Another Episode Of Scapegoat Theater – Guess What, Folks? Atheism Is The Reason For The Economic Meltdown

Cross posted @ God Is 4 Suckers!

"I used to get disgusted, now I try to be amused" – Elvis Costello

(Hat tip to Hairy Fish Nuts for this one)

Items keep jockeying into position for Top Ten Stupidest Things I’ve Ever Heard:

Alan Greenspan, central figure in financial collapse is devout Atheist - Why it Matters

Many believe the unregulated growth in financial derivative products,vigorously supported by Alan Greenspan, has led to the gigantic fall in our stock market, a multi-trillion dollar loss to American savings and a ruined economy.

Yeah…let’s bypass the AIG fiascos, Enron, and a foreign war we’re hemorrhaging money into.

Mr.Greenspan, in his powerful position as Federal Reserve Chairman, had consistently and forcefully thwarted all government efforts to regulate the exploding growth of the trillion dollar derivative market place. His testimony before Congressional hearings lauded the benefits of the derivative markets, claiming they reduce market risks despite warnings from Warren Buffet and others.

Warren Buffet called the financial derivative markets as a ticking time bomb and“financial Weapons of Mass Destruction”. 

Way-ell, Buffet’s an agnostic, so I guess it’s okay to quote him.

Greenspan dismissed the criticism and insisted his  support for the unregulated financial derivatives market actually lowed the risks of a financial melt down. At all times he insisted Wall Street would be a stronger and more efficient regulator of financial risk than governments, claiming that due to their selfish interests, Wall Street’s collective wisdom would avoid excessive risk.

Hmmm…according to the wiki entry, “He was lauded for his handling of the Black Monday October 19, 1987 stock market crash, which occurred very shortly after he first became chairman, as well as for his stewardship of the Internet-driven "dot-com" economic boom of the 1990s. This expansion eventually ended in a burst in March 2000 leading to an economic downturn which Greenspan famously predicted as the result of ‘irrational exuberance’.”

Well, we now have a stupendous economic disaster that is historic in nature and we can thank Mr. Greenspan, the “Oracle” for bringing our economy not only to its knees but effectively nationalizing our banking system to the extent that would perhaps make the most liberal  democrat proud.

I can imagine the author spitting that last part out.

We think it is relevant and important to understand that Alan Greenspan is a devout Atheist.  More importantly his belief system can be directly connected to the financial meltdown. Many people are not aware that Alan Greenspan was a disciple of devoted  atheist ,Ayn Rand,  and a member of her group known as the “Collective“.  After earning his Masters in `1950,Greenspan became a 20-year associate of famed philosopher Ayn Rand, author of books "The Virtue of Selfishness,""Atlas Shrugged". Greenspan wrote for Rand’s newsletters and authored a chapter for a Rand book.

Some of this is true:

“Greenspan was initially a logical positivist but was converted to Objectivism by Nathaniel Branden. During the 1950s and 1960s Greenspan was a proponent of Ayn Rand's philosophy, writing articles for Objectivist newsletters and contributing several essays for Rand's 1966 book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal including an essay supporting the gold standard.

During the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the members of Ayn Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of his penchant for dark clothing and reserved demeanor. Although Greenspan was once recognized as a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, some Objectivists find his support for a gold standard somewhat incongruous or dubious, given the Federal Reserve's role in America's fiat money system and endogenous inflation. He has come under criticism from Harry Binswanger, who believes his actions while at work for the Federal Reserve and his publicly expressed opinions on other issues show abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles. However, when questioned in relation to this, he has said that in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard. Greenspan and Rand maintained a close relationship until her death in 1982.

In a congressional hearing on October 23, 2008 Greenspan admitted that his free-market ideology shunning certain regulations was flawed. This has caused backlash from Objectivist intellectuals, blaming the economic crisis on Greenspan's pandering to the mixed economy and betraying his laissez-faire views.”

And in fact, he is not well loved among the Objectivists:

Admirers of Rand, however, generally see Greenspan as a traitor, since he never advocated anything that approaches Rand's absolute laissez-faire capitalism. In House hearings during the second month of the market meltdown of 2008, Greenspan testified that he had "found a flaw" in his market ideology, and conceded that he had been "partially" wrong in opposing regulation of derivatives.

