Divine Gender

What I’m about to say may surprise some of you. Maybe not the women, but it will shock the guys. I have come to find out that God is, in fact, a female.

Think about it. God created life by birthing the universe. God raised man and taught him the rules to live by. God protects and nurtures us. Man was made in God’s image, and before woman. Therefore, when woman was created, God clearly already had practice. Eve is more closely related to God, as she was a second attempt, and more apt to be done right.

Also, God always needs reassurance. The Christian God is an insecure God, and She must be praised often in order for Her to be reminded of just how wonderful of a God She is. She does an often thankless job: cooking up the universe, raising Her billions of children, all while fighting with Satan (clearly the scorned ex-husband). All She asks in return is a little gratitude… and money.

God always needs money. This clearly indicates that She doesn’t hold a job while raising the universe. I’m not judging her decision to be a stay-at-home God; I’m glad She’s keeping an eye on things rather than wearing a loud colored blazer and showing houses. However, let’s face it: God can never get enough alms, donations or tithes. I can only imagine the size of Her shoe collection.

God is also very jealous. “Don’t you dare look at that golden calf over there! Oh I know you didn’t just say something about Me under your breath, mister. That’s blasphemy!”

God also clearly has a menstrual cycle. God will be extremely kind one minute… then the hormones kick in. The next thing you know, an earthquake knocks your house down. The mood swings of God help account for the staggering number of inconsistencies in the Bible regarding God’s personality. She was bitter during the Old Testament because of the whole break-up with Satan. Notice how God got the house in the divorce, once again proving She’s female. The whole Noah’s ark flood thing? Talk about a heavy flow. That was one nasty case of cosmic PMS.

Other personality traits of God can be more easily explained once one realizes God is female. God knows EVERYTHING and is ALWAYS right. If you upset God, She makes you sleep in the dog house… for eternity. Of course, if you admit you’re wrong and say how sorry you are, She will forgive you, ‘cause that’s just the kind of girl She is. No matter how much you abuse Her, She keeps taking us back. God is a co-dependent housewife. She sticks by Her man: Mankind.

Libertarianism: A Study in History

In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has had to worry
about where the next meal would come from.
- Peter Drucker

Economics is not my strongest field, but lucky for me it is a discipline created and dominated by self-serving fools (a very predictable group, not all that dissimilar from 5 year olds). Approaching economics as I do all irrational fields of study (religion is a good example), I should have no problem finding inconsistencies in reality by citing historical evidence.

Libertarianism is a rebranding of old ideas. It is American conservatism, far more so than Republicanism since Reagan onward (perhaps going back even as far as Nixon). One notable addition which dominates their ideology is borrowed from Liberalism (of the Jeffersonian variety): laissez-faire capitalism.

We are perhaps doomed as a nation to constantly have to deal with resurgences of this infantile ideology. Thomas Jefferson was fascinated by it and actively practiced it during his presidency; he had a taste for French ideas. It is forever ensconced in the writings of Jefferson. Of course, so is slavery and racial bigotry, and we seem to better off without the one and striving towards an absence of the other.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a doctrine under which the government does nothing to alter and affect private industry; it is a “hands off” approach. The phrase translates from French as literally as “let them do,” though has come to more accurately be applied in English as “leave them be.” I could go off on a pathos based tirade against French people, but frankly [pun intended?] I like the French. This is just one of their mistakes; they have many other endearing qualities.

There has never been a laissez-faire economy. There has always been a modicum of government intervention in the form of protectionist tariffs, subsidies, and regulation. The government handled licensing for barbers and doctors alike going back prior to the Revolutionary War. Basically, laissez-faire capitalism is a pipe dream never realized (unlike Communism, which is a pipe dream grossly mismanaged several times throughout history, but that is another blog post).

Worse, capitalism is a system that relies upon exploitation. Being rich is not a victimless crime, and some (often many) must to be without in order for some to have so much. It functioned on slave labor during the beginning of this nation’s history, and moved to near-slave labor after the Civil War. The poor—white and minority alike—were underpaid and set to work in horrendous conditions, from railraods to coal mines to factories to cotton fields. When regulations were put into place in the US during the early to mid 20th century, America flourished like never before. (Ever wonder why we think of the 1950’s, post-New Deal America, as so ideal? It was when we were the most Socialist!)

