23 March, 2012

I'm offended!

If you are not willing to accommodate 
Righteous Indignation and Cognitive Dissonance
  - you are a bad person!!!

Anything less than complete acquiescence to the insecurities of others

is just hateful and god will punish you to hell for your sins!

Paradigm shift...
This indignation is clung to thusly...:

I prefer to find any reason I can to become indignant and dejected when a set of facts
refuse to fit into the Forced Narrative I have been duped into calling my reality.

I know that I'm a better person for maintaining the highest level of fidelity towards
my Cognitive Dissonance by refusing to defend or even examine my opinions.

The purest form of truth and reason come from insisting that any
~ who try and make me introspective or question my perspectives ~
are lying to me and there is nothing of value in their opinions.

Steve Hughes:#Steve

The entire routine (the bit about being offended starts at 3:32) #SteveFull

15 March, 2012

What a coincidence.

Start with a cage containing five monkeys.
Inside the cage, you'll see a banana hanging on a string with a set of stairs placed under it.

Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, all of the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.

After a while, another monkey makes an attempt to obtain the banana.  As soon as his foot touches the stairs, all of the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. It's not long before all of the other monkeys try to prevent any monkey from climbing the stairs.
Now, put away the cold water, remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him as he makes his way toward the stairs.  After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.
Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

Stephenson, G. R. (1967). Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys. In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288.

Mentioned in:
Galef, B. G., Jr. (1976). Social Transmission of Acquired Behavior: A Discussion of Tradition and Social Learning in Vertebrates. In: Rosenblatt, J.S., Hinde, R.A., Shaw, E. and Beer, C. (eds.), Advances in the study of behavior, Vol. 6, New York: Academic Press, pp. 87-88:

14 March, 2012

The Forgotten Question

Even in the early years of this countries history... There were then, just as there are now, many people who were intolerant of those who invest more heavily in mythology than they do in reason. And I'm certain that it was for the exact same reasons then as it is now. 

Early American history offers plenty of examples or organizations and actions that were created just to confront criticisms aimed at religion. Georgetown University was apparently founded in part to combat religious intolerance in the area. And the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649.

There is a common misconception that these types of resolutions were in place to resolve differences between different religious groups. Though it is easy enough to see that this cannot be an accurate assessment when one recalls the objections to religion those who penned the Constitution are well known to have voiced.
What is perplexing to me is that many talk about religious intolerance in early America, yet I am guessing that those who recall this intolerance and take specific exception to it, never asked why religion was met with opposition in the first place.

My guess is that such an inquiry is avoided because cognitive dissonance prevents it... But the reality of what is at hand does not dismiss the question... It only serves to irritate religious folk who need to have some way of feeling like a persecuted victim. Thusly, they can then attempt to display some form of righteous indignation they hope will serve to put their critic on the defensive.

Alas, one thing remains... Religion does indeed have a history of trespassing... Even those who sought a place where their spirituality would not be delegated by any other spirituality or agenda knew this, and left Europe as a result. That this agenda has been perverted into exactly what it was meant to avoid is to say the least - IRONIC - Irony in its most vulgar form... What a shame.

Admittedly, that religion trespasses is not confined to Christianity or early America.


There is NO truth to this statement:

"This country was founded on the belief in one true God."

Anyone who insists to the contrary is attempting "to change our country's history or heritage"...

Here's is the history...


Mono-theism was not a consideration whatsoever in any part of North Americas 'discovery' or establishment. It was completely for financial reasons.

After first unsuccessfully approaching John II, King of Portugal in 1485 - Then subsequently failing to convince Italy, after quite a bit of wrangling... In 1492 Columbus finally succeeded in convincing the King and Queen of Spain (King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella) that he could find a more efficient trade route route to Asia...

Well before the Pilgrimage of the Puritans in late 1620. The Eastern portions of North and South America were dotted with French and Spanish settlements / encampments starting in the early to mid 1500's.

This countries history does included events that included pious individuals and groups... But that is about it.

The Plymouth Colony was established in 1620. Their leadership came from a religious congregation of Puritans who had fled a volatile political environment in the East Midlands of England for the relative calm and tolerance of Holland in the Netherlands. Concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group later arranged with English investors to establish a new colony in North America. The Plymouth colony was a British settlement and the second successful English settlement (after the founding of Jamestown, Virginia in 1607). (sic: 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_%28Plymouth_Colony%29')

The Plymouth colony was made possible, because of (you guessed it) its potential financial gain by English business men. This arrangement was VERY successful... All was fine until the Revolution against England. This revolution laid the ground work for what is now one of the most powerful Nations on the planet.

Even the revolution was motivated by money / taxes... Not mono-theism.

Heck!!! Read up on what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the subject and remember that HE was a well pronounced voice of the Populist. Denying that part of our nations history is the same as trying to change it. And You cant do that!  Although, they are doing so in Texas:


Including Jefferson, the writings of the rest of the Constitutions authors are just as compelling: Gouverneur Morris, John Dickinson, John Adams, Thomas Paine (who BTW, wrote a publication called "Common Sense"), Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe... See what they had to say about religion...

These are the founding fathers of our country inasmuch as it was their minds, perspectives and intellect that created the documents used to create its government.

Celebrity is not Reality

Celebrity is not Reality

Arguing about the opinions a celebrity pumps out is like trying to validate an 'empty set' by assigning it an arbitrary value.

If more people recognized the potential vapidity that can be produced by an over inflated ego, perhaps the ability to actually form ones own opinion would be more prevalent.

But alas... Chuck Norris and Ted Nugent are guests on Fox "News", yet again.

Audience regurgitation ensues...

09 March, 2012

There is little else more dangerous than a moron with a sense of validation.

The G.O.P.  are doing a fine job of alienating actual republicans who are not comfortable with the ever increasing religious zealotry that has taken a hold of that political party.

One participant said:
I'm actually leaving the party until the GOP can get the religious zealots completely out of the decision making process. They're heading down a seriously dangerous path and I refuse to support the further degeneration of the party's actual principles which have nothing to do with invasion of my uterus.
 In response, I offered this observation and also asked: "What will you do with your hiatus in the meantime?"
Because Religious Zealots are the easiest to pander to... They are the low hanging fruit in the world of politics.... Well any venture that needs a customer base that will believe anything you tell them...

The G.O.P. stopped being 'Republican' about 30 years ago... The only recent change is that the pandering and zealotry have become so glaringly obvious that only the
low hanging fruit are the ones to stupid to see it happening and / or are happy for the attention / recognition. There is little else more dangerous than a moron with a sense of validation. And in the meantime these same imbeciles have decided to get involved in the process to the point where they drown out the actual republican agenda.

This same religiously zealous mindset is what has (relatively recently) given the Muslim world the reputation it is currently beleaguered with - And that the current G.O.P. props its self up as patently against what they are ultimately striving for attaining - Should be enough to frighten any who can do simple deductive math.

While religion has made sure that government is never allowed to encroach upon it... These very same agendas have made sure that they are able to encroach upon the government and its people. 

Who is the victim?