Bad Science and Bad Journalism are Linked: How Fundamentalist Atheists are Twisting Science to Manifest a Dark Agenda

Every now and then I come across a bad science article. And I come across badly done science with disturbing regularity -- but today I found both in an article at NewScience.com.

It's a "study" about why people believe "crazy" things like creationism and intelligent design. The authors of both the article and the study have barely bothered to mask their contempt and disdain for those who believe in anything other than cold, hard science.

But the science and written logic they bring to the table can be described as mushy branflakes at best. Check out the article and see if you can taste the bias. Here's a sampler:

People continued to agree with false teleological statements, particularly those that endorsed an Earth intended for life.

I was not aware the debate over the beginning of our world was settled. Good to know you can administer a simple true/false test and call people who believe the earth was made for life "wrong".

This is supposed to be science? It seems to be based on more assumptions than religion! [new readers: I don't believe in religion, but I don't believe evolution's reality settles the debate over our origins -v]

Either they're trying to use trick questions or they don't understand the nuance of language. This, for instance, is one of their "false" statements:

Mites live on skin to consume dead skin cells

Well... don't they? The mites are better off living there than anywhere else. Where else would mites rather be?

The supposed scientists may have been grasping for "Mites exist only to remove our dead skin cells" but they utterly failed. And these people are claiming to be able to accurately and fairly judge me, my logical abilities and the validity of my beliefs??!!

Reminds me of this, more accurate, study.

This is also shoddy, biased journalism. I expect more from a mainstream publication like NewScience. Pro-atheism cheerleading is fine and good, but there's a time and a place, just like we expect reporters to keep their Christian, Hindu or whatever views out of newscasts, we should expect the journalists over at NewScience and other consumer science outlets to do the same.

This is not an article so much as an attack on teleological thought, a legitimate philosophy of thought. Here's what Wikipedia currently says about teleology:

A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.

As a school of thought it can be contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which views nature as having no design or purpose. Teleology would say that a person has eyes because he has the need of eyesight (form following function), while naturalism would say that a person has sight because he has eyes (function following form).

A classic debate. Y vs. X and yet these supposed scientists are ready to throw telelogical thought under the bus without even investigating whether it might be right. Instead they've decided to do a sort of test to see if you think like a commie--..uh, er... "teleologist" in the hopes of one day "curing" it.

A first round of experiments suggested that adults make more teleological mistakes when pressed for time than when not. Yet Kelemen and Rosset also noticed that no matter how much time they had, test subjects tended to endorse false statements implying that the Earth is designed and maintained for life. [emphasis mine]

This is some of the most biased reporting I've ever seen, but it could be Ewen Callaway is just regurgitating what he was told. Then it would piss-poor reporting. But even more offensive to me as a rational person is the implicit goal laid bare in this study, which is clearly to find a way to eradicate teleological thought.

That's the same kind of thinking that led to the Spanish Inquisition. We don't need any more of that crap. These "scientists" need to learn how to take on their ideological opponents in an intellectual field of battle and quit trying to find ways to cow the populace into submission. If they have proof that the teleological school of thought is wrong, then they should firstly present it, then defend it.

Instead they use mouthpieces like NewScience, which I thought was a reputable publication, but now seems to be nothing more than a bloodbath battlefield between believers and nonbelievers. Here are some recent articles (among the most popular):

• How to spot a hidden religious agenda
  
• Born believers: How your brain creates God
  
• How to stop creationism gaining a hold in Islam
  

I guess it's all about the page-views and contentious article bring in visitors galore. But then why not try and keep an editorially even hand and write balanced articles? There's a good reason spiritually-minded folks often sound defensive in those forums. They know they're being taunted -- or else they wouldn't be there, trying to explain deeply held beliefs to this generation's most vicious nihilists.

What's even more disturbing is that the atheists rarely stand up and say, "Hey, I agree, but let's keep things respectful and balanced here." Opinion Editor Amanda Gefter is particularly over-the-top. Here's a typical passage:

Misguided interpretations of quantum physics are a classic hallmark of pseudoscience, usually of the New Age variety, but some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense.

Free will has been debated for many millennia, but dear old Amanda won't let us even consider the possibility that... what, quantum physics might be involved somehow? How the hell does she know? She clearly doesn't because she chose ridicule over reason and neglected to back up her claims. If I print out the Wikipedia article on Free Will, it's over 20 pages, but Ms. Gefter dismisses it with a warning: Beware!! Don't read any further or you might turn into a commi- er, I mean "creationist!"

This is all about attacking the philosophical underpinnings of the opponents of strong-atheism, whom include religious folks, anti-religion/pro-metaphysics people like me, and many agnostics and weak-atheists.

It's sad that people can't find any common ground on this issue. It's one of the most pressing of our times, especially with the growth of atheism in the young and urban. But it's still a religious discussion and I remain somewhat aghast that a publication like NewScience would stoop to taking sides in the culture wars. Are they about to fold and need every page-view they can get?

I'd be more likely to read them in the future if they displayed a little more objectivity.

As for the "scientists" who are out to "cure" creationists or anybody who entertains metaphysical thoughts, well, I guess we'd better keep our eyes on them before they try to beat Religion's high score in the killing game. Studying ways to eradicate thought that doesn't conform with the scientific establishment's is really beyond the pale.

I don't think most atheists think this way. Certainly there is some bitterness about Christianity, the dominant religion in my culture, but few would actually seek to destroy it. They just don't want fundamentalist Christians (like those that infested the Bush administration) enforcing prayer in schools, Intelligent Design in schools (ID should be in schools -- the Philosophy Department) and various faith-based activities.

Totally understandable. But let's make sure that we don't end up with the mirror image as humanity gives up its superstitious beliefs. We don't need fundamentalist atheists running amok any more than we need fundamentalist Muslims or Christians in charge. The extremists are the problem, and they hurt whichever side they are arguing for. Please, people, look for common ground in the culture wars!

Go in peace / Science be praised

Crushed under a Ponzi Economy

[[blink]]...[[blink]]

Uh, what? Is it New Years yet? ... Wha? whatsdat? It's the 8th already? Of 2009? Seriously?

Shit.

Well, happy new year, folks. Time flies.

I guess I've been so busy working, being sick, celebrating the holidays, working up for sick days, working on a website, practicing with the band, and working some more, that I haven't had time to express my growing rage at the economic situation, which is clearly the work of vile capitalists who know how to make money off the market whether it's going up or falling down.

Bernie Madoff's got nothing on the dollar itself. The whole American monetary system is gigantic Ponzi scheme, waiting to collapse at the slightest provocation. This economic house of cards might just get us all killed -- you remember World War II started from the ashes of the Great Depression, of course. Well, between nukes, bioweapons and chemical weapons this shit could be even worse if we don't get out of this mess. 

Does anybody know how?

From what I can tell the very same people who got us into this mess are being asked to get us out. The people who saw this coming, the Peter Schiffs and the Ron Pauls of the world, they are not being asked for their counsel, strategy or even the time of day. Nope. The Willfully Blind rush feverishly forward, wailing the whole way about how they could never have known. 

Bullshit. They knew. Alan Greenspan can wade eye-deep into technical obscurity on any number of topics concerning money and markets. But you're telling me he couldn't see he was creating bubbles left and right? Bullshit. He knew exactly what he was doing and this downturn was planned long ago. 

They plan to soak us dry, for every last penny we've got. The Ponzi scheme's house of cards crushes the people at the bottom when it falls. That's the whole point. The guys high up the hierarchy escape with the aid of their golden parachutes and insider knowledge; the rest of us get to hold the damn thing on our shoulders until it finally breaks our spines and we die, another generations of slaves beaten, broken and used by their illuminoid masters. We wore ties instead of chains but the end result -- endless work for pitiful rewards -- remained constant. We are a planet of serfs, dutifully laboring away for the guy in the castl-.. er, "mansion" up on the hill because if we don't we don't receive the resources necessary to live. 

