word "holiday", which "atheist groups" want you to use, actually means "holy day". Yes, folks, the root of holiday is holy day, and as a true atheist I'm far more offended by the omnibus "holiday" ("holy day") declaration than I am with the specific identifier of Christmas.
I recognize that the Christians have a major event this time of year, and I have no problem with recognizing it because it's a real and tangible event. HOWEVER, giving a blanket declaration that essentially states that this period is now defined as the holy day period; I've got a big ole problem with that.
Saying "Happy Holidays" is forcing an acknoledgement of certain days as generically "holy", and I simply can't do that as an atheist. I can recognize that groups claim certain days as holy, but I'm not going to be forced to recognize that we all must hold certain days as "holy". I'm actually highly offended at the concept that we recognize some days as "holy" and some as not. Don't foist that omnibus universal declaration upon me fella.
Call events for what they are. It's simple. If you are a Christian or a in a Christian dominant society, then Christmas is the event in question, if you're Jewish, you're in the midst of Hanuakka (click here for a video that might clear up some questions about spelling that). Acknoledging these specific religious days is fine by me, it keeps the event right out there where I can see it, it also doesn't force upon me any recognition that such days are "holy" and doesn't put me in a compromised position. "Happy Holidays" forces me to recognize something that simply isn't in my set of truths. "Merry Christmas" merely identifies the person wishing it as a Christian, I can accept it with a "thank you" and move along, there's no need to correct the wisher or say anything about my faith (or lack thereof).
Greeting me with "Happy Holidays" isn't the same thing to me. I don't mind being excluded from the set that celebrates Christmas as the birth of Jesus, but I do mind being forced into acknoledging that this time is some set of omnibus "holy days". To me, every day is just like the other, I shouldn't be forced into a position of accepting a certain set of days as "holy", and those who try (especially those claiming atheist status, yet pushing this canard) to push it upon me are the violators, not those who are announcing their personal holy day.
So those of you claiming to be an atheist, scrub Happy Holidays from your vocabulary, or admit you're simply not really an atheist, but merely anti-Christian. To those who walk on eggshells about saying "Merry Christmas", stop walking on eggshells and shout "Merry Christmas" from your rooftop, because you are guaranteed the right to practice and advocate your religion and it's holy days to your heart's content. You proclaiming your religion and it's events is not impacting me, nor is it forcing anything upon me. However, if you're a Christian or not, and you try to foist a bunch of "holy days" upon me, look out, because I'm going to come back swinging (ok, not really swinging, but I will most probably correct you).
Just say no to "holidays", embrace Christmas (or not, your choice), and if you need to, give some love to the Jews and wish a "Happy Chanuakka" (again, click here for help spelling that one).
--Jason
PS - Sometimes I wish more people would just celebrate Festivus, that way we'd see this Festivus classic more often:
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:17 AM
As he approaches 90 orbits. . .
Sir Arthur C. Clarke has released a statement:
Remember Arthur C. Clarke when you're looking for good Christmas gifts for teenage boys (and girls). Heck, just remember Arthur C. Clarke for almost anyone who occasionally looks up and wonders.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 11, 2007
Hard News. . .
Taken from the comments:
Odd. But it makes me think of a monkey with a handgun…..locomotivebreath1901 on December 11, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Lord help us all if it ever figures out the safety.Frozen Tex on December 11, 2007 at 9:10 PM
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 1, 2007
Bring it Hugo. . .
Hugo Chavez is threatening the U.S. that he will cut off Venezuelan oil supplies should any news organization or the United States government question the elections this weekend. [LINK]
I say to Hugo, "Go ahead you mental midget. Cut off oil to the U.S., IF you can. I double-dog dare you."
Personally I think it would be FANDAMNTASTIC if all of the Citgo stations in the U.S. closed their doors while they scrambled to make contracts with BP, RD Shell and Exxon to get their pumps back on. I think it'd be even more TRETOTALMENDOUS if gas prices spiked in the middle of the holiday shopping season. The spike wouldn't last more than a few days. Now let me tell you why Hugo.
