Monday, June 18, 2007

No Memories

Rain on the window
Tears in my eyes
Everywhere this feeling
Yes it came as a surprise
No help at all
With that thorn in your side
Not waking up
Where were you Christ?

Lay there, so peacefully
In your forever bed
"Right here," Do you feel me
Stroking your head?
You would always be here
Yes, that's what you said
Now just lay there, so peacefully
In your forever bed

See the rain on my window
Cracked through and through
Needs you to come sew it
And make it brand new
You would always be here
With your needle and thread
Ready to come fix me
Yes, that's what you said

No Memories
They were here, now they're gone
No Memories. Anymore.

Ever so slowly, your image, it fades
And it's getting harder and harder
To make it stay
No, don't go away

Now this day has come
Too early in your life
There's just one last question
But why ask why?
There was no help at all
With that thorn in your side
Oh yes, this day has come
Too early in your life

Yes there's rain on the window
And tears in my eyes
You're everywhere, this feeling
I didn't want this surprise
And there was no help at all
With this thorn in your side
No more waking up
Where were you Christ?

My pen glides this paper
In memory of you
Oh joyous life
And of everything you knew

And all of these people
That you left behind
Will try to save your picture
As it withers from my mind

Ever so slowly, your image, it fades
Leaving me empty and broken
With no memories
No, don't go away

Still rain on the window
And tears in my eyes
Everywhere. This feeling
Yes it came as a surprise
And with no help at all
With that thorn in your side
Not waking up that day
Where were you Christ?

Topics: , , ,

Friday, May 11, 2007

Thomas Aquinas is dumber than a 1980s sitcom star, or Kirk Cameron is at it again ...

I guess technically, for me, it's really a wash.

You may recall this: Kirk Cameron waxing biblical for 30 minutes about why the banana is proof of creationism.

Well, our dear Mike Seaver is at it again, having appeared recently on Nightline to help kick off what they are endearingly referring to as "Nightline Face-Off" (It is such a clever title, I'll let you guess what the segment is like). Apparently he came with something that "no theologian, philosopher, or sitcom star in recorded history" had ever had: not one, but three (3) unequivocal proofs for the existence of "God." In a nutshell, here's his 3 proofs:

  • All things have makers
  • the human conscience is evidence of a higher moral power
  • if you read the Gospel, then Christ will be revealed to you

My dear, dear, antiquated and washed up actor nutjob friend -- open your god-damned eyes (seemed appropriate?) please. I'm not going to go off and attack these ridiculous (and old) arguments for the existence of a higher power. To quote the linked Slate article, "for reasons too stupid to type, this was not an airtight case." You really only need to pick up any number of books to see exactly why these "proofs" are asinine -- The God Delusion, however cliche at this point, blows the first two out of the water, and, Christ, every atheist on the planet (myself included) who have read the "Good News" are counter-examples to the third.

Check out the article, linked below, for a more in-depth report of the shenanigans.

Monday, April 09, 2007

Venom finally shows his ugly face

After months and months of wondering what the movie version of Spider-man's venomous nemisis (how's that for alliteration?) would look like, Yahoo! Movies has finally got the scoop. They released a new version of the coveted "Final" Spider-man 3 trailer in which there is a 1 second clip of Venom lunging at the screen, mouth open wide. Overall, I like it a lot. I wish he was a bit tongue-ier though.

Yes, tongue-ier is a word. Obviously

[UPDATE 4/22] has discovered the first studio produced image of Venom. He looks pretty darn tonguey.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, April 02, 2007

hmm. Hope?

Just heard on Bill Mahr that nearly 1 out of every 5 US Citizens age 19-30 are either agnostic or atheist. Wanted to write that down before I forgot it.

Maybe there is some hope for the future of our country after all.

Labels: , ,

Friday, March 30, 2007

RIAA Lawsuit Decision Matrix

Click to see it bigger (and legible).

Labels: ,

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Peanut Butter is not "primordial soup"

Consider this a follow-on to Kirk Cameron's previously documented madness. I find it humorous whenever a Creationist or an Intelligent-Design-believer opens his or her mouth because, quite frankly, an astronomical percentage of them are just so blatantly science-ignorant. Isn't the first rule of war to "know thy enemy"? Apparently these people didn't get that particular memorandum.

I've read the Bible (more than I can say for most Christians!); some parts even more than once! I've read Augustine AND Aquinas. How many Christians even recognized two of their most prolific writers? I read this stuff because it astounds me that people believe in it, and I am genuinely curious about it.

