the inspiring breakdown of Joel Burns

Rivulets of tears streamed down my face as I watched this. It hurt so much to watch, but at the same time it was profoundly uplifting.

I wish I could give Joel the tightest tight hug I could possibly give anyone, stain his chest with my tears.

This is all we ask for, to have a chance at life unoppressed and unsuppressed. The kind of life that all straight people, including you who read this, enjoy and even take for granted. Some of us kill ourselves because of what some of you have done to us.

You have no idea the suffering we must put up with.

You have no idea what I went through, what Joel went through, what those young teens went through before they took their own lives.

Imagine you as a parent walking in on your son or daughter, seeing his or her limp body hanging from a rope, or bloody from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. All because you never took the time to listen, to talk. Or because you said they're going to hell. Your own parent whom you thought loved you telling you to go to hell for what you are through the accident of birth.

Is love, tolerance, and acceptance too much to ask for? It seems with some of us, like Tony Perkins at the conservative Family Research Council, it is.

So to my family and friends and associates, I appreciate and love those of you who have accepted and embraced me for who I am, not for what your god or your society tries to force me to become. Thank you. :-)

annie lennox: why i am an hiv/aids activist

god, i challenge you! (part 3)

^ The ancient Greek myth of Prometheus and the Christian biblical story of Adam and Eve are two of the most well known fables we all can "learn from" today. Prometheus dared defy the gods by introducing fire (i.e. QUESTIONING FOR KNOWLEDGE) to us mere mortals, and for that the gods punished him for eternity. The same thing with Adam and Eve, except the misogynistic author went one step further and blamed it all on a woman. Can you think of other myths created specifically to scare the shit out of us?

More stuff for which I strongly criticize religion today, and specifically religious dogma.

Sacrosanctity (questioning God as taboo or insulting) - The difference between religious beliefs and science is that science is far better suited to exist as a force for good in the world, and by good I mean in terms of the overall survival and progress of mankind. And this is because science by its very nature relies on intellectual flexibility, malleability, and constant tweaking and improvement. In fact science THRIVES on being re-arranged, re-assessed, and re-vamped with new discoveries and ideas.

Mind you, science does not necessarily ask the question of why we exist or what is the meaning of life; that could be addressed in the arena of philosophy and I can try to tackle that in a future post. Instead, what science is good at is explaining how things work in the universe, and with the help of those explanations we can ask further questions, prompting more scientific inquiry, and so on. THAT is the fundamental nature of science. And THAT is where many of us religious types and even non-religious types make our mistake in thinking of science as a replacement for God.

Science was never meant to be God. Instead science discovers truths that were previously thought to be the work of God because we didn't know anything yet other than whatever explanations we made up from lack of scientific knowledge. Science doesn't demand worship or respect like any god does. You don't pray to science, you don't offer it sacrificial lambs or burn incense for it. And you certainly don't hijack and fly planes into skyscrapers in the name of science, or blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors in the name of science.

^ One of the most egregious, most disgusting scams of the Catholic Church today: Mother Teresa. Christopher Hitchens unmasks the seemingly beneficent acts of this "saintly nun" and dares to crash through the wall of sacrosanctity to question her saintliness using reason, logic, and indisputable facts. Part 2 | Part 3 .

In contrast God was never, ever meant to be questioned. Why is that? I previously brought up the point that a faith based system can only survive as long as it is never questioned or challenged. The moment it is is when it begins to fall apart as a system and even as an idea. When that happens we must seek our answers elsewhere. We eventually turn to science and philosophy.

According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 79% of Christians in the U.S. completely believe in the second coming of Christ. The second coming entails the total destruction of the world, where only those deemed worthy by god will be saved and offered entry into paradise while the rest of us die in agonizing ways. Combine that with the blindly accepted notion that no one's beliefs should ever be questioned and the politically correct culture that insists on interfaith dialogue, and we have the groundwork for this perpetually misguided and deluded world of dangerous stupidity. There is no room at all for reason and intellectual honesty in such a world, and certainly little room for survival.

God is supposed to be exempt from being questioned because God is absolute. That requires faith from the believer. And faith is what we desperately fall back on when reason and logic cannot provide us an answer. But can faith have practical applications in the real world? Can faith predict an approaching tsunami that can easily destroy an island country and kill thousands of innocent lives? Can faith at least warn those people and prepare them for the storm beforehand?

One of the most compelling intellectuals today on matters of religion is Bart Ehrman. A former born-again Christian, Ehrman has a rich background in biblical studies:

I worked hard at learning the Bible—some of it by heart. I could quote entire books of the New Testament, verse by verse, from memory. When I graduated from Moody with a diploma in Bible and Theology (at the time Moody did not offer a B.A. degree), I went off to finish my college work at Wheaton, an evangelical Christian college in Illinois (also Billy Graham's alma mater). There I learned Greek so that I could read the New Testament in its original language. From there I decided that I wanted to commit my life to studying the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and chose to go to Princeton Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian school whose brilliant faculty included Bruce Metzger, the greatest textual scholar in the country. At Princeton I did both a master of divinity degree—training to be a minister—and, eventually, a PhD in New Testament studies.

