An atheist's chance in hell

If you've followed the blog and payed attention, then you probably know that I used to be politically active and was a candidate in the last provincial election. If you've never had the pleasure of running for public office, let me say this: it is a 35-day job interview (at least in Canada, where we're sensible about these things. I just watched a 20-month orgy of narcissism and pointlessness not 200km south of here).

Really, just like a job interview, there are standard questions (What are your greatest strengths and weaknesses?), a panel of reviewers, a job on the line, and competition that you probably recognize (depending on the job you're pursuing). It's also exhausting, and given enough time, you eventually say something damning.

As an aside, here's some free job interview advice (though you may not want to take it; I've been to a LOT of interviews, which says something about my skill, maybe): answer the question and shut the hell up.

But back to the anecdote. At about day 22, I started feeling frisky. I was sick of talking points and euphemisms. I didn't want to say "carbon tax" any more. I didn't want to tell people about peak oil. I was sick of being called a moonbat. I was sick of being told that I had done very well explaining the platform, and that I was a smart young man, and that they believed in what I stood for, but wouldn't be voting for me. (I ran as a Green.)

There's a funny little anachronism in Canada's constitution. It guarantees Protestant and Catholic education in all provinces (now except Quebec & Newfoundland). Protestant can now be read "public", but Catholic remains enshrined. It's funny in that it costs Ontario about half a billion dollars a year to run a second school system, and it's an anachronism in that it clearly doesn't reflect the realities of the province. About a third of the province is Catholic, making them easily the largest religious group in Ontario, but still a vocal minority. It was likely political suicide, but the Green Party recognizes that a dual school system is unsustainable and discriminatory, and included in the platform a planto eliminate publicly-funded Catholic education in Ontario. The Tories went the other way and offered to fund EVERYBODY, in the issue of fairness. Both plans are fair (certainly fairer than the current system), but ours is cheaper, easier and inherently more fair.*

As I said, possibly political suicide. But here's the thing. As I got more exhausted, more familiar with our platform and the platforms of the other candidates, more bored with the same old bullshit, and more annoyed at the average Ontario voter, I started saying some crazy things. It was about day 22 that I came out publicly, at a debate, in front of an audience (at a university, to be fair, so a relatively safe environment), and said that I was an atheist.

Did it actually hurt my chances at winning? I don't know. The odds were long to begin with (Green Party, for crying out loud!), but I suspect that declaring my godlessness without shame, without fear and without deferring to the deluded majority cost me votes.

There's no way to track it, and atheism is not the root of all evil in Canada like it is down below, but there's still some ill-will.

Thoughts?

Ray Comfort via Christian Worldview Network

We all know that Comfort is a wackaloon, a fraud, and kind of an in-joke. I wonder if any actual RTCs (with a PTGHWAC to Slacktivist and the LB saga of horribleness) actually listen to and believe him. He get play on like three websites, all hosted by crazy folk who believe things like a 6000 year old earth and dinosaurs on the ark.

He's at it again with the good folks at Christian Worldview Network, reposted from his blog. Here's a few choice bits.

3. God creates the moon as a light, but we know it is not a light.

We are aware that it merely reflects the sun's light, but it is a light that shines at night, as the Bible says. Haven't you heard of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata?

Shazamm!, bitches. Bet you didn't know that I was gonna cite Beethoven on you, didja? Snap! Air-fucking-tight!

5. God creates the Earth before the Sun, what gravitational field is the Earth sitting in?

Every planetary body (including the Earth) is surrounded by its own gravitational field, which exerts an attractive force on all objects. God created gravity, and He holds all things together by His own power (see Colossians 1:17).

Kind of a nonsense question, and Ray responds in kind. He also neglects to mention that every object has gravity, including my pancreas (the relevant bit begins at 2:11).

6. God creates things in three days with "evening and morning" yet in order to have an evening and morning it relies on the Earth to rotate and the light source to come from a point, but God is everywhere.

God created every law of nature, and He is not bound by His own creation. He has power over thunder, lightning, earthquakes, the sun, and the wind, and even over you...as you will eventually find out.

