Meg Whitman’s maid’s “explosive” press conference was pretty run-of-the-mill: Nicky Diaz Santillan says Meg knew she was an undocumented worker and treated her “like a piece of garbage.” Meg’s response: “I believe Nicky is being manipulated by Gloria Allred.”
Earlier this year, after Comedy Central altered an episode of “South Park” that had prompted threats because of the way it depicted Islam’s prophet Muhammad, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris proposed an “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.” The idea was, as she put it, to stand up for the 1st Amendment and “water down the pool of targets” for extremists.
The proposal got Norris targeted for assassination by radical Yemeni American cleric Anwar Awlaki, who has been linked to the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight and also to several of the 9/11 hijackers. This month, after warnings from the FBI, Norris went into hiding. The Seattle Weekly said that Norris was “moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity.”
It’s time for free-speech advocates to take a page from the abortion rights movement’s playbook. In the 1990s, abortion providers faced the same sort of intimidation tactics and did not succumb. Instead, they lobbied for a federal law making it a crime to threaten people exercising reproductive rights and permitting victims to sue for damages. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE, passed in 1994 by solid bipartisan margins. A similar act is needed to cover threats against free-speech rights.
I don’t care where they post the argument, just get on with it. I’m not interested in any other details about theology. Those points only become relevant once you’ve convinced this atheist that you have a rational argument for the existence of God. Don’t bother telling me how you reconcile your God with evil, or why you believe in miracles, or why transcendence is important in your life, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Don’t insult my intelligence by pointing out that religion has done a lot of good things in the past as if that were proof of the existence of the supernatural. Don’t be silly enough to try proving god by telling me that religion makes people feel good. So does chocolate, and wine.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”—Isaac Asimov (via scipsy)
Skeptic does not equal conspiracy theorist, in fact it's almost always the opposite.
A skeptic is weary of claims being made without evidence. A skeptic is not, by definition, cynical. A skeptic is not narrow- or closed-minded. A skeptic does not have blind faith.
A skeptic applies the merits of the scientific method to everything s/he encounters. A skeptic does not jump to conclusions. A skeptic doesn’t mind being proven wrong, in fact many enjoy it because then they learn something new. A skeptic does not remain skeptical in the face of sufficient evidence, such as the moon landing.
Religious people who attempt (badly) to apply principles of skepticism to widely accepted scientific theories that are backed by mountains of evidence but who would never even think of applying that same skepticism to the laughable supernatural claims of your own religion: YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.
Article has 10 sample questions. Got 10 of 10 correct.
The survey is full of surprising findings.
For example, it’s not evangelicals or Catholics who did best - it’s atheists and agnostics.
It’s not Bible-belt Southerners who scored highest - they came at the bottom.
Those who believe the Bible is the literal word of God did slightly worse than average, while those who say it is not the word of God scored slightly better.
Barely half of all Catholics know that when they take communion, the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, according to Catholic doctrine.
Yes. If there is a doctrine that needs ignoring is the doctrine of transubstantiation. Of in lay terms: magical cannibalism. No wonder people do not know about it. It is so ridiculous it boggles the mind.
Smith has a theory about why atheists did so well on the quiz - they have thought more about religion than most people.
“Very few people say that they were raised as atheists and agnostics,” he explains.
About three out of four were raised as Christians, he says.
“They were raised in a faith and have made a decision to identify themselves with groups that tend to be fairly unpopular,” atheists and agnostics, he says.
“That decision presupposes having given some thought to these things,” which is strongly linked with religious knowledge, he says.
I agree. Thinking is the antithesis of myth and superstition. No doubt about it.
Why do you think most of us are atheists? We’ve read the holy books and find them anything but.
The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare — while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable.
This is economic madness. It is policy divorced from empirical evidence. It is insanity because the policies are illusory and delusional. The evidence is in, and it shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts failed to achieve the promised goals.
So why in the world is anyone giving any credence to the insistence by Republican leaders that tax cuts, more tax cuts, and deeper tax cuts are the remedy to our economic woes? Why are they not laughingstocks? It is one thing for Fox News to treat these policies as successful, but what of the rest of what Sarah Palin calls with some justification the “lamestream media,” who treat these policies as worthy ideas?
The Republican leadership is like the doctors who believed bleeding cured the sick. When physicians bled George Washington, he got worse, so they increased the treatment until they bled him to death. Our government, the basis of our freedoms, is spewing red ink, and the Republican solution is to spill ever more.
Those who ignore evidence and pledge blind faith in policy based on ideological fantasy are little different from the clerics who made Galileo Galilei confess that the sun revolves around the earth. The Capitol Hill and media Republicans differ only in not threatening death to those who deny their dogma.
I don’t prefer to see the world as gay and straight, that’s just how much of society sees it so I go along with it enough to follow what’s going on. I think of sexuality as a spectrum (just like gender). I consider myself bisexual, but am more attracted to men, emotionally and physically. Throughout my life, I have had crushes on girls but not nearly as many as my crushes on men. I have never been in a relationship with a woman and am now married to a wonderful man. I generally see myself as about 80% hetero and 20% homo, but I often get lumped in as a straight ally for LGBT rights because it’s closer to accurate I suppose.
I have recently become aware of the term pansexual (or omnisexual), which would include anyone regardless of where they fall on the gender spectrum. I’ve also heard the term gender-blind, which seems odd to me. I notice color, I notice gender, I notice height, I notice weight. These are things I can’t really help noticing. And I like noticing these things. I like the differences we all have.
People aren’t black or white. We are shades of brown. People aren’t always just gay or straight. People aren’t always just a woman or a man. We are all people, doing our thing, living our lives. Why must everything be crammed into not-so-organic little labels and categories?
While I do have issues with diamonds, I have larger issues with engagements rings. That’s what, if anything, makes marriage seems like slavery. A man promises to marry her at some point with a diamond? So she won’t stray? But the man has nothing until the ceremony? I’m not sure why women find this acceptable.
I asked Eric to get married. I already knew he would marry me; we had discussed it previously. I technically asked him over instant message but we had been together for four years already. At the job I had, we communicated via IM a lot. And it just seemed like the right time. We had a short engagement and a small wedding.
I’m sometimes still shocked when some women (I know) change their last name. But this bothers me more. Not so much the diamond part but definitely the engagement ring part. Does it seem unfair and anti-feminist? Am I the only one?
You may either comment here or at the blog post. Either way, what do you think of engagement rings?
Wow, my video that I uploaded to YouTube a week ago has received a decent amount of views in such a short period of time. For me. 554 last time I checked. But an hour ago, it was 547.
I have had videos that are close to 1000 views but it took much longer. And none of my videos have really reached that many viewers. Unlike this one video made by my hubby that has 58 thousand plus views!
It probably has to do with relevant content and good timing.