Maybe we should just learn to enjoy it. But sometimes these elite assholes like to deny us even the courtesy of a job to slave away at. And so we enter another such time, when you can smell the desperation in the air and wages stay stagnant while business cut back and hope to survive the storm. Desperate men are easy to manipulate; desperate businesses have to cut costs -- the cycle is not a happy one for the wageslaves.

Oh God, I'm gonna go to sleep before I rant all night, typing my fingers off in the uncaring darkness. I gotta let it go; just roll with it. Sometimes I actually hope for the apocalypse (preferably a zombie apocalypse) so we can dispense with the bullshit.

Happy 2009, slaves. Let's hope Master doesn't whip us too hard this year.

RNC 2008: I was arrested after filming this video. The cops fired flash grenades, herded us onto Marion bridge and arrested us

I went downtown to St. Paul in order to get some pictures and observe the situation (I already protested on Monday), but John Ireland Bridge was blocked by the police with dump trucks when I got there. The cops said there was a bomb threat to the Minnesota Historical Society, but that was quite clearly a lie since they were standing so close to it and they'd already closed the other bridges as I found out later.



So I went over to the capitol on foot using the Marion Street Bridge instead. I saw more cops than protesters.



The cops had the city in a headlock. All the other bridges were closed by the police; cops, BCA agents and national guardsman were everywhere. St. Paul was on fucking lockdown.



By the time I found out how totally heavy-handed the police presence was I was getting tired and decided to split. I was trying to get back to my car on the other side of the Marion street bridge when I saw a group about 200 protesters approaching the bridge. That's why I'm walking against the flow at the beginning of the video. Unfortunately I was too busy trying to get good footage and didn't notice the cops had surrounded us on all sides.

Soon the police started firing flash grenades, smoke bombs and generally scaring the shit out of me and all these peaceful protesters. We were corraled onto the bridge where they told us we were all under arrest, but not before all of us were shellshocked by the overwhelming police response. Watch the video, but beware that it's intense, chaotic and there's swearing and explosions.



Notice how none of the protesters resisted or attacked the cops in any way. This is ironic because we were charged with "resisting a lawful order" along with the 1st amendment-killing crime of "presence at an unlawful assembly." Whatever happened to the right of people to peaceably assemble?

We are not free; The Bill of Rights is no longer operative.

If you aren't reading this from jail that simply means the cops haven't bothered to arrest you on trumped up charges yet. They can clearly do exactly that whenever they want, with no repercussions. I wasn't even part of the protest and I was charged with being part of an "unlawful assembly."

The whole arrest process took hours. We were told to sit and put our hands on our heads, which many people had to do for several hours (your arms get sore). I was cuffed after an hour or so and stood around for another hour waiting to get my mug shot (on the bridge; this was all very ad hoc). Since we were on the bridge for so long they eventually hauled at least 3 porta-potties onto the bridge itself, for both police and protester usage (under heavy guard, of course).

Eventually I was led onto a city bus with 40 other arrestees and brought to the Ramsey County jail for booking. They searched me about 5 times, confiscated all my stuff, and gave me a paper bag with a peanutbutter and jelly sandwitch and two apples. See, even oppressive police tactics have a Minnesota Nice aspect. Of course we didn't get knives so we had to spread the jelly and PB with our fingers.

Hours dragged by as we waded our way through the bureaucracy and were eventually cited and loaded onto a paddywagon and driven out of the jail. They let us out just outside the fences and we were free -- and on our own far from where we were arrested, but at least the incredibly awesome Coldsnap Legal Collective were there to offer us hugs and access to free legal advice.



People without rides or places to go were able to sleep on the grass outside the jailhouse thanks to sleeping bags the Coldsnap folks brought. Somebody sent the angels last night; they're doing great work and need your support!

The problem with good things is that the police like to infiltrate and ruin them from the inside. That might've been the case with the protest last night. I heard several people talking about police plants -- agent provocateurs pretending to be protesters, inciting violence and keeping their superiors informed about where they are headed.

Unfortunately, this is standard practice for police departments these days, including Denver during the DNC. How many acts of vandalism and violence that you read about in the mainstream media were actually committed by undercover cops in order to incite and defame activists?

Imagine the embarrassment of the police and governments if they held a convention with massive protests and no one was arrested! They'd have spent millions upon millions of dollars for nothing! They've got to earn their outrageous security budgets, which is why they were so keen to arrest anybody who happened to be near Marion St. Bridge last night, including media folks and medics (at least 5 were arrested, along with a dozen credentialed photographers).

Of course they also wanted to show who's boss. Clearly they are, and clearly they are not going to allow us to change the system peacefully or otherwise. We are not free. We are only permitted to do what they let us; truly free expression is verboten. Believe it or not, America used to be a pretty anything-goes society as long as it wasn't overtly violent (think of the Old West). Nowadays we cling to our police state as if that makes us safer. But what have we lost in the process?

RNC 2008: Rage Against the Machine tried to play a free show but the cops refused to let them -- then shit got ugly

This is the BEST video I've found of the Rage Against The Machine free show that didn't really happen. The cops refused to let Rage take the stage. After arguing with the police for awhile Rage decided to bust out an a capella version of a few of their songs. This video captures that moment (props to PP for finding):

Then the band urged the crowd to join the Poor Peoples' March. The police didn't like that much and things started to get a little tense. Here's an account from Matt Snyders on what happened next:

There is currently a buffer zone between the corner of Wabasha and 7th and the corner of St. Peter and 7th St. near Mickey's Diner. In that buffer zone, there are two ambulances, an SUV and a white van. Police are also blocking 10th St. in both directions.

At about 7:55, advancing police began creating the buffer zone. Police told demonstrators, media and onlookers to move back. At 8:15, they started blocking off the way south. At 8:25, there were a few small explosions, and plumes of smoke began to rise. Some bombs went off, and we got the hint of tear gas on the air.

Demonstrators were chanting "We want peace, we want peace," before the gas went off.

I was on Wabasha and 7th Street when this happened.


The cops received orders to begin advancing at us in order to close off the intersection.

I started capturing video of this and it's some scary shit. About 80 seconds into the video a series of explosions go off. I can only assume these were the smoke bombs and/or tear gas cannisters being launched. The cops were chanting as they marched towards us in lockstep. It was some freaky shit:



At the end of the video the teargas starts blowing our way so we got the heck out of there.

I wasn't even with the main protest group. There was a much larger group (the Poor Peoples March and the Rage Against the Machine crowd) that was being broken by the cops. I met up with fragments of this larger protest after they had been tear-gassed and pepper-sprayed.


This guy was getting some assistance from a friend after being doused in the face with pepper spray. It looked more than a little bit painful.

The cops continued clamping down and pushing the protesters back across the Cedar bridge. They didn't seem to be encountering any resistance, but they were intent on smashing the protest. They set up perimeters and used the barricades to corral the marchers back across the Wabasha bridge:



The protesters made a last stand of sorts at the (heheheh) Peace Officers Memorial.



They used cops on bikes to quickly block off streets and other avenues of escape and then sent in the baton-weilding foot soldiers to disperse us completely.



I can say with 100% accuracy that the police stormed the Peace Officers Memorial. Apparently the irony was lost on them.

Check out my earlier post about the more peaceful Anti-War protest the previous day. And there are more photos to view in my photostream.

Shit! George Carlin has gone and died, that fucker

George Carlin is no longer with us.

Shit, now I'm pissed off because that fucking cunt left us to fend off all those corporate cocksuckers by ourselves; George was one tough motherfucker but he finally went tits-up.

Carlin had a lot more than seven dirty words to say to us. He was the finest philopsher of our era. Sure, he was funny -- wickedly funny at times -- but he wasn't afraid to go ten minutes without a punchline 'cause he was more than a comedian. He was a Stand-up Philosopher.

Gone but not forgotten.

Need a reminder?



I dunno about you, but I almost forgot about twat. Damn!