Ayn Rand, well known atheist, and famous author  is also renowned for her central role in the creation of the philosophy known as “Objectives. This philosophy espouses  a deep commitment to atheistic values, celebrates the virtue of the individual and, despises government regulation of any kind other than for crime control.  She has said "Money is the barometer of a society's virtue." She also said about religion that “it was untrue in all its manifestations and that its consequences were disastrous.”

About the only place I actually agree with Rand is in that last sentence.

Alan Greenspan was a devoted follower of Objectivism and he was well aware of the philosophies’ contempt for religion.

So…we shouldn’t have high government officials who aren’t religious? (Rhetorical question.)

Ministry Values believes Alan Greenspan’s adherence to Objectivism and its celebration of money as virtuous, and religion as contemptuous was ultimately a contributing factor to the financial catastrophe. With his devotion to the disturbing idea that “the pursuit of man’s own-self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life“ and the implied immorality of God and religion unquestionably led to our financial debacle.

Of which the 8 years of Republican leadership had no part? Must be soothing to be so naive.

He allowed the Wall Street cowboys to run wild as he naively held to his devotion of “Greed is Good”  or  "Greed is God."  

I’m sorry, but do they give out a sheriff’s badge with the Chairman position? Were the ‘Wall Street cowboys’ atheists too? I’m betting they weren’t.

We gave the keys to the store  to a man deeply committed to Atheism and money as virtuous and he went out and nearly bankrupted the country.

Ah…hello? "For every complex question, there is a simple answer-- and it's wrong." – H. L. Mencken. The author also doesn’t understand that not all atheists are Objectivists.

MinistryValues.com  would  love to have had  a  moment  with Mr.Greenspan.  At a  recent Congressional hearing, we would  have asked him to first  pull a dollar out of his wallet  and  then we would have asked him to comment on the  well known words  found on the currency. We would have liked to hear his  comments about the words everybody is familiar with, except it seems Alan Greenspan, and those words are "In God We Trust" 

Yes, and we haven’t seen anything resembling divine intervention in…how many millennia? Ever?

Isn't it ironic. The Trustee of "In God We Trust"  was  an  Atheist. 

Ummm, sorry, IGWT is actually a recent addition – wouldn’t ya know it, right around when Greenspan joined the Objectivists.

Had our elected leaders, simply asked Mr. Greenspan, years ago, if he believed  the United States was a nation under God ,  perhaps  we may not be in the financial catastrophe we find ourselves in today. 

And why is this? Because they wouldn’t have allowed an atheist to become Chairman. Yeah, that’s good sense (face palm).

Why is it we can try an label politicians as "socialists"  in attempt to ruin careers, yet we defend  and tip-toe around "Atheists" like they are Bambis . 

Nice that somebody finally cops to trying to ruin politicians via labeling them ‘socialists’, but I have yet to see anyone ‘tip-toeing’ around us at all.

Atheism is a man made construct, like communism or socialism and without a concern in the world we put them in charge of our financial system , for decades. This man was beholden to an ideal and   Nobody seems to get and nobody seems to care.

That’s because

1. everything we do is a man-made construct,
2. Greenspan’s ‘ideal’ wasn’t exactly what the Objectivists had in mind, and
3. it’s about actions not ideology

Would we have put a known "Communist"  in the position of Fed Chair, of course not.  Yet the Atheist who destroyed our economy and a man who believes "money is the barometer of societies virtue" gets a free pass.

I think this was written by a high schooler. Obviously Greenspan’s philosophies are more complex than that. And yet, our society does give specific pay scales free passes. One only has to view the latest celebrity driving debacle, the OJ Simpson trial, the Matthew Broderick fiasco, or any of the white collar echelon that commit crimes. I wonder if these folks said anything about Kenneth Lay being a Methodist? W being protestant? Oh wait – they should give their own folks special treatment.

The next is an eye crosser:

We strongly believe in a separation of Church and State, our troops are dying in Iraq to defend that prinicipal  but  we  are still  a country of  "One Nation Under God" and now our Government, like never before, needs to defend that principal and defend it with pride and resolve.  The words need to mean something.

How on EARTH is the war in Iraq any way related to the SOCAS? It isn’t. Iraqi officials didn’t pop into our schools and demand prayer, nor did they insist on mangers on public land. And of course that irritating “ONUG” (One Nation Under God) nonsense that was implemented 54 years ago in a nation that’s well over 200 years old.

Funnier still, is this:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898). Bellamy's original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8th issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's discovery of America, conceived by James B. Upham.