Today Ehrman is an agnostic. In an interview with NPR's Terry Gross he explains his gradual but steady journey from being a fundamentalist Christian to becoming an enlightened non-believer devoted to a life's passionate work of dissecting the history of the bible, thus the history of the human conception of God. Ehrman would never have gotten to who he is today if he had never dared crossing the line of sacrosanctity - if he had never dared to question God.

Grab a sandwich and drink and carve out about an hour of your time and listen to what he has to say. This is some serious shit:

Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer | Fresh Air interview, NPR (direct audio stream)

This sickeningly pathetic state of sacrosanctity is especially apparent in real world situations, such as in the Philippines, where the Catholic Church has a very powerful presence and has been ruining the lives of the many Filipinos who still flock to regular masses, thereby perpetuating the ruination of an entire country. In this case science and reason - in the form of education, family planning, and contraceptives - is constantly being oppressed by the church, which insists that abstinence and prayer is the only answer. And yet plastic bags filled with dead fetuses continue to appear every morning on the altars of Manila churches, left there by anonymous poverty stricken women who can't afford to take on another child but hope that the soul of the dead child can at least be blessed, that it may have a chance to make it to Heaven: a country screwed by a catholic god | a space alien (includes videos of the BBC documentary).

^ The OLPC project, with proper funding and sourcing, is helping to combat the problem of lack of eduction for young children in some parts of the world. Science and technology and human ingenuity is the foundation this project depends on, not praying to a god.

The very idea of believing in god and insisting that he is the answer for everything in the universe demands that we stop asking questions. Period. In which case, how does that work to try and solve such profoundly real problems as children dying from starvation and disease or the lack of any substantial kind of education for the poor and underprivileged? Does praying actually make these things go away?

The very fact that we began to ask questions and actively sought out answers and then asked even more questions is the fundamental essence of science. Science would never have been able to be birthed if we never dared to ask questions in the first place. And it is science that is an ultimate tool in combating problems like world hunger and the need to educate the poor.

Science does not demand faith from us. But it does offer us hope; it offers us possibilities - things that religion or faith can never do for us in this very real world.

Related:
god, i challenge you! (part 1)

god, i challenge you! (part 2)

god, i challenge you! (part 2)

^ Often times seemingly noble intents under the aegis of religious beliefs have very damaging consequences - in this case the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies. Here religion is not the answer, education is.

More stuff for which I strongly criticize religion today, and specifically religious dogma...

Anti-education sentiment and lack of intellectual honesty - In some Midwestern and southern states here in the U.S. the Christian bible is taught in class as a requirement. Even prayer is required every morning before class commences.

Texas public schools now required to teach the Bible | Examiner.com

As of the 2009-2010 school year public schools in Texas are now required to offer a high school elective course on the literature of the Bible and history of that era. House Bill No. 1287 explains that the course “must be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner that does not attempt to indoctrinate students as to either the truth or falsity of the Judeo-Christian biblical materials”. It goes on to say that schools can add courses on other religious texts if they would like, but only the one on the Bible is required...

As far as I know, public schools in the elementary or high school level at large don't offer theology courses - that is, a course that introduces students to world religions and their various details in comparison. Only the study of Christianity or a subject falling within Christianity (creationism/intelligent design) is required. How many of you are willing to bet that other religions are not offered for "neutral" study because the powers that be refuse to have a hand in triggering these young minds to begin questioning the belief system they are being raised under? And do you think that's fair to the child? After all, if you were a parent, wouldn't you want to give your kid the most expansive kind of education so she can be better prepared to make intelligent choices in who she wants to be?

^ The study of religions other than your own may be seen as questioning your god. In fact, in a strict religion such as Islam denouncing your faith is punishable by death. Is studying other religions for intellectual purposes really enough to undermine your certainty in your belief and worship of your god, thus prompting him to damn you to hell? Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris has some things to say about this.

Wouldn't a young person who chooses to remain Christian after being enlightened by the study of other kinds religions in the world - including the knowledge of being secular or non-religious - be more worthy of god's grace than another young person who was never allowed to be exposed to other religions and thus never given a choice?

One major accusation that important thinkers like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens make is that most any faith based system (and we'll specify Christianity here as a strong example) thrive on intellectual dishonesty. A faith based system can only survive as long as it is never questioned or challenged. The moment it is is when it begins to fall apart as a system and even as an idea. And Christian authorities know this. This is why they so vehemently oppose teaching evolution classes and instead require classes in creationism. If they really did feel confident in their beliefs they'd allow the kids to discover Darwinian evolution and biology and other pertinent sciences, as well as other world religions.

god, i challenge you! (part 1)

^ Two ways religion can be viewed. Left - the jawdropping beauty of Chartres Cathedral, France. Right - the World Trade Center, and 3,000 human lives, destroyed by Muslim terrorists in New York City.