The psychics at The Onion have done it again!

The Onion has a pretty good track record of not only reporting the news before it happens, but making it funny, too. They've been eerily prescient before, but sometimes I forget just how good these guys are!

Just last month I posted a hilarious Onion TV video that featured a supposed al-Qaeda operative arguing with a 9/11 Truther. The video works on many levels, but for me it was funny because the al-Qaeda guy is so obviously spewing Bush administration talking points and desperately trying to claim credit for something clearly beyond their capabilities. He even brings a receipt for flight lessons and brags about his connections to the White House: "Me and Bush, we go out, we hang."

The idea of al-Qaeda stepping up to defend the Bush administration's version of events on 9/11 is pretty hilarious, but come on! That's just over the top, right? It was a good chuckle and then we all moved on.

Apparently somebody thought this wasn't funny enough in fiction so al-Qaeda has made it real!

Osama bin Laden's chief deputy in an audiotape Tuesday accused Shiite Iran of trying to discredit the Sunni al-Qaida terror network by spreading the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

Just sit back and soak that in. I didn't make up that quote, amazingly.

One enemy of the U.S./Israel accusing the other of understating the first's evil is funny enough, but this treads onto satire when al-Zawahri says blaming Israel makes Muslims look stupid!

"The purpose of this lie is clear — (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said.

Haha!! This is straight out of the Bush regime's racist playbook. Look at the implication: Muslims can be heroes only if they're terrorists! Only a moron or a stooge would admit such a thing about his own people. Sunni or Shi'ite, you'd think Zawahri would try to unify the sects against the Zionists, but instead he plays right into the Bush regime's hands by simultaneously defaming Muslims everywhere (as if every Muslim is just itching for a chance to blow himself up!) and sowing divisiveness amongst his people at the same time. Zawahiri is either a tactical moron or a CIA stooge.

Could he actually expect to sway Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with this argument? Ahmadinejad may be an idiot, a tool and a loudmouth, but he is not a terrorist or a dictator. He is like Putin, a strongman that the people have turned to in order to provide a hedge against U.S. imperialism.

Ahmadinejad knows, like Putin, that the 9/11 attacks were self-inflicted in order to provide a pretext for Bush's endless wars of conquest (and embarrassment). Heck, even our allies in Japan are starting to question the events of that day. In retrospect it looks like an incredible boon to an administration that has done nothing but evil with the goodwill generated worldwide in response to the tragedy.

Many people say the Bush administration is too incompetent to pull off the attacks and subsequent coverup, but I say al-Qaeda is too incompetent to do ... much of anything! Call the Bush team what you will, but they are masters at manipulation and misdirection. They managed to steal two elections and they orchestrated an incredible propaganda campaign to trick the nation into war with Iraq. I remember watching the news back in early 2003 thinking I was living in an endless Twilight Zone episode. And what happened to the treasonous military men, the lying pundits and the architects of this atrocity? Well they're mostly still around and many of them have been promoted!

People need to realize that the Bush administration isn't incompetent when it comes to stuff like Katrina: They just don't give a fuck! ... There's a difference. They look after their own, not a bunch of poor folks who don't vote Republican anyway.

Al-Qaeda is a CIA-sponsored group whose only role is to draw attention away from the real terrorists. This is common knowledge among the elite, although some still cling to a twisted sort of incompetence theory:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

Oh, I think it occurred to them alright. It was the plan all along. You think the CIA can't "take care of" a few jihadis waving around U.S.-made stinger missile launchers? The CIA doesn't just let anybody play with their toys. They can find you. After all, details about members of al-Qaeda are, by definition, in "The Database."

That raises another question: Who the fuck would name their terrorist organization after a "structured collection of records or data that is stored in a computer system"?!

I have an idea. I'm going to start an organization dedicated to the Liberation of the Great State of Minnesota from the Oppressive Federal Government of the United States of America. I'm going to name this organization..... Pants!

What do you think? "Pants" ... or "Pants!"? ... I'm not sure, does the exclamation point sell it?

Anyway, my point is that it's completely fucking ridiculous. I just made my hypothetical liberation front look clueless, stupid.... and somewhat artistic, I guess. Maybe "al-Qaeda" would make a good, Dadaist band name in Arabic, but it doesn't do shit for a supposedly committed bunch of terrorists.

Let's look at other "terrorist" organizations and what kind of names they have (I'll assign grades based soley on the clarity and effectiveness of the name, not their tactics or ideology):

• The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan - localized, religious and grassroots. These guys know how to name a group. Doesn't lock them into terrorism either. B+
• The Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group - very straightforward; we know right away they're into Islam, fighting and Morocco. However, isn't this a little open-ended? Most groups start with a specific cause... you know, like freeing their homeland or something. These guys just feel "combative", apparently. It should be no surprise they're affiliated with al-Qaeda. B-
• The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine ( الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين ) - very savvy name. They're playing the populism card, plus you know exactly what their goals are. A
• The Irish National Liberation Army - once again, very straightforward. You know what they want and who they represent right away. Would this front be as popular if they were named "fishsticks"? I doubt it. B
• The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord - even though these guys aren't clear about what they want, it's obvious they're into Jesus and swordplay. Kinda makes you wanna learn more about'em too, but not really. I'm giving it a better grade because it rhymes. C+
• The United Liberation Front of Asom - pretty clear what they're after here. I like the unity reference; makes you think they're a big tent liberation front. But like most Americans I didn't know where the hell Asom is (northeast India). A-

I have to give al-Qaeda a D- for their crappy name. I would give them an F, but the randomness of it is pretty funny... except for the whole killing and murder thing. But that's the rub; I just don't buy these guys as terrorist masterminds. They can't even fucking name themselves right, so why would I think they could pull off 9/11? Even if you say, "okay, maybe 'The Base' refers to a military base" it makes no sense because the modus operandi of these guys is supposedly their decentralization. There is no main headquarters. They're ostensibly a loose-knit group of cells that operate independently, yet aren't really controlled by Osama either, who is mostly a figurehead who provides funding (or did... he's probably dead). Let's face it: "al-Qaeda" probably only makes sense if you don't speak Arabic.

If you're still not convinced al-Qaeda is a joke, watch an incredible BBC documentary called The Power of Nightmares. You'll be glad you did.

As for me, I will continue to worry about the real terrorist organization plaguing this wretched earth: The Central Intelligence Agency. A look at their record exposes the deep hypocrisy of the United States government when it comes to terrorism:

• You blow up a bus in Whogivesafuckistan? You're a terrorist.
  
• You overthrow a legitimate government and replace it with a puppet government that proceeds to butcher 500,000 of its own people? You're a hero. Here's your medal.

Even The Onion can't make that level of hypocrisy funny.

The Stupidest Article Ever Written

Ladies and gentleman, I have just read the stupidest article ever written. It was awful. So awful I can hardly think; in fact, I think I just lost 5 IQ points... which still puts me 130 ahead of the author of the shittiest, most servile, most idiotic article ever written.

His name is John Cloud and he masquerades as a journalist for Time magazine. He has apparently managed to learn how to read and write, but I have no idea how given his feeble mental faculties.

Many of you may have already read this article, but I just found it today as I was catching up on some reading. Here I am, flipping through Time and I see a story called "The Psychology of Hypocrisy" which is about the recent Republican sex scandals, including Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, the homo-hating Senator from Idaho.

Cloud takes them to task, right? He presents an in-depth analysis of how the perverted mind of sanctimonious fucks like Larry Craig works, right?

No. The "article" is a six paragraph defense of hypocrites like Craig. Cloud claims -- with a straight face -- that poor Craig is a victim! A victim of his own "moral weakness" and not a hypocrite at all!

The real bad guys -- of course -- are the evil bloggers and their readers who have tormented poor Larry and his "friends".