Minimum wage laws, child labor laws, the progressive tax scale, food and drug safety… all of these are absent in a true laissez-faire government. People tend to forget that there was a time when poor children’s peak learning period was occupied working in sweat shops and dangerous factories because everyone in the family had to work in order to earn enough money to subsist.

In fact, this continues in third world nations so that we may have cheap, lead-painted toys (no wonder they think nothing of giving it to our kids, their kids are making them). At the turn of the 20th century, people were falling into meat grinders that just kept right on operating while shysters went from town to town selling concentrated cocaine in syrup form as a cure-all.

This is reality. This is history. This is how human beings treat each other when the level-headed do not step in and correct them.

Libertarians give people too much credit. You can see it in their policy towards guns. They assume everyone is a responsible owner, or if they don’t, they sure don’t seem to care. They assume the world would be safer if everyone owned a gun, despite history’s lessons of the pervasive violence in the oft-romanticized Wild West. In the end, even their policy on drug legalization boils down to being identical to their stance on guns: we can profit, so it’s good. Drugs should be legalized because they’re safer legalized and regulated than they are on the black market, unregulated (which is anti-laissez-faire). They should also be taxed heavily to pay for the cost to public health, much the same way cigarettes are (another measure Libertarians ignorantly oppose).

Perhaps the biggest travesty is the privatization movement, whereby Libertarians hope to one day have us all pay privately for police, fire, water, and who knows, maybe oxygen. This is all an affront to circumvent equality for all on basic services by ensuring the poor receive less (or none, what do Libertarians care?). If anything, more services need to be moved under the control of our democratically elected government and away from the royalist, aristrocratic tyrants of industry who tell us to take what they give us and like it.

In short, Libertarianism is nothing but a scam touted by capitalist pigs who have or are amassing billions, and by frat boys who wish to one day do the same… but after this bong hit.

Sick

I have a lot to write about, but I have been a little ill. I'm uninsured, so my insurance plan is Dr. Pepper and Nyquil. Although being sick actually increased my time to write, it is now hindering me because my flu has been supplemented with a nice case of pink-eye, which is keeping me from focusing on the screen for long.

I have primarily been thinking about how to address the two polls I took most recently (which I have moved to the top right). The results don't surprise me much, but maybe someone sees my point and wants to leave a comment on what they think. Do citizens think they have better judgement than our courts? Is it because in a moment of panic, we have more understanding for injustice? Clearly we don't think the punishment for B&E should be death (since we don't live in the nation of our good allies, the Saudis), but why do so many people (and some states, like Florida) condone a shoot-first mentality?

Injustice or How to Be a Pirate

Imagine going into a store and stealing two CDs. As you leave the store, you get caught. Rather than just take you to the back, humiliatingly strip search you, scare you with threats of litigation, and letting you loose, they take you do trial.

So far, seems fair. Somehow it ends up in federal court. Strange… The jury finds you guilty, because let’s face it: you did it. The penalty: $1.9 million.

That’s essentially what happened to Jammie Thomas-Rasset, except she never even went into a store. On Thursday, a federal jury fined Jammie $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she downloaded (equivalent to two CD’s of music).

What the hell is wrong with our copyright law? This is not only a blatantly absurd penalty on a $20-30 dollar theft (each song can be downloaded for roughly 99 cents), it’s un-American. The eighth amendment clearly states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” If ever there was an excessive fine, this is it.

Of course, this country is run by rich douchebags who stand to gain the most by forcing people to pay for every song download (whether they own the CD or previously downloaded it or not), so it’s not surprising the law is designed not only to protect them, but also to strike authoritarian fear in the hearts of citizens.

My reaction to such vulgar abuse of power is predictable. Below, I explain in four simple steps how to download music (or anything) illegally. Having done this for years, I can assure you nothing bad will happen. SWAT teams won’t come bursting through your window, I promise... Of course, you could just Google any of this, as it’s already ubiquitous.

Step 1. Download and install BitTorrent. You can Google BitTorrent, you can go to http://www.bittorrent.com/, you can even go to http://www.bittorrent.org/ (cause they’re non-profit!) and learn more about it and how it works.

Step 2. Go to a torrent site. My favorite is http://isohunt.com/, but you can get nostalgic and use the much maligned http://.thepiratebay.org/ of Swedish legal fame.