I don't hate religion outright. But I do question its role in the world today. I question it on the grounds of intellectual honesty and its pragmatic applications to functional life in our global society, in our diverse patchwork of culture, in how it operates on its concept of women and children, in its governance and institution of laws. The most powerful religions today, Christianity and Islam, exert a force as impressive now as it was back in the Bronze Age. And that's very frightening.

There have been and still are many good things for which I can credit religion, though that is still conditional, and I can get into detail in another post. Instead I have my serious criticisms for the role that religion - specifically religious dogma - plays in this 21st century world. I can address several of the problems topically.

Literalism breeds extremism - Members of Al Queda flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon precisely for their religious beliefs, particularly the idea of jihad. One aspect of it is that they thought that by destroying the lives of as many "infidels" as possible, they would be guaranteed a place in heaven, given 72 virgins and an infinite banquet of milk and honey and whatever else was promised them. In other words, they took the words of jihad literally, especially the third "struggle" of waging holy war (the other two struggles are the preservation of inner faith, and their duty as Muslims to uphold their society).

> Women walking through contemporary Afghanistan. Considering the reward of a heaven full of 72 virgins promised to those men who commit acts of jihad, what does it say about the role of women, the importance of women, in the Muslim world today?

To those suicide hijackers and the suicide bombers, this world means nothing. What matters is the heavenly afterlife, which their belief is supposed to promise. When such a rich and bountiful afterlife is imagined and felt to be so tenable, why not disrespect and trash this world? After all it's worthless in comparison.

Is the goal of jihad achievable in any way other than violence and death in this world? Instead of killing 3,000 people (many of which were Muslims anyway), why not a non-violent protest against "infidels" using signs and slogans, or writing essays and editorials and publishing them in major newspapers?

Besides, the original purpose of jihad was not necessarily to destroy non-believers and heretics, but as a way of expanding the state of Islam, which back at the time when the Qur'an was still warm from the oven, often necessitated the slaughter of opposing tribes and armies. Today we in this world no longer have to fight for resources and land, and major advancements in science and medicine have greatly lowered the rates of diseases and deaths in childbirth so keeping a woman perpetually pregnant to guarantee offspring isn't so necessary anymore like it was during the Bronze Age. So wouldn't it be useless to kill competing people in order to preserve one's clan, and instead opt to wage war through non-violent means, even if it's definitely nowhere near dramatic as flying planes into skyscrapers to get your point across?

Wouldn't you as a Muslim still earn your god's grace if you simply criticize non-believers with an eloquently written op-ed piece instead of an exploding vest under your clothes?

Related:
god, i challenge you! (part 2)
god, i challenge you! (part 3)

a country screwed by a catholic god

I remember when my mom and I boarded the TWA jet at the airport in Manila back in the 70s, when I was on the threshold of leaving the Philippines forever as a citizen. I was just 7 years old. After Dad had saved up enough money to send for us (and eventually send for all my siblings), Nanay and I would be the first ones in the family to finally see America. We were going to Chicago, where Dad was. He was our ticket out of that part of the world where the story in the BBC documentary above is told.

I was a kid then. Before he set out and left for America my dad was a mechanical engineer working for the city of Manila and thus earned enough money to afford a townhouse on Taal Street. He was the first one and the only one in his family to go to university and get a degree. Our house had a concrete front yard. We even had a pet monkey but he never let anyone touch him, only Nanay. I had a pet rooster. We had a dog too, but I barely remember it. We used to "summer" at my grandparents' in the jungles of Sibuyan, which was a long trip by boat from city.

I remember my middle older sister B taking me to the markets in metro Manila to go shopping with her. Where we lived there were regular floods during the rainy season, and often times the garbage from the nearby dump would float by. There was nothing we could about it but stand on the furniture and wait til the water went down.

But thanks to Dad and his university degree we were better off than many, many other families in all of the Philippines. Those unfortunates were poverty stricken their entire lives. Even then they always relied on God for comfort, at least some tiny amount of buffer between what little scraps of happiness they could find and the decrepit infestation of a corrupt government, severely scant social programs, and lack of substantial education because of the perpetually poor economy.

That was back in the 70s.

> A typical squatter's neighbourhood in Manila today.

We went back in 2001 to celebrate our parents' 50th wedding anniversary. The party was at the luxurious Shangrila Hotel in Makati City. As we drove through Manila on our outings I stared out the window of the car, at many of the people, at the little kids wearing dirty clothes and sometimes running the streets barefoot. I knew there were so many mothers with five, six, nine, ten or more kids because they were never taught family planning and were never given free condoms or other kinds of contraceptives.