For a legion of bloggers, what's so delectable about these stories is the apparent hypocrisy, the dissonance between the outwardly conservative politics of these men and their private same-sex behavior. But while these guys may be liars--Craig's "wide stance" inanity has already entered the world-historical lexicon of political b.s.--it's not clear that they are conniving hypocrites.

It's "not clear"? It's not fucking clear that they're hypocrites?! If you're deaf, dumb, blind and live on Mars it might not be clear, but if you have half a fucking brain you know they're hypocrites! Shit, even the Republicans know that, but Mr. John Cloud is far stupider than a Republican. He's a Vichy Democrat; you know the kind: The Hillary-voting kind who would let Bush attack Iran with no justification whatsoever. Republicans may be evil, but at least I can respect them; the Vichy Democrats are contemptible, spineless weasels who aren't worth a pint of warm piss.

Hypocrisy is among the most universal and well-studied of psychological phenomena, and the research suggests that Craig, Haggard and the others may be guilty not so much of moral hypocrisy as moral weakness. The distinction may sound trivial at first, but as a society, we tend to forgive the weak and shun the hypocritical.

Trivial? No, the distinction is utterly fallacious and disingenuous. It makes me think he knows he's full of shit.

John Cloud is the perfect example of a sell-out journalist hack. He afflicts the afflicted and comforts the comfortable because he's a boot-licking shill for his corporate masters and has no soul left. Real journalists do the reverse, of course, but I'm not expecting that much from Mr. Cloud. Just a lucid thought or two would impress me at this point.

Assume for a moment that Craig and Haggard actually believed what they said--that homosexuality is sin. They spent most of their lives fighting for the conservative cause. But in Craig's case, the Idaho Statesman has published allegations that there were at least three other slipups involving men, beginning in 1967. What if, like the radio host who gets fat but commits to losing weight, the moralizers were trying through their "pro-family" endeavors to expiate their lustful sins?

Let me explain this to Mr. Cloud as succinctly as possible since we might be looking at a buffer-overflow if I use to many big words: If you go around saying homosexuality is immoral and a sin while you're secretly engaging in homosexual activity then you are a hypocrite! End of story. How hard is this to understand?

I certainly agree that people should be forgiven for most moral failures, but this is not just a "slipup." Maybe Cloud "accidentally" fucks other men in the ass so he and Craig are kindred, klutzy spirits, but most of us do not have that problem (throughout the article Cloud implies homosexuality is indeed a moral failure). But it's clear that this is a pattern in Larry Craig's life, going back, at least to 1967.

Here's a thought: If you have a "moral failing" that leads you to accidentally get blowjobs from other men, maybe you shouldn't get on a stage and tell people that homosexuality is sinful behavior that only degenerates and Democrats engage in! Maybe if Larry Craig didn't want to be a hypocrite he could have, I dunno, NOT RUN FOR SENATOR????!!! Maybe he could have (just a thought here) NOT DEMONIZED HOMOSEXUALS AT EVERY FUCKING OPPORTUNITY FOR 40 YEARS!!!!!??

...Just a thought. Clearly, it's one that John Cloud didn't think of while he was standing in line at men's room outside of Larry Craig's office. Maybe this is all a closeted homosexual thing and cognitive dissonance has set in, but I kind of doubt it. I think it's more likely that John Cloud is an intellectual whore and his opinions are up for auction to the highest bidder. But even that is charitable. Worst case: the guy really is as stupid as I've been saying.

You may think they are wrong about homosexuality (I do), but that doesn't make them hypocrites.

No, John, they are hypocrites, and no amount of waffling on your part will disguise that. In fact, they are textbook hypocrites.

Hey, I know! Why don't I consult a "dictionary" (it's a book where words are defined, Mr. Cloud). Here's Merriam-Webster's definition of hypocrite:

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Hmmm.... "false appearance of virtue" ... does that sound like Mr. Larry "wide stance" Craig?

Craig never said anything like, "Homosexuality is wrong and immoral, but I am not a perfect man. Indeed, sometimes I like to head down to public bathrooms near my house and solicit gay men for sex." Nope, Larry Craig always implied that he was a paragon of (hetero) virtue. How else do you get elected Senator in a red state?

Clearly, the man has acted in contradiction to his stated beliefs. It's right there in black & white, but John Cloud is intent on casting a cloud of confusion over the matter when this is probably one of the most clear-cut, bald-faced acts of hypocrisy (that we know about) in modern politics. Only Mark Foley can hold a candle to Larry Craigs hypocrisy.

Is there anybody out there who isn't convinced that what I've described is hypocrisy? Is there anybody out there who actually agrees with John Cloud that poor Larry and Mark are victims of a cruel and fickle public?

How is it that I, a lowly, potty-mouthed, mudslinging blogger was able to tear into this article with such ease? No doubt others have already done the same; how did Cloud's piece of shit article get past his editor? Do they not have dictionaries at Time headquarters? Budget cutbacks, perhaps?

It makes me wonder if stupidity is actually valued in the mainstream press because stupid people will never investigate how the Corporate Oligarchy really works. Everybody knows what goes on in Washington... Or do we? Without better reporters than John Cloud the Clown we'll never know for sure.

So what of Mr. Cloud, then? How did this idiot manage to write the stupidest article ever written? Was it training? Nature? Nurture? Luck?

Who cares; the man is a fucking moron. What amazes me is that this guy is a journalist at a mainstream publication and they haven't canned his ass yet. How fucking stupid can you be and still keep your job? Near as I can tell John Cloud has only one person in serious contention with him for that award and his name is George.

Then again, maybe both of them were chosen for their stupidity, rather than in spite of it. I guess, in both cases, the joke is on us: The morons are in control and livin' the good life while the rest of us suffer like fools under their mindless tyrrany.

Life's not just unfair ... it's fucking stupid. Maliciously so.

It's 90 degrees out, so why am I freezing cold?

I wonder this every day around noon.

You see, I work in a fairly ritzy office building, but sometimes I start to hallucinate and think that I work at a hockey rink. Despite the fact that it is about 90 degrees outside at this very moment I am shivering cold. I have goosebumps and I'm rubbing myself for warmth. Hang on, before my fingers freeze off, let me put on a fleece pullover I keep in my office for this very reason.

Okay, that's a bit better. But I'm still pissed off that I have wear winter clothing inside during the summer. Can somebody tell me who decided office buildings should be kept at refrigerator temperatures in summer? I would like to shove that person into a walk-in freezer and lock the door.

Confession time: I am a skinny person. I have a runner's build (I had it before I started running) and I generally loathe the cold and winter. I'm shivering and uncomfortable all the time during the winter, and if I thought it would be reasonable, I'd crank the heat at my place to 80 degrees in January. However, the point is that I don't! I put on extra layers of clothing and work out or play drums to keep warm and get the blood flowing. I understand some people hate the heat and think 82 degrees is unbearably warm, but at this point I don't fucking care. I suffer all winter, why should I have to freeze all summer, too?! It doesn't make any sense!

From a global warming perspective, the people who set the temp at 70 or 71 degrees in the summer are basically lighting our atmosphere on fire. Long-term, this obsession with air conditioning is totally counterproductive. You like it cool? Then don't turn the damn AC on, because every time you do you burn more coal and spew more CO2 into the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide causes the planet's temperature to rise.

Personally, I can go outside on a 90 degree day like today and feel totally comfortable as long as the humidity is not too high. The body naturally acclimates itself to the seasons, so my suggestion to set the thermostat at 80 or 82 degrees in the summer is not that crazy. If your body is sweating profusely at 80 degrees, the sad truth is that you're probably too fat.

This is a touchy subject, so I'll try to be kind, but I am getting fed up. It's one thing to be fat on your own time, but when it starts affecting me that's where I draw the line. If you are sweating like a pig while sitting in the office and using a mouse, it's probably time to lose some weight.

Clearly, it doesn't help matters that I sit all day and stare at a computer screen. I'm sure if I were doing hard physical labor the 72 degree air would be bliss. But if construction workers can construct buildings in this heat why can't you sit on your ass, in the shade and deal with a temp of 80 degrees? I don't think I'm being unreasonable, fellow office drones, but please let me know if I am.

