Wednesday, July 31, 2013

thoughts on being an atheist moderate: conservative on some issues, liberal on some, and moderate on more and more

Here's my current views:

Social moderate, economically moderate to liberal (depending on the issue). Would prefer single payer healthcare, but agree there's too many people on the dole. The alternatives to the state sponsored dole are worse though - the Church or the street. Not sure gay marriage and the gay agenda are all that helpful to humanity generally. Try to take a step back from all sides, left & right. Take a naturalistic approach. Avoid cults of personality. But 100% naturalism doesn't mean we have to accept all of what people do. Everyone draws the line somewhere.

Since religion is natural (ref. Daniel Dennett) that means we cannot dismiss every idea that comes from religion. I'm not an Ayn Rand fan, nor a corporation personhood fan.

European (French) style economic socialism (which encourages regulated capitalism) seems useful. Libertarianism seems to be a fundie religion in and of itself to me. But on the other hand America-haters like Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman have huge problems also.

The key is just taking a step back from all sides.

After having a kid I am developing more conservative views, especially with regard to social issues. The stuff people do when single is largely a waste of time, and often wrong headed. I don't agree with Bill Maher on the issue of children & think he's not only childish but foolish. But I am with him, Salman Rushdie, and Hitchens in being a "9/11 liberal" or maybe now more of a 9/11 moderate.

I don't believe everything is equal, and so for me "atheism plus" is really atheism triple minus. Atheists who jump right into ultra-feminism or ulta-leftism are really not doing justice to what science shows: we need to have open discussions and open debates. A crucible. Maybe, for example, science will show that two parent homes really *are* better than single parent ones. Maybe the liberal politically correct status quo *will* be challenged by honest science. Let's see. Don't be afraid to ask questions, even of the fanatic nuts on your own side.

Pinker did a good job of dispelling the noble savage myth. Anyone born in America is a "native American." And the term "aboriginal" is racist in and of itself. All humans came out of Africa not too long ago. All humans are descendants of about 10,000 individuals. So as to who's "original" or "native" where & when is largely an exercise in tribal-based revenge-seeking in-group morality which seeks to foist the sins of past humans onto humans alive today who had zero to do with what happened in the past.

To the Mormon wife whose husband is 'addicted to porn:' 12 *real* steps that will help!

To the Mormon wife whose husband is "addicted to porn:" 12 *real* steps that will help!

In response to: "Doug Robinson: One woman's crusade against the evils of porn" in the Deseret News.

The Mormon position on porn is basically this: Let us fit porn and human sexuality into our addiction paradigm so that we can exercise control over you.

The LDS 12 step program:


Here's 12 steps for you, if your husband is viewing too much porn in your view:

Step 1: Stop assuming that the act of viewing human sexuality online is, in an of itself, something bad.

Step 2: Stop threatening your man with divorce over the issue.

Step 3: Stop wearing your Mormon underwear at night, and especially during sex. Go nude, 100% nude, at night, in bed, with your man, and during sex. Period.

Step 4: Engage in oral sex, and encourage your man to do the same.

Step 5: Don't be afraid to touch your man's genitals at night in bed.

Step 6: Be sexual with your man, all the time. Give him cues during the day, and be affectionate at night.

Step 7: Find types of porn which are more a.) educational, b.) produced by amateurs, and c.) does not require payment, and d.) may be produced by regular people as opposed to "porn stars." Watch these videos with your husband, and see if what you're seeing can give you some ideas of fun things to try.

Step 8: Stop asking that your children confess to some Mormon bishop regarding masturbation.

Step 9: Set boundaries for leaders in your religion. Do not let them pry into your private life, and especially not into your sexual life or the sexual lives of your children who're coming of age.

Step 10: Stop teaching your children, your husband, and yourself to be afraid of sexual thoughts & feelings - of *lust* - of being *an animal*. We ARE animals. Get used to it. Live with it. Learn to love it.

Step 11: If your man is engaging in video sex chats with other women online, ask him to stop. Tell him you love him and want him to be happy. Tell him that you're ok with watching some types of porn online, but that video sex chats with other women go too far.

