Schrödinger's Cat Is . . .

In the same spirit as the previous translation I thought I'd translate a few 'Conservativisms' for everyone else, since there also seems to be some confusion going on.

America,
A·mer·i·ca [ ə mérrikə ]
noun
Definition:
1) The best thing in the fucking world, you don't even know!
2) Not capable of being wrong.

Capitalism,
cap·i·tal·ism [ káppit'l ìzzəm ]
noun
Definition:
1) A word they like to use, but don't really understand the meaning of.

Democracy,
de·moc·ra·cy [ di mókrəssee ] (plural de·moc·ra·cies)
noun
Definition:
1) The right thing to do, even if the majority of people are being stupid.

Human Being,
hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings)
noun
Definition:
1) "Are you gay?"
2) "No, I don't have any change."
3) "You'd better not be one o-them queers."

Hypocrisy,
hy·poc·ri·sy [ hi pókrəssee ] (plural hy·poc·ri·sies)
noun
Definition:
1) They also don't know the meaning of this word. (see also "Prohibition".)

Music,
mu·sic [ myzik ]
noun
Definition:
1) Ted Nugent.
2) Doesn't really matter as long as some one is wearing a flag on them, and it helps if they have a cowboy hat.
3) Anything you can dance to while drunk off your ass, or sway to slowly while thinking of Jesus/The Military/America/Sports/Not being gay . . .

So I thought I'd translate a few 'Liberalisms' for everyone else, since there seems to be some confusion going on.

America,
A·mer·i·ca [ ə mérrikə ]
noun
Definition:
1) Pure fucking evil.

Capitalism,
cap·i·tal·ism [ káppit'l ìzzəm ]
noun
Definition:
1) Pure fucking evil.

Democracy,
de·moc·ra·cy [ di mókrəssee ] (plural de·moc·ra·cies)
noun
Definition:
1) Anything anyone left of center says or does.
2) Whatever anyone left of center defines as democracy.
3) Anything as long as it's not "conservative".

Human Being,
hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings)
noun
Definition:
1) The worst thing in the world, responsible for all of the world's problems, should probably just die off . . . especially Americans.

Hypocrisy,
hy·poc·ri·sy [ hi pókrəssee ] (plural hy·poc·ri·sies)
noun
Definition:
1) They don't know the meaning of this word. (see also "Irony".)

Music,
mu·sic [ myzik ]
noun
Definition:
1) Neil Young.
2) Doesn't really matter, as long as some one on stage is openly gay and hates George Bush. (see also "Dixie Chicks".)
3) Anything you can dance to while wearing goofy looking sandals.

Wow what a stupid country we live in . . .

So too many people ask me for mixes or playlists of the odd stuff I listened to, so I decided to make my YouTube channel into a sort of "Radio Cyberpunk". I'll be adding playlists every week or so. I just posted the first "official" one today. The videos are a mix of alternative/electronic/industrial/ebm/trip-hop/post-punk/electro/etc . . . spanning the last 30 years of alternative music. Hopefully some one gets some enjoyment out of it, I know I have been.

Taken from comments surrounding the Evanescence video "Lithium".

-Conversation #1-

selmaET21 (2 months ago): i could cry

thecyberpunk (11 hours ago): I could fart.

-Conversation #2-

nataliiiiee (3 weeks ago): She's not singing about a battery.. Lithium is a drug that is used as so called ''happy pills''.

thecyberpunk (2 weeks ago): Yeah because Amy Lee is just so sad and misunderstood with her millions of dollars and retarded fans. Oh she's such a tragic Ophelia, draping herself across the landscape like a pale table cloth. Give me a break, she sucks.

JoyfulWolf (1 week ago): it's not like she was famous from birth. she's still human and obviously has had a hard life. and it's not like just because she's famous she doesn't have emotions.

thecyberpunk (20 hours ago): Yes, she's exactly what the landscape of this country needs. Another white person whining about how sad and unfulfilling it is to live in the richest most powerful nation on earth where she enjoys more freedom than women have ever enjoyed in the history of mankind. Amy Lee should try living in Pakistan as the wife to man who is legally allowed to beat her for looking at another man before she sits there and waxes melodramatic about how sad she is with her millions of dollars and adoring fans.

-Conversation #3-

grimmnel3x6walz (1 day ago): Oh, just shut that god forsaken trap of yours and do us ALL a favor. Nobody wants to hear you bitch. You're obviously just a jealous twat. If all you have to do is say bad things about talented artists, I seriously pity you. Tell me.
Are you lonely in that pathetic existence you call a life?

thecyberpunk (20 hours ago): Consider reading a book or two before perpetrating another crime against the English language like the one you committed with that travesty of a "paragraph". If not for yourself; then for your elementary school teachers who are obviously weeping at the thought of inflicting another semiliterate adolescent burger-flipper on the bloated American workforce. What you should be asking me is "please, will you teach me to be less of a moron and to appreciate better music?"

grimmnel3x6walz (17 hours ago): Answer my question. Or are incapable of processing the simple request? And you dare to call me a "burger-flipper"? You are speaking to a seventh grader with the intelligence of a college student. Oh, and you know what you have in quotation marks?It should be capitalized,genius.

thecyberpunk (15 hours ago) Your question does not apply to me, burger flipper. Since I'm neither lonely or pathetic I refer you back to the question I suggested you pose, to which I answer "no, you're too much of a moron". While I do believe you're a 7th grader, it's interesting that your profile lists you as being 18. You're one old 7th grader, wait, no that actually makes sense. Also my capitalization is perfectly valid, while your use of a conjunction to start a sentence is less so, burger flipper.

grimmnel3x6walz (14 hours ago) I lie about my age.Dipshit.I'm done talking to you.

thecyberpunk (11 hours ago): That figures since I pegged you at around 11 to 13 by your terrible grammar, vocabulary and sentence structure. I don't know why you think that you could pass for having the "intelligence of a college student". I've met some pretty dumb college students but most of them are at least able to form a proper sentence. Well I guess your mascara is running so you're "done talking", quickly now, run out and download some Fallout Boy to the iPod your parents got you for Christmas.

