Zombie Lovers Anonymous

Being Suspected of Breaking and Entering can be Surprisingly Entertaining

2008-11-19T23:39:00.001+01:00

In the middle of the night, a friend of mine and I were walking through a somewhat bad area of town carrying a computer. One might wonder why we were doing that. So did the police.

One of my only potentially serious run-ins with the police is something I consider a rather funny story about really improbable coincidences.

It was a few years back and at the end of a period of hard exams at the university. As usual after exams we wanted a way to relax, and this time we opted for nostalgia and nerdiness. We decided to have an old fashioned LAN-party at my friends place; gathering up some people and their computers to play games together. I know; we’re just the epitome of cool.

As is common for such events we totally messed up our sleep patterns, and when we decided to stop playing it just happened to be very early morning.

A friend was going to drive me home, so he and I were walking to his car, carrying my computer. We didn’t have to walk more than a few hundred meters to his car, so we didn’t really foresee any problems. Not that I’ve ever foreseen any real problems in any simple walk to a car, and I’m usually right about it.

This time I wasn’t right. As we were about to cross a street to the parking lot, two police cars came driving up along it. We looked at each other and laughed, commenting on how it must look mighty suspicious that we’re carrying a computer in the middle of the night. And it felt like such an improbable coincidence that the police would show up just then, because we rarely ever see any police cars out and about like that around here.

But even though we knew we looked suspicious we didn’t expect them to actually stop us. But they did. And they did it in an amusingly stereotypical manner, as if it was a TV show. Both cars pulled to an abrupt stop in front of us and police officers welled out of the cars, with their hands threateningly at their gun belts, eyeing us carefully and telling us to put the computer down.

The situation felt absurd, but still highly amusing, and of course we did as they said. One of the officers started questioning us about where we came from, and we told them the address of the apartment building we had just left, and pointed behind us.

She told us that they were out on a call about a break-in in the building behind the one we came from, and said that to them it looked mighty suspicious that we were walking with some valuable electronics from the direction of said break-in. We said that we could understand how they might think so, but assured her that we had nothing to do with it. She looked thoroughly unconvinced.

She stayed with us while the others went on ahead to examine the scene of the crime. She continued to question us and we found out just how damned difficult it can be to explain the concept of a computer LAN-party to a police officer in her fifties. After several attempts to explain what we had been doing, she still didn’t seem to understand how what we were saying could be a good explanation for how we could possibly have any legal reason to wander around with a computer in the middle of a freezing cold night.

It still seemed like we were easing some of her suspicions though, even if our explanations made no sense to someone of her generation. Maybe we just didn’t act like any typical hardened criminals. But her suspicions seemed to be renewed when she got a call on the radio. It was one of the other officers, confirming that a computer had been stolen at the burglary.

We started realizing exactly how suspicious we looked, and how amazingly improbable it all was.

It was the first time in years that I was at a LAN-party. It was the first time ever that I was walking through that neighborhood (which I didn’t live in) in the middle of the night. It was the first time I walked around carrying a computer in the middle of the night. And this just happened to coincide with one of the only times I’ve seen a police car there.

And the police was there because someone had called them to report a crime at precisely the right moment; if it would have been half a minute earlier the police would have passed by before we left the apartment, half a minute later and we would have gotten to the car before they got to the area.

And burglaries aren’t all that common around here; the crime rate of this city is rather low. Sure, that area is a bit worse than most of the rest of the city, but it was still a bit of a coincidence that there was a burglary right then. And to top it off, the only thing stolen in the apartment was a computer, and that’s what we were carrying.

Of course there wasn’t any real risk for us. A quick check would have revealed that we weren’t carrying the correct computer. But we did look pretty suspicious. But then the next coincidence kicked in – the first one to our advantage.

While they were checking the underside of our shoes to match with footprints under the window of the apartment in question, another call came in on the radio, and they promptly let us go. It turns out that the police had actually caught the real burglar, less than half an hour after the crime took place.

I mean, come on, how often does something like that happen?

Does the F-Word have Magical Properties?

2008-11-15T20:51:00.000+01:00

Warning: that certain, special little word occurs several times in this text, for obvious reasons.

Normally, people can judge from the context if a word is appropriate or not. At even the finest of dinners I could be discussing Dick Clark or Dick Cheney, and no one would mind me saying Dick several times during the conversation. But if I would proclaim “You should all suck my dick!” that would rarely be seen as quite as acceptable.

Saying “Dick Cheney is a great man” may be offensive to your sensibilities, but the word “Dick” in that sentence is not deemed a dirty word, even though “dick” can be dirty in many, many other sentences.

So obviously the formation of sounds that form the word “dick” can be acceptable or not, depending on the meaning we give them. That particular arrangement of sounds doesn’t have any special, magical properties; it isn’t the sounds themselves that are dirty. But what about the collection of sounds that make up the word “fuck”? In that case, many seem to do believe that it has some very special properties.

Take for example the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series, a somewhat popular science fiction TV-show. A very common expletive used by the characters in that show is the word “frak”. This is presented as just some alien swear word, and therefore entirely acceptable for use on TV. But curiously it has many, many similarities to the earth word “fuck” – besides being homologically similar.

The two words seem, by amazing coincidence no doubt, to have the exact same (and wide) range of use.

When curious about the details regarding the nature of someone’s relationship with someone else you can ask “Are you frakking her?”

When you want to use a strong pejorative to express your dismay with someone you can say “Frak you!”

When you feel that all is lost and want to articulate this feeling you can say “We’re well and truly frakked.”

You can call someone of limited mental abilities a “frakwit” and when you are in strong disagreement with someone you might be tempted to call this person a “motherfrakker”.

If you’re really surprised you might shout out “Frak me!” and if you want to give extra strength to a statement about your feelings of dislike for the thing that startled you, you can of course use an adjectival form of the word, like for instance in the phrase “Frakkin’ rats!”

In short I’ve seen the word “frak” used in almost all the ways that I could imagine using the word “fuck” here on earth. For all intents and purposes it is exactly the same word and of course anyone who sees the show knows this. But they still see it as necessary to keep up the blatantly obvious charade.

To them it seems like it is much more acceptable to say “frak you” instead of “fuck you” but I really don’t see the difference. Unless you ascribe some mystical power to the word “fuck” there is no difference. And obviously no one in the target audience seems to be harmed by the numerous instances of the word “frak”, so maybe the word “fuck” isn’t all that horrible either?

While I do understand that swearing might be frowned upon under many circumstances, I don't understand what is so utterly special about “fuck”. But it seems like many, many really do think that it matters; thinking that you can’t say “fuck” but you can say something that everyone knows is just a thinly disguised replacement for the word.

I see this a lot in internet comments, regardless if the comment thread is moderated and censored or not. I look at many more or less humorous pictures commonly classified as “Engrish” and or “fail” in Internet humor terminology. These pictures very frequently contain the word “fuck” in very larger letters on the picture (in, for instance, mistranslated restaurant menus and foreign street signs) so anyone viewing the pictures have already been subjected to the word and they know that the word is part of the humor of the situation.

But, for some reason, people making comments often inexplicably choose to censor themselves when discussing it, writing things like “f*ck” or “f-word” in their comments when discussing what can be read in the picture. Even though every single person discussing the picture knows that the word is “fuck”, they still think that it is wrong to write it out, for some reason.

Once I understand why this is, I will be another step closer to understanding some of the many oddities of the human mind, so it’s something I think about at times.

Musings on Ray Comfort’s “Banana Argument” (the Atheist’s Nightmare)

2008-11-13T21:30:00.001+01:00

Ray Comfort is a strange, strange man. And if you’ve never heard of him before, I assure you that he is someone who can bring you plenty of amusement.

He is an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian preacher, and he has a ministry called “The Way of the Master” which has a hilarious TV-show under the same name. The most famous clip to ever come out of that TV-show is his “banana argument” against the validity of an atheistic world view.

The clip can be seen here, and I suggest that you watch it, if you by some chance haven’t seen it yet and want to be amused. The argument put forth is silly beyond words and, to someone dirty-minded like me, the video is filled with so much unintentional(?) sexual innuendo that I can’t help but laugh.

Many people have very, very well debunked his statements about the banana as a perfect proof of God’s existence, but I will make a short note on that before moving on to my main point.

Comfort argues that certain characteristics of the banana are proof positive that God designed it and that evolution is bunk. He claims that this is obvious, since bananas are good for people to eat, they fit perfectly in the human hand, they are easy to open, easy to eat, easy to digest and you can see on the outside if they are ready to eat or not. He calls them the “atheist nightmare” because this is truly a testament to a perfect and benevolent God, designing wonderful yellow treats for us.

Of course that argument is stupid, mainly because of one, very important thing: bananas didn’t look anything like that when humans first found them.

The “original” banana was short and stubby and filled with large, hard seeds. It didn’t “fit perfectly in the human hand” and it wasn’t easy to eat. The reason we have the much friendlier bananas of today is that humans cultivated bananas and selectively bred them to the now so familiar form.

This was done through a process of “artificial selection”, which is something that is very closely related to natural selection, that integral part of evolution. So Comfort really, really shoots himself in the foot by trying to use bananas to disprove evolution.

But let’s not dwell on the fact that it’s a stupid argument. Let’s instead ask ourselves “What if he was right? What if I get convinced that the banana requires a deity capable of creating and designing life; what would that tell me?”

To someone like Comfort the answer seems obvious. He spends his time trying to convince people that his particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity is the Truth, and arguments like the banana argument is how he does it.

So, to Comfort the sentence “There appears to be a god of some kind, capable of designing a banana” automatically equates to “The designer is the God of Judeo-Christian tradition, Jesus of Nazareth is the son of this almighty God, he was born of a Holy Virgin, died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and the only way to a decent afterlife is to accept him as your personal Lord and Savior”.

To me, this is something of a large leap. A huge leap, one might say. “Holy logical leaps, Batman!” one might even say, if one has a tendency to reiterate old jokes.

Normally people are very good at spotting leaps like that. But some people seem to shut of that part of their logic when it comes to the particular religion that they favor.

If I said “When I was walking through the forest yesterday I heard rustling sounds that I couldn’t identify. Clearly this was the sound made by tiny, tiny unicorns grazing in the underbrush!” most of you would think I was kidding, crazy or both (and of course I am both). My conclusion of unicorn-caused ruckus would be seen as a huge leap without any logic behind it by almost anyone.

Of course it is possible, albeit incredibly unlikely, that the sounds really are caused by miniscule, horned equines, but it would be unbelievably strange of me to assume that this is the case, without any further evidence for it. It might as well be tiny, tiny elephants! Or something mundane like the wind or a rodent…

The statement “there was a sound I couldn’t identify” says nothing about the existence of undersized animals of any kind, and people generally understand this perfectly well.

But somehow it is seen as more logically sound to assume the divinity of Jesus based on nothing but a “proof” of a designer, even though the statement “there is a designer” says nothing about who or what this designer is and nothing at all about this Jesus character. But people like Comfort still act as though they have proved their particular version of their particular religion just by some inane statement about how good bananas are to hold and eat… I find this terribly amusing.

Of course, Ray Comfort also shoots himself in the foot a second time at the end of the famous clip, when he says “Seriously Kirk, the whole of creation testifies to the genius of God’s creative talent” (or something very close to it, the last word is kind of garbled in the clip I saw).

What Comfort implies is that fruit designed to be easily eaten by humans is proof of God and he says that we see this in “the whole of creation”, but if that is so he really fails to explain things like coconuts and pineapples. I would assume that they are also part of the whole of creation, they are also very good for (most) humans to eat, they are tasty to most humans and they are freaking difficult to eat, especially if you have no tools.

If we had a perfect, benevolent and loving God who created everything, as the one that Ray wants us to believe in, I would expect everything that is good for humans to be equally easily eaten. As it is, with coconuts and all, even if Ray’s argument did hold any weight, it wouldn’t seem to favor a single, all-powerful God. It would instead seem to favor a specialized banana-making god, and I am certain that he doesn’t believe in any of those.

And of course this is the problem with many similar arguments that people use when they try to convert people to their religion. Even if their arguments are sound, they generally point towards nothing other than some, unknown deity or something else unknown. The arguments never explain how they would “prove” the existence of some particular deity.

Working at the Morgue Seems Pretty Good

2008-10-20T16:38:00.000+02:00

I think it’s a job that offers some unique perks

But if you’re talking about your job, you can often catch some crap by complaining or gloating about such things.

For instance, if you complain about how you have too much work to do, people tend to tell you that you shouldn’t complain about that; it just means that business is good. You should be happy about that! It’s good for job security, likelihood of pay raises and so on, so don’t complain! Such responses really take the fun and pleasure out of complaining.

Likewise if you gloat a tiny bit and tell someone that you’ve had a really relaxing time at the office, with very little work to do. Then they tend to say that you shouldn’t be happy about that, telling you that you’re just being lazy and that you should look for some career advancement if your current job is too easy. Again very irritating responses, taking all the fun out of being lazy.

But imagine if you work at a morgue. If you complain to your friends about how busy you’ve been, they can’t turn it around on you and say it’s good to be busy. Because if you are busy it means that there were a lot of bodies coming in, and that’s a tragedy. Very hard to put a positive spin on it.

And if you seem very happy about having nothing to do, people can’t say that you shouldn’t be happy about that. It doesn’t mean that you are lazy or un-ambitious, just that you’re glad that there aren’t a lot of people dying.

Of course, these perks apply to work in hospitals and clinics too, especially emergency rooms. It’s always good when there’s less to do there. But the morgue does offer an additional thing beyond that:

Regardless if things have been slow or not, when you end your shift and your friends ask how your day was, you can always make them really uncomfortable by replying with the joke “It was really dead.”

Of course you also have to get used to the fact that you have to deal with death every day, but every sweet deal has its downsides.

Regarding the Ten Commandments, American Laws and Evil Atheists

2008-10-20T16:37:00.000+02:00

Since I’m a bit of a science nerd I frequent a lot of science websites, discussion forums and blogs. In the comment sections of such websites there is often a bit of antagonism from a certain type of religious people.

I have no problem with religious people in general, but there is a group of religious people that seems to think that science is an enemy of religion and that all scientists are atheists (which is very far from the truth) that I do have a problem with. They come to those scientific sites for nothing but to spew hate. They usually just tell us that atheists are all evil.

When they occasionally opt to explain why they think atheists are evil, they often claim that atheists persecute Christians, especially in the United States. As an example of this supposed persecution they often mention the matter of the Ten Commandments in court houses.

They say that Christians are being persecuted in this matter. Because, according to them, US laws in general, and the Constitution in particular, are all based on the Ten Commandments and this should be reflected by placing them there. Apparently those stupid atheists don’t agree.

I honestly don’t know all that much about the reality about the controversy regarding the placing of the Ten Commandments in court houses. I strongly suspect that most of the people involved, on both sides, were being nothing but silly. But whatever the real issue was isn’t the point. The point is their argument that they are being persecuted.

You can probably guess what my standing on that issue is, since I am an evil, godless atheist. I am also a fan of the US Constitution, since I think that it is a beautiful, great document (even though I do not exactly agree with everything in it) and I think that it is being attacked and belittled by these people.

Let’s look at a common list of Commandments that people want in court houses because “US laws are based on them.”

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Not only is this one not in any way a basis for any US law that I know of, such a law would in fact be in direct conflict with the first amendment of the constitution.

The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Saying that people are only allowed to have one particular God really seems to limit the free exercise of religion. At least to me, but perhaps I’m being picky there…

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

No matter how you interpret this commandment it is in conflict with US laws. It is not illegal to make “likenesses” such as paintings or sculptures, even if they depict supernatural entities. This is generally considered a part of freedom of expression, which is a right in the United States. A law based on the second commandment would be in conflict with that.

Some people have told me that the second commandment is really about forbidding the worship of those graven images, more than the making of them. But we’ve been over that point already. Saying that you’re not allowed to worship whatever you want would interfere with the free exercise of religion.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain

Strike three. Again in direct conflict with the first amendment. American censorship laws might regulate what you can say on broadcast TV, but in general freedom of speech is liberally protected in the United States. And I don’t think that blasphemy is banned even on TV.

And no, as far as I know, this commandment hasn’t inspired a nationwide crackdown on people who shout “Oh God” in the heat of sex.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

What, can’t we get past the first amendment? Still not one commandment that isn’t in violation with it.

There is to be no laws respecting an establishment of religion, so there should never be any law that requires people to keep a sacred day of some particular religion holy.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother

Finally. This one isn’t in direct violation with the constitution, as far as I know. It’s however not in there either. As far as I know this isn’t really in any American law, and I think that’s good. A law that orders people to honor their father and mother would be a rather stupid law.

I for one honor my father and mother. I honor the hell out of them, because they deserve it. They are great parents and great people.

But we all know that not all parents are great. Many hurt their children, physically and mentally. I think that a law requiring all children to honor their parents, regardless of what their parents do to them, would be rather barbaric.

6. Thou shalt not kill

Getting better! This one is actually sensible and more or less in accordance with US laws.

Of course that is a matter of interpretation of the word “kill” though, since US laws aren’t as simplistic as the Ten Commandments. In the United States killing people is sometimes legal; in justified self defense and executions for instance.

And even if we do interpret “kill” in a way that makes the commandment in accordance with US laws, then so what? If there are laws against killing people, and there is a commandment about killing people, should we then assume that the laws are built upon that commandment? I don’t think so.

Seriously, do these people believe that before the business at Mount Sinai, people didn’t understand that it is a bad idea to kill each other? Do they think that before the age of those fragile stone tablets, people were total morons?

Of course it’s stupid to go around haphazardly killing each other. You can’t build a stable society without realizing that. All through the ages, societies of every religion have understood that. Laws against murder do not need divine inspiration; it’s pretty obvious that murder is a bad idea.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery

This is a pretty good commandment too. Adultery isn’t good.

And there actually are some US laws prohibiting adultery, at least in some states. And I can see those laws having a religious background. So I’ll actually give you this one, this commandment might actually be the basis of some US laws.

Not that any remaining adultery laws are actually seen as important today, but it’s still at least a partial win for the proponents. Six commandments too late, but still.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

Again, this is a rather good idea, but that’s not proof that the Constitution or any other document was inspired by it. If you try to build a society it is easy to understand that stealing isn’t something that contributes to peace and stability, no matter what holy book you believe or don’t believe in.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Like most of the bible, this one is very open to interpretation. Some say that it about lying while testifying and some say that it is just about lying in court.

Of course, perjury is a crime, so if you interpret the commandment that way it is in accordance with the law. And, again, this isn’t something you can figure out on your own… Of course people who have never heard of the Ten Commandment think that courts work well if people lie while testifying…

No, wait, maybe not.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Now, there is an obvious joke about sodomy laws here, but we all know that “ass” here refers to donkeys and nothing else. And I really don’t think that there are any laws against coveting at all, no matter if it is donkeys or asses.

In fact, I would like to say that the entire concept of a capitalist society is built on the concept of coveting. If you want a donkey (or a car, as a modern equivalent) that is as good as your neighbor’s, then you go out and work to get it.

And more importantly, trying to restrict what people covet is a serious breach of human rights. No government should tell you what to think and feel.

---------------------------------------

So, out of ten commandments, at least five are in violation with the American constitution and/or basic human rights. Only a few have any clear equivalent in US laws, and only one of those feels like it would need religious inspiration to make it into a law.

Some commandments are border-cases, but all in all it looks pretty clear that in general the laws of the United States are not based on the Ten Commandments.

Not that saying this keeps that particular group of people from crying “Persecution!” at the drop of a hat though. But I still feel the urge to write stuff like this every once in a while, when I have heard some particular untruth once too many. At least it helps me vent.