Step 12: Reject 12 step programs which assume you can "give something away" to some fanciful god. You're it baby. You're god. I'm god. He's god. She's god. Sex is god. Love is god. And the only immortality you will ever experience is through having children via sex. So, sex is good, and it's there for very good reason. It's there to be enjoyed, for good reason. The Internet has brought new opportunities and new challenges to what it means and is to be human. We all agree that we need to keep away from the thieves while embracing the good. The same goes with porn online. Get an ad blocker plugin for your web browser. Block your kids viewing as you feel appropriate. But, realize also that some value can be had from exposure to more full details about human sexuality, with less shame, fear, ultimatums, and threats. Move forward in love.

July 31, 2013

American Atheists: Censoring atheist thought, taking a step back from all ideologies, and questioning 100% acceptance of gay marriage

On the facebook page for American Atheists they don't allow links to other sites to be posted. Science and human progress generally requires having a free and open exchange of ideas. American Atheists' main focus seems to be acting as props on Fox News, suing people over 10 commandment monuments, promoting the ultra-left social agenda, and not much else. Is this "atheism plus," or atheism minus?

Maybe triple minus - more info:

Pedantic motto of American Atheists: "I'm an atheist and I fight for equality."

Just because a human activity is natural doesn't mean we should embrace it 100%.

Maybe homosexual married couples should be required to adopt. How about that?

Just because a person becomes an atheist after leaving a cult or an ultra-conservative religion, doesn't mean they automatically become an ultra-leftie.

Be careful of people who want to control you after you leave a religion. Atheist plus people want to control your speech, just as much as any ultra-leftie might.

Frantic censoring ultra-lefties:

A secular case against gay marriage:

I'm still somewhat undecided in general about gay marriage, but I'm not just 100% "for it" just automatically by default. The inherently non-reproductive nature of gay sex IS an issue, as are built in human nature that may feel some amount of concern over gay sex. That's natural too. Not everything is equal. Let's take a step back and not just jump wholeheartedly into the arms of the ultra-left. Maybe, just maybe, conservatives have something useful to contribute, even if at first glance their motives are motivated by "religion." Since, religion is a natural phenomenon, we cannot just fully dismiss out of hand every single thing they're concerned about.

A brain can be trained by genetics, socialization, and a combination of the two. During the following talk Warren Farrell talks about how in ancient societies homosexual sex which didn't include reproduction was discouraged:

An a fascinating article on the subject:
The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Population

I don't wish to see anyone harmed by the ideas people like past Mormon prophet Spencer Kimball, who equated masturbation and sex before marriage as sins akin to murder. That goes too far. And yet, even the happily free exmoron draws the line somewhere, between acceptable and unacceptable human behavior, regardless of the naturalistic status of that behavior. Of course it's all natural, and to some extent, so what. A better question may be: what do most people do, and what helps the species survive? Does this mean I advocate that gay couples separate? Not necessarily. But men who're in hetero relationships should not jump ship just because they find out they're gay. And already-gay couples maybe should adopt, or find other ways to have kids. And gay men, and rather self-centered straight no-children men & women, should find ways to not spend their whole lives in highly childish games chasing their own & other people's incredibly vain and shallow tails forever. Eventually we all have to grow up. Sex usually, even today, forces that upon hetero couples. It doesn't, automatically, do so for gay ones - and maybe that's the point.

I'm a social moderate, and an economic liberal.

Here's for an open discussion, and being free from censors.

June 30, 2013 afternoon

Friday, July 26, 2013

comments on: Super Cool Dad Defends Daughter's ‘Keep Jesus Out of My Vagina’ Poster

Super Cool Dad Defends Daughter's ‘Keep Jesus Out of My Vagina’ Poster

Well, on face value I'm happy with the sign. But there are some deeper issues at hand also. The crazies who called her vulgar names acted inappropriately. The people who advocate for *no abortions* are largely motivated by, what is essentially in my view, conservative religion warping otherwise normal built in human morality. Their religion forces them to take their moral views to the extreme.