Making matters worse, I swear the building temp is dropped a few degrees from 12 to 2 pm. Why? I think it's to counteract the after-lunch sleepiness that afflicts many workers (but which is actually a sign of sleep deprivation -- hell even the unemployed are sleep deprived in 2007). Gotta squeeze every last bit of productivity out of those serfs, right? Even if it's at the expense of the environment and their health.

Humans are so fucking stupid it blows my mind. Our planet is going down like the Titanic and we're not even re-arranging the deck chairs. In fact, we're not doing anything. We're sitting on our fat asses trying to figure out a way to get even more comfortable when it should be clear that we have only moments to live.

At this point, our dwindling time left on Earth is my only consolation.

Some Mornings are Death Metal Mornings

Have you ever had a Death Metal Morning™? It's when you need a fix of super-loud, super-fast death metal in the morning when most sane people are listening to light music to slowly wake the hell up.

As I was pulling out of my driveway this morning I couldn't find anything decent on the radio so I switched to a CD Andy gave me - Nile. I figured it might be a death metal morning. Boy was I right.

Not three seconds after putting on the CD I turned onto a road not more than 100 feet from my house and was nearly driven right off the road by a vehicle coming at me at extreme speed.

This is a neighborhood, mind you. Kids are all over the place around here, and this street was a residential road (one lane in each direction) with a speed limit of 30 mph, which most people actually follow. Not dumbshit though. She/he was going at least 50 miles an hour. Although the car was coming right at me I managed to make it up to 30 before they caught up to me. You'd think we'd be cool, right?

No. Dumbfuck swerves and passes me, crossing the double yellow line (no passing) and into oncoming traffic (there was none. This is a quiet neighborhood...or it was) and gives me the finger as if this is all somehow my fault.

No way, muthafucker. Not in my neighborhood. So I follow the little bitch and lay on the horn. We come up to a stoplight and we have to wait at least 30 seconds, thus negating any time dumbshit might've saved by speeding 50+ mph in a residential zone.

Muthafucker should be thanking Jesus I didn't have a fucking baseball bat in my car or there would've been trouble. She/he would've seen a well-dressed office drone jump out of his car with a bat and death metal blaring. I would've proceeded to beat the fuck out of his/her nice-ass SUV (of course it was an SUV) while screaming, "Not in my neighborhood, MUTHERFUCKER!!!" repeatedly. It would've been quite a sight.

Luckily, I don't have a baseball bat in my car, but life is a mosh pit and I'm thinking about getting one. We live in a death metal world and if you're not ready to fight back you're gonna get your face stepped on.

Nile, by the way, is perfect for working through a spasm of rage in the morning. It truly was a Death Metal Morning™.

Zealots of a non-existent god

Batting Around the Mouse
I've always liked Scott Adams and Dilbert. He's actually got a pretty good blog, too, and it's a surprisingly combative one. You might expect that his blog is a lovefest if you've never been there: "omg Scot i totully luved dilbertt today! dogbert is my hero!'

Nope, Adams goes for the throat and his (many) commenters do too. It's an intellectual and incendiary blog, and sort of a kindered blog to this one in many respects (I gotta recognize that he's been doin' it longer -- he's the Dogfather).

Speaking of the dyslexic agnostic (he stayed up all night wondering if dog exists) -- Scott has gone after atheists in a big way lately, and caught plenty of reddit-hell for it. Good. He's right: Full-on atheism is just as intellectually indefensible as religion.

This brings me to atheists. In order to be certain that God doesn’t exist, you have to possess a godlike mental capacity – the ability to be 100% certain. A human can’t be 100% certain about anything. Our brains aren’t that reliable. Therefore, to be a true atheist, you have to believe you are the very thing that you argue doesn’t exist: God.

I don't particularly like the way he frames his argument as a percentage; it seems too much like gambling on Heaven (but that's what it is, at least according to western religion). This is known as Pascal's Wager:

Chief among the alleged flaws in Pascal’s argument is that you still have to pick the correct religion among many, or else you go to Hell anyway.

Sure. But picking any religion that promises salvation slightly improves your odds over picking an option that doesn’t. You're still probably doomed, given your bad religion-picking skills, but a one-in-a-million chance of reducing the risk of eternal Hell is a move worth taking, mathmatically speaking.

I don't subscribe to this theory since I'm an asshole -- an asshole who thinks it's more important to find out the truth than to assure yourself a slot in heaven at the good table. In that respect I have a lot in common with the atheists who are eviscerating Scott all over the internet.

But why should they care?

If they were so secure in their position they wouldn't be calling for his head, would they?

Many atheists claimed to be "weak atheists", which is sort of like saying you prefer a shade of whitish-black. Just say "gray", okay? The word "agnostic" already exists; use it.

So, much of the argument is semantics-based bickering. Tiring of this, Scott moved in for the kill -- or so it seems. Like a cat batting around a mouse he's just torturing these people and mocking their cognitive dissonance (ah... a man after my own heart).

The phrase “weak atheist” is apparently nothing but a weasel self-label for agnostics who have picked a side and don’t want to be seen as giving any opening to religion. It is politics disguised as philosophy.

As Scott pointed out, we can know a priori that atheism is not logical: If you admit you are not omniscient or omnipotent how can you claim to know whether or not an omnipotent or omniscient being exists? Or put more simply: how can atheism be proven true when you can't prove a negative? Doesn't that make it a faith, a religion?!

Cult of Nothingness
Oh man, nothing gets atheists more pissed off then calling their movement a religion. First they get angry, then they gather in communities like chatrooms and reinforce each others' beliefs, hand out matching T-shirts and start setting up temples dedicated to their faith.

Oops.

They even have their high priests and holy writ. I guess atheism is big business -- if you can get enough people to buy into it.

And that's the problem, isn't it? Aren't most of us fed up with organized religion and all the attendant bullshit? No offense to the believers out there, but much of what is known about early Christianity, for example, reveals its modern branches as spawned from hoaxes, lies and ignorance. The Bible was not written by "God." It was written by men, who say that it was written by God. Big difference, that.

Semantic Saṃsāra
Well, the natural reaction to the bullshit of Christianity is atheism. But wait a minute; how do you know atheism is any better? Well for all the reasons above, you don't. Furthermore, you're following an "-ism" -- a meme, a movement, a faith, an order. And isn't that what got you neck deep in Popeshit in the first place?

So what's the answer?

Well, look at the atheist Scott got all riled up:

Perhaps if he had spent even a small amount of time researching the matter, he'd have learned what the difference between weak atheism and agnosticism is — and at the same time, he might have even learned how and why everything he wrote in his post was either factually incorrect or logically incoherent.

He makes a fair point in his link about atheists merely denying belief in a god rather than asserting gods don't exist. Fair enough, but it's a semantics game, buddy! Agnosticism staked out that turf long ago.

His rejoinder:

Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Splitting hairs! None of us can claim to know for certain, except for the specious claims of religious zealots... and a few atheist zealots in the other direction as well. If we accept his argument that:

An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

How is such a belief different from just saying "I'm agnostic"? It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. His semantic games probably help to win arguments, but his tactic of dividing people up into lots of different sects sounds a lot like religion to me. It's the natural recourse of a zealot who's experiencing cognitive dissonance.

It's also a way of dissociating yourself from the truly nutball atheists -- the "strong atheists" or whatever he would call'em. Fair enough, those people are stupid. But it seems to me like a lot of atheists are actually agnostics who have taken an atheistic stance until such a time as god is proved one way or another.

Why not just call'em what they are: fence-sitters. Agnostics. Agnosticism, by the way, generally outweighs belief, at least among the logical. Most of us are not ready to believe in a god we don't know. How can you tell it's a good god if you don't know its properties? Saying you don't worship something you don't know seems redundant, but I'll grant that there are probably crazy people out there who worship gigantic invisible hammers or something.