So all these poverty stricken Filipinos continue to breed like rabbits. And yet they also continue to go to church and pray. And the priests in their robes and their authority continue to tell them that using contraceptives is going against God. And I have to wonder, if God is supposed to be good and kind and loving, why hasn't He done anything to help these people? They've done nothing wrong. In fact, they pray to Him regularly. The mothers struggle every single day to try to feed her kids, even going hungry herself so that they can have more to eat.

A lot can happen between the 70s, when I left that world for good, and 2001 when I returned for a visit. And a lot did happen, to me, for me, around me. Good things happened for my family, in large part because we were in a place where it was possible.

It's now 2010. It's been decades since I left the Philippines. Once in a while I catch news of goings on there - an election, extremist activity from Muslim terrorists, a recent massacre by a desperate man who lost his job and picked up a gun. But other than those nothing has really changed in that country that I used to know as home.

From 1972 to 2010. Nothing has changed in the Philippines. Nothing. Even if I wanted to go back there to live, what would I go back to that praying to a Catholic God could offer?

Related:
audio blog: city of garbage | a space alien

an honour bittersweet

^ Celebration of the Signing of the US Economic Stimulus Bill. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's Speech During the Celebration of the Signing of the US Economic Stimulus Bill including Filipino World war II Veterans Benefits.

Package includes money for Filipino war veterans | Times-Herald

The vets' quest for compensation stems from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision in July 1941 to draft 140,000 soldiers from the Philippines, then an American colony. A year later, Congress passed a law allowing Filipino soldiers to become U.S. citizens with full military benefits.

But in 1946, after Filipino soldiers fought and died side by side with U.S. troops, President Truman signed two bills denying them citizenship as well as most veterans' benefits. The bills were post-war cost-saving measures that Truman said he regretted.

The compensation was not in the House version of the stimulus bill. But it was inserted by Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, who lost an arm in combat in World War II.

The compensation provision has not been without controversy. CNN's Lou Dobbs is railing against it, and several senators -- including Arizona's John McCain -- objected to including the lump-sum payments in a bill whose purpose is to stimulate the U.S. economy.

Inouye said "the honor of the United States is what is involved.''

Of the 250,000 Filipino vets of World War II, about 12,000 live in the Philippines and 6,000 in the United States. About 30,000 came to the country in the early '90s after President George H.W. Bush signed a bill granting them instant citizenship. About 2,000 settled in the Bay Area. But all but a few hundred have either died or returned to the Philippines because life here was too hard.

Daddy (we pronounce it "DAH-dee" in my family) fought alongside U.S. troops in the jungles of the Philippines during WWII. From what Nanay ("Mom" in Tagalog) told me, a shell explosion nearly rendered Daddy impotent. The explosion killed some of his compatriots. Nanay joked that there was a difference of an inch or so between Daddy subsequently starting a family with her, and of none of us - kids, grandkids, great grandkids - ever existing at all.

Daddy died almost 4 years ago. Four years too late to receive the $15,000 the United States promises him now under President Obama's stimulus package ($9,000 had he not been a U.S. citizen), and almost 70 years too late after the U.S. promised some kind of honorary recompense. I don't yet know the details, but I'm doubtful any of that money can be still made available to Nanay, his widow. It may not extend that way.

I feel more sorrowful for those old veterans, Daddy's fellow soldiers, back in the Philippines. They had endured decades of poverty and inadequate health care. The money they never received from the U.S. all those years could've helped them immensely. Alas, many of them have already died. If the money were not extended to their spouses and family, then what good is it? It only magnifies the years of cruel insensitivity the U.S. has displayed toward them. Toward Daddy.

Stimulus To Repay Debt To WWII Filipino Veterans | NPR (audio story)

Morning Edition, February 23, 2009 · The economic stimulus bill signed by President Obama contains $198 million to pay a long-overdue debt to Philippine veterans of World War II. They were promised payments for fighting the Japanese but never were paid. Some of those war veterans in California desperately need the money.

I do know that if Daddy were still alive today and received the money, it would mean nothing to him. What did mean everything to him was the honour of defending his country against invading enemies, of fighting alongside the U.S., the country that to him deeply meant the light of the world in terms of possibilities, the country he eventually made home with Nanay and us, his kids. Being in the U.S. was all he wanted for us, meaning opportunities for us that many Filipinos back in the Philippines would never enjoy.

If Daddy had received that money today he would have divided it among his kids and grandkids, perhaps helping pay for some of my nieces' and nephews' college tuition, investing in bonds for my grand niece, and just endowing us with it and trusting us to do wise things with it.

Money to him only had meaning as a symbol. In this case it would have meant a certain honour, a "Thank You" from the country he had fought with, and in the end, the country he called home.


