Today, the Tribune published an article saying that atheists know more about religion than religious people. I'm not surprised by this and have no trouble believing it. I have a strong belief that atheists are complete hypocrites and are actually very religious people.
Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs (www.dictionary.com).
According to the definition of religion, atheism is a religion and serves the same purpose as Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism.
In my opinion and from observation, one main religious activity is to actively recruit others into your religion. Atheists are becoming experts on this. They have taken out advertisements on buses and billboards. They are being interviewed by national newspapers and trying to make themselves more vocal. They say everyone in this country has a fundamental right to freedom from religion, but they are pushing their religion in everyone's faces exactly like their archenemies, the Evangelical Christians.
Now, I do not associate myself with any organized religion and do not have any set beliefs in anything in particular, other than that Evangelical Christians are glorified sociopaths. I am not rooting for one religion over another, nor am I saying that atheism is bad. I do however think that atheists these days are the worst and most obnoxious religion recruiters on the entire planet.
If they insist on criticizing every other religion for promoting religious propaganda in public, then they should stop promoting their religious propaganda. If atheists truly wanted freedom from religion, they would be opposed to bus advertisements and billboards claiming that God is a hoax and participating in studies that are trying to prove that they know everything there is to know about religion.
Thanks.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Jane Austen
Many critics dismiss Jane Austen as a sentimental romance writer. When placed into context (early 1800's England), Jane Austen was an active feminist and social commentator.
To truly appreciate Ms. Austen, one needs some background on Victorian England social norms. Since I am a serious nerd, I can provide you with this. Only two things were important to people in early 1800's England: money and social status. Nothing else. Just money and social status.
People did not get married because they met and fell in love. They married people who could get them more money who had a favorable social status. Since women could not have careers, they were completely dependant on a man for their livelihood. (English novelist Charlotte Bronte wrote about lower class women and how they made a living. If you are interested, check out Villette, or her sister, Anne Bronte's novel Agnes Gray.) Marriages were often "arranged". I use quotations because they weren't arranged like how marriages are today. Rather, children were directed towards who they should marry and associate themselves with. A family of "good breeding" would introduce their children to another family of "good breeding", or more commonly, cousins would be encouraged to marry. As demonstrated in Ms. Austen's novels, a couple would meet, decide they like each other and be engaged within a week. Marriage was not romantic. It was a business deal.
If a woman chose not to get married, she had few options for survival. For one, family fortunes were never passed down to daughters. If there were no sons, the inheritance would go to the nearest male relative. An unmarried woman had to rely on brothers or uncles for a home and basic necessities. Jane Austen was pretty cool. She chose not to get married and then began a writing career for herself, with the support of her brother. Both Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility were popular while she was alive.
What's fascinating about Ms. Austen is her observation of social norms and how she vilified them in her novels. Many of her main players are caricatures of things she hated about society; fat gossipy women and flashy conceited young men to name a few. All of her heroines marry men they fall in love with. Specifically, her Emma would only consider marriage if she met someone she loved. This was certainly not the fashion back then. In real life, Emma should have been damn grateful to receive any marriage proposal and to say yes to the first wealthy man who hit on her. I like to think that Jane Austen invented the notion of playing hard to get.
A feminist novel can still revolve around marriage and romance. I think people today look past the societal importance of Jane Austen and only look at the romantic relationships of her main characters. These fans miss the whole point of Jane Austen.
Take another look at Pride and Prejudice. Lizzy Bennett refuses her obnoxious cousin's marriage proposal. However, her best friend accepts and is grateful she found a man with money and a home who can support her and her family. This is what any woman back then would do. But Ms. Austen tries to demonstrate with Lizzy that women are people and not possessions to be traded off amongst men. On a side note, Ms. Austen also doesn't stray too far away from societal norms. After all, Lizzy falls in love and marries a rich man with the biggest house in the neighborhood.
I'm glad many people like Jane Austen and still read her books. I wish more women would look into the historical significance of her novels and perhaps develop an appreciation for what she was trying to do. But then again, I'm a nerd and who really wants to spend their time studying Victorian England?