Bellamy's original Pledge read, "I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

The pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be stated in 15 seconds. He had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided they were too controversial since many people opposed equal rights for women and blacks.

But of course, Bellamy was a Christian socialist, and therefore, it’s not quite the stark red ‘A’ brand, I’d bet.

Let’s see, as I’ve pointed out in the past, there are more than enough examples of people who are markedly godfull, who will ply their trade for trinkets and money. We can go into how the Bush administration lied and thousands died (and still are dying) because ‘gwad’ told him to invade Iraq.

The fact is, that people do foolish things, regardless of their ideology. Sometimes because of it, but more often than not, it’s an easy excuse easily accepted, an automatic mulligan.

(As a side note, I always wonder why the fundagelicals can’t seem to spell the word ‘principle’ properly. Likelihood is they never went to the principal’s office, I bet.)

Read More...

Summary only...

Oh The Humanity – Are We Not Human Also?

Cross posted @ God Is 4 Suckers!

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

In April, a crazed black man named Anthony shot an innocent girl, and committed suicide. Prior to this, he was seen ranting and raving about how atheists weren’t human.

Jerry Falwell once said, “If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.”

Also in April, a Catholic bishop by the name of Walter Mixa quoted Dostoevsky as saying, “If God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted.” And blamed the entire Nazi mess on atheism.

Just recently, a Catholic cardinal stated that atheists weren’t ‘fully’ human.

Not long ago, Elizabeth Dole attacked an opponent on TV with ads that accused Hagan of being an atheist – as if this were a crime also.

We have an alleged ‘professor of journalism’ defending her anti-atheistic commentary (and to be sure, I engaged her myself).

There are sufficient grounds for us as individuals and as a collective to be enraged, to be somewhat less courteous. After all, in some states, we can have our children taken away from us.

In fact, if you’re an atheist, you don’t have to look very hard on the Internet to find something that will utterly get up your nose. Or. as Dorothy Parker once quipped, “What fresh hell is this?”

I can readily withstand the accusations of being intellectually feeble (laughable at best), or of not having thought it all through (risible at best, these people tend to slop out scripture quotes as if I’d not read a bit of their book), but the unkindest of all is the accusation of somehow being less human.

There are various viewpoints on what it means to be human. Of course, the ICR claims we are just a vast network of servants. Here’s the scientific explanation. But I think the Pioneer 10 plaque outlined the definition best.

The first step is the biology, of course. To quote Shakespeare:

Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

—Act III, scene I – Merchant of Venice

Substitute ‘Jew’ for ‘Atheist’, and you ken me drift. At what point, then, does the human being terminate his/her relationship (regardless of biology, or in spite of) to all others of their species? Let’s look at the definition of inhuman:

1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See synonyms at cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.

Let’s look at the definition of inhumane:

adj.
Lacking pity or compassion.

The general prevalent concept is that to sever one’s humanity from one’s fellows, is to commit a crime (or crimes) utterly lacking in empathy of any sort. Crimes such as mass murder, serial rape, or pedophilia usually qualify (oops! There goes a huge portion of priests from a denomination we’re all familiar with!).

The long and short of it is, boys and girls, is that a large percentage of folks seem to think/believe that we are somehow lessened in quality as humans if we don’t pay homage to some transcendental (read: supernatural) source-of-all-things. It’s a fairly common misbelief, as my years on the internet have taught me.

Oftentimes, our species exhibits an internal xenophobia that, while an defense evolutionary mechanism, runs contrary to the dictates of sense and logic.

It is a long, hard road that we have to tread, because ideological bigotry is perhaps the last abstract frontier left to conquer.

Just remember to circle the wagons when the time comes.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Watson! The Game Is Afoot!

I’ve been watching the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes recently, and today is actually the 150th birthday of Arthur Conan Doyle. The answers.com page shows this blurb:

Spotlight: It's elementary... Legendary detective Sherlock Holmes may have been a master of the art of observation and deduction, but he didn't gather all the clues unaided. Depending not only on his trusty sidekick, Dr. Watson, Holmes frequently sought help from a band of street urchins whom he dubbed the Baker Street Irregulars. Fans of Holmes later formed a group, adopting the name BSI. Still active today, they've included such illustrious figures as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman, as well as lesser-known names. The only real criterion for membership is an active, deep-rooted devotion to all things Sherlockian. The creator of the object of all this devotion, Arthur Conan Doyle, was born 150 years ago today. A physician by trade, Doyle wrote four novels and 56 short stories featuring Holmes and company.