Gay Sex is Just Like Christmas

2008-10-19T20:40:00.001+02:00

When I was in Junior High, I had a fairly religious teacher. That’s not very common around here, so he kind of stood out, but none of us minded. At least not until he started talking about Christmas…

I can’t remember how the discussion got started, but for some reason the class got to talking about Christmas and he expressed his very strong opinion that people who aren’t religious shouldn’t celebrate it. He was very adamant on this point, giving his view that it is rather vile of us atheists to enjoy a Christian holiday.

Well, I’ve always been open to a debate, and I couldn’t let it slide that a teacher would have the audacity to tell his students what and how to celebrate. So I, and a girl from my class, challenged his opinion and started discussing the matter with him.

First I told him that I do celebrate a holiday at the time of Christmas, but I don’t do it in a religious way. I don’t have any stars, angels or baby Jesuses among my decorations. I just see it as a nice holiday to spend some quality time with the family (and a holiday to get some quality time with some good food).

Then we reminded him that a winter solstice festival has been celebrated here around the time of Christmas since long before our country became Christian. Just like in the rest of the world; winter festivals are very common, Christmas has just become the most popular of them.

We tried our best to convince him that we had every right to celebrate as we do. But he still clung to his opinion that we somehow hurt Christmas by celebrating at the same as his favorite holiday. Despite the fact that we told him that we celebrate an entirely secular holiday that has nothing to do with him, he thought that he had the right to tell us how and when to do that.

That is so infuriatingly typical of a certain kind of Christian (I am very well aware that it is not how all Christians act though). They think that just because their religion has come in and replaced our old winter festival with theirs, they have the right to control how everyone celebrates at that time of year. Apparently we are “cheapening their holiday” if we don’t conform to their wishes.

Note that we didn’t say a word on how we thought he should celebrate his holiday. We didn’t invite him into our homes to see our pagan disrespect of his sacred beliefs. We didn’t disrupt his class with a “traditional winter solstice celebration only” campaign. Yet he felt that he had the right and, apparently, the need to tell us how we are ruining Christmas by having a good time with our families in our own homes.

But Christmas isn’t an important issue to me whatsoever, so I let it drop. But it does serve as an illustrative example of a kind of thinking that I see in many other discussions, especially in discussions about homosexual rights.

As many of you know, I’ve written a fair bit about gay marriage. I cross-posted some of the posts on other writing sites, and I got some interesting comments. Here is a part of one of those comments: “The gay community and their supporters present the greatest example of hypocrisy imaginable. By making a choice to adopt said lifestyle they effectively deny God and the truth of His word. Then they have the gall to demand the right to ‘marry’, and do it in Gods' house! Marriage is Gods' sacred institution, not mans.”

Well, first of all, I’ve never met anyone of the opinion that we should force churches to marry gay couples. Almost everyone who promotes gay marriage just says that the government shouldn’t forbid two consenting adults from marrying; they don’t say that churches that are against it must marry them. I know that if I ever marry I wouldn’t want to be wed by someone who hates me.

And just like winter celebrations, marriage isn’t a uniquely Christian thing. People of most religions and cultures have had celebrations where they join people together like that. But still, he thinks that gay couples who want to marry are out of line. Because it’s not in line with “God’s word”.

It doesn’t matter to him that they might not even be Christian or that if they are, they will in all probability don’t want to marry in the kind of church he prefers.

It doesn’t matter to him that marriage exists outside of Christianity or that the gay couple’s celebration of love is entirely private to them and doesn’t affect him in any way whatsoever.

It doesn’t even matter to him that many Christians, and Christian priests to boot, defend gay marriage and wants gay to have the right to marry in their church.

He still thinks that he has the right to decide how they should act. Not because it affects him in any way, not because it’s bad for society or anything, but simply because it doesn’t agree with his interpretation of his religion. Because he thinks his religion says that homosexuals can’t marry, he thinks that homosexuals shouldn’t be able to marry anywhere.

And he has the gall to be offended by people being homosexual, because it’s not in line with his beliefs.

But he doesn’t hate them. Oh no, of course not. Later on in the comment he also uses the phrase “Love the sinner, hate the sin” which is a very popular thing to say when you defend your own bigotry. Things don’t really work like that though, which brings me to the point about gay sex that I so shamelessly advertised in the post title.

Where gay marriage and celebrations of Christmas can be at least somewhat in the public eyes, even though they are private affairs, sex isn’t. I could never understand how anyone can care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom, but the kind of people I talk about in this post obviously do care. They often want anti-sodomy laws because they “hate the sin”.

But really, how can you, when it comes to sexuality, hate the “sin” but love the sinner? How does that work?

If you tell people that their inner feelings are a sin and that you hate what they feel and think, people are going to feel hated, even if you add afterwards “Oh, but I love you. It’s just your sins I hate.” That’s just a useless bit of rhetoric, just saying that isn’t going to make people feel loved. It isn’t rocket surgery people; it’s not that hard to understand.

Your sexuality isn’t a choice, and many of those people understand that. That’s why they are things like Truth Ministry, which promises to teach you how to “leave the homosexual lifestyle.” They know that they can’t make a gay person straight, but they want them not to act on their sexuality. They teach people to suppress and hate their natural urges, teaching them that what they feel is a sin and that they need to resist it.

Basically they teach people to spend every day hating a big part of themselves and suppressing all their sexuality. A real act of love, that one. But at least that only works on people who are already deeply religious; usually people are at least a bit harder to convince to hate themselves.

But back to my main point about how these things are similar: Winter celebrations, marriages and sex are not invented by the Christian church. They are all private things that don’t affect other people, they all existed before Christians came around, and they still exist outside of the bounds of fundamental Christianity. But somehow some Christians still really feel that they have the right to control how other people do these things, for some reason. And I really wish that would stop.

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want, just as long as they don’t see the need to control other people because of it. And again; I do know that most religious people aren’t like that, most are content with keeping their beliefs to themselves and letting other people act in accordance to their own beliefs. I am only complaining about the ones who aren’t that tolerant.

Girls with Big Books

2008-09-27T21:48:00.004+02:00

Unfortunately, I haven’t been writing much lately. But I have just written something for another blog that I want to link to.

I have written the first real post for a blog called “Girls with Big Books” which is a site in tribute to intelligent, nerdy, geeky and artistic women. It’s about all those women who are not traditionally seen as “hot” but are much more interesting than most stereotypically attractive people.

The site was started as kind of a balance to all the places that seem to be more about girls with big boobs than about girls who enjoy a big book. The first post is the first in a series of posts with some examples of girls who are hot because they are nerdy in one way or another, and it is about Kaylee Frye from Firefly/Serenity and Kari Byron from Mythbusters. You can find it here.

Working at the Morgue Seems Pretty Good

2008-09-11T00:43:00.003+02:00

I think the morgue offers jobs with some unique perks

I think that complaining a little bit can be a positive thing. I don’t think it’s good or healthy to be a whiny ass, but a little bit of complaining can help you vent your frustrations, put things into perspective and so on. And I also think that enjoying a little down-time in your life, just relaxing once in a while, can be good too.

But if you’re talking about your job, you can often catch some crap by complaining or gloating about such things.

For instance, if you complain about how you have too much work to do, people tend to tell you that you shouldn’t complain about that; it just means that business is good. You should be happy about that! It’s good for job security, likelihood of pay raises and so on, so don’t complain! Such responses really take the fun and pleasure out of complaining.

Likewise if you gloat a tiny bit and tell someone that you’ve had a really relaxing time at the office, with very little work to do. Then they tend to say that you shouldn’t be happy about that, telling you that you’re just being lazy and that you should look for some career advancement if your current job is too easy. Again very irritating responses, taking all the fun out of being lazy.

But imagine if you work at a morgue. If you complain to your friends about how busy you’ve been, they can’t turn it around on you and say it’s good to be busy. Because if you are busy it means that there were a lot of bodies coming in, and that’s a tragedy. Very hard to put a positive spin on it.

And if you seem very happy about having nothing to do, people can’t say that you shouldn’t be happy about that. It doesn’t mean that you are lazy or un-ambitious, just that you’re glad that there aren’t a lot of people dying.

Of course, these perks apply to work in hospitals and clinics too, especially emergency rooms. It’s always good when there’s less to do there. But the morgue does offer an additional thing beyond that:

Regardless if things have been slow or not, when you end your shift and your friends ask how your day was, you can always make them really uncomfortable by replying with the joke “It was really dead.”

Of course you also have to get used to the fact that you have to deal with death every day, but every sweet deal has its downsides.

Sex, Violence and Censorship

2008-08-23T23:08:00.001+02:00

Some comments on an article about a man who really sets himself up to be made fun of.

I recently found a news story titled “Dad Wants $20K, Says Lesbian Book Disturbed Teens” here. I have a strong suspicion that the man in question is really just after some quick cash, but even so the news story serves as a perfect example of the strange views on sex and violence in society.

I have personally never understood why sex is supposed to be worse for the children than violence. But it seems like many think that’s the case. Parent groups and crusaders for morality complain whenever a “bad” word is uttered or an uncovered inch of skin is shown. Sure, they complain about violence too, but not at all to the same degree. Sex is always the real danger, according to people like that.

Either way, we all know that it is common for people to overreact at the very mention of sex, for whatever reason. But few are as funny to mock as the gentleman in the news article.

According to the article Earl Adams in Bentonville, Ark. has two sons, aged 14 and 16 who were at the public library “browsing for material on military academies.” During this they apparently found a book titled “The Whole Lesbian Sex Book” instead, and were according to Adams “greatly disturbed.”

Because of this, Adams wants the library director fired and tried to sue the city for $10,000 for each of his sons; the maximum allowed under the Arkansas obscenity law. Why does Adams think that they need such large amounts? What damage could the book have caused? Well, according to Adams, the book caused “many sleepless nights in our house.”

Well, I bet it did! Books of that nature often tend to cause “sleepless nights” for healthy young men, but they usually don’t complain about it.

Honestly, it seems very hard to find a book like that by accident while browsing information about the military. And even if the book had been misplaced there they could have just ignored it after reading the title, if they didn’t want to read it. I’m worried for them if they didn’t read it and were that “greatly disturbed” just by being reminded that lesbians exist. If so they seem to be so sexually repressed that they should get a psychologist. They should possibly get a better home too.

I’m just speculating here, but it seems more likely that they did read the book. And in that case they did so of their own free will. And it also seems likely that their tremendously strict father caught them reading the book and that’s the only reason they told him that they were greatly disturbed by it. They couldn’t very well tell such a man that they liked it.

Whatever the boys did, and whatever their real intentions were, the father overreacted extremely though. He is totally ok with his young sons reading about military academies, after all, that’s good and healthy, right? Joining the military has never held any danger, none at all. A book on lesbian sex, though, that is very dangerous. I’m not sure exactly how, but obviously it is. It’s $10,000 dollars worth of dangerous just seeing such a book. Obviously.

Well, thankfully “the city’s attorney dismissed Adam’s claim as baseless” and he didn’t get his $20,000, so there seems to be some sanity left in the world. He did manage to get the book off the shelves of the library though.

According to the article, Adams said in an e-mail that “God was speaking to my heart that day and helped me find the words that proved successful in removing this book from the shelf.” And “Any effort to reinstate the book will be met with legal action and protests from the Christian community.”

Don’t you just love these people who think that they know exactly what God wants? And these guys who think that they can claim to speak for the entire Christian community… It’s just such wonderful humility and modesty!

Sometimes when I write it can seem like I have a problem with religious people in general. I really, really don’t. It’s just people like this guy, who feels that he alone has the right to dictate what is going to be on the shelves of a public library and decide what other people are allowed to read.

Are our Kids Learning Anything Worthwhile in School?

2008-08-20T23:58:00.001+02:00

Is “never” the best answer to “When will it ever be useful to know this?”

recently heard it said, in a very negative tone, that “In school, kids learn things just to be able to spout them out for tests and essays. The school system is more of a test of being able to acquire knowledge than preparation for anything worthwhile.”

I think that this is pretty much true. For instance, if you would ask me about slavery in ancient Rome I could tell you a lot of details about that. I could for instance tell you a lot about how many slaves there were, what kinds of jobs they did, how they could gain freedom and how the chance of freedom likely affected their outlook on their standing in society, and how this in turn affected the Roman society as a whole. These are all things I learned many years ago back in grade school, and can still remember today.

Now, to paraphrase Fight Club: “Why do I know things like that? Is that information essential to my survival, in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word?”

Of course the answer is no. If you look at things that way, my knowledge about slavery in ancient Rome is, along with many other things, not worthwhile. That information is not something I have ever had any use for outside of a classroom environment. I only learned things like that to get a good grade on a report I was doing on the subject, nothing else. So yes, it does seem like school was more about “being able to acquire knowledge” than about learning anything useful or worthwhile.

I do not agree that this is a bad thing though. I think that school is supposed to teach you how to acquire knowledge; anything “worthwhile” you learn in the process is just a bonus. Because, in this modern ever-changing world, I don’t think that there really is much worthwhile or useful that can easily be taught, beyond very basic things.

Before modern civilization, the value of intelligence, knowledge and ability was an absolute. If you could figure out how to find or make shelter against the cold, to make tools for hunting, to find food when foraging, to make fire and so on, then those things were always useful and would always help you survive, no matter who you were.

Up until a couple of generations ago almost everyone were either farmers or industrial workers. In such times it was always good to know the basics of farming, or construction, or how to work with common industrial machines. That knowledge was always useful and could give you means to survive.

Today however, the value of our particular intelligence, knowledge and abilities is more a function of the present day and what particular part of society we are in.

If you sit me down in front of a computer and tell me, for instance, to make you a website, construct a database application, or write a program that can help you calculate your taxes, I would seem like an intelligent and knowledgeable person, because I would be able to do that.

But, if you sit me down in front of a table with some needles, thread, scissors and fabric and tell me to sew you a pair of pants, I would not seem intelligent or knowledgeable at all. I probably couldn’t sew a decent pair of pants if my life depended on it.

My skills in computer programming are much more likely to make me a living in this day, in this society, then an ability to sew. Most sewing nowadays is made by automatic machines, since it’s so much cheaper, and only the best tailors can still have a job sewing by hand. On the other hand, just thirty years ago, more sewing was made by hand and there were almost no jobs for someone who can write computer programs.

A couple of generations ago anyone could learn skills when they are young that would last them a lifetime, but today we can be happy if the value of a certain skill lasts a couple of decades.

So, since the value of what we know is a product of the society we live in, and society is quickly changing, it is hard for schools to give us knowledge that is always going to be “worthwhile”. But how does this connect back to my example about my knowledge of slavery in ancient Rome?

Well, what the facts I learned back in those days where highly useless ones about a culture long gone. But the methods of learning facts like that are the same methods I use today when learning about computer programming, when learning facts much more useful for me, today.

How to learn things was what I primarily learned in the early stages of school, and I feel that there is nothing better to learn. That is the one thing of an absolute value we have left in a changing world; the ability to absorb new information, to learn new things and change with the world.

I think about this when I remember how often the less motivated students would ask “What is the use of this information? Why should go around looking up this stuff, learning about something like this? When will it ever be useful to me?”

The teacher always tried to come up with some explanation, but it usually sounded lame. How do you explain the worth of some little bit of information about history or chemistry, or some little used mathematical axiom, to a kid? They tried though, telling us that there will surely be times when we have some use for that information, however unlikely it may seem.

I think we all felt that they were lying, and it didn’t serve to motivate us. I think it would have made a much greater impact if they would have said “Never. You will probably never have any use of this at all. But you will need to be able to look stuff up, to understand how to use science books, encyclopedias and so on, and know how to organize this information, select from it and write it down in an orderly manner. And you need practice in how to memorize important things so the knowledge you need is readily available. Whatever you learn now is just to practice skills like that.”

But of course they didn’t say that. I’m not saying that for instance knowing that the battle of Hastings was in 1066 is worthless information, not at all, but they talked like it was useful, which I can imagine very few circumstances when it would be. That only made us feel like they were playing us for chumps, teaching us useless things and lying about it.

I think it would serve educators well not to forget to point out that the means can be an end in themselves. Tell kids that we don’t always have to learn something that is obviously useful, that we just have to learn how to learn. That learning something just for a test isn’t necessarily bad.

Of course, there are instances when we learn things that will be useful. For instance basic mathematics and languages; those are things that are useful to anyone. I still think learning how to learn is the most important part though. I’ve learned more languages outside of school than in it, but I wouldn’t have been so easily able to if I didn’t learn the basics of it there.

Seriously, what is up with People Using Quotation Marks for Emphasis?

2008-08-18T23:36:00.002+02:00

I have to travel a lot by bus, and as most people know that is a pretty lousy way to travel. I have a pretty good back on me, but even my back starts to ache after a few hours in a bus seat. So I was pretty happy when I found that a local bus company offering long distance trips has a sign up that (translated) says:

Travel “comfortably” - travel by bus!

Those quotation marks around “comfortably” were just so right. It felt so nice and entertaining that a bus company would actually acknowledge what an uncomfortable way it is to travel, even if it’s a bad way to advertise your business.

But no, things aren’t that good. A friend of mine pointed out that they probably think that quotation marks can be used to put emphasis on something. I had a hard time believing him, since it seems so unreasonable.

We have very good ways of putting emphasis on things. Setting something in bold, italics or underlining it are all very common, easy and good things to do. Quotation marks are decidedly not a good thing. Quotation marks usually give the exact opposite effect, like in the example with “comfortably” above. So I just can’t figure out why anyone would ever think to use it that way.

Well, turns out people do it anyway.

Here is one example that I stumbled upon. Someone has put up a note on a bulletin board saying:

Please “do not” use staples for posting

And someone has responded with:

Please do not use quotation marks for emphasis.

Then there is this one, with some “threatening” writing on a wall. It says:

I’m gonna “kill you”
Watch your back
Crack Whore

A terribly confusing piece of writing, if you ask me. I can’t figure out what he is going to do, but it doesn’t seem to be any real killing involved at least.

Then of course there’s also an entire blog dedicated to the phenomenon. The “Blog” of “Unnecessary” Quotation Marks can be found here.

So, obviously it is very common. Distressingly common even. But even though it can be terribly amusing, or at least terrible and amusing, I fail to see the reason why it happens.

Do any of you readers have any idea why anyone of sane mind would assume that quotation marks can be used in such a way? I can’t figure it out and I’m genuinely curious.

”Why the …”-Update, about the silencing of dissenting views

2008-07-25T08:41:00.002+02:00

Just a quick update on last night’s post about gays and McDonald’s

I have had very little time to write all summer, so when I wrote this post it took me a few days of little moments here and there. So it was several days ago that I first started looking into the matter. At that time I read some of the vile, hateful comments at boycottmcdonalds.com and decided to leave my own comment there.

My comment was pretty carefully worded; I tried not to be offensive in any way, even though their website really made me want to be offensive. The most hurtful thing that I wrote was some small comment about how their comments prove that a gay rights moment is needed, but that’s as bad as I got. Other than that I just wrote a short little piece about my views that homosexuality will never affect their families, and asked a rhetorical question about why they even care.

Well, my comment didn’t appear at once, so I figured that they moderate the comments, and that it would appear after being approved. Well, I was wrong. Now, several days later, many, many comments from others have been approved and put up, while mine is still missing. My comment, just a small little thing to give them my perspective on the matter, was apparently not allowed on that site, while every gay-bashing word about “disgusting abominations” is allowed.

The American Family Association seems to imply that this is a struggle in the name of liberty and democracy. But somehow they seem to think that it is suitable to censor comments that do not agree with their views.

And it is not just that. You have to agree with their views in the right way too. When I realized that my comment wouldn’t be published I tried, just for fun, to leave another comment. It was a positive comment about the boycott, but since so many of the published comments were talking about God and Jesus, I said that I was supporting it “because homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of Allah”. That one didn’t get published either. Go figure.