To truly appreciate Ms. Austen, one needs some background on Victorian England social norms. Since I am a serious nerd, I can provide you with this. Only two things were important to people in early 1800's England: money and social status. Nothing else. Just money and social status.
People did not get married because they met and fell in love. They married people who could get them more money who had a favorable social status. Since women could not have careers, they were completely dependant on a man for their livelihood. (English novelist Charlotte Bronte wrote about lower class women and how they made a living. If you are interested, check out Villette, or her sister, Anne Bronte's novel Agnes Gray.) Marriages were often "arranged". I use quotations because they weren't arranged like how marriages are today. Rather, children were directed towards who they should marry and associate themselves with. A family of "good breeding" would introduce their children to another family of "good breeding", or more commonly, cousins would be encouraged to marry. As demonstrated in Ms. Austen's novels, a couple would meet, decide they like each other and be engaged within a week. Marriage was not romantic. It was a business deal.
If a woman chose not to get married, she had few options for survival. For one, family fortunes were never passed down to daughters. If there were no sons, the inheritance would go to the nearest male relative. An unmarried woman had to rely on brothers or uncles for a home and basic necessities. Jane Austen was pretty cool. She chose not to get married and then began a writing career for herself, with the support of her brother. Both Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility were popular while she was alive.
What's fascinating about Ms. Austen is her observation of social norms and how she vilified them in her novels. Many of her main players are caricatures of things she hated about society; fat gossipy women and flashy conceited young men to name a few. All of her heroines marry men they fall in love with. Specifically, her Emma would only consider marriage if she met someone she loved. This was certainly not the fashion back then. In real life, Emma should have been damn grateful to receive any marriage proposal and to say yes to the first wealthy man who hit on her. I like to think that Jane Austen invented the notion of playing hard to get.
A feminist novel can still revolve around marriage and romance. I think people today look past the societal importance of Jane Austen and only look at the romantic relationships of her main characters. These fans miss the whole point of Jane Austen.
Take another look at Pride and Prejudice. Lizzy Bennett refuses her obnoxious cousin's marriage proposal. However, her best friend accepts and is grateful she found a man with money and a home who can support her and her family. This is what any woman back then would do. But Ms. Austen tries to demonstrate with Lizzy that women are people and not possessions to be traded off amongst men. On a side note, Ms. Austen also doesn't stray too far away from societal norms. After all, Lizzy falls in love and marries a rich man with the biggest house in the neighborhood.
I'm glad many people like Jane Austen and still read her books. I wish more women would look into the historical significance of her novels and perhaps develop an appreciation for what she was trying to do. But then again, I'm a nerd and who really wants to spend their time studying Victorian England?
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Home Buyers
Facebook suggestion #2 comes from my aunt. The topic: Stupid potential buyers that come to look at your house.
When I had TV, I enjoyed watching House Hunters on TLC. I picked up some useful pointers and advice for when I look for a house. I have also learned how not to act in front of my realtor and to be grateful if there are nice homes in my price range.
I have always known that stupid people exist, but they seem to come out in droves when TLC is involved (i.e. John and Kate Plus 8). I have seen few episodes of House Hunters that didn't have some brain dead woman on who couldn't find her dream house on her meager budget. (Good luck finding a $200,000 palace in Boston, crazy blonde chick from that episode that came on after Full House that one day.).
Anyways, reality TV aside, people have some odd demands when it comes to what they want in a house. My aunt told me that someone said her carpeting has too much personality. When did carpets take on human characteristics?
Stuff like carpet and wallpaper can all be removed. (Or you can be like my mother and just paint over the wallpaper.) Deciding not to buy a house because there's floral wallpaper in the master bedroom is extraordinarily petty. When you buy a home, new or used, expect to put some physical labor into it.
One thing I don't understand about people is their priorities. I would think finding a home in a safe neighborhood that had a new roof and a laundry room would be high on a "must have" list. Apparently, I'm not with the in-crowd. Home buyers are looking for things like unique architecture and built in bookcases. I guess it's fine to live in gangsta central as long you have arched doorways and plenty of shelving for your Martha Stewart literature.