Don't come at me with your "logics" and "arguments", you, you, thinker, you. God is not bound by your puny "reasoning".

And there, once again, is why we are wasting our time on both sides. But it keeps us busy, don't it?

Sporadic posting is the hallmark of a fulfilled life

Actually, the title of this post is bullshit. In fact, I am not posting because I cannot seem to get my shit together. It should have been prime time for me. A Canadian election, a US election, a few byelections here, and the fact that the world economy is swirling around the last few times before hitting the septic tank. I should be in my glory. I should be pontificating and punditing until I get callouses on the "shift" places on my fingertips. I should be able to alternate between masturbating to porn and the latest wingnuttery from the religious right. I should be in ecstasy all the time with the fodder that is thrown our way.

But alas, it does not work that way, I'm afraid. And so to the few subscribers that I had and lost, and to the few who elected to hang onto me for a while, I apologise. I'm going to get my shit together and rail against the universe at least four times a week, now, and look towards posting daily once again.

The problem is this: As gratifying as it is to point out just how ludicrous a person's point of view is on my blog, it isn't actually accomplishing anything. Aside from an occasional troll who's only here to get confirmation that us moonbats are in fact batty, there are few people who ever read this blog, I suspect, who thought my opinions differed greatly from theirs. And while it's nice to have your prejudices confirmed, it's not a particularly useful exercise.

And I couldn't shake the feeling that I simply wasn't doing enough. Despite the fact that the world is getting worse daily, I am powerless to really stop it. And blogging was enabling me to not do anything. I was able to convince myself that I was doing at least something, but blah blah blah. This is all self-justifying bullshit.

I'm depressed. Things are bad, and are about to get worse. I'm one of those guys who loses motivation when depressed. I'm scaterbrained. My shrink thinks I'm ADD, and always have been. It's possible, but now I have to deal with the fact that I'm liable to be medicated my whole life. There are philosophical reasons to avoid it: I honestly believe that ADD is a suitable adaptation to trying to keep track of information in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. When you're a smart guy (as I fancy I am), the amount of knowledge you need to be able to marshal is staggering. So ADD is a suitable compensation. As for the depression, if you're not depressed, it's because you're not paying attention.

So I'm back, anyway, if only because I've started spouting crazy theories again, and it'll be good to be able to record them. I've also started writing some of this shit down again. the two previous posts were on my facebook profile before they arrived here. They were studiously avoided by my friends. I plan on getting increasingly crackpotty over there, just as an experiment. How much will my more marginal friends tolerate? Enquiring minds want to know.

So I'm back, for what it's worth. I've missed this. And I've missed you, loyal reader, if in fact you're still there.

Stay tuned for crazy Obama theories and recommendations, and further commentary on the bigotry of the world at large!

On venom and rhetorical weakness.

One of the things that astonishes me most about the people on the other end of the political spectrum is their venom. Of course, I don't mean everyone with rightist leanings, though to call myself a “leftie” is kind of a misnomer as well, but some of those who self-identify as conservatives are really hateful people.

Again, I don't want to paint everyone with the same brush. An aversion to generalizations and stereotyping are one of the things that makes me more likely to align with liberals. However, aside from what's called Godwin's Law, those who value freedom and compassion are less likely to resort to finger pointing and name-calling. However, the more intractable and traditional a liberal's opponent, the more likely they are to resort to “Hitlering”, and far sooner than one might expect.

There are numerous examples, of course. I can name a dozen hateful right wingers without straining myself:

1.Rush Limbaugh
2.Michael Savage
3.Ann Coulter
4.Jerry Falwell
5.Brannon Howse
6.Sarah Palin
7.Glenn Beck
8.Bill O'Reilly
9.Sean Hannity
10.Laura Schlessinger
11.Michael Coren
12.Ted Haggard
13.Dick Cheney

And I could keep going, (I've got at least three more), but the point is this. I can't think of a liberal who is as hateful, as violent, as rabid, as slavering, as just plain mean as any one of these people. Honestly. The most vehement advocates for social justice, for conservation, for sustainability, for compassion or for human rights are not nearly as violent as the equivalent commentators on the right. Even Greenpeace, while engaging in questionable actions in the name of the environment, are more moderate in their speech than the chorus on the right. Michael Moore, Al Gore, Elizabeth May, Stephane Dion, Even Howard Hampton: all these people are respectful and tolerant. Few resort to name-calling. I don't understand it.