Talking about the comments… There are many comments, and texts by the AFA, that claim that it is not at all about hatred against homosexuals. They claim that all they are doing is protesting against the fact that McDonald’s are “taking sides” in such an issue; that they are just expressing the opinion that big corporations should “remain neutral”.

Well, with comments like “Stop supporting a vile and disgraceful lifestyle.” I have a hard time believing that. It really seems like it does have everything to do with hatred of gays. Especially since I am utterly, utterly convinced that these groups would not care one tiny bit if McDonald’s gave such a relatively small amount of money ($20 000, a tiny amount for such a big corporation) to any other organization. I am certain that McDonald’s make donations like that fairly frequently, but only when it is in support of a “disgusting and sinful lifestyle” is it even mentioned.

Do not even try to claim that it is not about homophobia.

Also, I have gotten an e-mail asking me why I care. Why I can’t “respect” the opinion of these people. Well, I don’t know if I should have more respect. You can think what you like, and you can call me vile and evil for speaking out about these issues if you’d like. I’m very much a “sticks and stones…”-kind of guy; it doesn’t really matter to me if a few people think that way about me.

However, I have long had friends that are more easily affected, and who are not straight. Some of these friends have been so hurt by people calling them things like “disgusting” and “sinful”, that they have hurt themselves physically over it. And you can mess with me, but no one messes with my friends. As long as the people I love, and other innocent people, are being harassed and hurt like this, I will continue being a pain about it. No matter who thinks I’m evil or stupid because of it.

Sadly, this is how some people act, especially some “Christians”. I’ve seen several times how they break homosexuals down by berating them with hateful comments about their “sinful lifestyle”. And then, when the homosexual in question seems depressed or angry by the situation they say “See! I’m right; homosexuality is wrong! It makes people depressed and angry!”… Without any regards for the fact that they wouldn’t have any need to be angry, and no reason to be depressed, if they wouldn’t have been harassed in the first place.

Why the [expletive deleted] does McDonald's Stance on Homosexuality Matter to You?

2008-07-24T16:32:00.004+02:00

Another post about treating homosexuals as actual human beings.

Apparently, McDonald’s have made some sort of modest monetary contribution to the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, and Richard Ellis, vice president of communications of McDonald's USA, now holds some sort of seat on the chamber board. They have also made a couple of statements speaking for gay rights.

So, it seems like McDonald’s wants to support LBGT business ventures, and in extension recognize non-heterosexuals as being people too. As you can probably guess, this is something I wholeheartedly approve of.

I have never really liked McDonald’s in general though, and I don’t really care about their food, so this little thing isn’t something that will make me start eating there. And I didn’t expect that it would affect anyone else very much either. I mean, it’s just a tiny little support of basic decency, I never thought it would get anyone’s knickers in a twist. Boy, was I wrong…

When the news got out, the American Family Association, AFA, promptly started up the website www.boycottmcdonalds.com, where they urge people to sign a petition and call their local McDonald’s and tell the manager that they are boycotting McDonald’s “until they stop promoting the pro-homosexual agenda.”

AFA are far from alone in writing things like that. As an example to pick apart I’ve chosen a piece written by a Ricky Pearcey, just because it lends itself to so much ridicule… (found on the blog “Pro-Existence”, here)

Mr. Pearcey writes:

“My son and I often stop by McDonald's for a bite to eat after homeschool bowling on Fridays.

But not today.

(…)

Not today, in light of reports that McDonald's has decided, apparently, to declare war on my family. And to declare war on the civilization of liberty, independence, creativity, and humanity under God that my Dad fought for in World War II.”

This first section of his text gives rise to many questions.

The first question, the most urgent, burning question that I have is of course: “What, exactly, is homeschool bowling?” Seriously, I have no idea. This question eats me up.

But, anyway, I guess that a more important question is: “How the hell does support for homosexuals equate to declaring war on your family!?”

How in the world would it even affect his family at all? McDonald’s are not going to “turn anyone gay”. They are not going to tell your family to sod off because they support “the gays” instead now. They are not going to do anything to your family, nothing at all. They are just saying that homosexuals should be able to live their lives too.

And, wait a minute… He did not just claim that his father fought against the gay agenda in WWII did he? Well, maybe if he was on the Nazi side…

Nazi soldiers famously wore belt buckles with the words “Gott Mit Uns” (God With Us) on them, since Hitler believed that they were doing the work of God, and they imprisoned and killed homosexuals. So I would say that they where the ones who fought against the gay agenda “under God”. The Allies, fighting to stop things like the concentration camps, were effectively fighting for gay rights.

Mr. Pearcey doesn’t dwell on that though, but goes on:

“Reports such as this -- "Pink Arches? McDonald's Buys Into Homosexual Agenda."

And reports such as this: "McDonald's Gives Support to Homosexual Agenda."

And this: "McDonald's Signs Onto 'Gay' Agenda."

For Christians, this is a matter of stewardship and "loving thy neighbor" -- Why spend good money on a morally and socially corruptive business?”

One might wonder what part of “love thy neighbor” that he has such a hard time understanding. I would say that is exactly what McDonald’s are doing, and what he is resisting.

”For families, this is a matter of child protection -- Why support a business that helps fund organizations that disrespect the heart of family life?”

Again he claims that McDonald’s attack families. I still don’t understand how the hell they are doing that. I guess that if I say “I think that chocolate is an acceptable flavor of ice-cream”, he’ll claim that I am disrespecting and attacking vanilla, and that I will lead to vanilla’s demise… Even though I like vanilla too, and even though me liking chocolate doesn’t stop others from liking vanilla. And just like respecting people who like someone of the same sex doesn’t stop others from liking someone of the opposite sex.

”For human beings, this is a matter of liberty under God -- Why help finance groups that turn their backs on the Declaration of Independence, the Founding vision, and the living Creator who holds it all together?”

The American Declaration of Independence is a lovely document. And it does mention a Creator, in this section:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A lovely piece of writing, a lovely sentiment, and in no way whatsoever does it contain the phrase “except for the gays”. It is about the rights of everyone, so I would say that it is McDonald’s that defend the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, while Mr. Pearcey is ignoring it.

“The fries are good. Even great. But the worldview they support isn't fit for human consumption.

Maybe we'll stop by Chick-Fil-A instead. It's a little out of the way, but I hear they like families.

Real families -- not ones made up by the ACLU last Tuesday.”

Of course, all gay people are a part of some family; everyone has parents. But I guess that in the eyes of Mr. Pearcey, those families aren’t “real”.

I must say however that I still don’t see what the damn problem is. Even if McDonald’s are actually supporting the families that according to him did not even exist before last Tuesday, that does not in any way mean that they can’t support “real” families too.

Mr. Pearcey is by no means alone in his opinions. Several sites offer comment sections filled with vile comments about the evil of McDonald’s decisions. Just so you can see that Mr. Pearcey is not an isolated exception, I offer you a taste of some of the comments found here, here and here. These are just a very small part of them, there is plenty more where it came from. Many of them offer kind little words like “evil”, “sick”, “disgusting”, “abomination”, “sinful” and so on, and many talk about homosexuals are “destroying families”, even though no one explains exactly how that happens…

First, an update:

This post has a continuation here, if you want to read more. Now on to the comments:

“MacDonald's is No longer Family Friendly and Is Not Safe For our Children and Grand children!”

“Promoting destructive behavior is a horrible thing to do, whether it is homosexuality, self-mutilation, or drug abuse! McDonald's will not be seeing my family any time soon.”

“It is sick, disgusting and deplorable to weasle money from good families and spend it on the homosexual "Agenda". It is a crime to portray mcdonalds as a "Family" restuarant all the while seeking to destroy the very same "Families". Gay and Families will never be synonomus. I will not buy anything from mcdonalds, but I will do everything possible to discourage others from supporting your disgusting business.”

“I am really upset that a business that tries to attract children would also agree tosupport such a wrong lifestyle. My children love McDonalds but we as parents have explained to them we cannot and will not supoort such disgusting behavior. We will all we called to acocunt for our actions and all that we lead astray. I hope you change direction before it is too late. As for our family we will be eating at Chik Filet. I will not spend my money with groups that blatently tear down my faith and the values I teach my children.”

“I am highly disappointed and disgusted that McDonalds has chosen to abandon family values and support what will be the demise of our country. With so many charities that could benefit from support from McDonalds, it is literaly disgusting that they have chosen to support a cause that so morally wrong. I have already abandoned purchasing anything from those businesses that openly support the gay/lesbian revolution- McDonalds is just the next one that will never get one red cent from me again!”

“unless and until McDonalds announces a neutral stance on this abominable position of supporting the gay agenda, me and my family will boycott that eating establishment.”

“I won't even pick a crumb from the ground if I know is coming from MC Donals, Much least my five kids that love ketchup on the fries”

“How's come all these big companies are contributing to the homosexual community? Are they being threatened and/or co-ersed? I'm sick of the whole mess.”

“To the person who suggested we have homophobia, I disagree. My reaction to their lifestyle is abhorrence, loathing, repugnance and disgust. They are not born to this lifestyle; THEY CHOOSE IT!”

“I'm not a hateful Christian who wishes any harm to gays , I'm just not going to promote their lifestyle.”

“So McDonalds decided to turn against what made them - FAMILIES with CHILDREN. Now they choose to support those we refuse to allow around our children so I say shut them down with no business. Let the homos take their children there, oh wait they cannot do that as they CANNOT have children so they try to steal and brainwash ours.”

“I for one KNOW that I will not eat any food that comes from that wretched restaurant until they change who they support. It's a scary thought... thinking of gays taking over our country! God help us.”

“It really made me sick to hear such stupidity by McDonald's.No more McDonald's for me and my grandchildren....Soooo Sick!!!!!May God Have Mercy on them.”

“How could you take something that was intended to be good for kids and make something so evil out of it. I am another that will not dart your doors or my kids or grandkids. God must be very disappointed when He looks down from Heaven and see what you have done to his children. Instead of standing for moral values you stand for evil and corruption. Whether you realize it or not God Is In Control and He will bring you down!!”

“I'm appalled that a restaurant which has always been pro-family has taken this turn toward Godlessness and evil. Nobody in my household will dine there until this abomination is corrected.”

“It is reprehensible that McDonald's, a traditional American family-friendly establishment has chosen to take the course of action it has with regard to its promotion of the homosexual agenda. My money will not be used as a platform to advance this wicked lifestyle, so I guess that means no more Quarter Pounders with cheese for me or my family. I pray the Lord moves on your heart that homosexuality is evil. Likewise, I pray that you come to understand that your willingness to advance the cause this vile behavior is equally wicked and objectionable.”

“No more McDonald's for me and my family!!!! Homosexuality is an abomination to God, damnation of civilized society, the ruin of great countries (if you disagree you do not know the Bible or history very well). NO MORE McDONALD'S for us..if we want fast food there are too many other places to go eat that offers good food and does NOT advertise, support or be part of such perverted evil.”

“Diversity is a lame term for the disgusting agenda you attempt to promote. If you want to support that agenda, do it privately, not corporately. You have most certainly damaged your reputation as a family restaurant, for some it is irreparable. You have nothing to be proud of by making a decision like this. Soon you will be standing before God trying to explain your bonehead actions!”

“Disgusted and disappointed to say the least. I will use all my influence to persuade my congregation to not patronize McDonald's until you drop your homosexual agenda.”

“Large corporations (yours in particular) have a strong hold over most young people in this country and I am disgusted that you would choose to use that sway in such a deplorable way. Choose you this day whom you will serve; as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

“From the time that I first learned of McDonald's support of this disgusting lifestyle, Burger King and Hardees have been getting all of our fast food business that used to go to McDonalds. Consider this my strongest protest against your using, against my will, my money to support a cause that I would never support if I were given the choice. Shame on you, McDonalds!”

“This is disgusting! NO MORE MCDONALDS!!”

“I am so sorry I cannot in good conscience bring my grandchilden ans great grandchildren to McDonalds anymore-there's 80 of them. Why are you supporting such an organization that just brings tragedy to our people and society?”

“I am the Matriarch of a HUGE family,due to this disgusting position McDonald's taking I have put out the "WORD" for everyone to STOP going to McDonald's IMMEDIATELY. God WILL bless this family for taking this stand!”

Addendum to ”Totally Innocent Toys?”

2008-06-18T21:25:00.013+02:00

A while back I did a post called Totally Innocent Toys?, where I posted some pictures of some really creepy, badly designed toys. Since then, people have sent me some more, that they think I should post in addition to the ones I had. So, here I go.

This one is in exactly the same genre as the Pikachu-vagina in the last post. It’s damned creepy and I can’t imagine why anyone would design something quite in that fashion. Unfortunately I don’t know any source for this one, since it came to me as an e-mail attachment, so tell me if you know who deserves credit for this nasty looking picture. I only know that it makes me exclaim the well-known adage “What the hell ass balls?!”

Then there are... these... They claim that they are lighthouses. I’m not so sure, but if they say so I guess I'll have to accept it. Found here.

Speaking of male reproductive organs though; here are some more cocky pictures. They aren’t toys, but they are clearly aimed at the little children. And they are also very, very wrong.

Here we have Jesus showing his manliness to devout little children. Found on Flickr.

And here is some sort of hanger, in the form of a bear showing his even greater manliness. Found on the excellent FAIL Blog.

Troops: Star Wars/Cops parody

2008-06-17T19:11:00.001+02:00

I feel the need to educate some of you people. Several years ago I saw the most amazing parody of both the TV-show Cops and Star Wars. Recently I’ve tried discussing this masterpiece with my fellow nerds and I have found that many haven’t even seen it! Therefore I feel the need to help spread the message of this brilliant work. It's apparently created by a Kevin Rubio in 1997, and I find it utterly hilarious.

So, if you’ve already seen it, see it again. If you haven’t, shame on you! And in either case, here’s the YouTube-version of the video, for your viewing pleasure:

My Nomination for the Scariest Video Game Character Ever

2008-06-16T22:29:00.005+02:00

There are many scary videogames. There are many scary characters. Some would argue that the zombie dogs, as well as various other creatures and characters, from the Resident Evil games are very scary. Some can’t sleep while thinking of that little girl in F.E.A.R., and some people similarly think that the “Little Sister” character from BioShock is someone to fear (while the heavily armored “Big Daddy” from the same game is mostly laughable). Some people fear anything in the Silent Hill games, and a dear friend of mine thinks that Mario is damn right creepy. But I think that another character from various games in the Mario franchise have them all beat.

Freaking Yoshi. That stupid little dinosaur-thing is one of the creepiest things in the world of videogames. Not because of the stupid voice or silly appearance, but simply because of its outlandish biology.

This thing can eat almost anything, and mostly eats fruits and enemies almost half the size of the whole dinosaur. And it can eat lots and lots of them, without gaining in size at all. Now, that isn’t all that strange in the world of videogames. A lot of video game characters can eat many times their weight with no apparent effects. No, what scares me is what happens to the enemies that it swallows.

In some games you can use Yoshi’s freaky tongue to pull an enemy into your mouth, and then squat down to pop out a damn egg. Somehow it seems like Yoshi’s reproductive system (Yoshi is usually said to be male; did I mention that?) is directly linked to the digestive tract, so that food can be made into eggs. And not just egg shells over the corpses of your newly digested enemies; no, as far as I understand they are actual, functional eggs. At least one game I’ve heard of (though haven’t played) lets you put the eggs in nests to make Yoshi-young from the corpses of the beasts you eat.

That is freaky, and it all goes with an amazing speed too. But Yoshi doesn’t really seem to care much about the eggs though, even though there could be its precious sons and daughters in there. No, Yoshi uses its own eggs as a freaking weapon and throws them at enemies, switches, and whatever else needs to be reached or killed.

I’ve got to go back to killing some zombies or something, in some other game. Games with Yoshi in them scare the crap out of me. That is one freaky dinosaur.

My Father has Delightful Quirks

2008-06-15T22:32:00.002+02:00

Also; I love it when science beats common sense over the head.

At the moment I’m spending some time with my parents, visiting them over much of the summer. Spending time with my father reminds me of one of his most endearing characteristics; he has this charming way of flat out denying that he ever makes any mistakes. It’s always so sweet to see him with the unexpected outcome of something, acting like he knew all along what would happen. One of my favorite examples of this is from when I was in high school.

My father had an old pickup truck that he needed to do some work on, and wanted a convenient way to lift it with his forklift truck. He came to me one day and showed me some sketches he had made for a simple solution.

He had a couple of steel I-beams that he was going to weld together at the right distance from each other, so that he could drive the truck up on them, and lift the whole thing. He wanted me to calculate if the rig would hold the weight of the truck.

Of course, my dad is a classically schooled engineer; he could do that himself. But the task involved a lot of boring fact-finding; things like the distance between the forks of the forklift, the distance between the wheels of the truck, weights of different components, and so on, so I guess that he was just a bit too lazy to do it himself.

Either way, it was no big problem. I had learned how to calculate things like that in school, and it seemed like a simple enough problem. I got the necessary data; I sat down and did the math, and found the answer confusing. I went to my dad and said “Well, according to my calculations it isn’t going to hold.”

He looked at me with surprise. “Of course it is!” he said. “Look at these girders; they’re really thick and sturdy. The truck isn’t that heavy; of course they’ll hold.”

I showed him my notebook and showed how my calculations said that the girders will bend significantly, giving a 20 cm deflection at the ends. He briefly looked over my calculations, couldn’t find any fault in them, but concluded that I must be wrong anyway. After all, the girders looked so sturdy; of course they would hold the weight! He had a great air of “I don’t care what the math says; common sense tells me that this is going to work.”

So, the next day when I was coming home from school, I noticed a couple of bent steel girders sticking out of his scrap metal dumpster at the back of his workshop. I saw a golden opportunity to gloat a bit. I went in to him and was about to innocently ask him about his truck lifting-experiments, when he beat me to it.

He looked up at me from his desk and said, with a totally straight face, “Oh, I tried making that lift. The girders bent to hell, just like we said they would. But you know, I thought, what the hell, might as well try, right? It could have worked anyway, but they bent so much that the truck rolled off.”

So, he managed to make it sound like he was never of a different opinion. It’s really quite sweet; he is so good at not acknowledging at all that he made a mistake, even when it was just the day before.

Poem - Her Tears

2008-06-14T22:54:00.003+02:00

Disclaimer, of sorts.
It might be wishful thinking, but I’d like to think that this poem had some actual structure once. But the thing is that I wrote it several years ago, when I could still write poetry, and now I’ve translated it from Swedish to English from memory.
It came out better the first time, but I felt like making an attempt at it, since some recent events with a couple of close friends reminded me of it. It's just very suitable right now, despite lack of flow.

Her tears are my tears
Her tears bring mine

My tears are her tears
They bring more of hers

My tears make her cry
Even more than before
Because she’s so sorry
For making me worry

But I am thankful to her
For being who she is
For making me care
Care enough to cry

But she cries
And I tell her that I want
Change

She cries more because I want
Her to change

But she has misunderstood
I don’t want to change her
I think that she is perfect
Just the way she is

No, her tears make me want to change
The world
So that it will not hurt her
Anymore

I Finally Understand Why Homosexuals Shouldn’t be Allowed to Marry

2008-06-13T22:02:00.004+02:00

A rough sketch of our impending doom

I’m from Sweden. I have been told that many of us Swedes have a tendency to toot our own horns. I think that sounds like a euphemism for something thoroughly enjoyable, but they mostly mean that we tend to point out the good points of our country every chance we get.

This might be true. I also think that it’s true that Sweden is a pretty decent place. It might even be great, in some respects. It is however not perfect. For instance, we don’t have gender-neutral marriage laws; that is, gay marriages aren’t allowed.