Back to House Hunters (which sounds like Ghost Hunters which is why I started watching it in the first place. Loser?). Every episode is pretty much the same. The buyer is shown three houses which, according to the buyer, is always too small, too far away from the beach, too close to traffic, doesn't have enough windows, the bathrooms are too small, there's not enough closet space, the backyard is too small, the layout is weird, the kitchen is too small, the basement isn't finished, etc.
But I guess a TV show would be boring if people complained about inadequate schools and plumbing problems.
When I had TV, I enjoyed watching House Hunters on TLC. I picked up some useful pointers and advice for when I look for a house. I have also learned how not to act in front of my realtor and to be grateful if there are nice homes in my price range.
I have always known that stupid people exist, but they seem to come out in droves when TLC is involved (i.e. John and Kate Plus 8). I have seen few episodes of House Hunters that didn't have some brain dead woman on who couldn't find her dream house on her meager budget. (Good luck finding a $200,000 palace in Boston, crazy blonde chick from that episode that came on after Full House that one day.).
Anyways, reality TV aside, people have some odd demands when it comes to what they want in a house. My aunt told me that someone said her carpeting has too much personality. When did carpets take on human characteristics?
Stuff like carpet and wallpaper can all be removed. (Or you can be like my mother and just paint over the wallpaper.) Deciding not to buy a house because there's floral wallpaper in the master bedroom is extraordinarily petty. When you buy a home, new or used, expect to put some physical labor into it.
One thing I don't understand about people is their priorities. I would think finding a home in a safe neighborhood that had a new roof and a laundry room would be high on a "must have" list. Apparently, I'm not with the in-crowd. Home buyers are looking for things like unique architecture and built in bookcases. I guess it's fine to live in gangsta central as long you have arched doorways and plenty of shelving for your Martha Stewart literature.
Back to House Hunters (which sounds like Ghost Hunters which is why I started watching it in the first place. Loser?). Every episode is pretty much the same. The buyer is shown three houses which, according to the buyer, is always too small, too far away from the beach, too close to traffic, doesn't have enough windows, the bathrooms are too small, there's not enough closet space, the backyard is too small, the layout is weird, the kitchen is too small, the basement isn't finished, etc.
But I guess a TV show would be boring if people complained about inadequate schools and plumbing problems.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
African Killer Bees and Sentient Robots: Nature's Perfect Killing Machines
I asked my facebook friends to give me topics to write about. Here's suggestion #1:
African Killer Bees and Sentient Robots: Nature's Perfect Killing Machines
I have to slightly disagree that African Killer Bees are a perfect killing machine. It takes more than one bee to do any real damage. It's quite simple to defeat them actually. Here is the recipe:
4 Alaskan Grizzly Bears
1 12-Pack of Howling Gray Wolves
3 Bald Eagles
1 White Lion
1 Dio's "Holy Diver"
With that combo, the bees don't stand a chance.
The robots, on the other hand are harder to defeat. However, with a little effort it can be done. Here is how to defeat any robot that has turned to the dark side:
6 Panthers
6 Cougars
1/2 Silverback Gorilla
7 Pterodactyls
1 Iron Maiden's "The Number of the Beast"
This concoction of natural power can defeat the man made tyranny of any sentient robot.
So, you see African Killer Bees and Sentient Robots will never win. Nothing will overcome the majestic power of nature's finest creatures.
African Killer Bees and Sentient Robots: Nature's Perfect Killing Machines
I have to slightly disagree that African Killer Bees are a perfect killing machine. It takes more than one bee to do any real damage. It's quite simple to defeat them actually. Here is the recipe:
4 Alaskan Grizzly Bears
1 12-Pack of Howling Gray Wolves
3 Bald Eagles
1 White Lion
1 Dio's "Holy Diver"
With that combo, the bees don't stand a chance.
The robots, on the other hand are harder to defeat. However, with a little effort it can be done. Here is how to defeat any robot that has turned to the dark side:
6 Panthers
6 Cougars
1/2 Silverback Gorilla
7 Pterodactyls
1 Iron Maiden's "The Number of the Beast"
This concoction of natural power can defeat the man made tyranny of any sentient robot.