Postscript:

According to The Seattle Times:

"The U.S. Embassy in Manila said it will start accepting applications next week for lump-sum payments of $15,000 for veterans who have become U.S. citizens and $9,000 for non-U.S. citizens.

Applications must be submitted by Feb. 16, 2010, and claims by spouses, widows or children of veterans will not be accepted..."

Related:

audio blog: croissants & swindlers | a space alien

audio blog: city of garbage

^ Imagine living and playing here as an 8-year-old with little possibility of a better future. More in-depth videos (in 5 parts) about the "city of garbage", reported by a young Scandinavian man visiting Manila. Countries in Scandinavia, particularly Sweden, boast some of the world's very best health care systems (arguably better than the U.S.) and generally excellent quality of life for all its citizens.

Uploaded by www.cellspin.net

Postscript:

The video above was presented by United Methodist Communications. I understand that there are many Christian organizations helping impoverished people in third world countries around the globe and I salute their noble efforts. However, I vehemently oppose some of them in their influencing governments (including the U.S. government under the Bush administration) to stop planned parenthood programs. This is because such programs advocate abortion, contraception, condom use, and education on safe sex practices, which many Christians oppose, especially the Vatican.

This is moronic, I say, and is completely at odds with the ugly reality these poor people deal with day to day. As a result of such Christian influences families keep growing under festering circumstances, thus more children are born into poverty and disease. People who are well educated about safe sex, contraception, and the burden of familial responsibilities while in poverty are more likely to think twice before having another child.

to president obama: "i'm feeling good"

This is my personal presidential inauguration song. We got this, man. Let's do it. And to Ms. Simone, you are damn fierce, thank you for you.

our difficult but worthwhile journey begins

Bakary Kamara, an immigrant from the west African nation of Gambia, cried in New York after Mr. Obama was sworn in.

Obama Is Sworn In as the 44th President | The New York Times

Let's get to work, my fellow Americans, and my fellows around the world. We got this, man. Let's do it.

The swearing in and inauguration speech.

the deadly risks of just being you

^ Sajida Bibi tells her story.

From Victim To Heroine | The New York Times (video, 5:26)

From rape to slavery to honor killings, extreme oppression can be the norm for Pakistani women. But, Times Op-Ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof reports from Pakistan that one courageous woman has built an oasis of hope in her village.

Chances are some of you reading this blog post are female, American, and enjoying the freedoms of being a woman in a democratic first world country in the 21st century while still advocating for even more rights, from preserving Roe v. Wade to a law for equal pay. You can easily and effortlessly bare your face and head in public, wear pants or leg exposing skirt and heels, go on dates, even fall in love and couple with someone without necessarily marrying them first. You know, all the things we take for granted. You embrace personal responsibility for your own decisions, you're respected and admired for your accomplishments, and you breeze through life on your own terms.

But in a country like Pakistan, staggeringly huge amounts of money are being invested by the government in nuclear arms (with some help from the U.S., not surprisingly). In fact we Americans continue to give our tax money to the Pakistan government, who in turn continue to funnel it into their military. And yet little effort is spent on building their human infrastructure - education, schools in remote villages, domestic industries and jobs, and human rights assessment and legislation, especially for women.

In Pakistan if you even dated a man without the approval of your family, you could easily be scorned by them. And your own family could, by tradition, allow you to be gang raped, or even murder you for it. Your own family. Your own brothers and father would be more than willing to sell you off as a slave, if not kill you instead. This is happening today, right now, as it has happened again and again for hundreds of years. Be glad you don't live there as a woman.

^ This is what could easily happen to you as a woman if you simply wanted to marry for love in Pakistan. ABC News, September 2008. I had tears in my eyes watching this story.

Sajida Bibi is a beautiful young woman who is simply trying to live her life. In The New York Times video above she tells her story. Because she had "shamed" them, her own brothers couldn't even decide whether to kill her or sell her off into slavery. There are many other women like her, surviving and eventually getting on while still existing in the shadow of a vicious and cruel patriarchal society and culture. But there are also other women who aren't as strong and must live in mortal fear, they continue to be subjugated to a tradition that treats women as the property of men.

And isn't it hard for you to enjoy your life and your accomplishments when you live under the threat of abuse, torture, and even death for simply trying to be you?

Related:

when fierce, wear pink! | a space alien

earth hugging fundamentalist retardation?

^ "Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide, argues that most atheists are in no position to attack religion if they support environmentalism, which he claims is becoming an almost cult-like religion of its own." | iPhone friendly YouTube version

Mr. Plimer definitely raised my eyebrows. After reading books by outspoken and prolific 'brights' such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens (all of whom are categorically lumped as radical atheists), and after my own personal falling out with Catholicism (where I agree with Bart Ehrman's summation of Christianity's seeming incompetence at logically explaining God's apathy towards profound human suffering and tragedy), I watched this clip of Mr. Plimer's proposal. It just makes sense.