Religion is a natural phenomenon, and so religious views can be "natural." So, if it's possible to take a middle view on abortion, can we state that, yes, before viability, women should have a right to choose? Can we also say that abortion should be discouraged, but nevertheless available? Can we also say that post-viability it's ok to have it banned?

Everyone draws the line somewhere. Peter Singer and Margaret Sanger may well dray the line at, or even shortly after birth. I think their views are/were wacky and immoral, speaking as an atheist/humanist/naturalist & Enlightenment-advocate myself.

The zero-tolerance for abortion people who view all abortion as murder are also wrong.

It's also wrong to assume that all anti-abortion views just come from religion, and therefore can be dismissed out of hand.

So, I'm just saying there is a more middle & moderate & reasonable ground here which really isn't addressed by the media all that often.

Yes, in my view, a view I advocate for, women do have a right to choose before viability. Yes, abortion should be discouraged but available. Yes, we should value life.

Related post:

atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights

BBC is talking about it as well:

Music for the Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, and everyone in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq

Music for the Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, and everyone in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq:

commentary (as above):

Don't Look Now (Your Mama Got Her Boobs out), by Rodney Carrington

Pussy Control by Prince

Relax by Frankie Goes to Hollywood


One key reason the people in Pakistan are so upset is because they are sexually repressed. Here's for promoting American culture. Noam Chomsky (more) & Amy Goodman are idiots. 9/11 was the result of misdirected anger.

In Pakistan, Afghanistan, and parts of Iraq women are kept in bags. People cannot date. Men & women both are taught to be afraid of sexual thoughts. Hide the hair because it might activate the sexual part of your brain. Hide everything as much as possible of the female body, because you're afraid of having a sexual thought. That is evil - and it creates angry people. Angry men who have been abused. Freedom can come through *more* exposure to Western culture AKA boisterous rambunctious western music.

Korean kid, Sung-bong Choi, with opera singer voice:

Susan Boyle parody found:

Addition good parodies found:

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

We've got bigger things to tackle than Anthony Weiner's weener.

Anthony's weener re-emerges.

"These things" aren't behind him. They're right in front of him.

Taking a step back, it's interesting how worked up people get about penises.

I don't agree with the cheating aspect of his actions. On the other hand I am pro-nudist pro-naturalist anti-sexual-shaming, and I don't think nudist events ever have been nor ever will be "not about sex."

Anyway, as long as his own wife can deal his actions I don't have a huge problem with his actions. Get on with it. We've got bigger things to tackle than Anthony's weener.

Happy Birthday Utah, Pale Blue Dot, Hope for the future, instead of Kraussian nihilism

Happy Birthday Utah, Pale Blue Dot, Hope for the future, instead of Kraussian nihilism

Utah's birthday is not just for Mormons.

Thoughts on the pale blue dot and having hope for the future over Kraussian defeatist style de facto nihilism. Humans are a different type of animal. Space travel. Calculus. Knowing why we're really here, for the first time. Yes, a special type of star stuff indeed. A part of the universe who can understand itself for the first time.

Related talk given at my mother's funeral:

July 24, 2013 - 7:47AM

Saturday, July 20, 2013

quotes I enjoy

"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of … every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam... There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known." Carl Sagan, from "Pale Blue Dot."

“I'm suggesting we call sex something else, and it should include everything from kissing to sitting close together” "Where there is lasting love, there is a family." Shere Hite.

"…Most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors." Sam Harris

"Not a single one of the cells that compose you knows who you are, or cares...”
“If you can approach the world's complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine...
The earth has grown a nervous system, and it's us..." both by Daniel Dennett

"The mind is a neural computer..." "Sex and excretion are reminders that anyone's claim to round-the-clock dignity is tenuous. The so-called rational animal has a desperate drive to pair up and moan and writhe." - both by Steven Pinker

Curtis White is the liar - The Science Delusion: Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answers

Curtis White has written the following book:

The Science Delusion: Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answers

Mr. White is a government employee working at Illinois State University. What department does Mr. White work for? The science department? The history department? No! The English Department! AND IT SHOWS.