Step 3. Search for something. It can be a musician or song name, or even movie title. Hell, you can even download whole seasons of TV shows.

Step 4. When you find what you want, click the link. On the new page, click “Download Torrent.”

You now have yourself some fresh pirate booty. Avast, me hearties, plunder 'til ye heart's content. And if you're anything like me, you’ll not only buy the CD or movie if you loved it, you might even make the effort to see them live (or a movie in the theatre), which actually profits the artist (and Ticketmaster...) more than sales of CDs and DVDs.

Quick Laugh Over a Tragedy

It seems our good buddy who shot up the Holocaust museum was also into youngsters.

However, the part that made me laugh out loud (and actually wake up my wife) was at the bottom of the article:

"Earlier this week investigators filed papers saying among the items discovered
in von Brunn's apartment was a painting that appeared to depict Hitler and
Jesus."

It's very satisfying to be right. It's a shame an innocent man died over this guy's stereotypical white-whackiness.

Groups that Need to Go

Groups form for a reason. Sometimes, that reason disappears, either by action of the group or otherwise. However, groups don’t always disappear once their mission is gone.

Take PETA, for example. There was a time when people treated animals even worse than they do today. Of course now, even a beloved public figure like Michael Vick is instantly demonized for crimes against dogs (perhaps rightly so). So, PETA has been reduced to public campaigns against fly swatting. PETA defending annoying pests... actually sounds like self-interest to me. Of course, they have a crappy product to push on Obama: the Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher. I love how the news is often just an ad for consumer goods; talk about journalistic integrity.

A group we never needed is the NRA. Yes, I’m a big, scary, “disarm the populace” person. Our guns are being used to fuel street battles in neighboring Mexico and help propel America’s gun violence statistics to third-world, Somali levels. Guns do not make you patriotic, free, or a bad ass. They do, however, mark you as afraid and compelled by feelings of inadequacy (seriously, is it that small?).

The whole image of gun-ownership is a sales pitch by gun manufacturers because most people who own guns have absolutely no use for them (legal or illegal). The more we have floating around, the more are stolen or stockpiled. Nothing good comes from guns, and you aren’t going to challenge a modern tank/plane military with your arsenal and buried school bus. We don’t need more guns than we issue hunting licenses, and we certainly have no need for automatic weapons.

“But Ginx, blah blah blah 2nd Amendment!” Yeah, and the constitution also talks about how to counts slaves for voting, but that doesn’t sanctify slavery. The founders weren’t perfect, and they only ever saw muskets. [Does anyone support private citizens owning tanks, rockets, RPGs, fighter planes, nuclear weapons, etc.? Where’s the line?]

The AMA is a group that seems pretty harmless. Most people would need me to point out it stands for the American Medical Association. The AMA’s primary goal is to benefit doctors, which is a group of people I think have it good already... instant warning sign for obsolescence. The AMA has worked to create artificial doctor shortages by quietly limiting the number of doctors who graduate per year, ensuring fewer are allowed in than are needed. This artificial shortage increases demand, allowing doctors to be paid more. They also publicly smear non-physician care (alternative medicine, pharmacist/patient care, midwives, etc.), thereby eliminating competition in the marketplace. Who cares that Americans are getting some of the worst care in the developed world...

As liberal as I am, I hate unions. They are extra-governmental power, and I oppose that. Unions should be irrelevant, as the government ought to be working to keep conditions safe and wages fair. I would support the abolition of unions if the conditions were in place to ensure workers were better represented in government. Maybe this is impossible and unions are a natural part of the market, but I find them cumbersome and often an unnecessary barrier of entry into an occupation. The fact that they tax you with “dues” is just further evidence this is misplaced government.

The final group that has lost all meaning is the Republican Party. I know it is inevitable, and I question if a name change will even occur, but within my lifetime it will morph into the Libertarian Party (perhaps in values alone). I would love this, especially if it is dominated by atheist Libertarians (of which there are many). It would mean that even when Democrats lost, the party in power would have SOMETHING, at least ONE SINGLE THING, in common with me.

As it stands, Republicans are the most worthless people to walk the face of the Earth. They’re like society’s big, loud, annoying id. While most parties rally around ideas, Republicans have an attitude: “Gimme that, mine!” They’re a lead anchor tied to testicles of America (yes, America is a man, how do you think it fucks everyone over?). There is not a single iota of worth in the ideology of Republicans; even when they set out to do something right (invading Afghanistan, “smaller government,” cursing on the Senate floor), it’s for the wrong reasons and it fails miserably.