You see Hugo, we've been conducting an experiment up here that really doesn't get much play in the media. Contrary to popular belief, gas is a supply and demand commodity, and unlike many nations in the world, the U.S. government understands this and has long since prepared for actions like the one Hugo is contemplating. The U.S. government can, with the stroke of GWB's pen, open our strategic oil reserves at any time and absorb any type of hit a tinpot South American wannabe dictator can muster.
IF we so choose, we can take your punch and not even be fazed. Another possiblity is that the U.S. government do nothing and let the markets hash out your ploy. You see Hugo, if you cut off oil to the U.S. you have two choices, either sell it to someone else at a discount, or take an economic hit on Venezuela (which wouldn't do you any favors Hugo, just like losing all those gas station contracts to Exxon wouldn't be a good move for you Hugo-baby).
So let us suppose that Hugo does sell his oil to someone else, he'll have to discount it because of the higher cost of transportation, and it's unlikely he'll find someone to take as much of his oil as the U.S. does. Maybe China will step up, but Hugo will have a hard time turning a profit if they do. Guess what though, if Hugo does cut off oil to the U.S. and sell it to China, that frees up oil that China would have bought from someone else, and we can simply buy that. No problem for us, but a big problem for Citgo retailers. They probably won't come back to you Hugo if you cut their throats right at Christmas time, they'll be jumping into bed with another oil company and you'll have just shot yourself in the foot.
Oh wait Hugo, there's more. You see, we have literally thousands of oil wells in the U.S. that can be opened up for production in as little as 5 days if the economic conditions demand it. We'd rather not use our petrochemical resources if we can buy them from someone else and save ours for later, but if we need to, if we want to, we can bring reserve domestic supply online and CRUSH YOU while simultaneously giving our own economy a major boost.
The estimates are a bit fuzzy, but we could pummel world petroleum markets to the tune of a $40 a barrel oil in relatively short order if we needed to. We could, again, if we wanted to, could dump our oil into the world market and offer anyone oil at $50 or $60 a barrel and send oil-producing nations economies into a tailspin. A phone call from Bush to a few select individuals could begin a tremendous increase in domestic supply and send the markets reeling. We don't do this because we have a number of allies who would be hurt by such a move and there are more than a few world economies that we want to prop up by letting oil prices creep higher and infusing these nations with cash. We could change that if we felt pressured, or we could not, we could play another game. Are you ready for it Hugo?
We can let you play your game and simply do nothing as world oil prices spike into the $150 a barrel range. Since oil is a globally traded commodity and since Hugo doesn't really have all that much control over where his oil goes once it leaves his soil, he'd be forced to sit it out. I don't think his regime would last very long as their economy (90% of which is oil revenue) suddenly dropped to a fraction of it's current activity level. The riots in the streets of Caracas would be epic.
I don't think you'd be making any friends in the world community as you held back your oil and prices spiked just so you could conduct your coup. The Euros may fawn over you now, but drive their gas up over the 10euro a liter mark, and they'll turn on you in an instant. As gas prices pushed up over $4 a gallon here in the states, public opinion would fall flat. By the time November 2008 rolled around, the American electorate would be screaming from the rooftops for a Republican President and Congress to open ANWAR and the capped wells in Louisana, Texas and the Gulf.
Please Hugo, please! Cut off our oil! Pretty please, I dare you!
Make no mistake, we play softball in the world's economy when it comes to oil. We recognize that developing nations need the revenue if they can get it and we can afford higher gas prices without any real pain. YEAH, I know, people will imagine they feel pain from a spike in gas, and that won't go well for you Hugo. As people get pissed off at you, they'll begin clammoring for a Carrier group to park itself off your coast. In short order, you'd find yourself in a situation where you're broke, your people are rioting, your military fades away because they aren't getting paid and then, if you're own people don't take you out, forced regime change wouldn't be far behind.
Please Hugo please! Cut off our oil. I'd love to see us switch from playing softball with you to rock-em sock-em football, and we'd kick your ass up and down the field. AND WE'D STILL BE GOING BACK AND FORTH TO THE GAME IN OUR HUMMERS, YUKONS, ESCALADES AND EXPEDITIONS!
You can't afford to play this game with us Hugo, you LITERALLY cannot afford it.
Go ahead Hugo, have your little tantrum. Make our day.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:41 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