So why is it that "Bible-thumpers" refuse to pick up Darwin, or Dawkins, or Harris, or Hawkins, or Einstein, or Jefferson, or any other writer in history from whom they may actually learn something. Why don't they look at me and wonder how I can not believe? They don't have to believe what they read or regard it as true, but it sure would help your case if you were at least quasi-familiar with the material you are speaking about.

And that is a rant I was not panning on writing. I'm out.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Classic George Carlin

In the bullshit department, a businessman can't hold a candle to a clergyman.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

How I Met Your Mother: Slap Bet Montage

This is why I love this show. I really think it could be Friends for a new generation.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

I am so READY

Labels: , ,

Friday, March 09, 2007

Don't forget to say "RRRRRR"

<3 it

[Via Boing Boing]

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Crazy Christians Create Their Own Wikipedia

Apparently there are some in the Christian community who think our dear Wikipedia is too "biased" for their liking. These are basically the nutty Creationists and Intelligent Design people. So if you are a Christian, don't think I'm calling you names -- unless, of course, you happen to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old or don't believe in Evolution. In that case...well, to each his own I guess.

So these people have gone and created their own Wiki Encyclopedia and called it Conservapedia. (They are using the guise of Conservatism since most of these crazy peeps are aligned with our country's conservative party).

Instead of having a set of rules, Conservapedia has Commandments. Hmm, wonder where that idea came from. Lets investigate (highlighted for your pleasure):

  1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
  2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
  3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
  4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
  5. As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used.[1]
  6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

The sheer hilarity of these "commandments" is off the charts. First of all, 1 and 6 are redundant. Personal opinion is, by definition mind you, decidedly not true and verifiable: opinion and fact are mutually exclusive.

Number 5 is amusing because, really, what the hell is wrong with the British spelling of words? Maybe I like an Encyclopaedia with an ae. Or colours. Or maybe I can't stand the letter z (pronounced 'Zed'), so I'd prefer it organise and not organize. I guess these people think that because it is not American it is unpatriotic and wrong. Wasn't it their language first after all?

The real kicker here is the snippet on BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. I still can't believe the flagrant violation of the two redundant commandments here; they even try to hide their opinions by claiming it is based on the "historical basis"of the term. I defy them to provide me with verifiable truth that Jesus was born on December 25th, 1. Sure there is a "historical basis" for the term, but even that historical basis is not based on the supposed truth they hold so dear. We use the terms BCE and CE because we do know when January 1, 1 occurred on the Gregorian Calendar; that is verifiable and true. By most indications, if Jesus existed, he could have been born as early as 8 B.C.

Peruse the insanity. Entries on CE, Slavery, Abortion, Creationism, Evolution, etc, just drip with opinion, and bias, and misnomers, and falsities (oh man, especially Evolution). Don't spend too much time there or you will come out a little dumber; that much should be guaranteed on their front page.

I really, really want to go on and on about how bad this site is, and how scary the idea of people using it as a resource is, but I don't want to give it anymore thought. It is making me want to cry for our country and planet.

Last time I checked, Wikipedia did a pretty good job providing both sides to every story.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Testicals, Specticals, Wallet and Watch?

Have you checked yourself for Testicular Cancer today?

Damn Brits are hot.

Labels: ,

Rectal Politics

I heard the following on the much missed Penn Radio Show. It's funny :)

Republican:"Don't put anything in your butt"
Democrat:"You can put anything in your butt, as long as it is approved, regulated and taxed by a federal agency"
Libertarian:"Put whatever you want up your butt, but don't call me when it gets stuck"

Labels: ,

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

A Libertarian Majority?

Political Spectrum
For a little over a year I have considered myself a "Libertarian." Or rather, a little over a year ago, I learned the word Libertarian and decided that it was a perfect description of the way I have felt for my entire life.

I also figured I was somewhat alone on this one.

How could I not? We live in a broken two party system. There are campaign financing laws in place that prevent independents and the like from getting a loud enough voice. When elections come around, you have only ever heard of the Democrat or GOP options.

Whenever I tell people that know anything about politics that I am a libertarian, they generally look on me as if I had just told them that I don't believe in god. To them, I was the annoying kid in the sandbox that was messing up their play time with my ideals.

I have, however, always intuited that there are a lot more libertarian minded people out there, like I used to be, who are equally frustrated at not fitting into the two party scheme.

Well, according to a recent report on the Official Website of the Libertarian Party, my intuition may be correct. After wading through an overabundance of Prom metaphor, you get to the following blurb:

Let's take a look at some of the numerical potential Libertarians have, though. In a recent Cato Institute Study, David Boaz and David Kirby found that 13 percent of the voting age population and 15 percent of actual voters are libertarian. While not enough to win an election outright, in the words of Boaz and Kirby, this amounts to "about the same share of the electorate as the 'religious right,' and a larger share than the fabled 'soccer moms' and 'NASCAR dads.'"