Why I Don’t Shop At Wal-Mart

Short and sweet: censorship.

I realize they mistreat their workers, but they aren’t slaves chained to the job. They can go out and sell meth like anyone else if they want.

I also realize they misuse overseas labor, but my jury is still out on how to handle the “sweatshops or prostitution” dilemma many of the women - and children - in third world nations are faced with. This wouldn’t be as much of a problem if our capitalist system didn’t create super-wealthy douchebags who could afford to fly out to third-world nations for sex with underaged children.

Also, I like that they destroy main-street America. I hate small towns and hope they all dry up and die so the slovenly, truck-driving drunks have to close their racism-factories and move to metropolitan areas where their kids will meet (not just be served food by) a black person before the age of 18.

In fact, I like large companies more than mom & pop places. Mom & pop don’t know shit about what I want to buy. They always have the worst selection, and I have to go to a chain store or online to get what I wanted in the first place (cheaper, too). Besides, Wal-Mart is a family run, mom & pop business; family members who run or worked for the company are just billionaire moms and pops. This might actually be another reason I don’t like them...

What’s irritating about Wal-Mart is that, by being a private company, they can circumvent the First Amendment. This is one of the many reasons I support socialism; I think companies have no right to discriminate or censor. Wal-Mart, by virtue of being the largest retailer, has pressured some artists to alter their work to meet decency standards. Others must sell edited versions. Some CD’s and books are not sold at all.

I’m not starting a campaign. I don’t care if you shop at Wal-Mart. I mostly wanted to vent about the stupid reasons most people had for not shopping there.

*Note: from a legal standpoint, I think Wal-Mart should treat its workers better. I just know that if this were the criteria by which one boycotted a company, one would be able to purchase nothing.

Religion in the News

There's lots of religion in the news today.

The first thing I noticed was former president Jimmy Carter's comments regarding his visit with the Palestinians and Israelis. I applaud Mr. Carter for his efforts, as there are times (like now) that he has been more active in the Middle East than the whole of America. I also respect him for listening to both sides. Then again, he's not taking huge campaign contributions from Israeli interest groups (AIPAC, CoP, WINEP, IPF, etc.), so he's not as tainted as active politicians.

Mr. Carter pointed out the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are "treated more like animals than human beings." He notes that items like paper, crayons, and children's toys are included among items being denied through a trade blockade. In Carter's words, "I sought an explanation of this when I met with Israeli officials and I received none, because there is no explanation."

He also remarked at the complete lack of reconstruction in the war-torn region. "Never before in history has a large community [1.5 million Palestinians] like this been savaged by bombs and missiles and then been deprived of the means to repair itself," Carter said. Another story here outlines more about his visit.

Our ally is also breaching the freedom of speech of non-Israeli reporters and making threats towards Iran. But is it really this bad?

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel (who did not receive the most votes and weaseled his way into power by technicality), has backed down from his hardline stance against a Palestinian state. While he appears to be asking the impossible, he has accepted (in theory) the formation of a completely demilitarized Palestinian state.

My final sigh of relief comes from a poll which finds that only 1 in 5 Israelis believe Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons. I am positive those numbers would be higher if the poll had been done in the US, so it says to me that Israeli citizens have a level head, and hopefully their government will take notice and chill out.

On a lighter note, Scientology could take a huge blow from the French. A fraud trial in Paris has escalated to the point where Scientology may be dissolved as a religion within the country. It currently is not registered as a religion, and therefore receives no tax-exemption (unlike in the US, where we fell for it). The implications are that Scientology auditing and "tech" (see also: overpriced books) will not be allowed to be sold in France. If your religion can't even stand up to the French, you should just give up.

Myself

I never write about myself, usually just about my views (which I guess is equally narcissistic). Blogs are supposed to be personal, right?

So in an effort to explain a few things about me, I thought I’d post about where I got my online nickname, Ginx, and what my user picture means.

I chose the word Ginx because Jinx13 was taken as an AOL account when I was 12. I remember I was 12, because everything required you to be 13 to participate. I figured a 13 in my name would be sufficient proof. I guess I also liked cultish stuff back then.

