I'll take rational thought with a side of Atheism, please.

I am incredibly disheartened today. I read an article not long ago about Pope Benedict attacking Atheism as "cruel and unjust"saying that it had led to some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” known to mankind. What? Explain please. (He doesn't,) Perhaps the good Pope forgot that "he who asserts must prove."

I think the very basic aspect of all of this can be boiled down to one single question, especially when he is labeling Atheism as cruel and unjust and saying that it has led to cruelty and violations of justice: When was the last time someone attacked someone else (be that plural or singular) in the name of Atheism? When was the last time it happened in the name of god?

You still want to argue that religion is good for our world? Without religion the twin towers would still be standing (arguably.) Without religion we'd be a whole lot smarter and technologically advanced. We'd be a whole lot more rational, we'd be a whole lot safer. We'd be a whole lot less scared, and a whole lot more responsible for our own lives.

I'm also disheartened that Benedict completely misses the idea behind Atheism. He says that Atheism was created to explain the creation of justice by man since there was no god to do it. False, good sir. Atheism is the rational and logical explanation for the state of the world. No god has provided laws for us (men have, in all cases.)

The Pope said, but “the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false”. Again, false, good sir. It is not intrinsically false to say that humanity must do what no god does. That's like arguing that it is intrinsically false for one teammate to do what another cannot. The Pope's quote above, actually makes no sense at all whatsoever. The more I read it, the less sense it makes.

There are good aspects to religion, and the idea of god. I cannot deny that. But religion openly and actively tries to slow down progress, make people afraid, and control lives. There is also absolutely zero basis to the theory that without faith in god people are "evil" "morally suspect" or "morally corrupt." Those are just blatant falsehoods. I have been an Atheist since I was 12 years old. That is when I reached the age of reason and realized that the idea of god just didn't make any sense whatsoever. I am not morally reprehensible, morally corrupt, unjust, or evil. I am a good, kindhearted person, who believes that helping people is good. The more you help the better life will be in general.

There are some who will argue that those are religious tenets -- with that I cannot necessarily disagree, but it's worth noting that just because it has some good ideas, that does not warrant diving full-on into it.

I'm an Atheist. I have been for a very long time, and I will be for the rest of my life. I don't want to raise children believing in god, but believing in themselves, and being good people. Logically it makes sense. I want to raise them to question things, find their own truths and answers, and never seek the easy way out. And most importantly, never let their search for answers in anything lead them into cruel and unjust areas. I guess that means keeping them away from Pope Benedict.

Fiscally Overreactive

In more irony news, King Bush and his White Castle (mmmm burgers) have accused the Democratically led Congress of being fiscally irresponsible in their efforts to pass a bill (which he vetoed) that would increase spending on federal education expenses federal healthcare expenses through medicaid and medicare. His beef was a $22 billion increase in the bill over what his budget had laid out over the next 5 years. While Bush is technically correct that paying for those programs would come from the increase of taxes, it's incredibly poignant when we couple his accusation with the knowledge that his 100% unnecessary war has so far cost the nation $1.9 trillion dollars, and with no end in sight, that number is only going to grow. Now, that's $1.9 trillion dollars. Here it is with zeroes: $1,900,000,000.

Additionally, a new report issued says that from 2002-2008 the Iraq and Afghanistan war contain hundreds of hidden costs (two of the most notable: increased healthcare costs for returning veterans [which is another story altogether, given the fact that more are coming back mentally injured, and more are becoming homeless FASTER THAN EVER BEFORE] as well as increased oil prices -- that's right folks, sick of high oil prices? The military uses a lot of it..end the war...watch prices fall,) which end up costing a family of four almost $21,000 over the period of 2002-2008. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I can't think of a single REGULAR family of four (you know, middle class) that can really afford $21,000 over 6 years (yeah I know it's less than $4k a year.) Honestly, who can afford that? And it's not as if we're spending it for any benefit.

The biggest outcome of this war will be the blowback that my generation and my kids and grandkids generations will have to face, when we help to breed a specific brand of people who hate America at a rate far greater than we've ever seen before. We're asking for destruction with this war, not protection.

Fucking ridiculous. Talk about being fiscally irresponsible. Let's spend money to demolish our country, who's with me?

Anyone?

Anyone...?

Didn't think so. Demand Impeachment Now.

Right To Life....really?

So I read online that the National Right To Life Committee is going to be endorsing Fred Thompson his race for the Presidency. I just wanted to check to make sure, because I would be completely blown away if a conservative committee/group of any kind had any sort of hypocrisy, but the National Right To Life Committee is virulently anti-war, correct? I mean, they are virulently anti-abortion, but since they are the "right to life" committee, they must be incredibly anti-war too, right?

Right?

Anyone?

~J

It's Like Raaaaaain, On Your Wedding Day

Isn't it Ironic, don't you think?

Bush recently vetoed a Bill with overwhelming bipartisan support (the bill would be approving lots of water projects to help make our water systems cleaner and safer) saying that it would be too costly and would overtax the army corps of engineers.

So how ironic is it that Bush finds an issue with "overtaxing the army corps of engineers" and the spending of money to approve projects for the country's water systems (another incorrect notion: this bill doesn't approve spending, it only approves projects, further appropriations bills will provide funding) but has absolutely no problem with spending Half A Billion Dollars (at the time of this posting) to finance an unjust, illegal, and useless war? Not to mention the fact that he has no problem with keeping troops in Iraq for longer than ever.

I wish I could say I was more surprised about this, don't you? At least we're getting a veto override out of the deal.

~J

This...this I don't get

Now, there will be a World Series Experience recap coming soon. I've honestly got notes on the whole experience to make sure there are things I don't forget. Should I figure out how to email cell phone pictures to myself, I'll even upload those so you may bask in the glory that was a Red Sox World Series Championship right here in the place I call home, Denver, Colorado.

But that has to wait for a time when I'm a touch less busy -- and perhaps a touch less ridiculously pissed off.

Dennis Kucinich, bless his heart, soul, and Presidential Run, introduced another bill in an attempt to impeach Viceroy Cheney. But when faced with the prospect of actually having to vote on the bill (Republicans were voting to table the bill, but then suddenly said 'no wait, let's vote on it!' forcing Democrats to actually vote on the resolution thereby indicating their position on impeaching Cheney, Democrats suddenly reduced their challenge to tabling the bill, and it was sent to committee where it is expected to die.

What the fuck? Seriously, What the fuck? Pelosi, as much as great change you were over previous house members, you don't deserve to be reelected. You took office with a promise of impeachment, and have since announced it has been taken off the table. Both of the leaders of the executive branch are guilty of multitudinous offenses punishable by impeachment. They have lied, straight faced over and over and over again to the American people. This fact is not even up for debate, it is straight truth, and I cannot in any way shape or form understand why on Earth Democrats do not support impeachment. It makes absolutely no sense to me. End the war, end the lies, end the corruption which has run COMPLETELY rampant since Bush took office. End the oil prices, end the Republican slowdown of healthcare and education bills that will help millions of Americans (the slowdowns of which are subsequently blamed on Democrats and the media dutifully then reports the Conservative line.) I really don't understand what the big deal is. The majority of Americans disapprove of what this administration has done and continues to do. The majority of Americans understand that we were lied to, and have been treated like children. This administration deserves nothing less than impeachment and I cannot for the life of me understand why it is not being done.

Demand Impeachment Now. There is not a single good reason on the face of this Earth why it should not be done.