And while I've been insulted several times as part of the “left”: eco-terrorist, Marxist (not really a slur, but in their mouth it's ugly, like many of the others that will follow), godless, secular, atheist, hippie, radical, Islamofascist, ingrate, elitist, feminazi, baby-killer, anti-semite, traitor, anti-Christian, fascist (?), communist, glowtard, and others, I'm rarely insulted personally for my personal beliefs.

Today I was. I'm sure that many of you know my somewhat controversial opinions on the military, its past and current missions, and the role that war plays in society. I don't believe that our intentions in Afghanistan are noble. I don't believe that the men and women who are in Kandahar or Kabul are fighting for my freedom. And I believe that the only reason we are “nation-building” is because we tore the last one down.

I don't believe that killing civilians is good for democracy. I don't believe that we've ever gone to war for anything noble. I'm suspicious of people who claim that this war, that war, the other war and this one over here were all stupid and unjust, but WWII was necessary and great. I've become harshly cynical about military might and how it's used, and I think I come by my cynicism honestly. I watched the most powerful nation in human history invade a much smaller, weaker nation because it's president was apparently told by god that he had to take out that tinpot dictator. I watched that same nation drag my own into a war with one country because a handful of guys from a different country attacked their country in retaliation for half a century of interference. I've watched enough movies about Vietnam vets to know just what awaits the people foolish enough to sacrifice everything for their country in an unpopular war, to say nothing of what they must give up of their humanity even when they fight in a “just”one.

But today, I was accused of ignorance. I was yelled at. I was scolded, and then insulted.

I read several blogs daily, and I used ot blog myself. I've not done it for a while, and the reasons are myriad, but I still keep an eye on the blogosphere, and I try to sample widely. I read commentary that ranges from “way the fuck out there” to “damn near sensible” and everything in between. I comment sporadically, largely because I know that blog comments are not the ideal forum through which to change anyone's mind. Hell, I know how unlikely I am to convince anyone of my viewpoint in any forum. But Remembrance Day is kind of a big deal, and I read a lot of people saying the exact same thing: “I remember.” Eventually it got to me, because it seemed that “I remember” meant “I remember what I was told”. So, against my better judgement, I commented.

I said that Remembrance Day is hard for me because I know what I'm supposed to feel, but instead I just get angry. I mentioned that I don't buy into the “dulce et decorum est” sort of patriotism. I pointed out that national borders are imaginary lines, and imaginary lines are kind of a dumb reason to kill someone. I pointed out that Canadian soldiers are not defending us, because it's been nearly two centuries since Canada was attacked.

“You just don't get it, do you?” said another commenter, and I must admit, I don't. How is it better to go to a foreign country to kill someone than just killing someone here? Why does putting on a uniform make it okay? How can we possibly defending our freedom in Germany, Korea or Afghanistan?

“You don't realize a soldier had to die to enable you to disrespect men and women who would lay down their lives to protect you,” she continued. And I didn't realize that it was just one soldier who had to do it. In fact, I didn't realize that I needed protection from Afghanistan. I didn't realize, even, that I was being disrespectful by pointing out that war exploits the poor for the benefit of the rich.

“That's ok...”, obviously it isn't, “... the strong have always had to carry the weak.”

And there's the insult. I'm weak. Soldiers are strong. I don't deny that they are. I never once suggested that they are. I never would. What I'm saying is that they've been duped. So have we all. War is a racket. It's a con game. Wins are calculated in square miles or in dollars, losses are calculated in number dead. And civilians, who always lose, remain largely uncounted.
The accusation of weakness is not a new one. It's been heaped on peaceniks at least since the sixties, and probably a hell of a lot longer than that. It's easy to say. It implies so much: fear, cowardice, physical and mental weakness, insanity, naivete, and gullibility. It's part of a dichotomy, so it immediately grants the accuser “strength”, and all the attendant qualities: grit, wisdom, sanity, street-sense, guts and intelligence. It's a powerful word, weak, and it's hard to refute, because refutation would mean becoming “strong”.