So, you see African Killer Bees and Sentient Robots will never win. Nothing will overcome the majestic power of nature's finest creatures.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Child abusers
Sorry I haven't written in awhile. I have been overworked and pretty sick for a few months. But alas, have I got a story for you!
For those that don't know, I volunteer at a resale shop that benefits a domestic violence shelter. Last weekend, I witnessed a mother beating the hell out of her little boy in the shop while completely ignoring her screaming toddler in the stroller.
I don't know what happened exactly. This woman had been in the store for about an hour. Her daughter in the stroller had been crying hysterically the whole time. Her son was about 4 or 5. As a boy that age, wandering around a thrift store for an hour has got to be pretty boring. The only thing I can think of that set her off was him asking her if they could go home. (That is not a violence inducing request, but whatever.)
She then punched him in the back of his head. He fell forward and hit the front of his head on a clothing rack. Then she said," Now STOP IT!". The boy didn't cry but he did have the sense to run away from her.
That lady is lucky my supervisor was right there next to me at that point. I was ready with some harsh words and a phone call to the police. My supervisor was more subtle. She explained to that woman that this was a non violence store and that we have time out chairs if her kids were misbehaving. The woman ignored her and went into the fitting room, dragging her daughter in with her but leaving the boy on his own. The two kids were given organic lolly pops from my supervisor but the woman took away the little girls after a few minutes and threw it on the floor by the shoe rack. They eventually left about a half hour later.
I'm going to skip past the irony of beating your kids in a store that donates all the proceeds to a domestic violence shelter and discuss the implications of beating your children in public.
Some might say the only way to parent children is to beat them senseless until they are afraid of you. Those people are failures at life and should be sterilized.
I have a severe dislike for anyone who spanks their child, but more so for people who hit their children in public and ignore their screaming child while they are shopping. The child is screaming and crying for a reason. Stop being selfish, mindless consumers and tend to your child's needs! Ignoring your child is equivalent to beating the crap out of it. In addition, hitting your child only teaches them to hit others to solve their problems.
There are much more effective ways to discipline your children. Using violence is never a proper way. If your child only responds to violence, then you have bigger problems. Remember, they learn habits and problem solving methods from YOU!
For those that don't know, I volunteer at a resale shop that benefits a domestic violence shelter. Last weekend, I witnessed a mother beating the hell out of her little boy in the shop while completely ignoring her screaming toddler in the stroller.
I don't know what happened exactly. This woman had been in the store for about an hour. Her daughter in the stroller had been crying hysterically the whole time. Her son was about 4 or 5. As a boy that age, wandering around a thrift store for an hour has got to be pretty boring. The only thing I can think of that set her off was him asking her if they could go home. (That is not a violence inducing request, but whatever.)
She then punched him in the back of his head. He fell forward and hit the front of his head on a clothing rack. Then she said," Now STOP IT!". The boy didn't cry but he did have the sense to run away from her.
That lady is lucky my supervisor was right there next to me at that point. I was ready with some harsh words and a phone call to the police. My supervisor was more subtle. She explained to that woman that this was a non violence store and that we have time out chairs if her kids were misbehaving. The woman ignored her and went into the fitting room, dragging her daughter in with her but leaving the boy on his own. The two kids were given organic lolly pops from my supervisor but the woman took away the little girls after a few minutes and threw it on the floor by the shoe rack. They eventually left about a half hour later.
I'm going to skip past the irony of beating your kids in a store that donates all the proceeds to a domestic violence shelter and discuss the implications of beating your children in public.
Some might say the only way to parent children is to beat them senseless until they are afraid of you. Those people are failures at life and should be sterilized.
I have a severe dislike for anyone who spanks their child, but more so for people who hit their children in public and ignore their screaming child while they are shopping. The child is screaming and crying for a reason. Stop being selfish, mindless consumers and tend to your child's needs! Ignoring your child is equivalent to beating the crap out of it. In addition, hitting your child only teaches them to hit others to solve their problems.
There are much more effective ways to discipline your children. Using violence is never a proper way. If your child only responds to violence, then you have bigger problems. Remember, they learn habits and problem solving methods from YOU!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)