Viagra3636 (6 hours ago): Ah. That is... well, fantastic for you. I'm sure that you're really pleased with yourself. It seems "I'm done talking to you." wasn't strong enough a sentence. I'm almost certain that you enjoy to waste everyone's time with this pointless argument, but I, however, have a life. I really see no reason to continue this, so don't even waste your time replying. I got the iPod for my birthday, dick, not Christmas. Yes, there is Fall Out Boy on it. Oh, and remember this: I win.

thecyberpunk (29 minutes ago): So did you register another account just to continue this? Your join date is August 7th 2008. Just so you know, when you say "I'm done talking to you" generally that means YOU are done talking to the other person, not the other way around. Maybe in the magical land of fairies and wicca magic that sort of logic has a place, but not out here. I should also point out that the whole thing kind of loses its authenticity if you go ahead and keep talking. Lastly emos never win; that's why they're emo.

Conversation #4

EvanescenceFanNo1 (2 weeks ago): she has a fantastic voice, not everyone might like the music but her voice is amazing!!!!

thecyberpunk (2 weeks ago): Yes amaizing . . . FOR ME TO POOP ON!

EvanescenceFanNo1 (1 week ago): to poop on?? wat are u 5?? grow up a bit and don't listen if you don't like.

thecyberpunk (1 week ago): I guess your parents don't let you stay up late enough to understand the Conan reference. You'll understand that when you're 15.

EvanescenceFanNo1 (1 week ago): Fuck Off. It IS amazing. And i bet you can't sing anything as good as her. Plus you can't even spell amazing. Theres no "i" you thick dipshit.

thecyberpunk (1 week ago): You honestly want to bring spelling into this after you murdered three sentences in a row? News flash genius, "fuck off" does not qualify as a sentence. Also, starting a sentence with a conjunction is spurious at the best of times, much less in that travesty of grammar.

EvanescenceFanNo1 (1 week ago): i dont know wat the conan reference is but that means nothing. and i dont even have parents, they passed away when i was 7 so if ur gonna bring them into it then fuck you.

thecyberpunk (11 hours ago): Oh what a sad story . . . FOR ME TO POOP ON!

In this review I will attempt to keep my personal political views out of it as much as possible. It’s obvious to anyone who knows about the film that it is heavily political and expresses a strong anti-war and anti-US sentiment. Although this sort of thing is nothing new as films like Platoon and Casualties of War have expressed strong political sentiments about another unpopular war – especially anti-American sentiments, the subject matter of this film sets it apart from those and other war films as the events depicted are supposed to be based on real events that took place in Haditha one tragic day in November of 2005 where 15 non combatants were allegedly shot and killed by Marines in retaliation for a marine being killed in a roadside bomb. The event is now called “the Haditha Killings” and sometimes even “the Haditha Massacre” by the media. This is not to say that the film is an accurate retelling of what happened even if it would have you beleive otherwise. In fact the film is equal parts fact, rumor, speculation and outright fiction and because of the style it is presented in it is difficult to distinguish between these things. The writer/director Nick Broomfield is famous for his documentaries such as “Kurt and Courtney” where he attempts to investigate the death of Kurt Cobain, and “Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer” documenting the life, trial and execution of female serial killer Aileen Wuornos. I’ve always enjoyed Broomfield’s documentaries and the way he breaths humanity into his larger-than-life subjects, especially “Aileen . . .” for its unflinching look at an obviously insane woman and the equally insane justice system that is about to execute her. But because of its documentary style, there is a certain amount of dishonesty in “The Battle for Haditha” that I find difficult to accept.

From a technical standpoint the film is poorly done. The scenes involving the Marines show many technical and procedural inconsistencies, especially in regards to the scenes where they are clearing hallways and rooms in Iraqi homes or reacting to an IED attack on a humvee. The film was shot on location in Jordan, and most of the American equipment was probably rented from the Jordanian military which purchases much of its equipment from the US. I saw many M16’s (they looked like A2’s or A3’s with older or maybe even civilian models with older upper receivers and foregrips) with atypical setups, together with some M4’s it looked like they were using mostly older, civilian or perhaps Taiwanese AR-15’s. Most of the weapons, uniforms, combat webbing and even the body armor weren’t consistent with real US equipment, and the Humvees looked old, there's no turret shield for the M2 gunner which is pretty much standard on any US humvee these days, especially those operating in a combat zone like Iraq. The insides were also missing much of the gear you’d find in a real military vehicle in active use.

There is also a scene where a staff level officer approves a request from a helicopter pilot to fire on an Iraqi carrying nothing but a garden hoe. This is highly unlikely, and although there have been incidents of US helicopter pilots mistaking farming implements for weapons, a pilot would never request permission to fire on a person he knew was obviously only carrying a shovel or a digging implement until he saw the person actually touch or pick up what he thought was a weapon or an IED. On top of that the footage shows the man with the shovel walking casually down the road, shovel over the shoulder, and then quickly cuts to different footage of a hellfire missile hitting a target to make it seem as though the pilot engaged the target with a missile. You’d never see that, no one is going to waste an eighty thousand dollar missile on a single man walking down a street even if the guy is Osama bin Laden himself. If they even chose to engage, it would have been with guns.

The performances were mostly improvised, and it showed. It appeared few of the actors had any real dramatic training, and I understand that some were former servicemen, which was also puzzling because of the aforementioned amateurish methods used in room clearing. The soldiers would proceed down hallways in teams of two, both men spraying wildly and seemingly at random down hallways and into rooms. You’d never do this in a real firefight or building clearing. Spraying over the shoulder of the man in front of you presents two problems: first of all your muzzle is right next to the head of the man in front of you, so you’re going to deafen him temporarily or even permanently, plus if you drop the muzzle even a little you just shot a man in the back. You’d think a basic technical advisor would have mentioned something about this.