In the NPR interview with Terry Gross, Bart Ehrman, who wrote the book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question: Why We Suffer, as well as Misquoting Jesus, had a few thoughts to share. He is also chairman of the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A former priest, now agnostic, Mr. Ehrman hints at a 'spiritual hole' left when one chooses to walk away from religious faith. Staunch atheists Mr. Harris and Mr. Dawkins argue that the hole can easily be filled by very tangible secular values based on one's understanding of life experience and scientific evidence and observations - God has nothing to do with familial love or the beauty of a sunset. Instead just give the damned credit where it's due: family itself, and our own innate talent to emote based on our aesthetic appreciation and awe of natural phenomenon. In other words, secular values created by us as human beings, to be enjoyed on that merit alone.

But according to Mr. Plimer, once again our ignorance and the consequent fear it brings causes us to cathect yet another religion. Anthropologically superstition and supernatural beliefs were created by us as a species to try to allay our fear of unexplainable goings on in the universe. Today as our disillusion with a Judeo-Christian deity grows, thus gradually leaving a gaping hole in its wake, that hole is being filled by a new kind of manufactured belief - frantic earth hugging. Or as it is more commonly known, Environmentalism.

So far there are conflicting arguments among scientists around the world about the actual causes of global warming. We do know that man-made pollution and senseless exploiting of natural resources, made possible by a huge surge in the human population, industrialization, and rampant consumerism, are causing damage to our environment, and that bickering and pointing fingers aren't really helping to even at least tamp down the global hemorrhaging. And we know, too, that it's always good to be mindful of how and how much we use our natural resources, to be moderate in our consumption, and that we need to re-assess the infrastructure of our industries, habitats, communities, and personal lives to waste as little as possible.

However there's a difference between being realistically, common sensibly responsible and being an extremist ignoramus about it. How many of us, for example, know that recycling aluminum is more expensive and energy consuming than just making things from the original ore being mined?

But there has yet to be an across-the-board consensus supported by irrefutable scientific data that shows what's actually causing global warming, whether man-made or entirely natural, and whether it's fixable. Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com has a lot to say about this:

I believe the United States was clearly right in its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, because of its fundamentally nonsensical exemptions. In short, the Kyoto Protocol restricts nations based on how wealthy they are, not based on how much greenhouse gas they produce! The United States would have had to adopt economy-strangling restrictions, while China, which will surpass the United States as the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases by 2010 at the speed at which an IndyCar passes a hobo pushing a shopping basket, remains exempt from any restrictions. India, the world's third largest producer of greenhouse gases, is also exempt.

Blanket proclamations like the Kyoto Protocol are not the way to approach the problem with any workable practicality. In fact, 13 of the 15 European nations who did ratify Kyoto have been unable to comply with its requirements.

I agree with Mr. Dunning's inference that, as a species, keeping our shit in check must absolutely be a worldwide effort, and no nation, not even the tiniest ones, should be exempt if we want efficacy. But the stupid, juvenile arrogance of upcoming countries like China and India is as pathetic as the arrogant extreme liberals demanding impractical conditions and time-lines for carbon emission reductions. Some advocates of industrial, economic, and commerical growth of those upcoming countries have even gone so far to say, in effect, "Well, the U.S. and Europe had their chance to be big, it's our turn now!" Does that sound like a mature and responsible global citizen to you?

^ The entire program: "Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?" (1hr. 40min.)

"While the world's religions have inspired stunning acts of creation, they also have been implicated in some of the darkest deeds in human history.

If God cannot be blamed for such moments of evil, His priests and prophets at least have a case to answer.

So what might they say? That religion is unfairly blamed -- and that we should look to other factors? Admit that there are problems but argue that on balance the good outweighs the bad? That there is no alternative; that people need religion like they need air?" - Intelligence Squared

Anyway, I ramble. Environmentalism is at its core a very noble cause. But as with any kind of cause or belief system it has that peril of easily slipping into dangerous radical fanaticism when unchecked. I've watched YouTube clips of crazed tree huggers sobbing uncontrollably at the death of even one plant by human hands (warning: that video is extremely hard to watch in how those people willingly descend into sheer moronism). Believe me when I say that I honestly can't tell the difference between their behaviour and that of televangelists or Baptist preachers causing their flock to burst into fits of screams and cries toward their god, or of anti-abortionists planning bomb attacks on abortion clinics.

< Yes, it's possible for us all to be responsible stewards of our natural planet without resorting to the stupidity of fundamentalist left leaning beliefs and pseudoscientific nonsense.


I am an atheist, and one who respects the beliefs of others as long as they don't force them on me or mess with governmental legislation to force others to live according to their beliefs. I have good friends who practice their faith and I admire them for it precisely because they respect my stance. They're good people, they do good things.