I read Mr. White's lame excerpt from his amateurish book at

White seems to be a big advocate for the blank slate view of human nature, a view largely debunked by modern science. Also I'm sure White would be irritated by Sam Harris's book on morality but I doubt he's even checked out the book. 

White seems to believe that the Exodus may have happened. Ok, what's the first f-ing thing you should do nowadays when writing a book? Check wikipedia!
The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[14] and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.

White seems to be a huge fan of liberal religion. But one key thing he misses is this:

Liberal religion serves as an apologetic structure for a.) woo woo unfounded beliefs, b.) calls for "diversity" which deny, among other things, the barbarous nature of key religious leaders - leaders who some naive ultra-left liberals just love, and c.) a taboo against being critical of people's "deeply held views."

The KEY thing about White's book is this: IT'S F-ING LATE. The guy couldn't manage to publish this hanger-on parasite of a book while Hitchens was still alive, and while he could respond in person and in the flesh. But, there's plenty of us who very much appreciated and valued Hitchens' work, who remember his words and his style.

Curtis White is in my view a coward and a liar, and he's unworthy of his role as an "educator" at a public university.

Dinesh D'Souza claims that we shouldn't let biologists out of the lab. However, it's rather more accurate to say that we should keep idiot English professors OUT OF IT.

White's other "contributions:"

Liberals are still upset at Hitchens over Iraq, and it shows. They dig up every piece of poo they can and heave it onto the grave of an otherwise noble dead man, for profit and attention. Was it right to go into Iraq? Hitchens made the ONLY case I listened to, and it was, at the very least, an intellectually honest and honorable case. Examine Hitchens' work on Mother Teresa & Bill Clinton -  two wonderpeople of the idiot-hippie ultra-liberal-left. Now today people like Reza Aslan has the left by the balls, as he pulls them around teaching them that Mohamed was a man of peace.

Science & history, as shared with us by people like Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, isn't metaphysics. When idiot White uses the term, it just shows he hasn't done his homework. But that's not surprising. When you're a creative writer you don't need to do much else other than pull crap out of your ass.

For those of us who were members of real religions, like Mormonism, and conservative Christianity or Islam, we remember what's it's like to be brain washed & lied to. People in light & fluffy religions have no idea what it's like, no idea whatsoever. Pompous intellectuals like White would just assume let people continue in their ignorance, because liberal religion does so many good things in their view. But one thing liberal religion does which is particularly bad is that it gives people permission to continue to believe in bullshit, and it maintains a taboo against being critical of bullshit beliefs.

Science IS about being willing to take a step back from all dogmas. And the "dogma" of claiming that the Exodus didn't happen (like White claims) IS NOT A DOGMA AT ALL. It is an apparent fact that there was no real Exodus.

Check wikipedia before you write a book Mr. White. And, next time you're going to shoot out a huge poop from your bum, at least have the decency to aim at a person who's still alive, and who can respond to your tripe.

Other reviews:

“Atheist” Curtis White attacks Hitchens, makes fool of himself

Faith in the Unseen
Curtis White’s ‘Science Delusion’

Friday, July 19, 2013

Just because you like dicks doesn't mean you should cheat on your wife - and comments on the gay flag

Just because you like dicks doesn't mean you should cheat on your wife, get aids, die, and leave your family with no father. And just because you like vaginas as well as dicks that doesn't mean you should cheat on your husband, and then go off to live with your lesbo buddy.

I'm an atheist and I don't believe in cults of personality, nor in being drawn into the assumption that atheism necessarily leads to being socially ultra-left. Being an atheist for me means being willing to take a step back from all dogmas, not only from the right but also from the left.

Criticisms of flying the gay flag universally, as doing so may transmit the assumption that people in the flag-flying group universally agree with all aspects of the perceived "gay agenda."

On when bi or homosexual men cheat on their wives, get aids, die, and leave their families with no father. I believe we should be open to debate whether "middle children" should be encouraged to live a straight life - otherwise we are having unquestionable dogma points just like in a religion.

Just because a person is an atheist, a secular advocate, or an advocate for science & naturalism doesn't mean they embrace 100% of the ultra-left agenda.