The film starts off with Marines driving around listening to heavy metal, and then goes into a sequence of ‘interviews’ in the style of Full Metal Jacket on what the soldiers think of the conflict. It is unanimous that the soldiers don’t want to be there, and don’t understand why they are fighting. Their training is portrayed as extremely brutal, and meant to encourage violence. “Kill kill kill!” is chanted many times. One soldier shows another solider a war wound that he says could have gotten him discharged with 10% pay, but decided to remain in the service so that he could collect his full pay, even though he apparently hates the war and feels his country is neglecting him. I don’t understand this logic; it’s not like leaving the marines with an honorable discharge would have prevented him from getting a regular job. Why would one risk their life for low pay in a conflict they didn’t believe in for a country they resented, rather than simply take an out when it is offered and go get a job in the civilian world? Even a low paying job you don’t like would be better than a low paying one that you don’t like and is incredibly dangerous. Surely his physical injury could have qualified him to finish out his service in an inactive unit, or even a reserve unit where he could have at least gotten himself an education. I can’t think of a single war in the 20th century that didn’t result in the disillusionment of thousands and thousands of veterans. Regardless of the nation they are fighting for, veterans rarely get fare treatment by their government once the conflict is over – this is one of the many ugly aftereffects of war, and a lesson no government ever seems to learn. But every time it is portrayed in film it is shown as phenomenon unique to whatever conflict the film explores.

The most interesting part of the film is the portrayal of the Iraqis. While the Marines are demonized, and so to are the “foreign Al-Qaeda fighters”, the Iraqis on the other hand are played as innocent victims. We’re introduced to a young Iraqi insurgent who by day runs a video store that sells DVDs to US soldiers while leading a double life where together with his uncle (a disgruntled former Iraqi soldier) he smuggles weapons and plants roadside bombs. The uncle is “pissed off” by checkpoints, war and the damaged infrastructure of Haditha left by the 2003 invasion. Most of all though he seems angry that when the US disbanded the Iraqi army (a move that is still generating controversy today) all he was given was fifty US dollars for his years of service. And so instead he decides to work for another group of foreigners who’ll pay him one thousand dollars every time he successfully blows up an American vehicle with a primitive IED. The other character we’re introduced to are a young couple and their child who are on neither side, and are simply trying to live their lives as best they can in the midst of war and chaos. They see the insurgents planting a bomb, but instead of warning the Americans, they tell their Sheik, who tells them to pray. They are afraid that if they tell the Americans what the insurgents are planning that they will be targeted and executed by the insurgents.

Ultimately the morality of this film portrays the Americans not only as ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ types but also as plain bloodthirsty. They march and chant “kill kill kill” they sit in their bunks plotting vengeance, they’re rude to the Iraqis whose country they have invaded, they don’t understand or care about the cause they are fighting for and they blare heavy metal music everywhere they go. As anyone who’s ever served in the military will tell you, this simply isn’t the case. Most soldiers are highly dedicated, highly motivated and highly professional. American patrols spend far more time handing out food, water, medical supplies and gifts to the Iraqis than they do shooting at anyone. I’m not saying there aren’t tragedies happening, and that there aren’t’ soldiers getting out of line, but what I am saying is that these are exceptions. This film tries to portray the exceptions as the rule while ignoring the fact that insurgents routinely and as a matter of policy target civilians in market places and funeral processions. The worst part of this film though is that the tragedy that took place in Haditha is still under investigation, it is only a few years since blood was spilled there, lives are still affected by it on the part of both the Marines on trial for the crimes committed there and the Iraqis who live there. This film presents an explanation and a verdict before the smoke has really even cleared, and it stirs up sentiment that will not help end the conflict in Iraq. Even if there is a full US withdrawal from Iraq, the insurgents will still be there. If the US leaves Iraq in the state it is in right now, would the Iraqi people be better off living under a group that routinely slaughters innocent men, women and children as a matter of policy? This film doesn’t bother with questions like this while at the same time making implications that really demand such questions be asked. This injustice to everyone involved in the Iraqi conflict is compounded by the fact that it is shot in a documentary style in an attempt to present itself as the truth when it is simply, like any other dramatic film just one point of view.

Overall this film is poorly acted, poorly filmed and its politics are some of the worst kind of popular anti-American propaganda. A much better and far more realistic portrayal of a modern American war is definitely Blackhawk Down, which chooses not to delve heavily into the morality of the conflict it portrays, but rather focuses specifically on what happened on that day in Mogadishu, and less on the series of military and political missteps that lead to catastrophe that took place there.

Honestly, this was never a good film, it sucked in the 1970's when it was made, and it still sucks today when it is worshipped. How it ever passed for a good film is beyond me, but somehow millions of people still flock to screenings of this stinker while the Catholic Church continues to be outraged for some reason. The honest truth of this film is simple: it is not a great film, and it shouldn't be a controversial film. Its portrayal of the Church is if anything rational and progressive; "What do you mean your little girl is possessed, what are you, stupid? This is the 20th century." Face it people, the emperor is naked. There's barely anything passing itself off as a plot, just a series of sad, scary and sometimes silly scenarios that are largely unrelated to each other and a rather ridiculous premise when you actually examine it. Not to mention the lamest portrayal of a character in film history; that of the Devil. It is established that young and unfortunate little Regan is possessed not just by a demon, but (oooh insert scary music) the Devil himself . . . because she played with Ouija board . . . Right . . . Honestly, this is the best the Devil can do? His major forays into the world of mortals consist of puking green slime and making lewd remarks? When did the devil become little more than a drunken frat boy at a kegger? I mean sure when it's a little girl doing it, it's kind of odd, but throw a backwards hat on her and a baggy Lakers Jersey and she'd fit right in at the next Kappa Beta Gama pledge night. Why didn't he do something creative and take over the president and start a nuclear war, or take over a Georgia Prosecutor and then get her to leave law after a string of misconducts only to start her own lousy talk show? If I was Father Merrin I'd be relieved that this is the worst thing the Devil could come up with, pull up a chair next to the bed, throw on a Cheech and Chong movie and have some laughs, and then wonder if the reason Lucifer was actually cast out of heaven was for being obnoxious and lighting his own farts while everyone was trying to watch UFC.