Even if Sweden generally is a comparatively good country for LGBT-persons, I still think the legal rights and general climate for these groups should be improved. I have always believed that allowing gay marriages would be one of many positive steps that should be taken.

There are however tons of websites out there that go on and on about how gay marriages are wrong, how homosexuals getting married to each other will destroy the very foundation of society and how it’s not really an expression of homophobia to not want gay couples have the same rights as straight couples.

Now I’m here to tell you that I have finally seen the light. I have finally seen the danger of men marrying men and women marrying women. Above is a picture where I try to capture this evil. It’s just a rough, quickly drawn sketch because that’s all I had time for, but I think that it still captures the feeling of dread that we all should feel about such acts. Clearly the two women joining together in love are a vile, society-wrecking menace.

Oh, and on a completely unrelated note I just want to tell you that I love both sarcasm and satire.

The reason for my sudden insight is a Swedish organization that is “trying to preserve marriage as a union between a man and a woman” and their website to further this goal. This website is brilliant. I mean, they mostly re-iterate the very same arguments I have seen many times before, but still, they have me convinced.

Some of you might be tired of the entire debate, but I think that it’s still very important (for several reasons that will be presented later on) and therefore I will present the information on that website for those of you who are not Swedish-speaking.

They have a number of arguments, all brilliant, that are repeated again and again, and again, throughout the site. I will try to collect these arguments here and give my own comments on them.

1. Marriage is an ancient tradition and has always been a union between a man and a woman. The life giving union of a man and a woman has been the very foundation of society and that it has been in existence since before the formation of nation-states.

They start out strong, bringing out this “this is the way it’s always been”-argument in the beginning of a petition they have written, protesting gay marriage.

Of course, there are some tiny objections against the claim that marriage as it exists today is the way it’s always been. There have been some changes. For instance, wives are no longer considered the property of their husbands, it isn’t standard practice to arrange marriages for your children and people are allowed to marry people of a different social standing, skin color or religious denomination.

But despite those minor changes throughout history, it is true that marriage is an ancient tradition and as such it should naturally be preserved. All ancient traditions that helped shape our societies should be preserved. Like for instance the abundant slavery that was a cornerstone in the formation of almost all of our civilizations.

OK, so that was a bad example. But still. I’m sure change is still always bad; no one wants a change in the basic structure of our society right?

2. If we loosen up the concept of marriage to include people of the same sex, that will open up for further changes. People will want to marry members of the immediate family, animals and minors.

Yes, of course, this issue can not be treated separately. This is a slippery slope where one thing will obviously lead to another. If we allow consenting adults to marry each other because they love each other and want to spend their lives together, that is obviously going to lead to people marrying their dogs. Provided that the consenting adults are of the same sex, of course.

And it is perfectly reasonable to equate same sex marriage with incest and bestiality. Those things are obviously related and I can’t see how anyone could think that such a comparison is in some way offensive.

3. Heterosexual and homosexual relations are fundamentally different. The union between a man and a woman is a fertile one, while homosexual relationships can’t without help lead to children. This is no small difference; the future of the entire human race depends on it.

This is a great argument. It’s so hard for anyone to refute that two men or two women can’t have children, so obviously we can’t allow them to marry. If we allow that, we will endanger the entire human race.

For instance, imagine that there are two young guys living next door to me. They have fallen in love, moved in together and lived in a blissful relationship for several years and they want to spend the rest of their lives together and because of that they have joined together in a civil union.

Now imagine that gay marriage is suddenly allowed in my country. The lovely young men next door are ecstatic and immediately go and get married to each other.

Naturally that would stop me from ever finding a woman to spend my life with. I will never get children, because there are some gay couples who are married instead of just living together. The connection is so obvious and irrefutable that I won’t even bother explaining it, just like these web pages never seem to explain it.

And besides, it’s obvious that gay marriages are wrong since they can’t produce children. That’s why infertile people, like those who have undergone a vasectomy or women past menopause, aren’t allowed to marry.

Wait, what, they are? Oh, well, anyway… I’m sure the point is still valid; homosexuals can’t marry because that would be an infertile relation, and heterosexuals can marry no matter if their relation can result in children or not. There, that’s clear as day.

4. Marriage is the best thing for the children. Children need parents who have a long term commitment to caring for them. It is the parents who have given the child life and the institution of marriage is designed to strengthen the long term relationship between the man and the woman in favor of their children.

Heterosexual couples are obviously always more likely to have a long term commitment to their children, and more likely to make well informed, planned decisions to have children.

When a man and a woman get children together it is always the product of a long and arduous process of adoption or artificial insemination, which forces them to really think things through and discuss it with several other people.

Homosexual couples however can have children by complete accident or on a whim, without any thoughts or plans for the future.

No, wait, that’s the other way around. Oh well, anyway, even if it sounds likely that homosexuals would have that long term commitment to their children, there are other arguments.

Imagine again that there is a married gay couple living next door to me. Now also imagine that I have gotten married to a woman and have children. The fact that there are homosexual people married to each other out there will naturally change the way I raise my children. If there are homosexual married couples out there I won’t be able to provide a long term commitment to my children.

And besides, if there are homosexuals married to each other just like the children’s parents are married to each other, the children might grow up to believe that homosexuals are just like everyone else. That would probably be bad, for some reason.

5. The institution of marriage protects fidelity. Traditionally marriage is heterosexual and monogamous but according to Andrew Sullivan another view on relationships is common within the gay community. According to him, homosexual men “have a need for additional sexual contacts in a relationship between two men.” This would by extension weaken the longevity of marriage, leading to more divorces.

Andrew Sullivan is an author and political commentator. Also he’s gay. Consequently he knows what he’s talking about. I mean, he’s gay so of course he can speak for every other homosexual man.

If he says that homosexual men are less likely to be faithful and commit to long term relationships we can be certain that he knows what he’s talking about. Just like when Ann Coulter says that women can’t handle money, shouldn’t be allowed to vote and shouldn’t be in the military.

Ann Coulter’s views are of course the view of every heterosexual woman, since she is one herself. And the views expressed by Andrew Sullivan are shared by all homosexual men, since he is a gay man.

And of course there is never any infidelity in heterosexual relationships. Who has ever heard of a man cheating on his wife or a woman cheating on her husband? There is no such thing as heterosexual infidelity, so even if only a small fraction of the homosexual men adhere to Mr. Sullivan’s image of them, they would still present an unprecedented behavior into the world of marriages and destroy the entire institution.

So, obviously marriages, old and new, gay and straight, would all somehow be affected if we introduced gender-neutral marriage laws. There would be a lot more divorces, anyone can understand that.

Never mind that statistics show that during the 15 years homosexual marriage has been legal in Denmark, divorce rates among heterosexual couples have gone down and the rate of new marriages has gone up. Or that Massachusetts, a US state currently offering same-sex marriages, has some of the lowest divorce rates in the country; almost half that of the national average.

Statistics always lie, so such nonsense presentations of facts should be taken in stride. Just because gay marriages don’t have any proven ill effects anywhere is no reason not to believe that it will cause an irreparable breakdown of society if we allow it here.

6. Marriage is between a man and a woman and that is an expression of the fact that men and women need each other. Separately they are incomplete but when a man and a woman marry they form a complete unit.

Yes, that’s why we don’t consider singles functioning members of society. Children, widows and widowers, bachelors and spinsters, celibates, nuns and monks, catholic priests and others who for some reason aren’t married are clearly incomplete persons.

If we allow gay people to marry each other they will be incomplete. If we continue to disallow it however, they will probably find a suitable partner of the opposite gender instead and then they will be complete. It’s all so simple.

7. The institute of marriage is important to society and changing it to let men marry men and women marry women will lessen its importance, which would prove harmful to society.

Of course, the importance of marriage is seen much more clearly if a lot of people live together with the person they love without even being allowed to marry.

8. It is not homophobic to be against gender-neutral marriage laws. In Sweden we already have a form of civil union into which homosexuals can enter and get basically the same legal rights as you would get in a marriage.

This is true. In Sweden civil unions, or registered partnerships as we call them, are of pretty much the same legal standing as a marriage. The only real differences are the name and that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman, while these unions can be between two men or two women.

It is basically a “separate but equal”-approach, of the same kind as during the days of government regulated segregation in the United States. And we all know that segregation is a great idea, because…

No, wait. I can’t really go on anymore. I can’t even pretend to find an argument to why segregation is good. I notice that I couldn’t really pretend to have any good support for the other arguments presented either. I tried to sound positive and have just a bit of a sarcastic tone to everything, but I found that my pro-gay marriage subtext was rapidly becoming actual text.

If I still somehow haven’t been able to express my utter contempt for these arguments against gender-neutral marriage throughout the text, I will tell you now: I’ve really been lying this whole time. I think that all of the arguments I have presented are utter bullshit.

I have never been presented with a single good argument against gay marriages. All the arguments I’ve ever seen has been firmly grounded in emotion. They say the ubiquitous “Oh won’t someone please think of the children!”-line, they warn us that the very structure of society will crumble under the pressure from gay marriages and that the human race will actually die out if we allow “them” to marry.

People who are against gay marriages make it sound like if gays can marry this will affect every single heterosexual marriage as well. It seems that in their reasoning people will stop marrying people of the opposite sex and stop having babies and being productive members of society, if we allow this to pass.

In the real world, where we have rational arguments and can look objectively on facts, we can see that isn’t really the case. In fact, we could argue that one relationship rarely affects another and people will continue being with the one they love, regardless of what the marriage laws say.

So, why is this important to me? I have tried to argue that marriage laws don’t really affect who people will fall in love with and spend their lives with. I have stated that at least in my country civil unions give gay couples the same rights as straight couples. So, aren’t there more important questions to focus on?

Well, this is important for several reasons. First of all I think that it’s important to expose this sort of shoddy argumentation for what it really is, in all areas. People are often coerced into thinking things that aren’t true through statements like those, which look like sound arguments.

In cases like this that is dangerous. Here large groups can promote things like discrimination, segregation and homophobia under the disguise of caring for children and the society. People trust them because people aren’t critical enough sometimes and can’t expose such bad arguments.

This issue is also very important in itself. I really do believe that it is important to allow gay marriages. I will now give you a quick list of reasons for that, which you can critically examine and pick apart at your leisure.

1. Segregation is bad.

This one is obvious to me. In racial segregation it was said that blacks and whites should have the same facilities, at different places. This only served to further the idea that blacks and whites are fundamentally different, which leads to racism.

When we today say that homosexual and heterosexual unions should be separate things with separate names, we are really saying that homosexuals and heterosexuals are different and should be treated differently. That way lies homophobia and bigotry and I frankly feel that the world has had enough of that.

2. …

Wait, I don’t really feel that I need more arguments. Homophobia is bad. Every step on the way towards treating homosexuals and heterosexuals the same helps eliminate homophobia and anti-gay bigotry and that is good for society.

Now, I’m not gay myself. I’m not exactly straight either though. A comprehensive study into my own sexual orientation could actually be interesting, but I’ll save that for a possible future post. Regardless of my orientation though, I can see the ill effects of homophobia everywhere.

One of the worst effects of this is that one of the leading causes of death among young homosexuals is suicide. It is easy to see why, when everywhere in society there is a constant berating of homosexuals.

It must be especially tough when you’re growing up. When you are just discovering your sexuality and find out that you aren’t like everyone else around you, you would need to know that it’s ok.

We don’t need groups who claim that homosexual relationships are kind of like incest and bestiality, that gays are prone to infidelity and that they can’t care for children. We don’t need religious groups who say that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin. And we don’t need laws that state that homosexual relationships are fundamentally different from heterosexual ones.

I think that we should do whatever we can to further understanding and fight bigotry. There are a lot of young homosexuals who think that suicide is the only way out from the mental and physical torture of homophobes. If we can change the climate in society at enough to spare at least one of them from that feeling, I think that is worth a tremendous amount of effort.

Allowing gay marriage is a good step on the way towards convincing people that there aren’t any important differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and it requires very little effort.

Short Story - For the One Who Has Everything

2008-06-12T20:25:00.001+02:00

As I entered the store I saw a sign saying “For people who have everything” and it actually made me smile. Normally signs like that one, and their variations, tend to annoy me a bit.

You can find them in almost any store selling curios junk and strange gadgets. Due to the male-centric nature of such stores they more often say something along the lines of “The perfect gift for the man who has everything!” and sit atop tables filled with some really strange contraption that no one is ever likely to own.

This time though, the table under the sign wasn't filled with something like that. There were no electric corkscrews with built in short-wave radio transceivers. No toaster ovens with 3-inch LCD status screens. No vibrating keyboards. No boxer shorts that double as refrigerator magnets. There were none of those strange (and usually pretty useless and dreadfully expensive) gadgets that they usually try to sell to people desperate for that unique gift.

Instead it was just an empty table. They had probably just run out of whatever was on the table before but it was still really nice to see to me. Because really, what does the one who has everything need? I would immediately say nothing. And if they already have everything they certainly already have that weird gadget, whatever it is and however inconceivable it is.

So I thought the empty table carried great symbolism. And then I started thinking about what you should actually give the people who have everything.

I thought about it while browsing the store. I also started thinking about what you should give people who has nothing, a question that suddenly seemed just as hard. It felt very hard to know where to begin with people who has nothing when there is so much that they need.

Soon I came to the conclusion that the thing that the one who has everything needs is something that the one who has nothing also needs. After that I suddenly felt done with my shopping, left the store and went home.

As I walked into the apartment I immediately smelled smoke. Quickly running into the kitchen I found my temporary roommate taking something out of the oven.

I don't know what it was before he put it in there, but when it came out it was something black and shriveled up. It didn't look at all edible and looked about as sad as my roommate.

“My life is such a mess,” he said, putting down the severely blackened piece of food in disgust. “I'm still out of a job. I still live with you since I can't afford my own place. My car is gone, my girlfriend has definitely left me for good now and I seem to have lost the ability to cook. I just feel like have nothing going right in my life right now. I have nothing.”

I looked at his sad face for a moment.

“Come here,” I said, waving him over. “I picked something up for you at the mall today.”

He looked surprised and a bit happier and slowly went up to me to see what it was. As he got close I stepped up to him and put my arms around him, drawing him in close to me.

“A hug, just for you,” I whispered by his ear, as he hugged me back.

“Well, then at least I have that,” he whispered back, and I could hear in his voice that he was now smiling that sweet smile of his.

And he was right. He did have at least a hug. And he could have as many more as he would ever want from me, as well as a friendship that should last a lifetime. When he thought about that he seemed to feel that life isn't all that bad anyway.

My Number One Beauty Tip

2008-06-11T09:04:00.005+02:00

Become more attractive using only one easy, totally safe and absolutely free method.

I don't really care much about how people look, but have been thinking about beauty lately. What people think of as beautiful in people and what people do to achieve beauty.

Every time I go grocery shopping I see those glossy magazines by the check-out line. You know the ones that I mean. For every headline about Paris Hilton's latest escapades there are two about articles that will teach you how to lose weight, fast. And for every headline about something actually important or interesting there are at least ten about what really concerns people; wrinkles, hair loss, fashion, muscles, suntans, breast size, penis size and other things like that.

Every day I get spam. Most of it relates to the same topics as those magazine headlines. Make this or that bigger, alter this, chop that off, get hair, remove hair, get bulked while you sleep, remove wrinkles, and so on, and so forth in all eternity.

So, do you have to do all these things to be attractive? Not that I think many people do truly all of it. It is for instance a very select few who do both breast and penis enlargements. But some people surely do, and a lot of people do most of the things the magazines tell them to. Do you have to spend all of your free time at the gym, the solarium, the health food isle, the stylist and the trendy stores to become someone worthy of a second glance? As you might have guessed by now, my answer is a resounding no.

I don't mind if people dress nice. I don't mind if people who are overweight try to lose some weight; if nothing else there are plenty of good medical reasons for that. Frankly I don't really mind any of the stuff people do to make themselves look pretty, as long as they do it for themselves and because it is something that they enjoy to do. I don't think any of that stuff is really important though.

So, what is it that I actually do think is important? What is this big secret that I'm going to tell you?

Well, the secret isn't that big, really. It can all be summed up in one word:
Smile

That's right, that's all I'm asking you to do. Before you start protesting I want you to think about it. When was the last time you saw a really genuine smile directed at you? Didn't it make you feel really good, and really good about the person smiling? Didn't a beautiful smile make that person seem more attractive to you?

If you've answered no to any or all of the above questions you are very different from me and everyone I know. If however you have answered yes to them then you already know what I'm talking about.

All kinds of smiles can be beautiful, and heighten the beauty of the person wearing it. The cute innocent smile of certain young people, the heartwarming smile of someone receiving a well thought-out gift, the infectious smiles of people who are genuinely happy and content, the intoxicating smiles of people deeply in love, the playful grins of up to some surprise… There are thousands of kinds of smiles and they all instill some kind of emotion, which is almost always a positive one.

Now, this may all seem obvious. I still think people should mention it more though. I see too few smiles in my daily life and I find that the world would be a nicer and more beautiful place if people would smile more.

So, from now on, if you are unhappy with the way you look, try not to let it bother you. Try to be a happy person anyway. That is altogether healthier and will make you more attractive to me and most other people in the process.

I Kind of Have a Dream

2008-06-10T21:15:00.001+02:00

A short while back it was 40 years since Martin Luther King, Jr. died. At the day of his death I started thinking about his famous “I have a dream”-speech, and about my own dream. I decided to try to write it down here.

It will soon be 45 years since Martin Luther King made his most famous speech about his dream for change.

Since the days when he made that speech we actually have seen change in the world.

It would be a blatant lie to say that the entire world has risen to the cause of ending bigotry, but we’ve seen the slow, cumbersome wheels of social change turn.

Thankfully, the conditions that King spoke of can now confidently be said to be a thing of the past. The open, horrible bigotry and oppression that existed in those days is now almost unthinkable. But, even so, racism and bigotry is sadly still far, far from dead. I still see it everywhere.

I see black people being subjected to milder variants of the same bigotry, hatred, harassment and subjugation that they have been subjected to for centuries.

I see people being incessantly harassed because they “look Middle Eastern.”

I see examples of vitriolic anti-homosexual and anti-transsexual bigotry everywhere.

I see Asians continually subjected to racist stereotyping and hateful speech.

In this day and age, in some of the most progressive countries in the world, I still see women being treated like second-class citizens; I see them getting paid less and I see them treated as if they were worth and capable of less.

I see people who are considered ugly or overweight, by some people’s seemingly arbitrary standards, being treated as if their physical appearance makes them stupid and worthless.

I see people of all walks of life that express fear and hatred towards people whom they consider to be “different” than themselves.

When I see all this small-minded bigotry all around me, I die a little inside. I would have expected the human race to be able to get past that sort of thinking more easily.

I would have thought that the inalienable rights of all people, which are so often mentioned by great speakers, should be so self-evident that people would treat everyone with the same respect that they demand for themselves. But still, the bigotry remains.

Most of all I see all this bigotry as a symptom of a dangerous “us versus them”-mentality.

People are still all too quick to associate and relate only to those who share a superficial likeness with them. People who, for instance, have the same skin color, the same nationality or the same gender as yourself are assumed to have other things in common too, while those who don’t share those attributes are assumed to be different.

Well, like the late Martin Luther King, I kind of have a dream, too.

I dream of a world where there is no longer any need for brilliant orations like King’s speeches.

I dream of a future when such things are firmly put behind us as a thing belonging to the past, only remembered to remind us not to go back to the foolish way we used to act.

I dream of a time when each and every person exclaims with pride and conviction “I am a minority of one, and so is everyone else.”