I changed the first letter because I saw no pronunciation dilemma, thinking, “‘g’ as in ‘George,’ not ‘g’ as in ‘gorge.’” Because I occasionally play video games that allow voice chat, I hear Ginx mispronounced a lot, but frankly I don’t care. I let a professor call me “Brad” for a whole semester once. I even thought about putting “Brad” on my papers.

Which reminds me, my name is Brett. My wife doesn’t want our names online, but I think it’d be cool to be martyred for your beliefs. It’s so much less effort to die young than to grow old. More than being lazy, I’m intrigued by the possible impact; if someone killed me because of my atheist blog, my writing would have far more of an impact than it does with a readership composed mostly of people who would read this and feel very depressed and sorry for me (rather than the appropriate response of strangers, which is to laugh at my naiveté and wish I’d move on to something funny or dramatic… not melodramatic).

The name Ginx stuck this whole time (I’m 25 now). In fact, I’ve had the moniker longer than I have not. Since adopting it, I researched it as thoroughly as I have all my other names (Brett is a demonym meaning “from Britain”). A man by the name of Edward Jenkins wrote an amazing book called “Ginx’s Baby. His Birth and other Misfortunes: A Satire.” Ginx is the last name, so the child also share’s this name. The entire book can be read online here, as the copyright expired decades ago.

In high school, I formulated the “GINX Maxim,” which states, “God Is Not X.” It is an expression of my frustration at liberal Christians whose concept of God has far transcended anything actually described in the Bible. There are some who say that God is simply the unknown, but this view is in no way supported by the Bible.

God is the One, the Prime Mover, the beginning and the end. Nowhere in the Bible can one infer that God merely occupies the gaps in human knowledge. I see no appeal in this view, from a theistic perspective, as this would mean God’s realm and influence in shrinking daily, as we learn more and more.

It’s an interesting idea, and I support their decision to start a brand new religion based on this view, but why perpetuate the lies of the Bible? The Bible should not be religious doctrine, but rather a scholarly text akin to the works of Homer. There is far more psychology within the Bible than ethics or morality.

So about my profile picture... Again, my wife doesn’t want our identities to be known (though I think she has since posted wedding photos with us in them). While I joke about it, I would prefer to live to see my children grow up and resent me, so a picture of me is not an option. Instead, I Photoshopped a picture of a Penrose triangle over a background I made.

The Penrose triangle is an interesting concept. It is an example of what is called “an impossible object.” It can be drawn, but it cannot be constructed in real life. I find this to be a metaphor for most philosophies and religions: it seems possible on paper, but it has no anchor in reality. It is a constant reminder that everything I think and write is merely mental masturbation unless it can be enacted in real life.

Why Did We Draw This Line?

It’s strange that belief and disbelief in gods is used to categorize people. I find it to be a highly biased view. For one thing, monotheists love the debate because it legitimizes their claim of a lone god. The debate has boiled down to Him or nothing, which is much easier for them than when they had to compete with various pantheons of divinities, with various cult temples scattered all about.

Theism versus Atheism is only an important distinction to monotheists who hold the Ten Commandments to be meaningful. After all, the first couple commandments are solely premised on the existence of gods. I put emphasis on the plural; how else could you have other gods before Yahweh?

I think three other concepts are more important to the human condition than the belief and worship of deities: belief in souls, belief in an afterlife, and belief in cosmic justice.

Every religion believes in some form of these three concepts. In addition, some atheists and agnostics also subscribe to one or more of these tenets. These three concepts play a direct role in our worldview; within religion, gods are usually secondary arbiters or defenders of the order associated with the immortal souls, the afterlife, and divine justice (with Buddhism being one exception).

Why are there no words for those who believe in souls, the afterlife, or cosmic justice? As far as I know, there is no individual or collective term for them, nor is there a name for the lack of such beliefs. Perhaps we bicker over the frivolous nature of the divine because we lack the vocabulary to discuss the concepts that truly matter on a personal level.

Sometimes it seems like the language of our eternal destiny eludes us beneath a sea of dogma that promises impersonal, universal salvation. Does the parlance of religion prevent us from having a logical discussion of metaphysical phenomenon without sounding like hokey mystics? Has religion hijacked spirituality, or are the absence of gods proof that our existence is anchored solely in the physical realm of matter?