Meanwhile all of the other supporting characters have an emotional range that spans the vast gulf of human expression ranging from "concerned" to "disturbed", oh there's a few party scenes but those get spoiled too and everyone goes back to "concerned". There's a sort of half-assed side plot involving a priest losing his faith because his mother dies, a half assed side plot involving a movie actress, and another of a sort of wandering exorcist priest wandering through poor countries looking to cast out demons (apparently demons don't hang around in country clubs or boardrooms, but only in those Sally Struthers countries). The widest range of emotions come from Regan/Satan who goes from looking uncomfortable while being probed by doctors to grinning like an idiot while she grosses everyone out with her cooky demonic antics.

If you're going to watch this film for the first time, watch it objectively. Ask yourself what exactly is scary about the premise for this movie. Ask yourself why the devil couldn't come up with anything better than freaking some people out and making a big mess of a little girl's room. Then after you've done this, go and pick up a copy of the only good Friedken movie: The French Connection.

Well it looks like Guillermo del Toro's "At The Mountains of Madness" is burning in development hell and most likely won't happen. After seeing the shitbox that was Hellboy 2 I don't know weather to be relieved or mournful about this development.

Wait, who the fuck cares. I'm a grown up. This shit shouldn't matter to me.

blah
blah
blah

One of the greatest champions of free speech, and a hero in the fight against censorship passed away on Sunday June 22nd, at 5:55 PM (he probably would have liked that number) at the age of 71.

At this time it is important, whether or not you liked his comedy; to remember him as a champion of the First Amendment and a true American patriot. He goes down in history among other important performers and humorists such as Mark Twain, Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor and Bill Hicks – people who not only entertained us but weren’t afraid to question authority and push the envelop of what moralists would deem “decent” in doing so.

Rest in peace George Carlin, you will be missed.

I don't understand the complaints against this film, really I don't. It delivers exactly what every other Jones film does, save for one thing: Indiana Jones fighting Nazis. But honestly, Indy has had his fill of the Nazis at this point, I mean; the man rode on the back of a German U-boat, a Panzer, and he even met freaking Adolf Hitler. How many more Nazis does Indy have to punch out before we as the audience get the point? Also, how would you explain the age difference between the character and the actor? Ford has been out of the Indy saddle for 20 years! How would you explain a 58-year-old man running around in the 1930's/40's when in film time he was only in his late 30's just a few years ago in 1936? No, I'm sorry people, Indy has aged, his world has aged with him, and it is time to deal with that.

I've heard HUGE complaints about using Russian Agents as the villains for a number of silly reasons. What, the Russians are off limits as villains in action/suspense films? Oh, I suppose we'll have to phone up Ian Fleming and tell him to make some changes then, and don't forget Rocky and Bullwinkle, I mean Boris and Natasha are obvious negative stereotypes. I've read that even Communist Party honchos in Russia are calling for the film to be banned and for any actors or crew involved with it to be barred from entering Russia because of the way it negatively portrays 1950's era Russian KGB agents (as though those guys were saints delivering Teddy Bears or something, yeah, sure). What is wrong with these people? This is an homage to the serials of Spielberg and Lucas's youth! It is meant to be as accurate a portrayal of the historical and cultural nuances and intricacies of the Cold War McArthyist America as much as it is meant to be an accurate non-fictional documentary on Archaeology! What they were going for was the pop-culture era of the 1950's, and they got it right, there were greasers, malt shops, mysterious men in black hats, and nuclear bomb tests. What more could you ask for? There was also a not so subtle commentary on the how the McAarthyists and the J. Edgar Hoover style FBI witch hunts were indeed wrong during the conversation between Indy and the Dean of his university.

If you are able to reconcile that the world of Indiana Jones had to evolve if it wanted to use Harrison Ford; you will love this film. It delivers everything an Indiana Jones film promises: suspense, comedy, mystery, ruins, car chaises, bad guys, stunts, brawls, using a
whip to swing on or grab stuff out of people's hands, a fedora, showing a montage of an airplane journey over a graphic of a faded yellow map with an animation tracing the journey's progress. It's a pretty simple formula really. They're not setting out to adapt a Cormac McCarthy novel to film. If you are disappointed by the fact that Indy is seemingly able
to survive impossible situations I think you need to sit down and re-watch the original films along with a few episodes of Myth Busters. SURVIVING ANYTHING, ESCAPING FROM ANYTHING, DISCOVERING ANYTHING, AND GENERALLY DEFYING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS IS INDIANA JONES' SHTICK! Deal with it people! This is not Fargo or Goodfellas, only the bad guys die or get shot in these movies!

Maybe people are losing their sense of nostalgia for classic characters, what with all of the "re-launches" going on. Maybe they should have hired an actor 20 years younger to play Indy, and set everything up just the way people remember it so that they're not challenged in the slightest to take in anything new and could just sit there eating their popcorn and texting on their cell phones. Maybe they should have just done a remake of Raiders with Vince Vaughn as Indy or something, I don't know, I'm no film executive. What I do know is that this film measures up just fine against the other films of the series and delivers everything I expected from an Indy film. For people who can't see that, I suggest chucking your copies of the rest of the series because if you sit down and re-watch them through the same filter you've watched Kingdom, you'll find that those cherished childhood memories of an Archaelogist in a Fedora fighting bad guys and making amazing discoveries are gone forever and even Raiders is just as unrealistic a portrayal of its time with just as many negative cultural stereotypes.

Dear Jameson, William, and the more elegant members of our circle,

Thank you for your responses so far and for not allowing intellect to be overcome by personal feelings. I’d like now to write about Eugenics for a while, as it has come up more than once in both the Orson Card article and is one of the key focuses of the Ben Stein film. Eugenics and its sordid history has been one of the focuses of my area of study both within and outside of my post secondary career. Hopefully I’ll be able to segue into the concept of intelligent design as well.