In my dream people stop automatically considering themselves a part of a group just because they happen to have been born in the same country or with the same skin color.

In my dream people say “I am myself with my own thoughts and ideas. I am not defined by my group; I am not my nationality, nor am I my gender, my skin color or creed. No matter what group I am born or joined into I am still myself, a unique individual, and so is everyone else. I can not be judged based on my group, and neither can they. I am just as likely to have things in common with someone outside of my group, as with someone in it.”

This world of my dreams would be considered a sad place by many. Many think that it’s sad if you don’t feel an automatic connection to those who happen to have been born into the same group of people as you.

I say that it shouldn’t be considered a sad thing at all.

I say that if we stop concentrating on the broad, obvious similarities such as skin color, we are freer to explore the smaller, but more important, similarities between us; to explore the similarities that can be found between humans anywhere, of any culture, appearance or gender.

I say that we should learn to celebrate the things that bind us together, and explore similarity of thought and ideas, instead of dwelling on superficial things that set us apart. I want us to realize that skin color and other such attributes are simply things we are born with; they do not define us. The important things are those we do after we are born.

Modern societies of freedom and law usually condemn acts of bigotry. There are laws protecting minorities and laws against persecution and hate speech. This is good, but some people see it as enough.

I say that it is not enough.

In my dream people don’t act civil against people different than themselves simply to be law-abiding.

In my dream there is a lack of bigotry not from law and decree, but from understanding and communication.

In my dream we live in a world where we can look upon and treat people, judge, reward and punish them according to their actions and who they are, not what they look like or any other superficial, unimportant qualities.

King said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Those words are as important today as they were then. And I have a dream that we will soon live in a world like that.

Homophobes Should Support the “Gay Agenda”

2008-06-09T21:55:00.001+02:00

Today I'll be talking about homophobia and gay rights, but first I want to talk a bit about the American sitcom Friends.

I like Friends; it’s a really nice show. Some of the lines are wonderfully witty and a lot of them can make me smile again and again. One exchange I particularly remember is a dialogue between Ross and his friend Phoebe, in a flashback episode where he has just found out that his wife is a lesbian.

In that scene, Ross stumbles into the bar that used to be their hangout and meets Phoebe. She notices his distress and asks what is wrong.

“My marriage…” he says. “I think my marriage is… is kind of over.”

“Oh no,” she says with concern. “Why?”

“Because Carol is a lesbian… And I’m not one… And apparently it’s not a mix and match situation.”

That line slays me. I think it’s hilarious. Of course the scene has a bitter aftertaste when you remember that this sort of thing actually happens in real life, which is something I find very sad.

What I find even sadder yet, however, is the people who think that it’s sad for an entirely different reason than I do, the people who blame “the gay agenda” for things like this happening.

Now, I’m friends with plenty of gay people and I must admit that I hadn’t even heard of this agenda before I started watching Fox news and listening to American social conservatives. And I must say that after hearing about it I’m shocked; apparently “the gays” and “them damn, dirty liberal fag-lovers” (which I’ve so lovingly been called) have a hidden, secret agenda together.

The ones who are part of this agenda are the people who sometimes mention homosexuality in a positive way. Apparently this is a most nefarious thing to do and is ruining western society by “making people believe that people being queers is something normal” and other bad things like that.

The ones who oppose this obviously despicable agenda claim that it is to blame for things like the aforementioned scene from Friends. Since they love to claim that homosexuality is a choice (and an evil choice, at that!) they think that all these proponents of the agenda are recruiting innocent straight people to join them in their evil, wicked ways. By “making homosexuality seem good and normal” we are obviously tricking people into somehow converting to being gay.

They say that the entire concept of women leaving their husbands for another woman, and men leaving their wives for another man, is all because of this. They claim that these good, married people have been converted to homosexuality and thus the evil gay agenda succeeded in ruining another straight marriage.

That’s the kind of talk I’ve heard many times. What about reality though? What do we see if we ignore the paranoid ramblings of those homophobes?

Well, I’d say that first of all we should see that even if there was such a thing as a hidden gay agenda it would not be at fault for ruining any marriage. In fact, I’d say that those homophobes have things completely backwards; I think that a greater public acceptance of homosexuality actually helps reduce the number of ruined marriages.

You see, the kind of thing that happened in Friends actually does happen in real life. The reason is however not that straight people marry someone and then “turn gay.” People don’t choose or change their sexuality like that.

So no, it’s not the people involved in the “gay agenda” who have converted them. It’s rather that being gay is such a stigma in large parts of our societies. The sad truth is that the oppression against gays makes many repress their sexuality and try to believe that they are straight, or at least act straight in the eyes of the outside world.

Sometimes these people get married. This is often a cover, either to others, to avoid oppression, or to themselves so that they don’t have to accept the truth about themselves. This happened more before, but it still happens today and it’s a sad state of affairs. These people are living a lie and generally have miserable marriages that sooner or later break down.

I like to imagine a world where homosexuals don’t feel oppressed, where young people finding that they have feelings for the same sex see no reason to suppress those feelings, where people can be themselves openly and without question. I want that because it’s the right thing; people should always be allowed to be themselves.

The homophobes who blame “the gay agenda” for the failed marriages between a gay and a straight person should wish for the same world. They should wish for it, because in that world of tolerance and understanding there would of course not be more of that kind of marriage, there would in fact be substantially fewer, perhaps even none.

In a world where that perceived agenda has succeeded in making homosexuality universally accepted there would be no need and no reason for gay people to ever marry straight people. Straights would have no risk of getting involved with someone who doesn’t actually like the opposite sex, because people would be open and frank about their sexuality, eliminating such things.

So even the people (and I use the term “people” quite loosely here) who are complete homophobes should support this “gay agenda.” A world more open and friendly towards gays would only mean benefits even for those who want to avoid homosexuals.

An important thing to note however, and I can’t stress this enough, is that there is no secret, nefarious, hidden gay agenda. All the non-straight people in the world don’t get together in secret meetings with secret literature and plot the downfall of heterosexuality.

The only agenda I’ve seen among gay people is a strong wish to live normal lives; to love who they want without a need to hide it and have relationships just like straight people, without being condemned for it. For most homosexuals this “agenda” just means quietly living their lives, without bothering people. For others it means fighting for their rights by trying to convince people that they’re not doing anything wrong.

It’s the latter group who bother some people and who gives rise to these strange rumors of secret, evil agendas. Many homophobes feel that the mere mention of homosexuality is so bothersome that they want to stop people from talking about it. But remember; if we suddenly live in a society where homosexuality is fully accepted there will no longer be any need for them to fight for their rights, no need to be loud and talk about it. So, again, even homophobes should support this “agenda” so that homosexuals can “shut up about it.”

People being gay just shouldn’t concern you, because the relationships of other people do not involve you. Let people live and love in the way that’s in their nature; it doesn’t affect your life if they love someone of the same sex and if you don’t bother them about it they won’t bother you.

So, support the gay agenda; stop giving homosexuals any reason to be dissatisfied or complain.

Dirty Haiku Poems

2008-06-08T15:01:00.008+02:00

A friend and I were discussing haiku poetry. For some unknown reason she got on the subject of dirty poetry and mentioned that while dirty poetry exists in all forms it is very unusual to see any obscene haiku poems. Naturally I took that as a challenge.

So, just for the fun of it, here are some of my attempts at it. Some are meant to be funny, some are meant to be sensual and some are merely dirty. Perhaps you will grant us some dirty haiku of your own in the comments?

Be advised; some of these are obscene. You have been warned.

A hot summer night
Her warm wet folds spread and swell
His probing tongue licks

Grass under our knees
Bodies moving fervently
In the style of dogs

A white world outside
Snow and cold depresses them
They fuck to forget

Moans fill the cold night
Legs tremble and buckle in
Orgasmic delight

Firmly tied to bed
Perfect enjoyment during
Complete abandon

A warm spring breeze blows
Soft moans echo through the air
As she blows me too

Dry leaves in the yard
A couple rolling around
Having dirty sex

In the spring she gave
The sweetest proposition
“Fuck my pussy hard”

Sweat forming droplets
Bodies in heat glistening
Moving rapidly

A walk in the woods
A sudden revelation
Public sex is great

I Have Found the Magical YouTube Video

2008-06-07T13:27:00.002+02:00

This, dear ladies, gentlemen and others, is a true story. It might seem inconceivable, it might always seem irreverent in its complete departure from the natural order of things, but I assure you that it is what actually happened, even though now it all seems like a dream…

Late last night when I, as per usual, could not sleep, I was roaming around the magical world of YouTube to entertain me. I do not consider myself a part of the YouTube-generation, but I do highly enjoy the site when small injections of entertainment is required.

I was watching various viral videos, most very whimsical, some with a professional veneer, and they were titillating my senses with their variety of views of the world.

Everything was new and everything was like it has always been. The videos were entertaining, but rarely surprising, and the comments below were just as they always are, like all frequent visitors have learned and accepted that they are.

Suddenly I felt a yearning for some classical music. I made a few searches and listened to a couple of versions of some of the more accessible examples of music from days long since gone.

I came across several amateur renditions of Fur Elise, I listened and I enjoyed. Watching hands move across a piano holds strangely little fascination to me though, so while listening I mostly occupied myself with scrolling down and perusing the comments. The YouTube comments holds some sort of morbid fascination to me, so when I don’t have any reason to actually watch the video I often read them like that.

It was the usual snippets of vile bile and wildly uninteresting spam and I was once again wondering why I was even reading them. Then, suddenly, something struck me like a blow to the stomach. While reading the comments to one particular video something was extremely strange.

I rubbed my eyes. I was amazed. Awestruck. Since it was the middle of the night and I was actually starting to get tired I thought I might be dreaming. I had to stop myself and start reading again from the top just to make sure that I wasn’t mistaken.

After a while I could feel certain that I was neither dreaming nor mistaken. What I had first thought was true; there were hundreds of comments, but not an angry or hateful word. There were just… Compliments. Nice things.

The woman playing was not perfect. She was good, very good, much better than I have a chance to ever be. I am duly envious of her talent and the hard work she must have put in. But still, even I could hear some of the mistakes made. Normally any little mistake would be repeatedly pointed out in the comments in vile and insulting ways. Now people saw past trivial mistakes and somehow just complimented her for being talented overall.

I looked through all the comments. It wasn’t just that no one was pointing out the mistakes. No one was saying “Gee, get a fucking life, nerd”. No one wrote that she was fat or ugly (not that much of her could be seen, but that is rarely a problem for those who enjoy posting comments like that) nor was anyone saying that she was “fukking smexy” and that they would like to sex her up.

There was no sign of the usual “Why do you bother putting this shit up? I could do better when I was three years old!”-type of comments. There wasn’t even one person telling her to give up any aspirations of ever getting good and no one told her that the video had wasted their precious time.

My jaw was figuratively on the floor. There wasn’t even any spam!

And now, it all feels like a dream again. I can no longer find the video and though I feel certain that it did exist I can’t really grasp that it happened. It truly must have been a magical video, somehow forcing people do be nice and behave. That video should be used to resolve international conflicts, if it can make people commenting on YouTube be polite and civilized.

Seriously though. I do understand that this has probably happened before. There have probably been many times when a video have gotten at least mostly positive comments. But I think anyone who regularly reads the comments on YouTube agree that (and I do apologize for my language) “What the fuck is up with YouTube commenters” is often a very valid question to ask.

It seems like a majority of the people commenting truly do not enjoy a single video they watch but they still keep coming back, spreading their hatred in the comment-sections of video after video. Not to mention all the people claiming that videos were a waste of their time, while they still take the time to actually comment. It’s all very confusing to me.

Comments on "Sex, God, and Marriage"

2008-06-02T20:40:00.002+02:00

Several times I’ve seen Google Ads for a “Free ebook on handling sexuality in a way that pleases God”, called Sex, God, and Marriage. I hate that book.

The book, written by Johann Christoph Arnold, claims to be a book that will help people deal with their relationship. I guess that’s what it is trying to do too, and of course I don’t have anything against that. What I do have something against is how they express themselves.

The book blatantly ignores the common knowledge that no two relationships, and indeed no two people, are the same. They are not saying “You should try this” and “This might be a good idea”; they are telling people that there is one and only one thing to do, and that if they don’t, then God Almighty will be very cross with them.

Words like “sin”, “abomination”, “perversion” and “demonic forces” are thrown around a lot, and I see this as a problem. The book has a very impressionable target audience and it is very authoritative in its style; the author clearly think that he both knows and speaks God’s own will, it is riddled with bible quotes and there is a foreword by Mother Teresa.

Couple this with that the book tells us that virtually everything that has to do with a normal, healthy sexuality is in some way sinful and dirty, and I strongly suspect that it leads to some very confused and ashamed youths. Their bodies are telling them one thing, the Word of God (by proxy of Mr. Arnold) tells them another, and when they can’t keep themselves from “sinning” they are likely to get very ashamed and depressed.

Here is an illustrating quote from early on in the book:

“Perversions – masturbation, homosexual practice, pornography, premarital sexual intercourse, divorce and remarriage – have become increasingly accepted“

And he says that as if it is a bad thing!

I admit that I’ve read far from the entire book. But I did read some of it, just because my first glance at it bothered me so much. I hate it when people preach intolerance and ignorance under the guise of religion. Religion gives people such a good defense against rational discussion.

I will now pick on this book a bit by giving you some quotes from the parts that I read, and my own sinful comments on those quotes.

Wives, for their part, should give themselves in love to their husbands as they are able, even if their joy in doing so is not the same as it was in earlier years (1 Cor. 7:3-4). Otherwise a husband may be tempted to seek other outlets for his sexual impulses.

The amount of sexism in this single quote confounds and angers me so much that I feel the need to make a numbered list of things that bothers me about it. Remember kids, numbered and bulleted lists are fun!

The bible verses in question don’t say that at all, at least not according to my reading of them. In my interpretation they are actually very much for equality in a marriage. Of course this is also an example of why have such problems with books like this; the authors always seem so sure that their particular interpretation of their Holy Texts is correct, and they feel entitled to condemn and command people in accordance to that particular interpretation.
Saying “A wife must give herself to her husband whenever he wants it; God says so” is just so completely wrong, in so many ways, and almost any moral standard would agree. According to my personal moral standard it is certainly unjustifiably evil. But it’s usually glossed over as pretty much ok as long as it has religious basis; after all “we must respect their beliefs”.
The whole quote also works under the assumption that sexual urges is a very male thing. This is a very outdated view, from the time where the entire female sexuality was suppressed by society (which it still is to a much lesser degree), assuming that women don’t crave sexual pleasure and release. This is of course patently false; women have their sexuality just like men, and if the man’s lust dwindles before the woman’s (which is in fact very common), she will also be “tempted to seek other outlets for her sexual impulses”. But the author ignores this and says that only women have the obligation to keep up with sexual relations to keep their spouse happy.

Also, this quote says that if people don’t get sex, they will seek other outlets for their sexual impulses. Oh, cue the loud interjections of surprise! Of course people do that. But the author wouldn’t have to order wives to give themselves to their husbands against their will if he didn’t spend much of the rest of the book condemning masturbation.

Of course, the author tries to subvert the image of him as a sexist pig several times, by claiming that he is all for equality in relationships. But I feel that his heart isn’t really in the whole equality-thing. There are several quotes along the lines of the above one, and the fact that he sees fit to include wonderful Bible verses such as “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything”, from Ephesians 5:22-24.

In some school districts an appreciation and understanding for the homosexual lifestyle is encouraged: it is, our children are told, a perfectly acceptable alternative to heterosexual marriage

Again: they say that as if it is a bad thing!

The whole book contains numerous examples of gay-bashing. The author does his best to deny this in one section, saying that everyone is a sinner and that he’s not advocating judging homosexuals worse than other sinners. That would be all well and good, but I have a hard time believing him when he just goes on and on about the abominable sin of “homosexual conduct”; he really does seem to have a big giant stick up his ass about it, and he really does seem to judge homosexuals harsher than all the other sinners.

For instance, Mr. Arnold says:

“In Leviticus 18:22-23, God calls homosexual intercourse an abomination: ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.’ And in Leviticus 20:12 we read, ‘The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves.’ Let those who discount such prohibitions and warnings by explaining that we are now ‘no longer under the law, but under grace’ then explain why incest, adultery, bestiality, and human sacrifice are not to be ignored. All of these are condemned in the very next sentences”

I guess what he is trying to say that if we take one part of the bible to heart, then we must take it all. Since we still condemn things like human sacrifice we must also condemn homosexuals; they are both in the same chapter of the Holy Book, after all.

So, let’s see what else Leviticus tells us.

Well, shrimp and other crustaceans are of course an abomination (Lev. 11:10), as is “every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (a very exact definition indeed!) (Lev. 11:41) and they should not be eaten. Likewise we should not eat swine or touch their carcasses, since they are unclean (Lev 11:7-8). Naturally you should never wear a garment made from both linen and wool, nor plant two different crops in the same field (Lev. 19:19). And don’t forget that you’re not allowed to cut the corners of your beard (Lev. 19:27) or get tattoos (Lev. 19:28).

Now, I would say that today very few consider these things serious crimes or sins, and I would guess that Mr. Arnold himself rarely crusades against shellfish or clothes made from mixed fabrics. But for some reason he seems to think that the brief mention of homosexuality is still very important. I can’t for the life of me understand how he knows which verses are important and which are not, though.

In many curricula students are graphically taught (sometimes by way of films) about various sexual practices, including masturbation, and about “safe” sex. [...] Some schools even have students pair off to discuss topics such as foreplay and orgasm. […] Abstinence, if not entirely ignored, is mentioned only in passing.

Oh great, another proponent of abstinence only sex education. These people seem to believe that kids actually won’t have sex if we just tell them to abstain. They think that there is no need to tell people about things like sex and protection, because if we just preach abstinence they won’t be having any sex anyway.

Mr. Arnold seems convinced of this, and says “All the same, there is a danger in giving a child too many biological facts about sex. Often, a factual approach to sex robs it of its divine mystery” and “Haven’t we seen by now that knowledge is no safeguard, and that sex education as taught in most schools has only increased sexual activity?”

Seriously people; we live in a world where there are Catholic priests who rape children. If we can’t get every priest, people who have taken holy vows and gone through lengthy training, to act in even a halfway decent manner, then who the hell do you expect to get every kid to go against their natural urge to have sex?

Sexuality is one of the strongest, most noticeable parts of us, especially in young people. Young people have sex; that’s just the way it is. Not everyone, but very many. The “don’t tell them anything about it”-line just seems stupid and dangerous when considering that. Surely telling them that if they have sex they should use protection and so on, isn’t a bad idea?

I am not against teaching abstinence. Of course abstinence is always the best way to avoid both STDs and unwanted pregnancy. Most kids don’t want to abstain, but some might and it’s not a bad thing to tell them that it might be good. But it’s the abstinence only thing that gets to me.

Abstinence only education is what has given many Florida teens the belief that drinking a cap of bleach will stop HIV, and that Mountain Dew and marijuana can stop pregnancy, as reported in this news story.

Many abstinence only-proponents claim that if we tell kids about anything more than the bare necessities about sex, they will invariably be sex-crazed maniacs and there will be tons of teen pregnancies and abortions.

I’m not so sure about that though. The Netherlands, for example, is a very liberal country with comprehensive sex education. If you look at the statistics cited in this Washington Post article, you see that they have just a fraction of the teen pregnancies and teen abortions that the United States has. This article shows some more figures for the Netherlands, which shows lower rates of STDs too.

Yes, statistics lie. If you don’t know the whole cultural context for figures like this, the statistics are somewhat worthless, I realize that. But, the most important thing to note here is that the abstinence only-proponents often claim that a more comprehensive sex education invariably leads to higher rates of STDs and teen pregnancies, and we can clearly see that isn’t true.