So there's no way to defend oneself, except by capitulating. I have said on several occasions that I would not serve, even if I was allowed to. I am, therefore, weak. I do not believe the narrative that has been told about any wars, even the “necessary one”. I am weak. I do not like the idea that my country is engaged in an illegal conflict in Asia. I am weak. I do not feel it is necessary to support the troops simply because they sang the same anthem in school everyday.

I am weak.

Perhaps I am weak. I would be afraid to face gunfire. I would be afraid to be exploded. I would hate to wear the same clothes day in and day out. I would be afraid to find out that I am good at killing, and more afraid to find out that I liked it. I would be afraid to lay down my life or take someone else's for something as abstract as “democracy” or “freedom”, or for something as concrete and ugly as “revenge”.

I said earlier that I am rarely attacked personally. This woman does it more than anyone else: this is certainly not the first time this woman has attacked me, and I daresay it won't be the last; I responded to her comment. And I'm sure to draw fire elsewhere, as well. I've become quite unpopular in a few circles online. I know that a few of my friends here on facebook and in real life find my views distasteful, discouraging, and in some cases, I fear, alienating. Most people become more conservative as they get older. I'm becoming more and more radical. If I continue to feel the way I do, and continue to share my opinion with others, I will draw more and more fire. I'm prepared for that.

It is, I suppose, reassuring that personal attacks and insults are their weapon of choice. It implies that my ideas are sound.

It's odd, really, that this particular insult got to me enough so that I felt the need to write this. I think it's because I find this stance hard, while the other one seems so easy. It requires, dare I say, strength to think critically about something so tied up in jingoism, patriotism, emotion, love and death. It's not easy to suggest my father wasted years in the navy. It's hard to accuse someone of dying stupidly.

I don't mean to suggest that other points of view are really any easier. It's the examination that's hard, and it may lead others to different conclusions, some of which might be the same as before examination. I don't know for sure.

I do know that I don't feel particularly weak. And I do know that I addressed her objections without resorting to insults.

We are the dead.

This is a tricky time of year for me.

Tomorrow is Remembrance Day, which for all of us ought to be a time for reflection, gratitude, and humility. It's a time for understanding our place in history, and for recognizing all the amazing things that had to happen for us to be who we are. It's a time to look back on what has happened, at the horrible things that men and women (though mostly men, it must be admitted) have done to each other, usually in the name of something greater than themselves: Germany, God, Democracy, Motherhood (seriously, look at some of the WWI propaganda), or Peace, and to say, as we often do about the Holocaust: “Never again.”

And it's a time to look at the world today, and see that we're still doing it. We're still killing people because they worship the wrong god, or have the wrong system of government or skin colour, or speak the wrong language, or for revenge, or because they have something we need. We still send men and women off to kill other men and women while shouting inspiring slogans and mouthing platitudes to ideals, not recognizing that we're actually sending them off to kill people for far more base reasons: money, power, oil or gas, or god.

In the past, I've recognized the solemnity of Remembrance Day, and I've said many of the same things I say now. I've always said that war is a stupid and wasteful practice, but I used to tell my students about fighting for democracy, about stopping a madman, about saving those who couldn't defend themselves. I used to tell the stories we tell ourselves. I know better now.

The Great War was about alliances. It was never about saving the world from the Germans. And in fact, the peace after the war helped facilitate the next war. WWII was not about saving the Jews. It was about saving the French, the Dutch and the Belgians. For the Germans, it was not about “lebensraum”, but about resources. Eastern Europe had oil, North Africa had tin and rubber, and it was only right that the lower races serve the ubermenschen as slave labour. For the Allies, it was not about making the world safe for democracy: Hitler was elected. Korea was a civil war that the UN tried ineffectually to stop. Viet Nam was about... well, I don't know what the hell that was about. They said it was about the domino theory, but the US invasion probably did more to encourage Communism in the region than anything else.