The Stain of Christianity
To me, saying you're an agnostic is sensible, but taking it one step further and saying you're an agnostic atheist is presumptuous. Given that, to date, humanity has proven the existence of exactly zero gods, doesn't it seem like putting the cart before the horse to say you don't honor any of the thousands of gods that may or may not be out there? If, for example, humans knew of the existence of 1, 2, 10 or 2000 gods, then fine. You can say, "All of these gods suck. I'm an atheist." That would be logical, but dismissing the panoply of possible gods beforehand is a logical leap that rigorous thinkers should not make. Perhaps there's a big-tittied goddess out there who has no worship requirement, but has lots of great advice for lovemaking, thoughtful advice for living happily and the promise of eternal life. Many of the greco-roman gods were totally horny, and pretty tolerant, too. Don't forget those Vedic gods who were into tantric sex rites. Are you gonna pass that shit up?

Atheists are, ironically, letting the blinders of Judeo-Christian tradition blind them and limit their imagination. I, for instance, don't accept the notion that there can only be one god and he must be male (...somehow), omnipotent and omniscient. One can be extremely powerful without being all-powerful. Atheists are too concerned with the Christian conception of god and are letting those assumptions fuck with their logic. I would encourage so called atheists to explore eastern religions, many of which are more properly called "philosophies", to get a good feel for belief outside of the Judeo-Christian deathgrip. Some suggestions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Confucianism.

Subdivisions
There's that "-ism" suffix again. Atheists are as guilty of it as anybody. Isn't that a lot of busywork, subdividing yourself down to a certain sect, all so you can feel some sense of belonging, of having that "god" thing squared away? Done. Full stop. Finished. Problem solved.

But it isn't quite that easy, isn't it? Atheism is making alliances with other groups, such as hardcore fans of evolution and science in general. It's growing and becoming a money-making venture and it's increasingly gaining clout, especially on the internet. Atheism, in its way, affects all of us, and will do so even more in the future. In time it could become a political force and when that happens atheism will become just as corrupt and controlling as Christianity.

Atheists have a stigma -- right or wrong -- of being close-minded, of having decided something. That, to me, is the most dangerous part. Faith, god, reality, truth -- these things are too important to just put in some box. Then again, maybe I'm just a contrarian or a purist because I wouldn't call myself a Christian simply because some fellow 'Christians' would include Hitler and G.W. Bush.

Seeker of Truth
So now that I've criticized everybody else, what do I think? Fair question. I think that what's important is not who or what you believe in, but that you try to find some truth. Life is a quest, and as long as you keep searching for truth or a clue or whatever, you'll be okay. I believe that 'seekers' are safe in the eyes of any benevolent god.

Given a malevolent one, you're fucked either way.

If there's no god, oh well, at least you looked. If you're not going to search how can you really mock the religious folks? Shit, that's every atheists' hobby, isn't it? Their true tenet, their sacrament, I think, is to mock religious dumbshits. And god bless'em for that. I enjoy doing the same. But if you're gonna talk the talk, you should walk the walk.

Ultimately, it about responsibility. If you're labeling yourself with a convenient "-ism" you're not really thinking. Take responsibility for your own faith or lack thereof and try to improve your level of knowledge. Lumping yourself in with a group is too easy. Everybody has different beliefs, so why do we gotta keep making these walls, these sects and strictly delineated sets of believers?

It just makes it easier for people to manipulate us, and isn't that what atheists, agnostics and free-thinkers have tried to escape for centuries?

What I think we need is 6.5 billion people courageous enough to believe in 6.5 billion personal religions without killing each other, or amassing followers. ... Yeah right. A guy can dream.

In the meantime, I guess we'll have to get used to atheism as a legitimate "faith" in this country. There's just one problem: I don't believe atheism really exists! Haha, okay, I'm joking, but the point is that most so-called atheists are actually more agnostic when you come right down to it. But who knows, I could be wrong and as such I'm keeping my options open.

The only thing I know for sure is that people who claim they know "The One True Path™" are full of shit. Fuck them. Find your own path.

When paranoid people die mysteriously

RigInt has scared me shitless once again with the terrifying story of what happens when you cross the wrong (ultraconservative, rich, powerful) people.

Writer/filmmaker Theresa Duncan mysteriously "killed herself" earlier this month. I've rarely seen a person who looks less like a candidate for suicide. She was madly in love with her boyfriend, ran a successful blog and was dedicated to social justice and progressive causes. Nevertheless:

Later that day, Theresa's boyfriend of 12 years, Jeremy Blake, discovered her body in their East Village apartment, an evident suicide. ("A bottle of pills and alcohol were found near Duncan's body [and] she left a suicide note saying that she was at peace with her decision and loved Blake and her family deeply.") A week later, a man was seen walking into the ocean at Rockaway Park, and not walking out. Blake's wallet and clothing, and his suicide note, were found beneath the boardwalk.

Blake's suicide, while suspicious, could be a response to Duncan's. However, I find Theresa's supposed suicide totally unconvincing. This was murder.

Am I paranoid? I suppose most people reading this will probably think I am. In turn, I think they're fucking sheep. Paranoia is a natural defense mechanism and it's kept us alive this long as a species.

I guess I'm just pissed after reading some of the comments here and here. Are people so numb and stupid that they don't see something suspicious when two deeply paranoid people die mysteriously within a few days of each other, shortly after posting paranoid rants about MKULTRA like this one?

Paranoia is meant to keep you alive, people! If you're suicidal, you're not very paranoid, are you? The emotions are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Maybe this is hitting too close to home for me, so let me make this abso-fucking-lutely clear: I am a paranoid nut, but I am as far away from suicide as I could possibly get! I intend to live to be 120 years old, and nothing's going to stop me. If you find me dead mysteriously one day, and there's a suicide note and thirteen people saying I was depressed: It's a lie! I was fucking murdered!

Just wanted to make that crystal clear.

Anyway, there are a lot signs pointing back to Jim Cownie, a powerful Des Moines businessman that Theresa recently attacked on her blog as the source of harassment she and Blake were receiving. Interestingly, a man named Frank Cownie is the mayor of Des Moines. What a coincidence.

This is not the first strange thing to happen in Des Moines. Kidnapped child Johnny Gosch hailed from there. That wouldn't be so odd if Jim Cownie hadn't spoken of molesting children to achieve total obedience, like is required for Project MKULTRA to work:

To add the final dessert topping to this apocalyptic art world sundae, Mr. Wit says that normally dour Cownie frequently made jokes about child molestation as a "training" tool.

And of course, the Church of Scientology is involved. Since cults are already masters of mind-control it only makes sense that the CIA would turn to them for clues.

Much of the harassment of me and Mr. Wit was also conducted by the Church Of Scientology in L. A., who Cownie also no doubt also "does business with." U.S. Intelligence "black ops" and "psy ops" have long relied on (or just outright invented) religious cults (including the Manson Family--Charles Manson received 150 hours of in-prison Scientology "auditing"), biker gangs, and the like in Federal Counterintelligence prorgrams in order to disrupt the counterculture since the 1960s. Read more about the CIA and cults here and couch jumping, Katie kidnapping mind controlled [sic] movie star Tom Crusie's meeting with Scooter Libby and State Department head Richard Armitage here.

Here I am quoting a dead woman's blog to prove my point that paranoia is not a mental illness. Paranoia keeps you alive, it lets you see the awful truth that the sheep can't see. The price is heavy, but it's not a curse. Instead, "Paranoia seems to us an absolute patriotic duty at the moment."

Damn right, Theresa. May you and Jeremy rest in peace.

Bob Dylan is so fucking overrated...

...But he's still good. People have been talking about Dylan's new album, Modern Times, saying it's one of his best. I got my hands on a copy and I must disagree. I thought it was quite disappointing except for the last track, "Ain't Talkin'" which is damn good. Too bad the rest of the album is impotent and paint-by-numbers tripe.