I am of course far from alone in thinking that abstinence-only education is bull. Here are some resources found on the Wikipedia page on abstinence (sources available on the page for anyone who does not trust this):

“Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective.”

Of course, there is another type of people also against comprehensive sex education in schools. They claim that schools shouldn’t teach kids about sex, because that’s their parents’ job.

I kind of agree that parents should teach their kids about such things. But it is a fact that far from all parents will do that. We do not live in a perfect world, and most parents are too embarrassed about the subject to mention it more than in passing. Did the parents of the aforementioned Florida teens take their responsibility to teach the kids about sex, protection, and basic common sense? I wouldn’t think so. If they had, those kids wouldn’t be drawing from their repositories of unsubstantiated rumors and feel “oh it’s ok that we didn’t use protection; good old bleach and Mountain Dew will cure all!”

Kids are imperfect, parents are imperfect. Schools are very far from perfect, but at least it’s a somewhat controllable institution that can be used to propagate vital knowledge (one might even assert that it is a primary function, of sorts, for schools).

Young people underestimate the powers of the demonic forces they allow into their lives when they give in to impurity. Take masturbation for example. […] Increasingly, parents, educators, and ministers of our day claim that masturbation is healthy and natural; many see it as just another form of stress release.

Apparently, we are supposed to tell kids “Absolutely no sex! Sex is deadly and wrong and sinful”, then tell them “Oh, and don’t masturbate either! That’s unhealthy, unnatural, and such a bad sin that you let demonic forces into your life if you partake in it!”

So, we are actively trying to traumatize them? Seriously; as previously mentioned, all young people have strong sexual urges. That’s how a species survives, and it’s of course entirely natural. Besides there being numerous health benefits to masturbation, people will always want to masturbate just because that’s how we work. So, when young people are told by someone speaking for the Supreme Authority that all of their urges are unhealthy, unnatural, and somehow related to demons, how do you think that they will feel lying alone in bed at night, fighting said urges?

And if we are now aiming for decreased sexual activity among young people, and they are told that masturbation lets in demonic forces in their lives (while pre-marital sex is just a normal sin), do you think that they will be more or less likely to have sex, rather than masturbate, to handle the sexual urges?

To me it feels like young people masturbating gives them great opportunities to get to know their own bodes, get sexual relief, stress release, pleasure and entertainment without any risk of STDs or unwanted pregnancy. But of course there are always people like Mr. Arnold who thinks that’s just all too good and want to stop it.

Contraception undermines the fulfillment and fruition of two who are one flesh

The guy who wrote this book really hates contraception. The whole “spilling one’s seed without the intention of knocking someone up” really gets to him, and he seems convinced that all relationship failures are because of people having sex to actually enjoy it.

Every time he mentions contraception he uses quotation marks around the word “safe” in “safe sex”, using scare quotes tactics to drive home his point that he doesn’t consider safe sex safe at all. This is another pattern of behavior that I really hate among people like this.

Yes, no protection is 100% perfect. People like Mr. Arnold tend to severely exaggerate the risk of failure, but the truth is still that condoms don’t work every single time.

The important point is though that people will have sex. People will also have sex with partners whom they can’t know are “clean”, they will have sex at times when pregnancy is unwanted, and they will do so regardless if there is protection available or not. Now, a condom protects against STDs and unwanted pregnancy almost every single time, so of course it’s a very good thing to use them.

But when people like Mr. Arnold keep exaggerating the failure rates many seem to think that it isn’t worth the bother. When things start heating up and the young couple realizes their lack of condoms, some seem very liable to think along the lines “but people say those things don’t work anyway, so screw it”.

Of course, the Catholic Church is famous for aggravating the problems of HIV and poverty in many areas, by actively campaigning against condom use. Mr. Arnold seems keen to join in that fun; wanting to help spread venereal disease and contribute to the problem of overpopulation. What a man.

Only a few decades ago, transsexualism – the practice of undergoing a surgical male-to-female or female-to-male sex change – was unheard of. Today this godless practice is gathering momentum across the western world. The enormous cost of these surgeries alone is a crime against humanity when one thinks of the widespread hunger and poverty in the Third World and in our own American ghettos.

This statement really saddens me. Saying that sex reassignment therapy is a “godless practice” is just evil. People born with the wrong physical gender sometimes really do need those operations to be able to live with themselves. Telling those who need it that it is godless, and in extension a crime against humanity, is something I just find sick.

Every year many transsexuals are killed because of the social stigma against them. Guys like Mr. Arnold certainly aren’t helping by telling people that they commit crimes against humanity… It would sadly not surprise me if he has at least one murder on his conscience, by someone who took his words to heart and thought they would rid the world of a dangerous threat.

What would we be if God had not breathed his breath into us? Darwin’s whole theory of evolution, by itself, is dangerous and futile because it is not God-centered. Something inside of us cries out against the idea that we have been hatched by a purposeless universe.

Why do certain religious types feel the need to drag the theory of evolution into absolutely everything? This was supposed to be a book about relationships and sex, but the author obviously thought that it was incomplete without some evolution-bashing, no matter how much of a non sequitur it is.

The theory of evolution is a bit of a favorite of mine, as far as scientific theories go. I could write a whole post just on how certain religious groups misrepresent the theory (and I probably will some time), but for now I’ll try to keep myself short.

I just want to say that, yes, it is totally true. Evolution is not God-centered. Mr. Arnold is right about that. This does not, however, mean that it is incompatible with religion, nor does it try to “disprove God”.

Scientific theories are the conclusions and predictions that come naturally and logically from observing and examining observable reality. God is by definition supernatural and not included in the natural, observable. You can’t make any accurate predictions starting from the premise “God did it”, so science does not concern itself with Gods.

This does not automatically mean that scientists try to say that there is no God, or that the universe is purposeless, or that we came from nothing. It only means that God is not useful in science since it does not involve anything that can be measured and quantified. Very many scientists, and very many evolutionary biologists, are religious. Many are not religious. Religion and science have very little connection to each other; stop trying to make science out to be some evil, atheist plot.

I’ll leave things at that. I know that most of the book’s target audience will never read this post, but I still wanted to give my thoughts on the book. Hopefully the people reading this post understand what a stupid and potentially dangerous book it is.

Note; as I didn’t read the whole book myself I might have been unfair towards it in some case. If you suspect me of malicious quote mining, feel free to check out the book for yourselves; it is free after all.

I Hate the Debate on Global Warming

2008-05-30T14:49:00.001+02:00

“But, Marcus,” I can hear my friends say, “aren’t you, like, some sort of environmentalist? You like to talk about saving the planet and animals and crap, shouldn’t you welcome a debate about what might be a serious environmental issue?”

You might think so. I thought so. However, lately I’ve been involved in too many discussions online and reading too many editorials and stuff. People’s views and opinions have really made me realize that this issue must be dropped from public debate as soon as possible.

No, I don’t really believe that. But seriously people; this is getting ridiculous. I have come to a point were I honestly don’t care about the debate about global warming anymore.

I personally think that man-made global warming seems to be a fact. All the most credible research suggests that it is happening, that we are causing it and that it will most probably cause a global catastrophe. But I don’t care.

The reason that I don’t care anymore are all the (apparently millions and millions of people) who are somehow outraged at every mention of global warming, as well as the people who are outraged about entirely different things and blame it all on other people’s “belief” in global warming.

As soon as oil prices are mentioned there is usually someone saying that those damned environmentalists and their myth about man-made global warming are to blame for the current prices. Whenever someone talks about research into alternative fuels it seems like it’s necessary for someone to pop up and say something like “This research is wasted money; global warming is all a lie!” And when people say anything at all about conservation there always seem to be someone willing to claim that trying to conserve resources and the environment is just wasted effort, since global warming “has been proved to be a false”.

I have seen a remarkable number of arguments along the lines of “Those environmentalist freaks conspire to bring us back to the Stone Age with their myth about global warming.”

Yeah, that’s right. You’ve found out the brilliant evil plan. It’s a worldwide conspiracy between scientists from various fields who plan to set technology back by willingly deceiving you about something they call “global warming”. I especially love the part of the plan where they want to spend more money on research on new fuels and new modes of transportation. That’s a brilliant plan to set back technological progress.

Or wait, maybe not.

The thing is, it doesn’t really matter if global warming is happening or not. It doesn’t matter if it is man-made or not. Or, well, it does matter, but not in the way those people seem to think. Today, very many seem to think that if man-made global warming is just proven false, there is no reason to be more conservative in the usage of fossil fuels. My point is however that our use of fossil fuels must be phased out regardless of global warming. Global warming does nothing more than provide some additional encouragement for that.

Regardless of global warming, usage of fossil fuels still is a large threat to the environment. Combustion of fossil fuels provides us with plenty of pollutants, like sulfur dioxide and heavy metals. It gives us an ample supply of acid rain that affects both the natural environment and man-made structures. It releases many different toxins and even radioactive materials into the atmosphere and it’s just generally very unhealthy.

Oil refineries pollute air and water. Oil drilling out in the ocean gives us a decent amount of damage to sea living organisms and oil spills from tankers and the like have repeatedly proven that they can provide even more damage. Coal mining in its different incarnations has ruined both parts of the landscape and coal miners for centuries. And I could go on and on about the environmental impact of both the extraction, processing and usage of fossil fuels.

But hey, that’s just the environment; it’s just about the air we breathe, the water we drink, the land we live on and our fellow animals that co-inhabit the world with us. People have always thought there are way more important issues than protecting such insignificant little things like that.

But those who don’t really want to worry about ecology can often worry about economy. And while humans breathe (preferably clean) air, our current economy lives and breathes oil. We have nothing but slightly educated guesses as to when our supply of oil will run out.

What if we were to find some alternative energy sources before then? What if we would try to lower our consumption already, lengthening the time our supply lasts and giving us better chances of having time to create a society that will survive even after it runs out?

Ok, I know, I know, that is just crazy ideas. A throng of Internet forum-visitors have convinced me that only crazy leftist subversives with an evil agenda want people to stop driving the most energy inefficient SUVs imaginable. Only weird, hippie-environmentalists want people to take the bike or bus once in a while. And only wasteful, narrow minded people who don’t understand the economy wants us to put a bit of effort and money into researching alternatives to our quickly diminishing oil reserves.

Of course we only promote such ideas out of evil spite. Naturally it’s because we want people to suffer by making them use smaller, slightly slower cars or perhaps even get some exercise. We want to destroy the economy by going against the large car manufactures and oil companies. We’re just evil.

Or maybe we want such things because we care about what the world will look like in the near future, not only about our convenience, pleasure and our wallets today. It’s a toss-up; it could be either one.

Either way, whatever the evil agenda of the dirty environmentalists is, I am tired, royally so, of the rhetoric of these “global warming skeptics” who always manage to make it all about global warming. They just keep on saying that every environmental issue is moot just because global warming is (according to them) a myth. Whenever someone wants them to spend even a little bit of effort or money on something that can benefit the survival of our ecology they can immediately say “Oh, you’ve been suckered into that belief in global warming too?”

I’ve seen it happen many times. The heated debate on warming has put all other environmental concerns on the back-burners of the minds of the public and that has given ample opportunities to anyone who wants to defend excessive use of fossil fuels. Whenever someone complains about fuel consumption of a new vehicle or something, someone else can throw out a “Global warming is a lie!”-arguments, and the discussion stops immediately, since everyone are so very tired of discussing global warming.

So just lay it off. I know global warming may destroy our civilization, ruin our ecology and in the extension kill more or less all of us, but talking about it sure doesn’t seem to be helping.

When I was a kid we got to see lots of pictures of animals struggling for life covered in oil, instead of charts over temperatures and sea levels. I hope we can go back to those pictures of dying animals; they always seemed to work better than this tiresome global warming debate.

What is the Deal with Superman's Muscles?

2008-05-29T23:56:00.005+02:00

Did DC Comics miss out on making a much more interesting superhero?
In the interest of not being very serious, I ponder the physique of the man who is considered by many to be the greatest of superheroes.
There are a lot of things one can ponder regarding Superman. Superdickery.com asks the important question “Why is Superman such a dick?” (excellent examples of superdickery here, here and here), and David Shultz wonders why Superman’s powers are growing so fast (maybe even faster than God’s are shrinking, even though Shultz’ diagram at the end doesn’t take God’s shrinking powers into account). I have a different question though.

I wasn’t really a fan of superhero comic books when I was a kid, but I did read some of them. I never really liked Superman though. He was just too strong, too fast, too good, too invulnerable; just too perfect. It felt boring.

Then I started thinking; every single time you see drawings of Superman, especially in his later incarnations, he is really bulging with muscles. He is ripped. He is the Man of Steel. He has muscles coming out the wazoo (probably). But the question is, why?

From what I know about the man of oh-so-little fashion sense, his strength comes from utilizing the energy from our yellow sun. When he is subjected to its life-giving rays he becomes super-fast, super-strong and super-able-to-disguise-himself-with-just-a-pair-of-glasses.

Because he has super strength, many feel that it is natural that he should have gigantic muscles. But is that really so? If it is anything resembling human muscles, they could never do all the things that Superman does without tearing asunder. It would just be too much strain, no matter how massive they are. So it feels like he would be using some kind of mystical (solar-powered) energy to perform his feats, not his muscles.

Besides that, again if he functions in any way resembling humans, muscle mass is usually gained through exercise, but I’d say that Superman almost never works out. Nothing he does seems taxing to him!

Just imagine what a basic set of cardio exercises would have to be for Superman. The guy can fly from on side of the world to the other in moments, arriving without being out of breath or sweaty, with no visible signs of having done any physical activity at all. Not to mention that he once flew so fast around earth that time went backwards (for no apparent reason). That has to be really, really fast, and he still didn’t look like he had gotten even a basic workout from it.

And we shouldn’t even talk about things like weightlifting. The man can lift just about anything and only shows any strain from it when it’s needed for dramatic effect. He could never pump up any good muscles without finding some steady point to stand on and weight lift the entire freaking planet.

Now I realize that everything I’ve said is contingent on him working in a human-like fashion. Maybe they explain this at some point and say that his muscles are formed by the yellow rays from our sun, and that’s why they are so huge; saying that he doesn’t have to work out to have huge muscles.

But I say, so what? That might be a reasonable explanation (within the confines of the DC universe), but it isn’t much fun. At least not to me. I think that Superman would be an infinitely more interesting Superhero if he had all his powers, but was chubby and flabby from lack of proper exercise.

I Have a Baby in my Refrigerator

2008-05-28T23:29:00.007+02:00

But what is so freaking sacred about curtains? A post about clashes between stereotypical bachelors and stereotypical girly girls.

There is usually an explanation for everything. When bad things happen there is a cause for them. When good things happen there is usually some different cause. When “reality shows” get consistently high ratings there must be some reason for that too, even though figuring it out is quite beyond me.

There is also some reason why there is a picture of a baby taped to the back of my refrigerator. It might not be a good reason, or even a reasonable one, but there is a reason. If only I could remember it, I might give some sense to the title of this post. At the moment it escapes me though.

Somehow I feel that it can all be explained by telling you more about what I do and how I live; I feel that can explain a lot of the strange things in my life.

I am a university student. At least that’s what I claim to be when I’m not living the life of a lazy bum or working some strange job to make ends meet. As a student I have always had some natural ability to live in strange places, with strange people.

When I first moved to the city me and some friends rented a fairly big place; a cheap and poorly built five bedroom apartment in two stories. Through a few years we lived a varying number of inhabitants there. Most of the time we lived between three and five people there and all in all we were over a dozen different people during the course of the little “collective”, mostly males.

Now, an apartment inhabited by a number of young male nerds usually has some defining characteristics. There’s the piles of obsolete technology, the video games (in our case even an old-style arcade machine from the eighties), the bookshelves filled with booze and cheap fantasy-books, and so on.

All that is to be expected. Some didn’t expect the picture of a baby (a baby whom none of us knew, and I don’t remember if we ever knew who put there or why) inside the refrigerator though. Sometimes it was on a shelf, sometimes taped securely to the back and visitors who saw it always gave us very quizzical looks.

However, even if baby pictures in the refrigerator might be a strange notion, people still reacted a lot stronger to other, very unimportant things.

Take this whole thing with curtains for instance. To us they were always merely unimportant pieces of fabric obstructing the view out of our windows (or at least they would have, if there were any) but others seemed to take an almost reverent approach to the subject. We learned that quickly from a group of our female friends.

The first time they came to visit they noted the complete lack of curtains in the kitchen windows. They complained about this, claiming that we have to have curtains to make it look like there are some at least semi-normal people living there.

So, we thought “OK, fine, we can accept that. Curtains are a nice, if a bit novel touch. We’ll try that.” We had it fixed pretty quickly and thought that would be that.

We were however quite incorrect. At the next visit of some female friends, one girl immediately pointed at our pride and joy, the blue curtains now hanging stalwartly in the windows, and exclaimed “They’re hanging upside down.”

Now, to be fair, she was correct. We just hadn’t noticed before, but when she pointed it out it was hard to miss that design on the curtains made it clear that they should have the other side up. So, OK, our mistake, but it was a mistake that we quickly remedied.

But that’s when we thought it started to get silly. The next time that girl visited she noted that we had turned the curtains the right way and expressed her appreciation. But then she paused and looked at them for a while.

“Hey…” she said, hesitantly, obviously dreading the answer, “they still seem to be hanging in a very odd way.” She looked closer. “You didn’t just attach right to the wall with thumbtacks, have you?”

“Of course not!” we said. “We wouldn’t just put them up with thumbtacks, we’re not stupid.”

She looked relieved.

“There are screws at the ends too, to help hold up the weight of the curtains.” we explained, whereupon she looked substantially less relieved.

We were very satisfied with our answer, but she apparently wasn’t. She scolded us again for our lack of common sense and explained a strange notion she held. She claimed that curtains should be put up on some strange device called a “curtain rod”, which according to her would make the whole arrangement look better.

“Well, nuts to that,” we thought. There were curtains, they were hanging at the windows, and they were even hanging the right way up. We were not about to accept any more complaints in that department; we felt that we had done our jobs decorating.

And that was the way it was in many areas of interior decorating. We did things the way we thought they should look, others (usually females, for some reason) complained and there was a process of incremental “improvement” to make the place look more like they thought a “home” should look like.

By the time we moved out we all agreed that the place looked almost like it had had people living there, not just students.

Oh and the baby went with me to my new apartment. It still adorns the back wall of my fridge; now mostly out of tradition, as well as aesthetic reasons, of course.

How to Convert Me to Your Religion

2008-05-26T11:49:00.007+02:00

The Short Version

I want to give some tips to all the people who evidently want to convert me from being an atheist to their particular religion. Each one is expanded upon and explained below.

Stop handing out misogynistic or otherwise bigoted material as a way to recruit me
Say something intelligent about Homer Simpson's Wager
Do not bullshit me about Einstein
Do not use personal religious experiences as proof of your faith
Come up with some better propaganda regarding evolution
Don't use the old "Well, there has to be something"-routine
If you presume to know the mind of God, be prepared to answer some questions
Don't try to convert me to Scientology
If you talk about love, peace, understanding and the betterment of mankind, have something to back it up with
Say something positive instead of telling me that I have no morals or no reason to live
Explain why your particular god is more probable than other gods

The (way too) Long Version

I am an atheist. This is not some big, profound statement in my country, where a majority of the people are non-religious. It is not something I think about a lot, nor is it anything that seems to have any big impact on my life. However, a surprising amount of people seem intent on changing this state of affairs. They want to convert me to whatever particular religion and denomination that they themselves favor, for reasons that they hopefully at least understand themselves.