But like anyone with a reasonable demeanor based on rationality I will remain an atheist until there is undisputable scientific proof of the existence of any kind of superior omnipotent being out there, whether or not it even wants to be worshipped. That, too, applies toward any new kind of religion or dogma that encourages the projection of one's ignorance, insecurities and fears onto real concerns with potentially detrimental consequences, no matter how noble its intent.

Mr. Plimer's words are a warning to us to stay in check, an echo of Winston Churchill's wisdom for the ages:

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."

Yeah, I know the value of trees, but that does NOT oblige me to have to embarrass myself and throw my arms around one and try to force others to do the same. And even if the trees had feelings, I don't think they would want to be embarrassed like that, either.

when fierce, wear pink!

^ Meet the pink ladies of India. You DO NOT want to fuck with them, they are at least a hundred strong and getting even stronger with new recruits. Fierceness never looked so chic, don't you agree? | Part 2 of this program.

I first found out about this incredible gang of women from a BBC News story last year. My initial reaction was the typical "You go girl!", but the more I ruminated on it the more I felt both inspiration and sadness. Inspired, naturally because of the extreme courage of Sampat Pal Devi, founder of the Gulabi Gang. She had the balls (so to speak) to finally stand up to the physical, psychological, and social abuses she and other women of her region had endured for years from the very family they relied on and from the community they lived in.

The very thought of being perfectly conditioned from birth to accept your lowly status not only as a woman, but as one of the worst treated groups in India's traditional caste system seems like an entire world away from what American women in the 21st century just about take for granted. Yes, there are still parts of the world today where it feels like you exist in the Bronze Age. It's also mind bogglingly ironic how India, one of the upcoming leaders of the world in terms of technology, industry, and commerce still treats many of its citizens like animals. Many of the 'dalit' class are subjected to what we would consider supremely humiliating and dehumanizing work.

Like you and me, these are good people, and given the chance they can do incredible work to contribute to the progress of their community, their country, and of the world. They are no different from us, yet they have been intently thrown into the garbage by their own people, by their culture, their government.

And of course I felt sad about this gang because of why they had to form themselves. To have your very own husband beat you day to day, your own in-laws physically abuse you. And you can't fight back because it is all you've ever known. And even worse, the local police do nothing because they're so corrupt and, frankly, don't give a shit. It simply makes Sampat's story, and the stories of her female allies, all the more extraordinary. Yes, in this case it needed extreme measures to counter and eventually champion equally (if not more so) extreme, horrible situations.

^ The legendary Vogue editor and fashion icon Diana Vreeland once declared that "Pink is the navy blue of India". I wonder what she would have thought of Sampa and her girls. I bet she would have then declared, "Navy blue never looked so fierce and chic, my dear!"

Think about it, we're talking about hundreds of years of brutal physical abuses of women living within their culture, which is all they've ever known. Sampat and her sisters-in-arm have never been properly educated if at all, most of them are illiterate, but all they want is to live with some respect and dignity and to work and to provide for their children.

Sampat and her gang are trying to undo centuries of cruelty and mistreatment in perhaps a radical way. But if this must be the way for them to do it, so be it. It is her ultimate way of saying "Fuck you! You mess with me and you'll never live to see tomorrow! And I will look so fucking chic wasting your sorry ass, too!"

angelina jolie asks for justice, then peace

^ Jolie argues that "there is no peace without justice" and crimes against humanity must be prosecuted.

This is what most of us have actually forgotten as we have our countries send food and supplies to victims and refugees in places like Darfur or Sierra Leone. Often mothers and their daughters who had been raped, or whose children and fathers had been massacred are soon after sent back to their villages where their rapists and murderers live and were allowed to walk away from the crimes. What does that say about justice in those parts of the world where it's most desperately needed?

It's always when I'm aware of these atrocities that I again and again thank my parents for bringing me and my siblings over from a third world country. Even if the Philippines has a better judicial system than Darfur, it's still very spotty and very dangerously inconsistent compared to the American system or most nations in Europe or other more politically and ideologically advanced countries. It's humbling for me, and more importantly, reminds me to never, ever take my freedom for granted.

Related: Angelina Jolie's humanitarian work outlined.

in honour of election '08

Jesus Jones - Right Here Right Now

A woman on the radio talks about revolution
when it's already passed her by
but Bob Dylan didn't have this to sing about
you know it feels good to be alive

I was alive and I waited waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history

I saw the decade in, when it seemed
the world could change at the blink of an eye
And if anything
then there's your sign of the times

I was alive and I waited waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now

I was alive and I waited waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history

Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history

Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now, watching the world wake up

I am - we are all - a part of this history.

to the next u.s. president...

^ "The U.S. is not above the world, it is in the world..."

...and by extension, to all of us Americans, here are some very, very wise words for us from our neighbours around the planet.