On this topic (and many others) Gilbert Chesterton is one of my biggest influences, regardless of the fact that he was an outspoken Christian apologetic, and I think it only fare to my good and respected friend Jameson who is both a scholar and a Christian himself that I lean heavily on that particular source just to show that I am always willing to listen to both sides of the argument despite any personal views I may have. I’m hoping that in discussing the concept of Eugenics we can also uncover something of the debate against the establishment of “Intelligent Design” as a valid science and attempt to clear science's name after Orson Scott Card and Ben Stein's smear campaign. As anyone who knows me can attest my strongest belief is in liberty, a concept that Chesterton and I seemed to share. He was a staunch critic of big government, and a staunch critic of the Eugenics movement of his time. He was deeply religious, yes, but he expressed profoundly libertarian views on society, morality, and government proving that these ideologies and philosophies are compatible.

While such forms of socially enforced barbarism as selective breeding and leaving newborns exposed to the elements predates the scientific method entirely, going back thousands of years to ancient times, it was during the Victorian era that this concept would be masqueraded as science under the deceptive alias of “Eugenics”. However intelligent and sceptical men like Chesterton knew that Eugenics was not science. He knew it was simply a method of state control when he said “They have no Science of Eugenics at all, but they do really mean that if we will give ourselves up to be vivisected they may very probably have one some day. I point out, in more dignified diction, that this is a bit thick.” I wrote earlier that a “Social Darwinist believes he is taking a scientific approach to greed” when perhaps what I should have said is “a Social Darwinist is attempting to give legitimacy by cloaking greed in the guise of science.” This is the modus operandi of the con man, they use the language of “science” to baffle us and legitimize the worst in supernaturalism, in pseudoscience and in quackery. From the proponents of “NLP” to the proponents of “ID”- mysterious acronyms that contain words like “Neuro-Linguisitics” and “Intelligent Design” to make them sound legitimate – but a closer look reveals the emperor to be naked and as Chesterton said: "Woe unto you, hypocrite that devour widows' houses and for a pretence uses long words." Words like Eugenics and Intelligent Design are nothing more than ways for unscrupulous people to dress their ideology in the lab coat of the scientist, when before they’d dress it in the vestments of spirituality or the uniform of fascism. Darwinism in of itself calls for nothing. It is not a manifesto, it is not a dogma or a rallying cry, it is simply a hypothesis based on the observations of one bearded Beagle-riding man on a lonely island covered in strange creatures. It is not a scientist or a Socialist who adds “Social” to “Darwinism”, it is not the scientist who calls for his ideology to be enforced on us; the teaming masses. Eugenics was the handy work of the robber baron, the financier and the despot who demanded we all pay the toll for their promise of a better way of life.

What worries me about the views of Stein and Card is the fact that they not only dress ID in the costume of science, but that its proponents even choose to do so in the first place; as though their beliefs required science's stamp of approval, and yet at the same time they decry science as being the root of such evils as the holocaust! Why then would they even consider a shotgun marriage between science and faith considering their rather nasty opinion on science itself? It goes deeper than that though. Chesterton said “All I assert here is that the Churches are not now leaning heavily on their political establishment; they are not using heavily the secular arm. Almost everywhere their legal tithes have been modified, their legal boards of control have been mixed. They may still employ tyranny, and worse tyranny: I am not considering that. They are not specially using that special tyranny which consists in using the government.” Chesterton would probably be sickened by the way this is changing in our modern context. Today religion is doing just that, attempting to gain political funding, not to search for God, but to teach children that God is the answer to deep and important scientific questions. Does god need a microscope in a federally funded lab to be seen? Does he cease to exist if children are not taught about him as scientific fact in public schools? Does he not reveal himself in the majesty of his creation? And if not, will the stern words of the instructor change any of that? I posit that god, if he does exist; cannot be killed by science or disbelief. Contrary to Card’s statements, Stein’s “scientists” are not being barred from the scientific community because they are Christians. There is no scientist that I can uncover who is being barred a research grant because they wear a crucifix around their neck or go to church on Sunday. No, Stein’s champions aren’t even being barred, what is being barred is their desire to insert religion into science. Make no mistake, religion is an ideology, religion requires faith, faith requires obedience. Science married to a system of obedience is perhaps one of the most dangerous ideologies possible, be it political or religious in nature. Chesterton wrote “Men merely finding themselves free found themselves free to dispute the value of freedom. But the important point to seize about this reactionary skepticism is that as it is bound to be unlimited in theory, so it is bound to be unlimited in practice. In other words, the modern mind is set in an attitude which would enable it to advance, not only towards Eugenic legislation, but towards any conceivable or inconceivable extravagances of Eugenics.” And so too of Intelligent Design. Card talks about the danger of a situation where the conclusions become more important than the methods, but this is precisely what he is advocating by suggesting that Intelligent Design be taken seriously by science, or in fact be treated as a viable solution to the mystery of creation and the development of life. ID does not seek to find God in the test tube or the microscope, or uncover his workings in any meaningful way, it does not seek to as Einstein said “know the thoughts of God”. ID merely proposes that God is the ultimate answer, and by his nature an unlimited answer. If ID becomes accepted science, then science as a methodology is undermined and destroyed by a philosophy that pre-supplies every conclusion in the form of God. In their world there is no reason for the scientific method, God is an ontological pre-determined conclusion, with it there is no reason for experimentation or analysis – once God walks through the door into the laboratory, the laboratory is destroyed. In Mark Twain’s satirical classic “Christian Science” he summed up this position ideally when he wrote about a Christian Scientist explaining to him why his broken arms and legs were nothing to be worried about because matter did not exist, therefore his broken arms and legs did not exist. Puzzled, he asked the Christian Scientist to explain this:

"It is quite simple," she said; "the fundamental propositions ofChristian Science explain it, and they are summarized in the fourfollowing self-evident propositions:1. God is All in all.2. God is good. Good is Mind3. God, Spirit, being all, nothing is matter4. Life, God, omnipotent Good, deny death, evil, sin, disease.”