I must say that these people often bother and annoy me. I have nothing against their religions, nor their desire to speak of them. Actually, I would probably defend with my life the right for people to believe in what they want and say what the want; freedom of religion and freedom of speech are of uttermost importance to me. Therefore I do not want to stop people from preaching to me, but they still annoy me.

There are two primary reasons for why they annoy me so much. One is how they seem to appear almost anywhere with great tenacity.

The other reason for me being so annoyed is that these people never change their tactics. They seem to be perpetually using the same arguments with the same boring rhetoric, again and again (and again, and again) and I just get bored. Never do they actually succeed in making me consider their position, simply because their sales tactics are so bad.

Since I am the helpful type I now post this list of some common faults that I've had to live through many times, as well as some possible improvements the would-be converters could do to their shtick. All for the betterment of mankind, or at least for a bit less boring conversion attempts.

Stop handing out misogynistic or otherwise bigoted material as a way to recruit me

Seriously, I really thought that this would be a no-brainer. As sales tactics go, bigotry must be one of the most outdated and least successful. With tactics like that you would immediately turn away the entire population of the group you are bigoted against, as well as anyone who just doesn't like bigotry. But despite all this, people still seem fond of using it. It is in fact what made me think of doing this post, because when people use such stupid methods they do seem to need some pointers.

For example, recently I was once again visited by a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses. The come to my door once in a while, smile and talk to me in a friendly manner about the end of the world. Once they are sufficiently satisfied that I have an idea about what "the last days" are all about and know about the return of Christ, they usually leave me with the latest copies of The Watchtower and Awake! and leave me to read them.

Nothing strange about that, I guess that's how they usually operate. What might be a bit unusual though is that I actually read these magazines pretty carefully. I guess most people who aren't interested in the religion merely politely accept them, then unceremoniously throws them away. I, however, find them quite amusing to read, though I guess that's not how the publishers would like me to take them.

This time I laughed at the blatant lies and contradictions in a relatively well-presented article about evolution, sighed and shook my head at a tremendously uninformed piece about computer games and was thoroughly disgusted at an article about men and women.

If I was a superhero sidekick I would probably have exclaimed something along the lines of "Holy male chauvinism, Batman!" and if they would have still been there I would have politely told them that they should seriously rethink their recruitment tactics. They are really not maximizing their potential clientele with their current methods.

The article in question pretended to be about protecting the rights of women, but in reality it was just defending husbands wanting to control their wives. It was full of beautiful sentiments like "as the head of the family the man has the responsibility to make the final decisions" and "the wife should follow his leadership and respect him."

Sure, the article also had parts telling men to respect their wives. I guess that's something. However, they are still saying that men should have a God-given authority over women and to me that is just evil. I do apologize for not "respecting their beliefs" there, but that's the only way I feel that I can put it. Going door to door giving out material telling women that they must be submissive to please God and telling men that God wants them to control their wives...

I don't believe that every relationship has to be one hundred percent equal in decision making and everything. This isn't about that. It's about every man, every woman and every gender-confused individual doing what is right for them, regardless if that fits the stereotype for their gender or not. If for instance one person in a relationship rather does housework while the other makes various important decisions, and if their partner is fine with that division of responsibilities, I see nothing wrong with that. But I get angry when people demand that one person must take on one of the roles based on gender. And getting me angry is not a good way to make me listen to you, so please try to stop that.

And while we're on the subject of bigoted material, what's up with Sweet Aryan Jesus? Why do so many of the Christian cults insist on handing out pictures of a blond and blue-eyed Jesus? They do know that he is supposed to have been born in the Middle East, right?

Not that I have anything against blond and blue-eyed people; I am one of those myself. Neither do I think it matters what he looked like. I would however feel that there would be more historical accuracy if Jesus was portrayed with the darker skin color, dark hair and eyes characteristic for the region. Not to mention that he would be plenty more attractive that way.

Say something intelligent about Homer Simpson's Wager

Many try to use some variation of Pascal's Wager as a way to coax me and others into their faith. For those who do not know about it; the French philosopher Blaise Pascal formulated his Wager in the 17th century and it uses decision theory to show that believing in God is a better "bet" than not believing.

Although not convincing me, his original writing was well thought through and parts of it pretty interesting. The people using the Wager today tend to use a highly simplified form however, in essence saying something like:

"If there is no God it doesn't matter if you believe or not. However, if God is real you will be punished forever if you don't believe and infinitely rewarded in heaven if you do believe. So obviously the only sane choice is to believe."

Many seem to see this as some profound statement of great wisdom, and an absolute proof that we should all believe in God. However, even a total dimwit like TV's popular Homer Simpson can poke giant holes in the argument.

In an old episode of the Simpsons, Homer is justifying not going to church with the statement "Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we're going to church we're just making him madder and madder!"

This line has been dubbed "Homer Simpson's Wager" and is something you must address if trying to use Pascal's Wager.

You see, what Homer has apparently realized, and many others haven't, is that there are many other religions out there apart from the one you grew up with. Various incarnations of Pascal's Wager might tell you that it would be advantageous to believe, but they tell you nothing about which God or Gods to believe in.

That is a major problem. As anyone who has studied some major religions knows, most gods worshipped throughout history are but highly jealous and vengeful. This changes the original premise; believing no longer have no potential bad effects, as believing in the wrong God would potentially give you a harsher punishment than not believing at all.

To me it rather feels like that if you do not believe, then any possible Gods out there would have to judge you for your actions instead of your beliefs. Hopefully, if your actions are just, you will be judged fairly, regardless of your faith in things that haven't been proven. And if there is a God out there who will punish me forever even if I am a good person, but will let me be by her side in heaven if I merely ‘believe', then that God isn't the kind of entity that I would like to spend eternity with anyway.

Do not bullshit me about Einstein

Lying for Jesus is still lying. Still, many Christians seem to be fond of claiming that Einstein was a Christian and posing questions such as "Do you think that you are smarter than Einstein?"

I am rather fond of reading atheist blogs and forums. I generally find that there is a lot of clever discourse and funny articles and discussions on places like that. There are also a surprising number of visiting religious zealots.

These zealots often seem utterly appalled by the mere existence of atheists (something that truly makes me wonder about their reasons for visiting such web pages) and they are fond of posting comments and discussions trying to convert people to their religion. The Einstein thing is very popular in discussions about science.

The same kind of people often come to such places to claim that Hitler was an atheist, that the American Founding Fathers were evangelical Christians, that Darwin recanted the whole theory of evolution on his deathbed, or that Stephen Hawking believes in God.

I would think that the people who frequently make arguments like that would have been informed of many resources showing that they are in fact mistaken; therefore it would seem that they either willfully shut their eyes to the truth or willfully deceive others. Now tell me, would you feel good about it if you manage to sucker people into belief through lies?

Truth be told though, it is probably not often it works anyway. I really do not care if some smart and/or honorable people are Christian, or if some evildoers are atheists. I am fully capable of looking at the world for myself and making my own decisions.

Do not use personal religious experiences as proof of your faith

This is very popular among certain people. They tell us that they have seen angels, so we must believe, or that they have spoken to God, so we must believe, or that they have had a near-death experience that opened their eyes so we simply must believe.

They also often use guilt in conjunction with this. If their claims are contested in some way they call people liars and saying that we don't "respect" them when if we don't believe that their experiences were the real deal.

There is a big problem with that though. People of every religion on the planet makes claims like that. Most religions don't mix very well, so some people must be lying or mistaken. We have no way of knowing who, if any, have had real experiences.

So, when you tell me "Oh, but don't you see, Christians having their prayers answered is absolute proof that you must join the second reformed advent church of latter day tea-sippers [or whatever strange denomination they're trying to convert me to] immediately!", I just can't accept that. If I were to accept it you would also accept that should become a Muslim, because a little Muslim girl had a personal encounter with the great prophet Mohammed himself, or that you should become a Hasidic Jew because a whole roomful of them felt the presence of the Holy One of Israel, and so on for every religion.

Come up with some better propaganda regarding evolution

I could talk about evolution until the cows get home. Then, when I've stopped being surprised by the sudden cow population here, I guess I could bore the cows with it instead. Suffice it to say though; I like the theory of evolution. It's both simple and very complex and it's a beautiful theory (yes, I'm a science nerd) that has a wide impact on many sciences, including my particular area of expertise, computer science. I like reading about it, I like discussing it, I like learning about it.

Lately evolution has for some reason become a hot topic among many groups. Many see it as the frontline of a perceived war between religion and science and some zealots from both sides think that the theory of evolution and religion are irreconcilable and this has created a lot of debate. Therefore religious people of different kinds often come to scientific websites that I like to visit and spew misinformation that is supposed to "debunk" evolution.

These people often rather adamantly claim that we are all going to hell for all eternity for "believing" what they often eloquently call "EVILution". They have conspiracy theories about how devil-worshippers have constructed a highly elaborate lie to make children turn away from God and onto science, which apparently is her worst enemy.

They usually believe that if they just can point out some flaws in the theory of evolution, people will drive people in droves away from the evil of science and towards God. This usually fails miserably, for many reasons.

First of all, people should understand that scientists and scientifically minded people do not mind if the theory of evolution is challenged. That's actually one of the fundamental staples of science; it's supposed to be critically examined, questioned and improved upon.

Questioning a small detail of the vast theory of evolution is not going to make it fall. But that is often the creationist approach. They take a small detail, saying something like "Hey, this thing looks like it might be wrong! Obviously the theory is flawed and thus completely worthless (and thus, creationism must be true, so God obviously made the world in six days and consequently listening to rock music is a sin)".

In real science details of theories get questioned all the time. Sometimes it is apparent that some changes must be made (and that can be a very exciting thing indeed) but most of the time solid theories like the theory of evolution can be shown to fit quite well with new discoveries and new data, and even when some change is made to a detail that doesn't mean that the theory as a whole was wrong.

Take an example. A long time ago most people would have said that the earth is flat. Later, most believed that it is spherical. Now we know that the earth is not really spherical, it bulges out a bit around the equator and is very close to an oblong spheroid. So, the "spherical earth theory" was wrong and it has been improved upon. Does that mean that it was worthless to think about the earth as a sphere? Does it mean that thinking it is a sphere is just as wrong as thinking about it as a disc? No. A sphere is very close to the truth, and it has been very helpful in various sciences to think of it as one; it's close enough to the truth for that.

It's the same thing with evolution and many other theories; they are not one hundred percent perfect, we do not have "perfect knowledge" about anything. But they do provide very helpful insights and the rigorous scientific method tells us when we are close to "the truth". The theory of evolution has mountains of evidence in favor of it and it is not going to be completely overturned, even if details might be challenged.

And even if you were able to topple the entire theory of evolution on its side and expose it as a big, giant (and purposeless) fraud, then you still wouldn't have proven Creationism or Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design isn't even a well-formed scientific theory and it can't be "proven right" simply by attacking evolution.

Then again, most people trying to convert people in scientific discussions about evolution seem to have very little knowledge about science at all. They often ask the same questions again and again, sounding just as stupid every time they ask "Why are there still monkeys?" or claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Also, even if you prove that a creator is necessary, there is again the problem of proving that it is your favored deity. Just saying that "there must be a creator" won't lead me to the fold of your particular church or make me believe any silliness from your holy texts about how to behave.

Don't use the old "Well, there has to be something"-routine

Many ask the question "How can you not believe? Surely you agree that there has to be something."

I think that it has been quite conclusively proven that there doesn't have to be anything. Even though the natural world is beautifully logical and coherent, it sometimes defies what we would call common sense.

Common sense tells people a lot of strange things. People in ancient times knew that there had to be a Thunder God, because, well, there was thunder so obviously there must be a God to create it. And most people knew that the earth wasn't round because we don't fall off from the underside.

Today some people just know that there must be a divine creator, because, well, there's a whole, wonderful Creation all around us. But maybe, just maybe, those people are wrong too.

Maybe I am wrong. But I'm not sure either way, so "arguments" like that won't make me join your little club of believers.

And please stop telling me that complex things like the universe need a creator. If it is true that complex things need a created, then who created the creator? Don't just tell me that she always existed, or that she just spontaneously appeared, if you can't at the same time explain why the universe can't be granted the same ability.

If you presume to know the mind of God, be prepared to answer some questions

Many seem to think that they know exactly what God is thinking. At least that is what they tell me. They tell me that I have to convert and follow their leadership because God wants me to this, or God wants me to do that.

If questioned why they know exactly what God wants us to do, these people often inform me that she has answered their prayers and given them divine inspiration so that they know what to do.

Now, if that's true, there are many questions that I want to have answered. Primarily, why does God love you and hate starving children? Your God apparently answers your prayers, gives you personal tutelage in important matters and you claim that he blesses your life with his love and wisdom. Yet million of innocent children are starving to death in the poor areas of the world, even though there are certainly many of them who pray every day for God to help them out of their misery.

Until you can give me a good explanation for why God would act that way, I will not believe that you can speak God's will to me. If you have no answer for an important question like that, why should I believe that you are right about the little things?

Don't try to convert me to Scientology

I sincerely apologize to any Scientologists out there, but I really must say that if people want to convert me, believing in Scientology is a really bad start. I sincerely doubt that no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to convert me to a religion as unbelievable as that.

And seriously, even if the claims of Scientology sounded even remotely plausible, I do not think I would ever believe in the claims of a religion that is founded by a man who has been quoted saying "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." Especially not if the religion in question is famous for costing a lot of money. I kind of see some kind of connection there, and it isn't pointing towards credibility for the Church of Scientology.

If you are a scientologist and want to convert me to your religion, there is one very simple thing that you must do first: Convert to another religion yourself first, because you will never get me to be a Scientologist.

If you talk about love, peace, understanding and the betterment of mankind, have something to back it up with

Many who talk to me about religion will smile wide smiles and tell me about how utterly nice their religion is. They will tell me that their God teaches to love your neighbor, help the helpless and so on. And that's great. Enough of that and I might be willing to join you without actually believing.

However, when they are asked about what they actually do they tend to talk excitedly about their wonderful intensive bible study groups, their nice little prayer circles or something else that doesn't really make any difference. They just make me feel like they are all talk and no actual action.

They should realize that they are talking to a non-believer. I do not believe that prayer does diddly-squat. I do not think that reading the bible over and over again will make you a better person. I do not believe that a church picnic will help those in need. To me, it all just feels like wasted time.

I am happier spending my time actually doing something for other people or the environment. I'm not a terribly good person, but I do try. I try to be there for my friends and family when they need me, I try to help my fellow man when there's something I see can be done and I give money and time to organizations trying to save the environment we all need to survive. I could do more, of course, but I do not think wasting time praising to a deity too busy to even show us she exists is going to help me be a better person.

So, if you want to use the good Samaritan-argument and tell me to be a better person, I think you should actually come up with some good arguments why I actually would be a better person by joining your particular cult.

Say something positive instead of telling me that I have no morals or no reason to live

See, here's a great idea for any salesman. Just start out by deeply insulting your potential customers in the worst possible way, that will get them to listen to your message!

No, wait. It doesn't really work that way.

I mean, come on, this is another thing that I would think was obvious; insulting people won't bring you to your side. Every good businessman knows that it is a good business strategy to sweet talk your potential long-term customers a little. Sassiness and insults only works in trendy cafés.

Even so, I've been told such things many times. In discussions about atheism I and others constantly get to hear that the only real reason we are atheists is because we want to live a sinful life without morality. They say that we actually do believe in God, but that we deny our faith in her even to ourselves just to feel better about our sinful lifestyles.

At the same time they often claim that we live our lives in misery, that we are unhappy and grumpy because we don't have God's love in our hearts. They say that we live lives without meaning, drifting without a purpose.

Saying things like that can really turn people away from you, you know? I am usually a truly happy person. I feel that we have many good reasons live, with or without gods, and I enjoy my life. I am quite capable of enjoying life and being a good person even without a belief in any God. If you can't understand at least that much, I will doubt most everything you say.

So, if you want to succeed better, try saying something positive about your religion instead of starting off by saying negative things about me.

So, in conclusion, there are a few things you need to understand.

I still haven't seen any evidence that there is a god of any kind. If you can present evidence that there is a god, I won't automatically start worshipping your god. You need to present evidence for your particular little sect before you get my time or my money. In the meantime I'll just keep on trying to be a good person and a good friend. That feels good enough to me and I feel no need for any gods.

Most people who want to convert me follow the God of Abraham. It is true that followers of that particular God are in a majority in the world today. Many take that as a sign that it's the way to go, but to those I have two things I want to say.

First I must remind people that truth is not a democracy; for example, when a majority of people believed that the sun went around the earth that did not make them right.

Secondly, there are a several competing fan clubs and as far as I can see they are mutually exclusive. The question still remains, which one should I join?

Christians generally believe that Muslims will go to hell, and vice versa. Jews usually feel that Christians and Muslims have entirely the wrong idea, and after living through 2000 years of Christian love they can be understandably wary of other religions. Evangelical Christians feel that Catholics will go to hell for all eternity because of the business with saints and whatnot and certain Catholics seem somewhat fond of believing the same about people who do not accept the authority of the pope.

No matter what I choose, just among people who think that I should worship one particular God, others will think I'll go to hell because of it. I know I've made the point before in this post, but I feel the need to repeat myself because people never seem to take it to heart before trying to convert me.

So before any further attempts to convert me, please try to come up with some compelling evidence for why I should take your particular word for the existence of your particular God, over the word of the rest of the zealots out there.

That would be a good help in any further business between us, all would-be converters. Thank you.

Towel Day – May 25th

2008-05-25T11:44:00.005+02:00

A tribute to the late Douglas Adams

Today, May 25th, is a very important day. Today is Towel Day.

If you want detailed information about the occurrence, I recommend this page, or the Wikipedia page. But, in essence, Towel Day is a tribute to Douglas Adams. Every year, a large number of fans celebrate Adam’s legacy, and mourn his passing, by carrying around a towel throughout the day. Because, as anyone who has read the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy knows, a towel is the most important thing to have (see the Wikipedia page for more on that).

I won’t say anything more on the subject of Towel Day now, but instead commemorate Adams by giving you some of my favorite quotes from him. Not an easy task, as there are so many favorites. I could quote entire books, but I will try to pick out some specific quotes, for my enjoyment and yours, and to remind us that even though he is gone, his words live on. And I feel that we can be certain that he would have wanted the fans to keep on laughing.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Series

“Forty-two”

“Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.
And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, one girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.”

“The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.”

“There is a theory which states that if anybody ever discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

“In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”

“What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue: Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer.”

“Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

“In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.”

Last Chance to See

“Mark Carwardine's role, essentially, was to be the one who knew what he was talking about. My role, and one for which I was entirely qualified, was to be an extremely ignorant non-zoologist to whom everything that happened would come as a complete surprise.”

“I don’t like the idea of missionaries. In fact the whole business fills me with fear and alarm. I don’t believe in God, or at least not in the one we’ve invented for ourselves in England to fulfil our peculiarly English needs, and certainly not in the ones they’ve invented in America who supply their servants with toupees, television stations and, most importantly, toll-free telephone numbers. I wish that people who did believe in such things would keep them to themselves and not export them to the developing world.”

“I am rarely happier than when spending an entire day programming my computer to perform automatically a task that it would otherwise take me a good ten seconds to do by hand.”

“I didn't notice I was being set upon by a pickpocket, which I am glad of, because I like to work only with professionals.”

“We are not an endangered species ourselves yet, but this is not for lack of trying.

“Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.”

Dirk Gently series:

“It can hardly be a coincidence that no language on Earth has ever produced the phrase, 'as pretty as an airport.' Airports are ugly. Some are very ugly. Some attain a degree of ugliness that can only be the result of a special effort.”

“Dennis Hutch had stepped up into the top seat when its founder had died of a lethal overdose of brick wall, taken while under the influence of a Ferrari and a bottle of tequila.”