"why filipinos support obama"

^ Carolina G. Hernandez is currently Professor of Political Science at the University of the Philippines and the holder of its Carlos P. Romulo Professorial Chair in International Relations. She is founder and President of the Institute for Strategic and Development Studies, an independent, non-profit think tank on foreign policy, domestic politics, and security concerns and development issues.

The view from the promontory of the intellectual echelon in my country of origin seems to be a generally hopeful one despite all the governmental and bureaucratic depravity, the embarrassingly huge scope of poverty, and the day-to-day misery of so many of my fellow countrymen.

The cynical Filipino in me says, "Barack Obama can't possibly be qualified to run the Philippines. He's not corrupt enough!"

politically illiterate, I

^ Kara Walker, My Complement, My Enemy, My Oppressor, My Love. Installation, the Whitney Museum of Art (2007). "When Kara Walker cut out paper silhouettes of fantasy slave narratives, with characters — black and white alike — inflicting mutual violence, she attracted censure from some black artists. At least some of those objecting had personal roots in the civil rights years and an investment in art as a vehicle for racial pride and spiritual solace."

- On Race And Art, ARTADOX.com

I don't know how to politic (yeah, I use this word as a verb, never mind how erroneous that is). I never really grew up being aware of, much less acting on, the political world and how it affects - i.e. controls - my world.

> Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author, feminist, former politician, public speaker, and champion and advocate of human rights, is one of my personal heroes. Her book, Infidel, which serves double purpose as both autobiography and political testament, ignited a white hot worldwide controversy and, for me, was a very emotionally and politically difficult read. Because of her political beliefs and outspoken views on the negative effects of dogma - particularly Islamic dogma - she has become a target of death threats and lives her life in hiding, under close 24/7 security watch.

Some of my siblings have always been politically passionate or at least have some understanding of what goes on and how it works, but not I. My oldest sister was a hardcore activist when she was college age, she's a card carrying atheist, and today she still considers herself a socialist. The youngest sister is very much against illegal immigration. "Mom and Dad came to this country and brought all of us here with them legally! Why the hell don't those illegal immigrants do the same?!" she says. My fourth oldest brother has a lot of nasty - and truthful - things to say about loudmouthed fundamentalist Christians who lobby for various legislation in order to force all Americans to live according to the demands of the Bible.

^ "Calling things by their name" | Ayaan Hirsi Ali has the balls to confront and shed an unforgiving light on what most politicians - and for that matter most of us Americans - too often stupidly and cowardly try to avoid in our liberal and 'politically correct' conversations and action. As Americans are we really that scared and uninformed that we run away from this?

I did have some exposure to politics when I was in art school in the late 80s. Or perhaps it was more like exposure to politicizing. I discovered some really good contemporary (and often controversial) artists like Jenny Holzer, Barbara Kruger, Jonathan Borofsky, Andres Serrano, and Adrian Piper. Through these artists I discovered that creative individuals are very capable of inspiring, galvanizing, and solidarizing other individuals to think, decide, and act, often times through profoundly creative works.

< Andres Serrano, Piss Christ. 1987. Cibachrome print mounted on Plexiglass.


I remember one year in school when, as part of a group exhibit, an undergrad student set up an installation using a wall-mounted lectern on which was a log asking people to write in their opinions on the proper use and display of the American flag. However, in order to access the log to write, they had to either step on, or around, an actual flag placed on the floor directly under the lectern. This ignited a seriously hot controversy at the time and ended up being on the news locally, nationally, and internationally. Patriotism or blind idolatry? Conditional respect or unchecked worship? Freedom of free speech or act of treachery (or worse, treason)?



> Untitled (rape series), 1992; various all white fabrics, red embroidered text. Visionaries AIDS Benefit Fashion Show, Cairo Nightclub, Chicago. This series of women's clothing represents the extent of my interest in the political at the time, exploring issues of cross historical treatment of women, sexual violence, chastity, purity, repression, attraction and repulsion, and conflict.

I experimented with politically and socially charged art myself, particularly after receiving my undergrad degree. But I never really pursued it with great determination and intense curiosity like those artists whose work I admired did, and I think it was because I was too self-absorbed to do so, much like so many - too many - other Americans. Today I realize that was a mistake, I should have followed my gut instincts and forged such a path to its natural directions, wherever they may lead. That would've been the true direction for me as an artist.

Today I'm very closely watching the goings on in these weeks leading up to the election on November 4. I've never been so political before in my life, never been so involved in, so passionate about, and so scared for, the direction my country is going and what it means globally.

But I still can't really articulate the fundamentals of what defines liberalism and republicanism, and all the other isms and whatnots that make up this stupefyingly complicated world of politics. I have a bit of liberalism in me, but I also passionately believe in the kind of elemental conservatism that Ayaan Hirsi Ali believes in.

I have a lot of homework and a lot of catching up to do in order to further define where I stand in the world. Thank god for Wikipedia and 'the Google'.