Wives who're members of conservative religions should meet their apparently bisexual husbands half-way, by leaving their abusive conservative religions, and by not being upset about porn. And then the husbands should not cheat & go elsewhere.

July 19, 2013 - 7:44am

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman affair: Don't wear hoodies at night in gated communities Florida

Message from Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman affair: Don't wear gangsta uniforms (eg: hoodies) at night in Florida gated communities.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Exmormon Foundation: discriminating against children & their parents

Below are copies of post & replies in connection with a related post on here entitled Atheist Family Values: Attention Exmormon Foundation: humans have children. And more on presuppositional apolegetics.

Original post on 7/5/2013 on the exmormon email discussion group on yahoogroups:
Now that I actually have a child I'm finding that some secular  advocacy
groups either are actively not child friendly, or they are  passively so (by
inaction or just not thinking things  through).

Related blog post:

Reply received from the vice president of the Exmormon Foundation:

On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Sue wrote:
>Jonathan -- if you will read carefully our position on children at the 
>Conference, I think you will find that it's pretty reasonable.  Because  we
>film and record the talks, and extraneous noise can seriously  affect that
>filming, we cannot have toddlers and older children in the  room.  We all have
>experienced times at other events (including Sac.  Mtg.!!)  when the noise
>from children has compromised a speaker.  The  serving of alcohol is another
>reason.  Nursing babies are allowed.
----end of quote

And here's my reply as of July 14, 2013:

----quote beings


I'm aware of the reasoning behind the "strict no child policy" and I believe it's fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:

1. Having people show up is more important than creating what some might perceive as youtube friendly multimedia presentations or podcasts.

2. Having a no child policy is discriminatory. In apartments, housing, work, and at exmormon conferences - and for the same reasons. It simply seeks to pretend and hope like a certain segment of the population does not exist, and should stay away.

3. Humans have children. Atheists & exmormons should have more of them and they should be encouraged to do so. Having a "strict no child policy" serves to directly counter that noble and highly valuable goal.

4. Children are part of life and part of valuing life, and they are the ones who will help us move forward.

So, when I was a 365 pound single guy with thick glasses living in my parent's basement, yes, policies which bar children didn't much affect me. When Steve Clark of Latter-Day Lampoon / the Salamander Society was running the Salt Lake conferences I don't believe he had a no child policy. But in any case, I've moved on from "needing" to have an association with a group which labels itself as "exmormon" per se. Naturalist. Humanist. Atheist. Skeptic. Enlightenment Values Advocate. These are a few of my favorite things. "Exmormon" is a bit too myopic, limited in scope.

It's unfortunate that participants in the current exmo conferences are little more than props in a presentation primarily targeted at the Internet.

I've seen groups go down hill before. A pet bird club in Salt Lake (Avicultural Society of Utah) was run into the ground by an overly controlling president. The other club here continues ok. Atheist groups have has similar splits and shenanigans, in Salt Lake, Portland, and Texas.

I guess the bottom line is that, if you're going to continue with this no child policy, you'll end up turning advocates into adversaries. So, as of this time I'm against support for attendance at the Exmormon Foundation conferences, and I suggest that other people also not support attendance. Instead, I'd suggest that people either attend local secular advocacy groups, or start a secular advocacy group of your own. But, if you really don't like children at your events, consider the morality of also excluding blacks, gays, and Mexicans from your events as well while you do so. As you pan your camera across the audience you'd perhaps want to ensure that no non-European faces appear, so as to not upset anyone - just as some people don't want to upset their youtube presentations with the presence of children.

I make this point just to remind people what category of activity discrimination against people with children fits into. Having a "strict no child policy" is in the same category as a strict no black person policy, a strict no gay person policy, and a strict no Mexican person policy.

Real people who show up are the most important.

I realize that in ultra-social-liberal culture there is the view that people should have less or no children. I don't agree with that view, and I think it's not only misguided it's destructive.

A child and his parents being present is more important than the audio quality on your online podcast.

A child and her parents being present is more important than whether you have a personal distaste for children.

A child and his parents being present is more important than whether people on youtube can hear 100% of what's being said by a speaker. Flesh & blood people who show up are the most important, and if they are not, then they are merely your unwary props.