“Or maybe she decided that an evening with your old tutor would be blisteringly dull and opted for the more exhilarating course of washing her hair instead. Dear me, I know what I would have done. It's only lack of hair that forces me to pursue such a hectic social round these days.”

“The seat received him in a loose and distant kind of way, like an aunt who disapproves of the last fifteen years of your life and will therefore furnish you with a basic sherry, but refuses to catch your eye.”

“Dirk was unused to making such a minuscule impact on anybody. He checked to be sure that he did have his huge leather coat and his absurd red hat on and that he was properly and dramatically silhouetted by the light of the doorway. He felt momentarily deflated and said, "Er..." by way of self-introduction, but it didn't get the boy's attention. He didn't like this. The kid was deliberately and maliciously watching television at him.”

“It was a couple of days before Kate Schechter became aware of any of these things, or indeed of anything at all in the outside world.
She passed the time quietly in a world of her own in which she was surrounded as far as the eye could see with old cabin trunks full of past memories in which she rummaged with great curiosity, and sometimes bewilderment. Or, at least, about a tenth of the cabin trunks were full of vivid, and often painful or uncomfortable memories of her past life; the other nine-tenths were full of penguins, which surprised her. Insofar as she recognized at all that she was dreaming, she realized that she must be exploring her own subconscious mind. She had heard it said that humans are supposed only to use about a tenth of their brains, and that no one was very clear what the other nine-tenths were for, but she had certainly never heard it suggested that they were used for storing penguins.”

Various

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

“I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.”

“If you've never visited or spent time in Santa Fe, New Mexico, then let me say this: you're a complete idiot. I was myself a complete idiot till about a year ago.”

“The idea that Bill Gates as appeared like a knight in shining armor to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place.”

“I wrote an ad for Apple Computer: 'Macintosh - We might not get everything right, but at least we knew the century was going to end.'”

Short Story - Drifters

2008-05-25T03:26:00.009+02:00

Fiction with a bit of humor, romance, silliness, spirit possession and cats.

This picture originally inspired a totally different story about the female protagonist of this story. But as I was fleshing out her character in my mind she happened to meet a boy, and this is a piece of romance and character exposition that came from her baring herself to him.

“Well,” said Ella to her prospective beau, David, “the thing to know about me is that I am stark raving mad. That really explains a lot about me.”

David gave a short laugh at that. He had always enjoyed a girl with a sense of humor and he felt that it was a good joke, in his kind of bad taste. He also felt that there was no way that she might actually be crazy. Sure, they had known each other for less than a week, but they had spent several hours a day during that time in the same café, talking over overpriced hot beverages and getting to know each other, and he felt confident that he knew at least that much about her.

In fact, David felt that she might very well be his dream woman. She was brilliantly intelligent, very sweet and caring, and she had the most comforting smile he had ever seen. Of course, none of those qualities excluded the possibility of her being nutty as a fruit cake, and in fact he was well aware that she was a bit quirky by anyone's standard. But she seemed to be quirky in an endearing and strictly non-crazy way.

He smiled at her and took a sip of his coffee.

“Okay,” he said, "I'll bite. Tell me, why do you believe that you are mad? I'm warning you though; you'd better give me a good reason if I am to believe you. You have already more or less disproved any crazy qualities to yourself in my eyes. Crazy people would very rarely say that they are crazy; if they knew that they were having delusions they wouldn't be much of delusions, would they?"

“True enough,” she said, smiling a nervous smile, “but I still don't think I am entirely sane. You see, I talk to my cats.”

He looked at her. He sipped his coffee and made a show of thinking the statement over.

“You do, do you? Well," he said, having anticipated the traditional exchange of dialogue that would come at moments like this, "I'm guessing that I'm supposed to say that's not crazy at all; tell you that a lot of people talk to their pets. Then you're going to interject that the difference is that your cats actually respond, leaving me to figure out if you are acting crazy to be amusing, acting crazy to scare me away after finally having realized that you are too good for me, or if you actually believe that your cats speak to you.

“For my money I would guess that you are joking around. That would seem most like you, and besides, I would very much prefer it to the alternatives.”

He smiled again, a broad smile. Her smile was beautiful as ever, but it was starting to look more strained. This completely failed to deter the self-confident smile he wore secure in his belief that she was merely kidding around.

“Well, you are right and you are wrong,” she said slowly. “I mean, I was going to say that I have actual conversations with my cats. I am however not joking, nor do I want to get rid of you. It's merely a statement of fact. I talk to my cats and they answer.”

She said it in such a deadpan way that his smile actually weakened a bit. She seemed to believe what she was saying. Which was disturbing, and not disturbing in a good way as most of her little quirks seemed to be.

“It's not something that started recently,” she continued. “I've been talking to cats for most of my life. At first I was certain I was crazy; as a little girl I spent a lot of time trying to convince my mother that I was actually hearing our cat speak to me. Mom was certain that I was just trying to get out of school. It seems like she thought that I would find psychiatric sessions preferable to class.

“In reality, I was genuinely worried that I was losing my mind. Being that young and feeling that your elevator no longer goes all the way to the top floor was distressing to say the least. In time I managed to convince myself that I in fact wasn't crazy though, and I soon learned that it is better not to share my experiences with anyone. Now I keep quiet about it and most of the time I actually believe that my experiences are real. There are just a couple of things that makes me lapse back into disbelief in my own experiences at times.”

David was scratching the back of his neck, quietly assessing the situation. His smile had long since faltered and he didn't seem as sure of himself any longer.

“Oh?” he said, desperately trying to sound casually interested rather than deeply disturbed by the conversation. He failed miserably, of course, cleared his throat and tried again.

“Oh? So… What are these things that make you feel as if you might be wrong?”

She toyed with her tea mug, looking almost intolerably cute to David. He did not wish her inadvertent cute wiles to trick him into accepting anything he shouldn't accept.

“There are two things,” she said, holding up two fingers. “First of all, my cats have told me, in detail, how it is that they can speak to me. This might seem like a good thing if I am to believe that it is reality, but think about it. If I tell you 'Yes, my cats speak to me, but it's ok, they've told me how it works' it just makes me sound more crazy. Therefore I choose to take their explanations as evidence that I have in fact lost the majority of my proverbial marbles.

“Secondly, I take great comfort in being mad as a hatter. I much prefer it to the alternative.”

David couldn't help but to laugh again. He still wasn't sure if she was just taking a joke too far or if she genuinely believed what she told him, but that statement was amusing either way.

“You prefer it to the alternative? What, you prefer it to being sane?” he asked, somewhat incredulous.

“Yes,” she said in an asserting voice, “I really do. I mean, the world is obviously crazy, just look around us. Crazy wars, weird religions, reality shows, Fox News… It is all more than a little bewildering to me and it just feels better if I think that I'm deranged. Then I can imagine that if I wasn't off my rocker it would all make sense to me, or at least take some comfort in that even if the world is crazy I might be able to out-crazy at least large parts of it.”

A slight pause passed by, unnoticed by the universe at large, but very noticeable at that particular table, in that particular café. David looked at his coffee with such interest that he looked as if he was watching a movie playing in his cup.

Finally he raised his eyes and looked at her, flashing her an uncertain but disarming smile.

"Fair enough," he said, laughing softly again, "I guess you are right about that."

From there they shifted the conversation in totally other directions and had their usual good time until it was time for them to go their separate ways for the night. They agreed to meet back there the next day, as usual.

As they parted, David had almost no thoughts of the weird conversational interlude about talking cats. He was smiling as much as he always was after having been in her presence and looked strongly forward to the next day's meeting. A small voice in the back of his head tried to remind him of the exchange, but he was good at ignoring such voices and his walk had an actual skip to his step as he sauntered happily towards his home.

------------------

The next day, as he walked into the café as usual after work, he saw Ella already sitting there. Normally this would be the cause for further silly, content smiles to spread across his face, but this time the strange conversation from the day before came screaming back to him.

On her shoulder a cat sat perched, observing its surroundings with obvious disinterest.

It was a beautiful cat, a Persian Blue as far as David could tell, and it seemed quite comfortable in its position on his favorite girl's shoulder. In fact, they both seemed so relaxed with the situation that it all looked almost completely natural. David did however not feel relaxed; he felt that the foreboded too much strangeness.

As he walked towards her he tried to keep his smile steady, despite his bad feelings about it all. He couldn't help but notice that there was almost no one in the room who seemed to take much notice of the cat on her shoulder. Not even the personnel seemed to care, even though he felt convinced that pets weren't really allowed in there. As he sat down he had started to wonder if the world was indeed as crazy as Ella seemed to think that it was.

“Hi,” she said, giving him a happy smile, completely disarming his confusion and effectively dispersing the feelings of foreboding, “how are you today?”

“Oh, fine, fine, just dandy. I'm feeling good today; I'm just perfect actually, all is good… Although, I do apparantly seem to have a tendency to ramble a bit more than usual.”

She laughed a short sweet laugh.

“That's nice. Here, let me introduce you to one of my cats; Carl. Or lord Fluffypaws, as he prefers to be called nowadays. He is a bit silly.”

The cat looked up slowly and looked David straight in the eyes for a moment, then yawned slowly.

“Eh hehe… Good day, milord,” David said, and flashed Ella a bright smile, trying to reassure them both that he found nothing wrong in the situation.

“So,” he said inquiringly, “does he understand me? Or are you the cat-whisperer, the only one who can talk to them?”

“He can understand you alright,” she answered, giving lord Fluffypaws a pat on the head.

“In time he might even trust you enough to answer you.”

Her response sounded so honest and level-headed that he couldn't bear to assert his disbelief in that possibility. For the time being he decided to accept this as another endearing quirk in her personality and not let it bother him. A beautiful cat on her shoulder was after all better than many of the quirks his previous love interests had had.

“But,” she said, “actually it isn't the cat who would be answering you. I told you before that the cats have told me about how this whole thing works. Would you care to hear about it, even though it might further emphasize my marble deficiency?”

He thought about it. He felt insanely curious about the whole thing, but also a little bit scared about what he might find out about her mind. If this was a joke she was definitely taking it too far, and if it wasn't he didn't know what to think.

“Yes,” he said anyway, “please tell me the wondrous tales about your cat communications.”

He smiled and she smiled back, taking a long drink of her tea before starting to speak.

“Well,” she said, “the thing is that I can't talk to any cat. Cats are intelligent animals, but not intelligent enough to understand more than a few words at most and they lack the physical ability to form the sounds of human language. Sadly, they could never speak to us.

“No, the ones I've been speaking to are actually possessed, for lack of a better term.

“There are old souls out there. Drifters, they call themselves, because they drift almost randomly around the earth, unable to direct their movement much or affect anything physical. They have lived for centuries that way, maybe even millennia. Maybe forever; no one knows. When they drift around they are barely self-aware and they slowly forget their past.

“When they come across organic life forms however, they can share the mind of that form. They need a structured brain to give their thoughts form, to be able to think and act consciously.

“Cats' brains seem particularly well-suited to their needs. Carl tells me that it might be that cat personalities are so well in sync with the typical Drifter personality; they are lazy, self-involved, vain (which is so weird for an incorporeal being), pranksters and incredibly affectionate when it suits them. They are possibly all trying to hatch some evil plan to take over the world too, although that's mostly my own speculation.

“Either way, these spirits often possesses cats. Have you ever had the feeling that at times a cat understands every word you say, acting as if it responds to what you're telling it, but then in the next moment it acts as if it understands nothing? In such occurrences it is most likely a Drifter messing with you. They love pulling stunts like that, making us silly humans believe that cats are smarter than they are.

“They usually don't confirm their presence though. I don't know why they started talking to me. They answer very vaguely to that; they just say that I am special. I'm guessing that they were really just bored and decided to mess with my mind by making me try to figure out why I am so special. Again that's just my own speculation though.”

She smiled and shook her head.

“Really,” she continued, "sometimes I feel that all my experiences during all these years have been colored by the fact that they like to mess with my mind. Either that, or that I really am crazy. Maybe both.

“Anyway. What I was trying to say is that the cats are not talking to me. These spirits are, through some sort of telepathy. As I understand it they can, since they are not corporeal or bound to the bodies of the cats, reach out and touch a piece of their minds to mine and transfer their thoughts, as if speaking to me.”

She fell into a thoughtful silence, looking at him, seemingly pondering how he was taking the revelations so far.

“So…” David said slowly, “How come you're telling me this? I mean, you told me yesterday that you had learned to conceal this from people. I'm not trying to sound insensitive, or as if I agree with the crazy-assessment, but that does sound like it might be a good idea. I would think people in general would take this information rather badly…”

“Well, that's actually the reason why this particular kitty came with me today.” she said, giving another short laugh. “He likes you. He's actually the reason that we are talking at all.

“You don't know this, but I actually saw you the day before the day when we first spoke. Carl was out on a walk with me that day, and he told me that he had noticed that same special quality that the Drifters seem to like about my mind in yours. He told me that I should talk to you.

“I'm not good at initiating contact though, and I felt that if I started accosting you with a cat perched on my shoulder you would directly deem me a crazy cat lady and not be all that susceptible to my awkward flirting. So I came back the next day, sans cat, hoping that you would be here.

“And now… Well… Now I've fallen head over heels in love with you, to be perfectly frank, and I felt that there was no way for me to go on pretending to be sane. If you want to break of all contact with me because of my feline conversations, I felt that I'd be better off knowing that now rather than later.

“So… Do you think that you can continue seeing me?”

She flashed him an uncertain smile that disarmed whatever little rational thought that David had left in him after the words "in love with" had knocked most of it clear out of him.

He still needed a few seconds to think it over, but in the end he smiled at her, smiled at the cat and continued the conversation as if nothing weirder than usual had been said. They sat immersed in idle conversation in hours as usual, though with the addition of a feline observer, who actually didn't seem to mind the situation at all.

This went well for Ella and David from there on. Their daily dates progressed into more and more closeness and they fell deeper and deeper in love. Rarely were Ella's kitty conversations mentioned more than in passing and David felt that he could fully accept them, even if he still didn't really believe that they were real.

That May they got married, in a beautiful springtime ceremony amongst the trees. They bought a small house and moved in together, David, Ella and her five cats. David had never been happier.

Two weeks after the wedding, Ella's cats started talking to him.

Despite having been told so many times that sooner or later they would start talking to him, he never really believed it, so it all came as quite a shock for him.

Even after they started talking to him he wasn't very sure that it was actually happening. He felt as if he might as well just be making himself believe that he heard them talking to him; he felt that maybe the intense love he felt for Ella made him share her psychosis rather than admitting that she is actually crazy.

He pondered this long and well after his first serious conversation with lord Fluffypaws. He couldn't decide if he actually believed that he had been talking with the cat for an hour that afternoon; somehow it felt more reassuring to imagine that it was all in his head.

After a lot of thought and introspection he came to the conclusion that it didn't matter either way.

Either he was now living with cats possessed by roaming spirits, or he was clinically insane. He quickly came to realize that either was preferable to living without Ella in his life. So from that day on he pledged to act as if he believed it all too; if it was all a dream he had no wish to wake up.

Totally Innocent Toys?

2008-05-24T21:59:00.020+02:00

Who wants to eat the brains of Disney characters? Who wants to squeeze Batman's crotch?

A couple of weeks ago I visited my brother and spent some time with my three-year-old little niece. At one time she and I were sitting on the couch in the living room, talking about something inane and fun, while casually browsing a brochure from an ice-cream company.

My niece started to point out each and every thing that she wanted from the brochure, in a typical childlike manner. One thing she was especially interested in was the severed heads of Donald Duck and Pluto, with the tops of their skulls removed so that one can scoop out their brains and eat them. At least that's what it looked like to me.

When she pointed at the creepy heads I coughed and asked her if she didn't find them strange in some way. She didn't. She pointed out that when you had eaten the ice-cream out you can use them as mugs, and that that's really cool, but other than that she didn't see anything special. I, however, couldn't stop thinking of the scene in that Indiana Jones-movie where they eat chilled monkey-brain. An attractive prospect to me, maybe, but I would have thought that children would react badly to the appearance of those ice-cream containers.

This, however, wasn't the first time I saw a product aimed at children that looked less than innocent in the eyes of an adult. I've found several such things around the Internet, and will present some of my favorites here.

Below you'll see another, much worse example of Donald Duck. There are things that I feel are much more cringe-worthy than just eating his brain. For instance a ride where the children sit between his legs to ride him, with his beak and gaze firmly planted between the child's legs. That is creepy. (Found on this blog)

Disney characters aren't the only ones subjected to such things though. Even our great comic book superheroes get their fill. Superdickery.com tells us about a rather nasty looking squirt gun, in the form of Buttma... ehm, sorry, I mean Batman. An easy mistake to make, considering how the damn thing looks.

Even under normal circumstances I would probably find a gun in the form of a person very tacky, but things are several orders of magnitude worse when you fire by squeezing something sticking out of his crotch and refill his ammo by pouring liquid into a hole in his ass. I mean, seriously; who thought that was a good design decision?

Something that might be creepier still is the Pikachu... creation... on the next picture. I have only seen the picture without context (for instance here), so I don't know exactly what it is. I'm guessing it's one of those inflatable bouncy castles, in the form of Pikachu. Alright, that would seem totally ok, if you didn't enter through a curiously vagina-looking hole between its legs. That Pikachu looks so damned excited about it doesn't really help either.

Of course, sometimes designers are really stupid without managing to turn things quite that creepy. For instance, something that caused quite a stir in some people, in more ways than one, was a Mattel-made Harry Potter Nimbus 2000 Flying Broomstick.

The broomstick naturally uses the magic of cheap electronics to produce sound effects when you use it, producing "swooping and wooshing" sounds to let you know that you're flying. And not only that, it also vibrates, presumably to give you some feeling of motion.

Now, when a flying broomstick is something you use by having it firmly between your legs, that vibrating function was something that raised a lot of eyebrows. This article tells us about a mother in Ohio who says that her 12-year old daughter played with it for hours, and that her 17 year-old sister enjoys the "special effects" too. Not that I personally have any problem with that, but seriously, the people at Mattel must have been really stupid not to foresee problems from parents by designing it that way.

Then there is Dora the Explorer, which I found here. I have no idea what kind of toy it is, but it's one of the most phallic objects I've seen in a long time, prompting questions about what exactly she is exploring, and if she shouldn't be called "Dora the Spelunker".

I know that there are more examples of toys like that. I know that I have seen more prime examples around, but I'll leave that to you to find if you want. I'm not entirely sure if I want to see any more creepy toys right now.

I Really Do Hate Blogs – A Very Typical First Post

2008-05-24T21:32:00.003+02:00

I have resisted making myself a blog for a very long time now. I dislike the word blog; it started out as such an over-hyped buzzword right from the start, and now we’ve all heard it one too many times, so the sound of it is slightly nauseating to me.

I might like the general idea of blogs, but the format is so sadly misused that dislike it anyway. And my blog is not going to be any better.

I don’t plan on any coherency. There will be no thread binding all my posts together, and no common theme in any way. I certainly don’t plan on having more than a single post that is directly connected to the actual name of the blog.

I will write whatever I like, because I like writing. Because I, like most people who like to write, need to write. Most of what I will post here will be reposts of stuff that I post on other places, at least for the time being. I am currently trying out different mediums for expressing myself. It was just time to try out “blogging” now, finally.

You will probably find a great deal of humor here, and quite a bit of political commentary. Hopefully also some fiction, from time to time.

Hopefully I will also post with some sense of regularity. Probably not though, because even though I love to write, I’m worthless at actually finishing anything. Most of my stuff ends up half-finished. So, please, if you like what you read here, do tell me to hurry up and finish some more stuff, because I’m terribly lazy without incentive like that.