And of course, Jeremy Brett replaced Basil Rathbone as the quintessential Holmes.

As a voracious reader in my youth, I used to delight in reading the Holmes’ adventures. That he could read people and make rapid deductions as to their recent activities, their livelihood, and varied other sundries, was almost magical, until he explained in cool detail just how simple it was. I enjoyed these tales then, and to this day I still do.

Sherlock Holmes was of course a fictional character, but a delightful one: a keen analytical intellect, an eccentric with an eye for details that others take for granted, an autodidactic expert only on the fields that interested him, he was (and still is) a standard and an icon.

Read More...

Summary only...

Teenage Witches Are Only Welcome On US TV, But Not In Nigeria…

As if it’s not bad enough that Nigerian Prime Ministers send us invitations to help invest mysteriously acquired wealth, it turns out that rambunctious children are now being targeted as witches.

(CNN) -- Christian Eshiett was a rambunctious pre-teen who spent a lot of time cavorting with his friends in southern Nigeria. He would skip school and run away from home for days, frustrating his grandfather, who oversaw the boy's care.

Children branded as witches protest on February 26, 2009, in the southern Nigerian city of Eket.

"I beat him severely with canes until they broke, yet he never shed a tear," said Eshiett Nelson Eshiett, 76. "One day, I took a broom to hit him and he started crying. Then I knew he was possessed by demons. ... Nigerian witches are terrified of brooms."

From that day two years ago, Christian, now 14, was branded a witch. The abuse intensified.

"They would take my clothes off, tie me up and beat me," he told CNN in a telephone interview.

The teen is one of the so-called witch children in Eket, a city in oil-rich Akwa Ibom state of Nigeria.

They are blamed for causing illness, death and destruction, prompting some communities to put them through harrowing punishments to "cleanse" them of their supposed magical powers.

"Children accused of witchcraft are often incarcerated in churches for weeks on end and beaten, starved and tortured in order to extract a confession," said Gary Foxcroft, program director of Stepping Stones Nigeria, a nonprofit that helps alleged witch children in the region.

Many of those targeted have traits that make them stand out, including learning disabilities, stubbornness and ailments such as epilepsy, he added.

The issue of "child witches" is soaring in Nigeria and other parts of the world, Foxcroft said.

The states of Akwa Ibom and Cross River have about 15,000 children branded as witches, and most of them end up abandoned and abused on the streets, he said.

Christian ran away from home and wandered around for two years with other children similarly accused. He said they stole, begged for food and performed menial jobs to survive.

The plight of "child witches" is raising concern among aid organizations, including the United Nations.

"It is a growing issue worldwide, among not just African communities, but in countries such as Nepal as well," said Jeff Crisp, head of policy development and evaluation for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. "We are trying to see whether it is a neglected protected issue."

Belief in witchcraft thrives worldwide. About 1,000 people accused of being witches in Gambia were locked in detention centers in March and forced to drink a dangerous hallucinogenic potion, human rights organization Amnesty International said.

In 2005, relatives of an 8-year-old Angolan girl living in England were convicted of torturing her for being a "witch," according to the Times Online.

Pastors have been accused of worsening the problem by claiming to have powers to recognize and exorcise "child witches," sometimes for a fee, aid workers said.

But some are true believers, such as one minister in Lagos, Nigeria. He pinpoints children affected by witchcraft for free, he said.

"Sometimes, we get a dream that shows us a certain person is suffering from witchcraft," said the Rev. Albert Aina, a senior pastor at Four Square Gospel Church. "Sometimes, you have a child who has inexplicable body marks because of struggling in the night. They are easy to identify, but why charge when you have been given a gift by God?" Aina said.

Once a child is branded a witch, the stigma can last forever.

Christian was reunited with his grandfather, a former theater instructor at a university in Nigeria. Eshiett said he let his son's child return home because he loves him and he advocates for youth education.

But, he added, he does not think Christian has been or can be freed from witchcraft.

"When you are possessed, you are possessed; no one can deliver you from Satan," Eshiett said, adding that his grandson is a witch because he still exhibits unruly behavior and does not take education seriously.

Aid organizations acknowledge that the belief is acceptable and popular in some communities.