I don't expect Bob's voice to soothe me or even sound decent. Shit, there's tracks on the album where old Bob sounds like he's just been gargling with battery acid and peanut butter. He sounds like Zombie Dylan on a couple tracks. I think maybe Dylan's been dead for a few years and he's been re-animated with some Frankenstein-esque machine, doomed to wander the world as the undead while recording songs when his rotten voice box feels up to it.

But that's not what bothers me about his new album.

No, it's his backing band. On most tracks they sound like a shitty wedding band, playing the blandest, most inoffensive tunes your Aunt Marge could possibly ask for. I know, I know; it's Dylan, not Killswitch Engage. But c'mon, Bob! Crank it up a notch. The band sounds like they're on horse tranquilizers and auditioning for a gig as studio musicians for the Muzak corporation.

I saw Dylan live on this tour and the band was a bit better on stage, but maybe that's because you have to be loud in a 20,000 seat theater. They seemed a little more energized, even playing (sort of) the Jimi Hendrix version of "All Along the Watchtower."

Still, Bob's not what he used to be. He's a living legend, but it's not like he could write "Like a Rolling Stone" or "The Times are a-Changin'" at age 66.

Instead we need a new generation of musical geniuses to move things forward; guys like Colin Meloy of The Decemberists. Their new album, The Crane Wife, is fucking brilliant.

The Decemberists are so fucking literary they sound like a band fronted by your old college English teacher, but in a good way. Despite the focus on words and lyrics (like Dylan) the band is about much more than that. They actually have great tunes! Their sound has been described as progressive-folk rock. They've clearly listened to a few Pink Floyd albums, but also a lot of Dylan.

Like Dylan, Colin Meloy has a.... uh.. "unique" voice. It takes some getting used to, but he can sing and hit the notes, just like Dylan used to be able to. Colin's timbre is reedy and somewhat nasally, but he sings with more melody than dear old Bob.

If you're a little disappointed with 7th decade Dylan, check out a band in its prime: The Decemberists.

music goes 'round, money goes down

I've been thinking about music a lot lately. Okay, I always do that, since I'm obsessed with music, but you wouldn't know it from this blog. I don't know why, but I don't usually like to write about music (it's like "dancing about architecture" or so says Frank Zappa).

There's an article over on Slashdot that got me thinking. It's about the decline of the CD as a medium. Yeah, an article on that subject comes out every couple weeks, but I didn't even read it. More important, I thought, was the ensuing discussion. It seems everybody has a different take on the state of the music industry. For me, no, CDs are not dead. I prefer my music uncompressed and pre-backed-up before I put it on my iPod. Plus, if you count CD-Rs, CDs are more popular than ever. I burn CDs all the time, whether its a copy of a CD a friend gave me or mixes from my band's recording sessions.

Band Update - finally
Speaking of the band, I know I haven't posted about us in awhile, probably because I didn't want to jinx anything. People have been asking me when our album's coming out for years and I keep telling them, "pretty soon. It's right around the corner!" For the last few months I've been saying, "in a few months!" Well, it's been a few months and it's not out yet, but not for lack of effort. To be honest, we don't know what the fuck we're doing, but whatever we're doing is shaping up pretty nice. We've got about 7 songs pretty much in the can -- which is to say 90% or more recorded. They all need some mixing, but we're going to try to bust out 2 more tracks before mixing begins in earnest. The songs are heavy but not punishing. They are melodic, but not sappy. They are all fairly unique but I think they will sound pretty cohesive together on an album (except for maybe one oddball).

We've learned so much about recording over the last 7 months, I don't know where to begin. But we've also had some setbacks. I'm not blaming anybody (*coughMattcough*), but my Digi 001 suddenly went from an 8 track recorder to 6 tracks. Not good. But we'll pull through. We're recording all of the instruments separately for maximum flexibility (and it just sounds better in my opinion), so this shouldn't cause too many problems. After all of the overdubs are added on we typically end up with over 20 tracks anyway, now we're just limited to recording 6 tracks at a time.

So anyway, the band: I haven't even told you the name yet. We're Darkfold. We're on UnderUtopia Records, which is our own independent net-based label and our album is yet to be named. Darkfold consists of me, Matthew R. Coon (esquire) and Andy Riedinger (esquilax). We trade off instruments. Matt does much of our singing, but I do a bunch, too. We play heavy rock music, at least that's what we're focusing on at the moment. The second album could be totally different; who knows?

Anyway, I'll try to keep y'all better informed as the album nears completion. We hope to start gigging soon, but we want to get this album done before Armageddon (which could be any day now... in fact... we'd better hurry!). This making an album thing is fucking difficult, especially with 3 fulltime jobs between us. Of course, it would be impossible without money coming in. I really respect anybody who can start a band, even a shitty one, because there's so much that goes into making it work.

Music, Money & Class
I've been thinking about music and money -- more specifically, music and class. A question to ponder: How much music is the world being robbed of because the would-be musicians are too poor to start a band? I mean, becoming a professional musician is basically like taking a vow of poverty to begin with (unless your name is "Paul McCartney"), but you have to have a certain level of wealth before you can even take that plunge. Buying guitars, drums, amps and assorted gear is expensive. So is buying recording equipment and practice space and a van for touring. Then, after doing that you need to find time to practice -- but how can you do that if you're working all the time to afford food, clothing and shelter, let alone the aforementioned gear/space?

So needless to say, I'm kinda shocked anybody can afford to start a rock band these days. That's why I wasn't too surprised to find out that many successful rock musicians were wealthy before they hit the top of the charts. Bright Eyes' Conor Oberst, for instance, had rich parents to help him out when he was just getting started:

Conor: Dark? Not really. Actually I had a great childhood. My parents were wonderful. I went to a Catholic school. They have, I had money, so it was all easy. I basically had everything that I wanted anytime

Gee, wouldn't that be nice. If my parents were bankrolling my musical endeavors I think we would've released 5 albums by now. Curse my middle-class upbringing! (j/k) It seems like every other star is the child of someone famous, from Norah Jones to Jakob Dylan. Rock and roll music was sparked by working class kids like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and Elvis. Would those same kids have a chance in today's cut-throat economy with all its barriers to entry?

America's Famous Poverty Machine
So my question is: Do you have to be upper-class or at least well-off to have a good chance of making it in music these days? Do the rich people in America make the rules? Music has evolved and the bar for "good" music has been raised and if you don't want to sign your soul away to a near-extinct dinosaur of a record label what choice do you have?

Personally, I get the feeling that we're being fucked. The economy seems to be devised to deprive of us our hard-earned money. After inflation, college loans, housing bubbles, gas prices and the fucked up healthcare system, most people are barely scraping by. I have several friends who are still living with their parents because moving out just doesn't make economic sense. Rent is sky-high and wages are down (even as productivity is up!). Most of my other friends have massive debt (myself included) and no easy way out.

This is the richest, most prosperous nation on earth?! Bullshit. We are being fucked by the rich. The fascist/capitalist oligarchy that controls our government is all about extracting ever more money from the poor and the middle class, not because the rich need another yacht (they don't) but because the whole system is set up this way. It all needs to come crashing down. And at the rate the dollar is falling, it might just do exactly that. And we'll have Bush to blame. The "legacy" they keep talking about will be one of fascism, terrorism, poverty and incompetence.

Music and class is not something most people like to talk about. It's fair to ask, "does it matter? If the music is good, so what?" I would argue that it does matter, and we miss their unique perspectives. If you need a lot of equipment or players (like rock and classical, respectively) the poor simply can't play that game. And music education is already cut to the bone in inner city schools.