We, who left the Mormon Church, are not your props. We're humans, and humans have babies.

So, don't get stuck in cults of personalities. That's one key thing we've learned. If you encounter a group with an overly controlling president, then don't spend too much time with that group. Be honest in what you say. Maybe found a group of your own. Find like minded people. That's my advise to people who leave the Mormon Church.

Not everything that happened in the Church was bad. Children are good and should be valued. A "strict no child policy" does not value them, nor does it honor the fact that humans have them.

I know you've done a lot of good work in the past. And when I was a fat bast*** virgin with thick glasses living in my parents basement, I didn't really think about "hey, where's the kids?" at the exmo conferences. But, now that I'm 100 pounds lighter, have a wife and a kid, and am living a more normal life I can now see the more true situation.

A group that meets in Salt Lake should have Salt Lake roots. And no group should have the right to discriminate against people with kids. It should be illegal, just as it is illegal to discriminate against black people, gay people, and etc.



Wednesday, July 10, 2013

level of veiling; Neff's Canyon; atheists having children & atheist family values

level of veiling; Breasts documentary; Neff's Canyon; Bill Maher & having children (octomom); atheists should have more children; Let's value life; on Margaret Sanger again; "don't judge me!" - why not?; Unitarianism, Mormonism; family values - the left should embrace those words again as well. July 10, 2013

More on Margaret Sanger:
Margaret Sanger - as amoral as Peter Singer sadly

Bill Maher should have kids, before he makes one more comment about people who have them.

Atheist Family Values:
Atheism & having kids: the right to choose to be a zero

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

on Daniel Pipes, Israel, Islam & democracy, the veil, group dynamics

on Daniel Pipes, Israel, and what happens in "democracies" when Islam is voted in.

When Islamists vote in a "democracy" they vote in sharia and literalist Islam (regular traditional Islam).

How much hair a woman gets to show in an Islamic country is an indication of how much freedom there is there. There is an inverse relationship between the level of veiling and the level of freedom in Islamic countries. So it IS all about the veil.

Human groups morph over time. Pet bird clubs. Atheist groups. Religion. Politics. Name any group on any topic and they will change, sprout, split, and morph over time. It's natural.

July 9, 2013

Monday, July 8, 2013

Noble Savages? Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Wikileaks, Bolivia, Amerindians (American Indians), and so on.

Noble Savages? Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Wikileaks, Bolivia, Amerindians (American Indians), and so on.


In response to the following BBC story I posted some comments & received some responses. Also a video commentary is below.

Evo Morales said: "My hand would not tremble to close the US embassy," as from the following BBC story:

My response: OK, see ya.

Question received: "
And if Russia diverted Air Force One? Or should other politicians be grateful for the chance to comply with our government?"

My answer:

I'd only see an equivalence if they diverted Admiral General Aladeen or Fielding Mellish (ref the films The Dictator and Bananas), or Kim Jong-un. I have no problem with the diversion of the presidential plane of a banana republic leader who may be attempting to spirit away a fugitive who otherwise very much deserves to be in jail.

Question: "If Obama hypothetically might be giving a lift to someone the Russians or Chinese wanted to imprison, and they used their pull with some countries to get the plane grounded.. ?"


Evo is rather like a flea compered to giant stature of Obama, and so I cannot wrap my brain around an equivalence.

Here's a recent rather reprehensible action of Evo:
Bolivian President Evo Morales expels USAID

Just goes to show humans with Amerindian DNA can be crackpots also. Whodathunkit.

Speaking generally, the myth of the noble savage is one of the dogma points of the Chomsky Amy Goodman ultra left. They've got many others also worth rejecting, or at the very least examining closely to see if they can be rejected.

Bolivian president says eating chicken turns men gay


"Democratically-elected leaders of the things the collective social fiction calls 'nation-states', traveling in airplanes. (By the conventions of the collective social fiction, the plane a national leader travels in is sovereign territory.) That's the equivalence."