Chesterton once wrote of Eugenics “We are discussing whether we know enough, as responsible citizens, to put such powers into the hands of men who may be deceived or who may be deceivers. I conclude that we do not.” Without reading into this one could conclude that Chesterton was afraid of science, or believed science was inherently evil or atheistic (as Ben Stein and Card do). But what he was actually afraid of were the men who wielded power irresponsibly. On the History of the Eugenicist Chesterton said: “He does not live in a dark lonely tower by the sea, from which are heard the screams of vivisected men and women. On the contrary, he lives in Mayfair. He does not wear great goblin spectacles that magnify his eyes to moons or diminish his neighbors to beetles. When he is more dignified he wears a single eyeglass; when more intelligent, a wink. He is not indeed wholly without interest in heredity and Eugenical biology; but his studies and experiments in this science have specialized almost exclusively in equus celer, the rapid or running horse. He is not a doctor; though he employs doctors to work up a case for Eugenics, just as he employs doctors to correct the errors of his dinner. He is not a lawyer, though unfortunately often a magistrate. He is not an author or a journalist; though he not infrequently owns a newspaper. He is not a soldier, though he may have a commission in the yeomanry; nor is he generally a gentleman, though often a nobleman. His wealth now commonly comes from a large staff of employed persons who scurry about in big buildings while he is playing golf.”

More on this later . . .

Dear Jameson,

Allow me again to respond in a point by point form.

[“Nigel. If I wasn't mistaken you took some of what OSC had to say a bit personal.”]

Nope, I’m not taking any of this personally and I hope you’re not either. We’re both intelligent modern men, we can disagree, even argue, without having it affect our friendship! Note that I just sound angry and use lots of exclamations because I’m an American. Rest assured, when I’m exclaiming or cursing, I’m not cursing at you, I’m cursing at Orson. So don’t take this as indictment against you or your system of belief. I’m just challenging the suggestions he makes in the article when he segues into faith, morality, and history when he’s supposed to be on the topic of intelligent design and the dangers of consensus science.

And for the record I agree on the aformentioned dangers of consensus science, just look at the bullshit surrounding Climate Change. It has become less a science, and more an industry, self- perpetuating based on faulty methodology and bad data, promoted by unqualified people. It’s an ontological liberal circle jerk gone wildly out of control and packaged to yuppies to assuage post-modern materialist dissatisfaction with what Maslow would call “Self Actualization” – “hey I bought a hybrid car, I’m saving the world instead of just working a crummy job and wearing stupid looking clothes! Who cares if it's true or not, some guy on television said so!” I don't take issue with his statements there, which is why I didn't respond to most of that. What I take issue with are his pot-shots at atheism and his butchering of history for his own agenda.

[“For the record he is not trying to make an argument for or against ID or Darwinism.”]

Make no mistake, he definitely IS making the case. He will constantly say he has no stake in this, or that his personal faith has nothing to do with his position, but again and again he will obviously contradict himself.

[“For the record Darwinism is a philosophy and belief system, where evolution is a scientific theory.”]

Nope, they’re both theories, and they’re both philosophies in their own way too. But for the sake of this discussion we’ll simply go by what the dictionary defines them as. Good old Webster defines Darwinism as "A theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors." Now people love to attach prefixes to Darwinism, such as "neo-Darwinism", "economic-Darwinism" or "social-Darwinism", all with vastly different applications and little connection to Darwin’s actually theory. That’s when it becomes a philosophy and a belief system in the context of this discussion. But the proponents as well as the detractors of these applications of Darwinism do the man a disservice by throwing his name around in an effort to claim legitimacy for their cockamamie ideologies. Social/Economic-Darwinism has little if anything to do with religion and spawned from among other things; right-wing Hegelianism. Neo-Darwinism is a buzzword that really has yet to find modern definition. But if you talk to a Social Darwinist he believes he’s taking a scientific approach to greed. If you talk to an Intelligent Designer Darwinism is the dogma of atheism and a Darwinist is the same thing as a Social-Darwinist. Neither is true, and shame on Ben Stein and Orson Card for pretending that they are.

[“Also for the record, I am a scientist who's also religious. I have my faith, and in no way does that faith disqualify my scientific endeavors.”]

Of course not, just as Darwin himself was a Christian and later an Agnostic. Just as I am non-theist and that doesn’t make me inherently amoral and a hair short of going crazy and killing everyone because I don’t necessarily believe that there is consequence-laden afterlife, which is what Card is trying to say.

Hello Jameson (and anyone else who is reading this),

As you know I value our conversations very much, so I’m glad you decided to post this. Let me set the record straight before I begin, I am not an atheist, I am more of a non-theist, or as long as we’re throwing labels around I’d prefer to be called a “Truth Seeker”. I do not necessarily believe or disbelieve that a God, or even the Christian God exists. I simply don’t see any need for organized faith in my life, and in fact it would hinder me in my philosophical pursuits. Make no mistake, religion offers answers, the problem for me is that to be a religious person I would have to accept those answers as truth, and since faith is in of itself a non-experiential concept, and very little truth can be arrived at a-priori, I just don’t seem to have been born with the concept of “faith” imbedded in my psyche. For the record, if there is a God, I think he’ll sleep just fine knowing that I didn’t take it all for granted, and sought to understand his great mystery without taking it for what my ancestors believed and leaving it at that. At the same time, people with faith may as well be free to do what they want, I believe first and foremost in the concept of liberty, and no one has any business mandating faith or the lack of faith on anyone else.

With all of that I’ll respond in point form to a few of Orson Scott Card’s assumptions. First off, he’s a great sci-fi author, Ender’s Game is way up there on my list of favorite books. But when it comes to politics and faith Card and I rarely see eye to eye.