We'd be condemned to hearing only music created by the offspring of rich people if it wasn't for hip-hop. Hip-hop, thankfully, can be made on the cheap if you know your way around the software (and if you have a computer) or mixer. But not everybody wants to be (or can be) a rapper. And what is the manifest goal of almost every single rapper on the radio -- that's right; getting filthy rich. (not every rapper is like that)

I don't wanna be rich; I just want to make some music. I would love to do it for a living, but that just doesn't seem possible these days. Signing a record contract is a great way to feel rich for a couple years before you discover the terms of the contract have impoverished you and stolen the most valuable thing you have -- the copyright to your own songs. So we're going the indie route, even if it kills us (and it might). In the meantime, I urge you to give some thought to the idea that lower and middle class folks are being shut out of the music game. Just like the other games.

I should make it clear that the most valuable commodity the rich have is time; specifically the time that comes from not having to work.

If only rich people are able to make popular, radio-friendly music we'd lose about 90% of all potential music, and we'd be subjected to endless songs about Jacuzzis, Mercedes Benz's and Courvoisier. Thankfully, there are a lot bands out there struggling against impossible odds and making songs about real shit, like trying to pay the rent, finding their way in the world and dealing with relationships. Shit, music used to be the province of poor folks -- look at all those old blues albums. Leadbelly was poor as piss, but now people think there's a lot of money in the music game so the rich's kids have invaded... and conquered.

Shit, the music business ain't even worth that much, monetarily. But its cultural and entertainment value is immense! I hope it doesn't sound like I'm whining, but I certainly have a new respect for musicians of modest means who have managed to carve out a good living for themselves without signing to a major label. I just don't know who those bands are... -

Oh yeah -- The Goodyear Pimps!

And WookieFoot! Represent, bliss junkies!

Do you know any others? Give me a shout-out!

AWOI - Absent without internet (reasons why Comcast sucks ass)

It's been awhile since I've posted. I've been working on a big post, but I've also been stranded without an internet connection at home. I canceled Comcast since it turns out they are a bunch of lying, thieving bastards. While I'm waiting for my DSL modem to arrive I'm experiencing life without a constant internet connection. It's scary and lonely. I don't recommend it.

As far as my dear, departed cable modem goes, please allow me to bitch (god i love having a blog). FUCK COMCAST!!!
Why does Comcast suck? Oh, I'm glad you asked; let me explain. Long ago, in a time known as 2005, things were good. I had a fast internet connection through Time-Warner. It was about 6 Mbps and it set me back about 43 bucks a month.

Then, I get a letter informing me that Comcast swapped all of Time-Warner's Minnesota subscribers (like me) and that I would now be a Comcast customer. Okay, this is where the creepy, ominous music kicks in.

The letter makes clear that there will be no price adjustments. In fact the FAQ is still online, which says exactly:

Will my monthly fee change with Comcast High-Speed Internet?
Price adjustments will not be required because of this change. All prices reflect the increased value of our service, new product enhancements, and investments to continually improve the quality of our network and customer service. Any price adjustments going forward will be planned and communicated to customers well in advance of any change.

You can see where this is headed, can't you?

"Price adjustments will not be required" -- weasel words, if I've ever read them. Fucking liars. Despite the promises, both of stable prices and advanced notice, it turns out that Comcast is run by a bunch of lying, thieving scumbags who exist only to squeeze every last dime out of their unwilling customer base in order to fatten their own undeserved bonuses at the end of the year -- you know the bonuses, I'm talking about. They're 10 times the size of their average employee's yearly salary.

I must say that every Comcast employee I dealt with -- 3 customer service reps and a technician who picked up my modem -- were great. Fine folks, didn't lie to me any more, and were very apologetic. But the fact remains that they work for fascist goons who are planning to rape, pillage and plunder this fresh, unearned subscriber base in an apparent effort to show just how stupid and short-sighted management teams can be. They're going for the gold medal in poor decision-making skills. Bravo.

So, do I even have to tell you what happened? Isn't it obvious from my venom? Well, I'll tell you anyway. Comcast sent me a notice, dated December 26th (yes, the day after Christmas -- "Happy holidays from Comcast! Fuck you!") informing me that my rates were going up to 60 bucks a month -- plus modem rental (3 bucks a month), starting.... February 1st! Yay!

So the lying fuckers tried to squeeze me for 20 bucks more a month and gave me only a month notice. This left me no choice. I wasn't going to stand for this shit. 20 bucks isn't much, but 20 bucks every month adds up to quite a lot. It's almost $250 more per year. I am not that rich, Comcast. But idiotic, greedy ploys like this explain how they can afford to pay their CEO 27.8 million dollars a year. I guess I know where my $250 would've went.

And so, instead of sending them a check for 40-some bucks a month they managed to convince me to send them a whole lot of nothing every month. Congrats, Comcast. Your short-sighted greed and stupidity has only managed to cost you subscribers like me. Fucking morons.

Instead of collecting money from people like me, Comcast managed to piss away subscribers like a drunk after a night of drinking cheap domestic beer. Instead of getting my money every month they've assured Qwest of my business instead. Bravo, fuckheads!

Check out MNspeak for an awesome thread full of pissed off former subscribers. Comcast's goose-stepping management team deserves an award for monumental stupidity. It's hard to motivate internet-addicted people like me to do without and overcome the inertia required to make the switch. But Comcast managed to fill me with so much revulsion that Qwest could implement a policy of jabbing me with sharp objects and I would still be happier with them.

Fuck off, Comcast. Take your golden parachutes and cram them up your ass.

I Hate Valentine's Day (a violent plan for retribution)

Did I mention I fucking hate Valentine's Day? It fucking sucks. I didn't set out to be a wet blanket for those of you who enjoy this crappy Hallmark Holiday (e.g. those of you with significant others), but I don't give a flying fuck, and you're too wrapped into each other to notice anyway.

It always starts the same. You meet a girl/guy, who's like "oh I hate Valentine's Day. It's totally lame and wasteful." Next thing you know you're spending hundreds of dollars on your VD gifts to each other. Each of you feels a need to both give and receive gifts because everyone else is doing it. You don't want your partner to feel unloved and left out do you? Corporate America has made it quite clear that you are a bad person if you don't spend half your paycheck on flowers, chocolates, romantic dinners, and more.

No matter how anti-VD you start out, once you've been in a relationship awhile you start to break down. You feel neglectful if you don't get your sweetie something on February 14th (because lord knows there's something soooo different about February 14th. All those other days are for neglecting your lover). Even if you hate the holiday as I do you find yourself cheating a little with flowers or maybe a little something extra.

Because of all the pressure on couples it becomes exceedingly obvious who has a significant other (SO) and who does not. Thus, the real purpose of VD is revealed: Shaming those who don't have SOs. It's pretty obvious who is who. The person without an SO is writing angry, anti-Valentine's Day screeds on his blog while those in a relationship are dipping into their kids' college funds to pay for increasingly elaborate and expensive gifts (gotta top last year!) in order to convince both your SO and yourself that you still love her/him.

Normally, I don't encourage people to burn down flower shops (make sure your firebombs are wrapped in pink packaging), hunt down and eviscerate candy-company executives (despite their hard exterior they're gooey on the inside), or use VD cards to give Hallmark employees a million little papercuts (bind them with caramel so they can't move), but because Feb. 14th is apparently so different (it's the day you actually love loved ones!!!!!11!1), I'm going to make an exception.

I'm working on some candy-themed weaponry for next year, including a railgun that shoots Smarties and a rose-thorn chainsaw that is more fantastically bloody and painful than effective at sawing through limbs. The R&D budget is quite high because of all the money I've saved from not having a girlfriend. This means the Napalm-based chocolate hearts are right on schedule (Agent Orange version coming soon). I'm still working on the engagement rings made out of depleted uranium, but the VX-based chocolates are deliciously deadly. I suggest getting the sampler pack.

You can't say I don't get into the spirit of the holiday. Besides, as Nazareth taught us, Love Hurts. Of course, in this case it also causes 3rd degree burns, internal hemorrhaging, vaporized limbs, blindness, cancer, liquified flesh, post-traumatic stress disorder and some zombie-ism.

But it comes with free gift wrapping!