The list goes on. Afghanistan was never about the Taliban. It was about revenge. So was Iraq. They're also about fossil fuels: oil in Iraq and natural gas in Afghanistan.

What frustrates me is not that we fight. We're monkeys, and we're territorial. It's simply biology. In the movie “Species”, Fores Whitaker says something very profound and disturbing about Sil:

“She's a predator. Her eyes are in front; she's a predator.”

So we're monkeys, and we're predators, and we fight. But there are fundamental truths that we must recognize about war, and Remembrance Day is as good a time as any to list them.

First, we never fight for something as noble as democracy. For one thing, if democracy's so great, it ought to sell itself and killing people shouldn't be necessary. Furthermore, forcing people to vote is such an obvious paradox that it's astonishing that no one ever comments on it. Wars are about giving rich men access to more resources, and therefore more riches. Wars are about punishing the people who have offended our oligarchy. Wars are about politics in its crudest and most base sense: might makes right. God, the nation or motherhood have nothing to do with it. Ever. By ennobling war, we ennoble greed, malice, fear and hatred. We raise up as virtues our most vile vices. We worship our collective id with blood sacrifice.

Second, war/defense is a grotesque allocation of resources. A fifth of Canadian children live in poverty. There are First Nations people who don't have access to school. Our health care doesn't cover things like dentistry, eyeglasses and ambulance rides. Artists live below the poverty line. Yet we spend billions of dollars on the equipment necessary to kill people in foreign lands. The people that do the killing are underpaid, to boot.

Third, old rich men wage war, and poor young men and women fight it. War is about exploitation. The problem here is that the exploited become complicit. If the poor stopped fighting, the rich would have to stop declaring war. The oligarchs are being enabled by the rest of us, and the willingness of the people to accept the narrative.

I want to thank the men and women who have sacrificed their lives, their health, their sanity or their livelihood. I want to honour those who have given so much for Canada. But I can't help feeling that they were duped, that they were betrayed, and by continuing to honour their sacrifices, I continue to ennoble the lies, and I become complicit in the deception. I know what they thought they were dying for. Still, their deaths were unnecessary, pointless, and ultimately meaningless. The died badly, far away from home, and it was never for anything as sacred as my right to vote, or the freedom of speech that allows me to write this. The men and women who are right now, in Afghanistan, killing and being killed aren't doing it to defend my freedoms, nor are they doing it so women can go to school, though they think they are. NATO went into Afghanistan to kill a guy, to get revenge. Always remember that.

Thinking these thoughts is not usually an issue. These opinions on 364 days of the year, simply make me an ingrate or an asshole, or more probably a cynic. It's only on one day, November 11, that my opinions become visible and therefore political. I'd like to honour the dead tomorrow, but I honestly believe that by honouring the way they died, I'd be dishonouring the ideals they thought they were fighting for. So tomorrow I won't be wearing a poppy. I will probably observe a moment of silence at 11am, but only to shake my head in disgust, and hope vainly that we'll stop sending men and women to die stupidly.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders Fields.

The first step is, of course, correctly identifying the foe.

Letter to the editor, November 9

I must admit, I look forward in a sort of perverse way to Michael Coren's column. When I miss it in the London Free Press, I usually find myself looking for it online. His hatred, combined with this thin skin is often shocking, usually amusing, and always incredible. It's hard, in Canada, to find someone as inflammatory who's still accepted by the mainstream media.

Coren's a funny animal. His worldview is so twisted and distorted that I find it hard to believe that we're on the same planet. He decries religious intolerance while constantly insulting atheists, agnostics, and secularists. He laments "Christian bashing" and claims to be the victim of discrimination, while he has grown up in two of the most liberal and tolerant societies on the planet, one of which has an established Christian Church. He's insulted Muslims, homosexuals, feminists, tolerant Christians, the main stream media, African Americans and African Canadians, pacifists and human rights activists, accusing them all of bigotry.