[“But Expelled is not trying to preach or even defend ID. The technical arguments are far too complicated to explain in a movie. What Ben Stein is trying to do is expose the way anyone who dissents from Darwinist orthodoxy is punished and silenced.”]

This is precisely the point though. The arguments against the so called “Darwinism Orthodoxy” are not accepted by the scientific community because they are unscientific in nature. Darwinism is a scientific theory based on provable scientific methodology (ie; observations, fossil records, etc etc) while intelligent design has nothing to back it up except a different interpretation of the same available data that is skewed by faith. I mean the ID people will go “but, but, but we don’t have a direct fossil record to trace every level of human evolution” – fair enough – “so the bible must be correct” – huh? Just because Darwinism does not explain EVERYTHING does not mean it is necessarily wrong. Basing a theory solely on what another theory fails to explain is not science. Newtonian physics does not begin to explain quantum physics, does that mean Newton was wrong and we should throw out Newtonian Physics? Now that’s not to say that the scientific community isn’t a tough nut to crack, and new theories often see a lot of resistance before they are accepted into mainstream science. But this is precisely why and how science works, if you want to throw out a theory that is backed up by observable phenomenon you'd better have some astounding evidence in your pocket if you expect to succeed. And I’m afraid that Ben Stein, although he helped write some great speeches for Nixon, and was awesome in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off has not laid the scientific community bare in pointing this out.

[“Most scientific discoveries through history have been made by people who believed in God. Period. That's a historical fact.”]

Lest they suffer the fate of Galileo.

[“Darwin, working in an era before we understood the workings of the cell, simply had no way of knowing just how complicated things could get. Clearly "random variation plus natural selection" is not a sufficient explanation.”]

What? Why? Says who? What is their evidence? Just because Darwinism fails to explain a concept (and I’m not sure that in this case that it doesn’t) does not mean it is incorrect! This is yet another case where Orson tries to say “I’m not one of those crazy ID’s” when he clearly is. Orson, you can’t have it both ways!

[“But that is one of the most important -- and valid -- points in the movie. First, Hitler was a Darwinist.”]

Well it looks like we’ve taken our first step into horseshit territory. This is the kind of argument I hear from idiot college students and random people on the internet. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER OR NOT HITLER WAS A DARWINIST EVEN THOUGH HISTORY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE WASN’T. Charles Darwin did not invent the concept of eugenics, nor did Victorians like Francis Galton. Sure, they gave it a fancy name to try and make it sound scientific, but people have been killing each other on the pretense of ethnic or religious purity since we learned how to make stone clubs and spears. Hitler based his idiot theories on occultism and even sought to marry them directly to his “Positive Christianity” which would have been the state religion in his glorious “Thousand Year Reich”. Anti-atheists love to bring up Hitler because his fucked up theories remind them of “survival of the fittest” and they love to throw around words like “social Darwinism” when talking about Hitler even though the two have about as much in common as Apples and Grenade Launchers. But what these guys never acknowledge is that Hitler was first and foremost an Anti-Semite, a position that in of itself requires religion both on the part of the victim and perpetrator. If Hitler was a Darwinist, or a true Eugenicist in the tradition of the Victorians; “Jew”, “Gypsy” or “Catholic” wouldn’t have been an issue, people would have been selected for extermination purely based on physical deficiencies. Hitler’s final solution not only REQUIRED religion, but was intrinsically based on it!

[“The historical fact is that the normative religions -- religions that offer codes of conduct that promote altruism and tolerance, like Buddhism and Christianity -- have acted as a brake on the natural tendency of human beings to be bestial to each other when fear or power-lust makes it seem necessary or desirable.”]

Religion has also served as rallying cry for the worst atrocities of recorded history. From the early wars between tribes, to the blood sacrifices made to the Moche pantheons; religion has been the architect of violence. Oh what’s that? “But I’m only talking about our Modern altruistic Western religions!” Oh yeah? Tell that Guy Fawkes or to Michael Collins or their British Enemies, tell that to the Bosnians and the Serbians, tell that to the penultimate Christian Crusaders like Richard the Lionheart who slaughtered women and children in the name of God. Hell, the most venerated dead horse that anti-atheists love to flog – the king of douchebags himself: Joseph Stalin, went to fucking seminary school and was deeply connected to the Russian Orthodox church, especially when he used it as a rallying force to fight off the Protestant Aryan Christian Nazis.

[“When there is no moral restraint, no sense of transcendent responsibility, then why shouldn't powerful people do whatever they think is right? On what basis would a committed atheist like Richard Dawkins prove to us that Hitler was wrong? Science is simply mute on issues of values. Dawkins has no scientific basis for opposing or even criticizing Hitler or Stalin in any way. I'm sure that he would condemn them -- but he could not tell us why in terms that were even slightly more rational than any religion.”]

And there goes the other shoe. So what, freedom and liberty are entirely Christian concepts? Really? Because I can find plenty of quotes dealing directly with genocide and slavery right in the good book. Hell, I can even find instructions on the best way to trade livestock, but morality? Christianity is actually strangely silent in this conversation, what it does ask for loudly though is obedience. Where simple logic tells me that to live in a society (or allow to exist a violent expansionist society) where one despotic ruler metes out life and death based on his own insane whims and occult theology is an inherently dangerous and unfulfilling way of life, I find Christ telling me to “Render unto Caeser”. In fact if I looked purely at the Bible, I couldn’t find any reason at all for Hitler to have been wrong, or confronted and overcome.

From a conversation over e-mail regarding who would win, Iron Man, or Boba Fett . . .

Alright I'm going to respond to these in a point by point format:

["well going in his ship is like saying iron man wears a bigger suit. or makes and anti shield gun or something. If it is just iron man and boba fette in a field with nothing but what they have on them.. iron man wins"]

I don't know, Iron Man may be superior in terms of strength and mobility, but Fett is at least equally, if not superiorly armed, and he's got sheer audacity and Mandalorian cunning on his side.

["You're still assuming Boba Fett could find Iron Man on Earth before Iron Man found him. Considering its a totally alien planet, he wouldn't know where to start."]