"It is not the belief in witchcraft that we are concerned about," Foxcroft said. "We acknowledge people's right to hold this belief on the condition that this does not lead to child abuse."

Foxcroft, whose documentary, "Saving Africa's Witch Children," was broadcast last year, spoke to a U.N. panel on the issue in April.

The aid worker said he is planning a global conference in 2010 and public awareness campaigns, including addressing the issue in Nigerian movies. The nation's film industry, dubbed Nollywood, is a popular form of entertainment in African countries.

Government officials also have joined the fight.

Akwa Ibom recently added a clause into the Child Rights Act, saying that anyone found guilty of branding a child a witch would get up to 12 years in prison.

"This is groundbreaking, and Stepping Stones Nigeria applauds the Akwa Ibom state government for this," Foxcroft said.

But, he added, there is more work to be done, and other groups, especially churches, have to team up to resolve the problem.

"The role of the international Christian community in this cannot be underestimated," Foxcroft said. "Unfortunately, the fact remains that this belief system is being spread by so-called Christians."

CNN's attempts to reach Akwa Ibom state officials through phone calls and e-mails were unsuccessful. A Nigerian federal communications official declined to comment.

This is yet another powerful example of the anachronism of religion is a force for anything but good in our world. These people need to be educated, not mollycoddled into thinking their lopsided beliefs any validity whatsoever.

Read More...

Summary only...

And The Bleat Goes On…More Ditherings From The Reichwing Katlicks

YouTube - Bill Donohue Compares President Obama To David Duke!

(Cross posted @ God Is 4 Suckers!)

(hat tip to Rob Boston @ Talk To Action)

The word ‘unbelievable’ comes to mind. Donohue makes some sort of distinction between practicing Catholics and non-practicing Catholics, the former allegedly agreeing with him (oh hey, they don’t eat hagus either, right?), he also carries on about how the ‘bishops are energized’ about Obama receiving a degree at Notre Dame.

At 6:48, the blonde tries to fire Boston up about honoring pro-death penalty speakers at the university – and Donohue spewing ‘It’s not intrinsically evil’. So…abortion is intrinsically evil, but putting people to death isn’t? I smell the fresh new-fallacy smell of special pleading.

An old post of mine, illustrates a number of problems with the modern religious viewpoints on abortion:

Still even Jerome - while saying some of the most awful garbage about women in recorded history, was not as hardcore about abortion as today's Religious Right, writing "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs ("Epistle" (121, 4))"
Neither were early church organizational meetings unanimous. The Synods of Elvira and Ancyra (306 ACE, 314 ACE) explicitly called abortion a sin, while the Apostolic Constitutions (380 ACE) disallowed it only after the fetus took on a "human shape."”
(Snip)
“In the early 7th Century, the Church began codifying what it considered sexual sins and abortion made the list, but was well behind the "sins" of birth control, oral sex, and anal sex. In fact, the punishment for oral sex was at least 7 years of penance, while the punishment for abortion was a mere 120 days.”
(Snip)
“Even St. Thomas Aquinas himself - arguably the most influential theologian in Roman Catholic Christianity, did not consider a fetus human until the quickening.
This was the way it was for the most part until - and are you sitting down for this? - 1869. That's when Pope Pius IX declared all abortion to be homicide. That's right, for nearly the entire history of Christianity, the Catholic Church was officially tolerant of first trimester abortion. The change was well after the Enlightenment, after the Civil War, and into the modern scientific era. In fact, it was only as recently as 1983 that all vestiges of the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" were quietly purged from Canon Law. (Yes, that was 1983... only 23 years ago)”

The entire argument hinges upon (and fails miserably) ensoulment. It fails because there is no substantial proof that there is anything resembling a soul – and when evidence is demanded, we become subjected to innumerable personal anecdotes, retrofitted laws of conservation, and anything else under the sun, excepting any sort of solid proof.

Tell me that I as an individual will survive death, and I will hold up a DVD (or CD-ROM), cut it twice with scissors,  and quietly request that the claimant retrieve the information on it.

In the meantime, we are yoked by the superstitions of the populace overly fond of their precious little fables, who will spend copious monies as well as time and energy to protest in favor of something unprovable, rather than address the root of their grievance, that of poverty, lack of education, and improved living standards for their fellow human beings.

It is to weep, sometimes.

Till the next post then.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Mist – Definitely One For The Collection

Wow – I read the short story years ago, I knew what was going to happen, the characters, etc. But I gotta say: this film gave me the serious willies regardless.