"I was aware of the two things you posted, and I'm not the one calling Morales savage, or noble. But Morales, and the late Chavez, were points on a trend of Latin American countries shedding USian government and business influence (without subsequently meeting assassination or a puppet coup.)"

"That is a trend that is overall positive.

"John Kerry is indirectly quoted in one of the links, referring to Latin America as the 'backyard of the United States.' That's long-standing problematic attitude asserting a right to interfere.

"'Giant Stature', I try not to believe in Great Men. Or do you refer only to the difference in power of the nations? Would you prefer an analogy where the leader of some Bolivia-statured African or Asian nation was shunted aside in travels through the influence China or Russia had on some other African or Asian nations?"

"The term noble savage (French, bon sauvage) expresses the concept of an idealized indigene..."

Pinker on the subject (dispelling the myth):

Regarding Chavez, and apparently Morales, while the actions of apparent nutbags may be in part, positive, it's difficult to separate their nutbaggery status from the partial-good they may (and only "may") have done.

Snowden's parasites:

Do you ever watch Russia Today (RT)? It's pretty much a constant drumbeat for *supposed* freedom in America, while at the same time Putin's Russia is becoming less and less free by the day. Authoritarian governments are happy to glom onto the self-hating lefties. Thom Hartmann comes to mind. There's others. Hey, even Iran's Press TV has George Galloway. Maybe they can hire Amy Goodman next, or fund in full Democracy Now!. Makes you wonder who's funding Amy's near constant hate-everything-American conspiratorial crazed drum beat - at the very least uneducated drug addled hippies (your average Pacifica affiliate listener) who're unfortunately & sadly sucked in by her tripe & fear-mongering. Amy is a legacy of Vietnam, as are the drugie hippies, but not everything is equal. Both ends of the spectrum have big problems.

Also here's something of note re Goodman: "On October 2, 2004, Goodman was presented the Islamic Community Award for Journalism by the Council on American-Islamic Relations."

CAIR knows who their friends are, apparently. So do Russia Today (Putin/Russia) and Press TV (Iran). The left in America play right into their hands. Does that mean everything the left says or wants is bad? No, but as of now Amy Goodman is essentially in the same camp as tin foil helmeted Alex Jones, as is Glenn Greenwald.

So, should journalists, especially self-hating ultra-lefties like Greenwald, be the arbiters of what passes for classified information? No. How about Assange? Probably not. Did Assange & Snowden release info which probably should be released? Maybe. But I do think there does need to be classified information. Should embarrassing info be protected? Well, probably not. But "journalists," particularly the self-hating liberal types who play into the hands of governments like Iran & Russia, cannot be fair arbiters as to what should and what should not be released.

Some presidents have gone too far in what they classify. But on the other hand just opening the spigot so that any old "journalist" can decide for themselves, that also goes too far. Greenwald seemed quite happy to be the new arbiter for the entire body of classified info, as per what he's said in interviews. That's a dangerous state of affairs in my view.

So, since journalists should not be the final arbiters of what passes for classified info, should Assange be in jail? Maybe.

Assange is hiding behind a diplomatic structure which he himself has helped to undermine. Is that fair? Not really. Should the integrity of the embassy he's hold up in be honored in this case? Maybe not. Do I believe in diplomatic immunity? Not really.

Now, as for whether I personally feel Amerindians are "savages," they are no more and no less savage than any other group of humans. They are just as capable of doing just as much evil and good as any other group. And, just because of the color of my skin, that doesn't make me or my family personally responsible for the sins of other humans who also happen to share my same skin color. Children are not responsible for the sins of their parents, nor for the sins of other people who may happen to share the same "race" or skin color, or geographic origin. Now, that is an abusive idea present in Amerindian culture. The constant drumbeat of what "white culture" did to us, on and on - it's not healthy, and, it's racist, retrograde, and may I venture to say "savage," but any group of humans could well do the same, and I'm sure have.

Does that mean I think the Indian Health Service should be abolished? No. Does that mean I agree with what happened in places like Brigham City? No. But, I didn't do it, my family didn't do it, and the current U.S. and Utah governments did do it. We all agree it was a bad idea. So going further than this, and assigning blame to people who are currently alive & who had zero to do with past sins, that is abusive. Also allowing Indian tribes to have things like casinos has resulted in rather unsavory things like mass disenrollment.