His latest screed, Obama's victory fools public (November 8), is a good example. He accuses the mainstream media of being "drastically liberal and anti-conservative". The facts simply don't support it. McCain got a free ride on a number of issues, including his pick for running mate, his war record, his own finances, inconsistencies in his speeches and policy positions, his ludicrous "energy plan", his health status, his undeserved reputation as a "Maverick", and his association with known felons and his hypocritical associations with lobbyists.

In Canada, CTV showed its bias by releasing the Dion tape. The National Post endorsed Harper and the Conservatives, implying that the Green Shifts proposed by the Liberals and the Greens are dangerous, expensive and foolhardy, despite the fact that most economists on the planet have realized that its really the only effective way to reduce carbon emissions.

F17urthermore, Coren is a refutation of his own argument: He has a syndicated weekly newspaper column, a daily television show, a daily radio show, and two book to his credit.

Quite simply, if there is a bias in the media, it skews right, not left, and certainly for the status quo. In fact, in the next paragraph he mentions right-wing talk radio, a political force for which there is no balance on the left.

Coren also mentions Obama's association with " the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright". Black Liberation Theology was born in slavery and matured under segregation, Jim Crow laws, and overt and deadly racism. Even now, African Americans are more likely than whites to be born in poverty, to be raised by single parents, to be arrested, to be convicted, to face jail time when convicted, to to drop out of school, and to be denied the opportunity to get a post secondary education. Is it any surprise that black leaders are distrustful of whites? I'd be angry, too, and I don't think I'd stop with "God damn America."

He condemns people "who settle for group think and herd mentality". This from a man who accepts religious dogma as fact, and insults those who buck tradition. A man who implies that men like Limbaugh and his army of "dittoheads" are defending the North American way of life against the liberals who want a kinder, more compassionate society.

He calls Obama a socialist, an interesting charge from a man who left one country with a social safety net for another.

He calls Obama an "no friend of freedom", whatever that even means, implying that he is an enemy of freedom. I've not seen any evidence to support such a charge. In fact, it has been the GOP that has been running roughshod over the Constitution, flaunting the Geneva Convention, and spitting on the UN for the last eight years. The human rights record of Bush and his gang is appalling, and they ought to be tried as war criminals. I suspect that Coren would disagree.

I've been tempted in the past to ask that the London Free Press stop carrying Coren's column. He is a hate-filled, angry man, and while he may have a knack for rhetoric, his reasoning skills leave much to be desired. I've decided not to for two reasons. First of all, no matter how odious his opinions and how ludicrous his claims, he has a right to them, and a right to sell them to whomever will print them. He has a right to accuse gay people of destroying the Canadian Family, and I have the right to call him a homophobe and a bigot. Secondly, he serves as a useful lesson, a reminder that there are still men like that in Canada, and that we still have a long way to go.

Please continue to publish Coren's column. He's an amusing distraction, and he keeps my sense of indignation sharp. He's a powerful motivation.

Not there yet

Last night, the US elected a black man to be President of the United States.

He was elected with 52% of the popular vote.

47% of voters went with McCain: some almost certainly because Obama is black, many of them because they were afraid Obama was a Muslim, or an atheist, and others because he's a "liberal", which is as bad as being a Muslim.

When things went badly in North Carolina, Elizabeth Dole accused her opponent of hanging out with "godless Americans", and suggested that Hagan, herself, might be an atheist. Hagan responded by affirming she was a Christian, and tore Dole a new one for slandering a fellow Christian like that. She did not, however, point out that there's nothing wrong with being an atheist.

Two states voted to end Affirmative Action.

Colorado took steps to deny women the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, as did South Dakota.

Two states voted to ban gay marriage. California voted to strip homosexuals of their right to marry, and, as far as I can tell, effectively nullified all gay marriages in the state.

Arkansas voted to deny homosexuals the opportunity to adopt.

Th United States now has a black president. This is absolutely a big deal, and a large step forward.

I just wanted to remind you that there are still a lot of bigots in America