The Mist:

After a brutal thunderstorm pounds a small town, the residents discover a malevolent mist hangs over their homes, killing anyone who remains outside. Trapped in a grocery store, a band of survivors must make a stand against the deadly fog. Based on a story by horror maestro Stephen King and directed by multiple Oscar nominee Frank Darabont, this spine chiller stars Thomas Jane, Marcia Gay Harden and Andre Braugher.

The casting was great, the CGI was pretty good (the pharmacy scene was especially shuddersome, when the MP fell down and erupted into ‘spiders’, eh-huh-huh-huh), and the woman playing Mrs. Carmody…well, the answers.com entry says it best:

When the old Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden) becomes convinced that she is the true vessel of God and begins barking fire and brimstone to the frightened prisoners of The Mist, things shift from just supernatural scary to real-world terrifying. An enthusiastic but harmless zealot at the onset, Mrs. Carmody eventually manages to make even spiky-tentacled monstrosities from another dimension look like they might be kind of cuddly by comparison. It's fascinating to see how the alliances unfold as the situation grows increasingly tense, and Darabont handles the growing division and animosity among the fractured survivors with the kind of skill that really draws the viewer in.

And that’s no lie – she gave me the utter willies, as she’s that scary sort of theist we atheists have nightmares about.

Another big plus – usually most King vehicles suck. Once Hollyweird gets a hold of wonderful stories, they tend to ‘modify’ (read: shred) them. If you’ve read Graveyard Shift the story, and watch the movie, you’ll tell yourself, “Hey, that’s not the story I read.” Same with Children of the Corn. Up until now, I’d maintained that the only flick that held true to a King story was The Dead Zone (the Christopher Walken film, not that dreadful TV derivative knock-off).

So I give it two fists up and a ‘hell-YEAH!’

Read More...

Summary only...

When The Religious Rule The Religious, Part The Deus – Childhood’s End

"The most religious nation in the world is India, the most irreligious nation in the world is Sweden. We are a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes." – Jerry Sutton

I was on a stationary bike at the Y, when I saw this ugly little tidbit:

Official: More than 1M child prostitutes in India

NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- Around 1.2 million children are believed to be involved in prostitution in India, the country's federal police said Monday.

Ashwani Kumar, who heads the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), told a seminar on human trafficking, that India occupied a "unique position" as what he called a source, transit nation and destination of this trade.

India's home secretary Madhukar Gupta remarked that at least 100 million people were involved in human trafficking in India.

"The number of trafficked persons is difficult to determine due to the secrecy and clandestine nature of the crime.

"However, studies and surveys sponsored by the ministry of women and child development estimate that there are about three million prostitutes in the country, of which an estimated 40 percent are children," a CBI statement said.

Prostitution in pilgrim towns, exploitation through sex tourism and pedophilia are some of some of the "alarming trends" that have emerged in recent years in India, it noted.

Authorities believe 90 percent of human trafficking in India is "intra-country."

Now, no, I’m not going into a diatribe blaming religion for this. India is a culturally diverse country, but it’s about 80% Hindu and 14% Muslim, the other 6% a variety scaling from Christianity to Jainism and Buddhism. Rather, this incredibly horrible set of statistics comes from an extremely religious country, which has over a millennia of history of superstition. Of course, it’s a Third World country, which means living in it is tantamount to scrabbling for a livelihood by any means possible. The point here, is that religion does anything but improve folks.

Now, I could go on at length about how religion tends to overvalue innocence, ergo making said innocence a commodity, but that would be simplifying the matter to the point of violating Grossman’s Law. But there are some simpler methods by which this sort of activity could be minimized.

A. Reduce poverty (people are far less likely to be selling off their children if there’s food and a roof over their heads), and
B. Legalize prostitution.

I’ve made myself fairly clear on this matter – the major problem most people have with this is that 1. Prostitution is conflated with sexual slavery (which it isn’t always), and 2. it becomes conflated with child prostitution, which really is a separate matter. Consenting adults, and all that.

Because, like it or not, when you (and/or your family) is starving to death, and you’re young and attractive, there’s always going to be that option available. But keeping a thriving industry illegal and underground is going to allow all the evil people (the predators, the sociopaths and pedophiles) to take advantage of the weak, the innocent, and the desperate.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

Read More...

Summary only...