Okay that's just silly. Boba Fett is the most efficient and feared Bounty Hunter in the galaxy. It is his job to hunt down people on alien planets, no, it's more than that, it is literally the meaning of his entire existence. Saying Fett can't track down a high profile momo like Tony Stark on an "alien" planet is like saying Beethoven couldn't write a symphony just because he was hard of hearing. If Boba Fett had been hired to bring in Osama Bin Laden at 7am on September 11th, Boba Fett would have had him in a block of carbonite in Dubya's office before his first coffee of the day had gotten cold.

["If Return of the Jedi is an indication, his jetpack is made of Aluminum and tissue paper seeing as how all Solo had to do was randomly hit it to set Boba Flying out of control."]

Okay, I'll admit that was one of Fett's off days. But did you see where he was hanging around the night before? The motherfucker was getting drunk off his ass, banging space broads and getting fucked up on space coke all night long in Jabba's palace. Hey, you try to drink a 6 ton slug monster under the table and then screw a broad with 6 tits who you thought looked hot after about 12 shots of something with a live fucking frog in the glass, and we'll see how limber you are in the morning. They wake the guy up at 7am to watch an execution out in the desert, everything is supposed to be going fine, Jabba's got a new slave girl, all his goons have to do is push a couple of motherfuckers into a pit. Fett just wants to sit and hang out somewhere dark and sleep off the monster hangover he's got, but he can't piss of Jabba (the Pablo Escobar of Star Wars) so he's like "fine, I'll come along, wave goodbye to that slick shit Solo and his goofball friends, then I'll sleep off this hangover so I can make the after party". What happens after is a total clusterfuck. Jabba's guys are so drunk and hung over from the night before when they were celebrating the capture of Skywalker, Chewbacca, Leia and drinking to the dead Rancor with the weepy shirtless fat guy. So of course everything starts going south since Luke, Lando, and Chewie all have 8 hours of peaceful slumber and are ready to rock faces first thing in the morning. So Boba is forced to step up to the plate, still hung over himself, and not ready for action. He forgets to secure the safety on his jetpack, because like, who the fuck double checks their jetpack before going to a public execution. You don't figure when you're hung over, going to an execution that you'll even need your jetpack.

Nrrrd Grrrl!

Almost everything in this song applies.



Oh, and it looks like I have floor seats for NIN.

Schrödinger's Cat says: You know what I don't get about ninjas? when they're all in their masks, and they're about to fight one guy without a mask, why don't they just run for it, I mean, they should know right away that a guy without a mask is probably more dangerous than them. Or at least they'd run away once they see the guy without the mask beat up the first half dozen of their friends.

Billy says: well i would not only run but i would throw ninja stars at him while i ran .. on the odd chance i would kill him.. then i would gloat about my great victory.. because everyone else would be dead.. and who's to know the better

Schrödinger's Cat says: Nope.
Schrödinger's Cat says: Bad call.
Schrödinger's Cat says: They try that every once in a while.
Schrödinger's Cat says: All the guy does is catch the throwing stars and kill you with them, you're better off just booking it and getting the hell out of there.

Billy says: no no .. he could whip out his own
Billy says: i would have a better chance to whip them and bolt
Billy says: or bolt and whip as i ran
Billy says: or wait till he is fighting my ninja buddies then whip them and run

Schrödinger's Cat says: Trust me dude, I just watched a video here on google where a ninja tries exactly what you're talking about and ends up with getting his weapon thrown right back into his forehead. It was a seriously bad scene all around for the ninjas.

Billy says: yeh but he was probably already stairing the other ninja down
Billy says: the beauty of mine is he would only see my back end
Billy says: and start flying at his head

Schrödinger's Cat says: Honestly, your best bet is to have some kind of trap planned, so like, you're running away from the guy, and then he runs after you to kill you, but you've got a net planted in the ground, and so he runs over it, and the net springs up, and catches him,a nd the net is electrified, at least that way the guy gets knocked out and carried back to the ninja leader's lair where they like torture him or whatever until he busts out and starts killing all over again but at least you could use the time they're torturing him to run away and start putting out resumes to other ninja organizations.

Billy says: that could work
Billy says: or you could just forget the whole ninja thing and when nobody is looking just pack a oozie under your robe
Billy says: best trick ever

Schrödinger's Cat says: That's a good call too, but honestly, you're still dead, the only way to survive when you run into a guy like that is to run. Those guys always survive the ninja’s tricks because they're out for revenge. Usually the ninja's leader like killed their girlfriend/father/roommate/mailman/dog/cat/goldfish/old buddy who is also a ninja/or priest and basically any ninja they encounter from then on had better get the hell out of dodge, or end up smoked in the fucking face with a stick.
Schrödinger's Cat says: Or sworded.
Schrödinger's Cat says: Or gouged.
Schrödinger's Cat says: Or thrown off a bridge.
Schrödinger's Cat says: Or all three.

Billy says: Well now that I pretty much know I am going to die how about i strap a nuclear device to my heart.. and if it stops i blow up and kill everything in sight... or not even attached to my heart i just suicide into him .. becaue i am a ninja and chances are i am going to bite it becaue i am a ninja.

Schrödinger's Cat says: That's a good plan except chances are the guy will like kick you down a bottomless pit, or throw a knife through your hand that sticks you to a rocket that is taking off, so you're miles away when it goes off

Schrödinger's Cat says: The worst position to be in, is the ninja who like, tries some fancy shit, like you know how there's a group of ninjas, and then one ninja jumps into the middle with like, two swords, or numchucks made of cobras to face the good guy one on one, well that guy always gets fucking pwnt.

So I heard that song the other day, the one that was used to parody an episode of the OC on SNL (Welcome to Acronym Town!).  So I listened to it, and she sounds like a transformer, yep.  This is what a song would sound like if a girl transformer sang it, and didn't have any other transformers playing the instruments in the background.  That's what this song is.  It is a girl transformer singing a song acapella.