Everyone doesn’t have to be a "perfect libertarian" (whatever that is) in order to pull the Libertarian lever, though. Expanding on the 13 to 15 percent number that Boaz and Kirby used, last year the Gallup Organization (once again) found that 20 percent of Americans are libertarian, while 27 percent are conservative and 24 percent are liberal.

Well, that's pretty equal. But it gets even better...

In another survey, Boaz and Kirby used the widest brush possible to define libertarians in the American public. While the survey results were overly broad in scope, they do indicate that the numbers potentially exist for Libertarians to win elections around the country.

"We also asked a new question. We asked half the sample, 'Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?' We asked the other half of the respondents, 'Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?'

"The results surprised us. Fully 59 percent of the respondents said 'yes' to the first question. That is, by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal.'

"The addition of the word 'libertarian' clearly made the question more challenging. What surprised us was how low the drop-off was. A robust 44 percent of respondents answered 'yes' to that question, accepting a self-description as 'libertarian.'"

The last time I checked, 44 percent represents significantly more votes than are required to win a three-way political contest.

This goes to show you that 59% of Americans share many of my sandbox disrupting ideals (granted, even if you are skeptical of the number itself, the very idea that about half of the country are would-be libertarians is astounding). Furthermore, the 44% shown by the other sample explains that perhaps people aren't as afraid of the moniker as once thought.

So, perhaps, if the party can get itself together, maybe we can start fixing the political mess this country finds itself in.

This begs the question: Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, February 26, 2007

"Humanity Lobotomy" - Net Neutrality Explained

Net Neutrality is one of the few issues where I support government regulation. After watching the above video, I hope you can see why.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 23, 2007

Spoon bending using telekenesis - what a nutbar!

How people believe this insanity is beyond me. It is amazing in what people can believe.

In any case, if you ever wanted to know how to bend spoons with your mind...
  1. Go in your drawer and pick out 10 or so spoons. And lay them out on the table. Use your feeling and let them tell you which spoon will bend. (I know it sounds funny but this is what I did the first time).
  2. When you feel you have the right spoon and mind you pick one that is fairly thin to start out with.
  3. Hold the spoon vertical and look at it and ask it to bend. Or say you will bend for me. Really believe it.

More at the link.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Larry Lessig Strikes Again: "Orphan Works Reform"

This guy is just a genius. Nuff said. You may recall my recent post of another one of his talks here. One of the best speakers I've ever seen. I'd love to see him live.

Here's his original blog post where this video originated from.

I have another post in the works on the separation of church and state. And by "in the works" I mean "I totally want to write one and have for a while". It'll basically just be a rant, but it's about something that really bugs me.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Michael Caine thinks Baltimore is lame

Michael Caine
So, apparently, Michael Caine (Alfred from Batman Begins) is not too keen on shooting scenes from the upcoming Bat-sequel in my home town of Baltimore.

In related news, the sequel to Batman Begins entitled The Dark Knight will be filming in Baltimore.

From Superherohype:
Veteran entertainment journalist Army Archerd recently talked to actor Michael Caine, who revealed that the upcoming Batman Begins sequel The Dark Knight will be shooting in Hong Kong, London, L.A. and of all places, Baltimore.

"Baltimore!" Caine exclaims in the interview. "What will happen in Baltimore?"

[UPDATE: Turns out that Michael Caine was talking about a different Baltimore somewhere in the UK. I'm not the only one who got this wrong. Lots of other traditional news outlets thought he meant Maryland as well]

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, January 05, 2007

Ask A Ninja: Ninja Omnideuce

There's a new episode of Ask a Ninja out today. It is such rapid fire hilarity you barely have time to finish laughing before the next moment of comedic genius glides into you with two swords drawn.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Lawrence Lessig - The Differences between Culture and Code

Lawrence Lessig at the 23C3 Conference - On Free, and the Differences between Culture and Code.

Larry Lessig's entry at Wikipedia:
He is currently professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.


In 2002, Lessig was awarded the FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software from the Free Software Foundation (FSF), and on March 28, 2004 he was elected to the FSF's Board of Directors[2]. In 2006, Lessig was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences[3]. Lessig is also a well-known critic of copyright term extensions.

He proposed the concept of "Free Culture"[4]. He also supports free software and open spectrum[5]. He is founder and CEO of the Creative Commons and a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. At his "Free culture" keynote at OSCON 2002, half of his speech was also about software patents, which he views as a rising threat to both free/open source software and innovation. Lessig is on the board of directors of Software Freedom Law Center, launched in February 2005.

Labels: , , , , ,