So anyway, all this goes to show there's more complexities than at first glance. Name a group. Any group. Any hyphenated group who is just oh so special and great, and dig a little deeper & be honest & we'll find out what really lies underneath the veneer: Humans.

Lastly I still have no problem with baring Evo from flying over any country, and I have no problem with going in and arresting Assange, today, now, and even baring in mind of where he is. Same goes for Snowden. Since, I believe that journalists should not be the final arbiters of what passes for classified info, and perhaps even more importantly, because journalists can end up being chumps for otherwise authoritarian regimes and groups (Russian, Iran, and Islam), I believe we should not allow the Alex Joneses, Amy Goodmans, Glenn Grenwalds, or Julian Assanges of the world to be the new classified info gatekeepers - because they can and often are chumps and thin fronts for otherwise oppressive regimes.


"I can't see most of it as any direct response to what I wrote so I assume I'm serving as a proxy for the public figures you name."


Not as a proxy. Issues were raised & so I responded generally as I saw fit. I realize you may or may not agree with the other protagonists mentioned.

Here's a more succinct list:

I don't have a problem with blocking Evo's plane.

Morales & Chavez are/were nutbags worth dismissing out of hand. Friends of Fidel are no friends of Americans (Americans not sucked in by the ultra left self hating propaganda & party line).

The sins of the CIA from the past are worth calling out. But that doesn't mean everything the CIA or NSA does today is necessarily bad, or not worth protecting.

I don't have a problem with stating Obama's stature in the world is greater than that of tiny flea Evo. And for those who view Obama as The Joker, he's your president too (to the tea baggers who wish The South had won the civil war).

Regarding Latin America today & intervention: I don't see a need for a blanket ban on intervention. Depends on the situation. Yes we can criticize what happened in the past. But on the other hand any country can be a candidate for intervention given the right circumstances. An Afghanistan situation, definitely. An Iraq one, maybe. And so on.

If some other country were to bar Air Force One from travel, well, we could retaliate in other ways. But, itsy bitsy (world stage size wise) Bolivia is not in much of a position to do much of anything, other than elect an oh so noble Amerindian who's otherwise a crackpot banana republic style leader, in my view.

The USA should support it's own companies just as much as China & Russia support theirs. Aggressively. Not illegally or in uncouth ways. But I don't have a particular problem with tying US economic aid to whether a country buys American.

Both my wife and I ate some chicken this past week & we haven't turned gay yet.

Friday, July 5, 2013

Hiking to Dog Lake up Mill Creek Canyon - July 3rd, 2013

 Hiking to Dog Lake up Mill Creek Canyon - July 3rd, 2013

Atheist Family Values: Attention Exmormon Foundation: humans have children. And more on presuppositional apologetics.

Now that I actually have a child I'm finding that some secular advocacy groups either are actively not child friendly, or they are passively so (by inaction or just not thinking things through).

Attention Exmormon Foundation: humans have children. Having a "strict no child policy" is discriminatory.

Attention Atheists of Utah: voting for your leaders at a party which isn't child-friendly, that's also not good.

Perhaps we need a "family oriented" atheist or freethinker group in Utah.

Also more thoughts on Eric Hovind & Sye Ten Bruggencate. They essentially tell us: "We don't do Bible study with people who don't believe in the Bible." And they're also very keen to tell other people to shut up. Reference one (42:19 to 44:00 and 1:22:47), and two (35:49 to the end).

Ok, well, in response we could then well tell you: We won't chat about science & evolution with you, so long as you deny science, reasonable evidence and facts, and evolution.

Regarding the gotcha interviews Eric & Sye have conducted with apparently joint-toking college students: Yes, Eric & Sye, you may be able to get them to say "yeah, I don't know anything. You're so right." But once again you're not really being honest with your approach. What else is new.

More info:
Eric Hovind & Sye Ten Bruggencate. Kiss Jesus's Ass or Go to Hell. Presuppositionalism.