Be Excellent to Each Other

Recently I thought it would be clever to start referring to myself as a Militant Agnostic, and apparently I wasn't the only one to ever have this idea, or so a quick search of Google tells me. Apparently someone took it and ran with it; there is a blog, you can even buy T-shirts. And while the "about" page of this persons blog reads like something an agnostic would write, the blog itself seems more often than not to lean towards the atheist perspective, coming down against radical Christianity in all its forms, which I do believe is important; however reading this blog did get my gears to turning.

The God/No-God debate is one we are all familiar with, and it takes many different forms in many different issues. We are familiar with the major public players in this debate, Rick Warren, Peter and Christopher Hitchens, as well as Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers, just to name a few on both sides. My biggest problem, a problem I've had for years and one that I'm noticing is getting worse and not better, is this: alot of these vocal atheists, are intolerant, angry, dogmatic, and arrogant assholes. These guys have a tendency to display many of the behaviors and tactics that infuriate them so about the religious right; their domination of the atheist side of this debate has served to turn the overall discussion into angry intellectual mud slinging, or not a debate at all.


My question then becomes, where are the moderates in this debate? Where are the atheists who see the social value of religion, where are the believers who understand the importance of progressive belief; of the very private, personal nature of faith that need not lead us to separation from our fellow man, but can only unite us? Now, I'm no PHD or anything, but I do have a few ideas about how to refocus this discussion.

In an attempt to get the debate back on track again, I think a few things need to be cleared up, and some terms need clarification. Lets start by looking at the word Atheist.

In 2002 during a talk at TED the term Militant Atheism was used by Dawkins to describe the attitudes that should be adopted by atheists to combat the growing power of the religious right in public and politics. This in and of itself I do agree with. I don't want my country's policy to be driven by any one religious faith or organization (especially an organization). I think, however, the term Atheist has been co-opted by the militant atheist movement to mean something that it doesn't. These people, with Richard Dawkins as their shining public beacon are not simply atheists (and adding the word militant onto that title does not quite get at the true nature of the movement). These people are Anti-Theists. The difference between the two is huge. Atheists do not believe in God, Anti-theists don't want anyone to believe in God, so much so that they activley promote this view, to anyone who might be willing to listen. they have this odd evangelical quality to them that I find ever so deliciously ironic.

But it is precisely this militant, "anti" behavior that Dawkins had his nuts in a twist over to begin with. The reason he began propagating Militant Atheism was because he felt that religious groups had made it politically unacceptable to be an atheist, through just this kind of aggressive, anti-other type of thinking. However I feel I must thank him for doing so, because he allows anyone who cares to look closely to see that it is not simply religious people who are guilty of this action. Which just so happens to be an excellent segue.

Clarification number 2: God and believers in God are two different things. It is monumentally important to separate the actions of the two. To confuse them is to give God to much credit, and people not nearly enough. People do shitty things. Period. to think that the source of all the worlds ills is belief in a God is so mind numbingly silly, that no atheist, let alone a PHD evolutionary biologist, could entertain it seriously. But many of them certainly act as if this is the case. Much hostility towards religion hinges on this type of argument. Its the type of argument made by someone who confuses the actions of God (presuming for the time that God "acts" at all), and the actions of believers. I really hate to use the bad apple argument, but to single out violent acts of radical believers seems to me to be excluding a lot. It is easy to attack religion on this basis because its a broad umbrella term to begin with. Religion encompasses many different groups, and sub groups of people. One thing they all have in common though is people; and if you let them run on long enough people will eventually do shitty things, no matter what God they may or may not pray to.


I wouldn't like you to walk away from this thinking that I'm something that I'm not. I was serious when I said I was an agnostic, I most certainly don't know. I would make many of these arguments I have made here today (in slightly modified form of course) to those who get as fanatical about there religion, as some have begun to get with their lack of one. But this post is not directed at believers, there are plenty of voices out there telling them exactly how silly they are being. I'm trying to make sure those voices, don't get to silly.

I began this little tirade by asking where the moderates were. The question was a tad rhetorical. I've seen and heard people speak from moderate perspectives in this debate many times. But it just so happens that while writing this I found another one, on Dawkins' own youtube page no less. His name is Father George Coyen, and Dawkins interviewed him for a special commemorating the anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the Publishing of "The Origin of Species". Here is part 1. the rest is well worth watching, if for no other reason than these two men have a real discussion.




I would like to finish with an apology, and a plea. I want to apologize to Richard Dawkins for holding him up as a bit of a straw man for the Militant Atheist movement, however it is kind of his movement. Sir, you and I agree on much more than you realize. I agree, as you told The Hour (whatever, you don't know how to spell his name either) that everyone deserves an opportunity to hear the truth. I would just think myself rather out of place to be insisting that not only is there one singular truth, but that I knew exactly what it was.

And I would like to plead with all Atheists (militant or otherwise), Agnostics, Skeptics and general non-believers: take it easy, man. This kind of hostility is a slippery slope, and the last thing you want to do is fall into the same category of fanatical ideolouges as the people your railing against, do you? If you want the seperation of church and state: awesome, I am totally on board. You name the time and place, and I will be there. But lets take a minute and think about the consequences of alienating ourselves from large groups of people that we have so much in common with, based on what we believe will happen after we die. We've got too much to do before that happens, lets not fuck it up.

Well, can you?

Life is happening, and then you move. However after a long hiatus I promise that now we are back in full swing. In a way I was waiting for today to do so. I want to talk about the idea behind this blog, why it exists, and what directions it plans to take in the future. I started thinking about these things while contemplating it's title, Can You Count, Suckers? the title (for anyone who doesn't know) comes from a film called The Warriors. It is meant to express a sense of accomplishment in unity. A feeling of power in numbers, if only those numbers could work together. There is thought experiment I pose from time to time that as far as I can recall I ripped off of a book I read in high school, that runs something along the lines of " what if everyone who worked at [insert chain store of choice here] decided to sit down, to stop." The basic point being to illustrate how those a society takes most for granted, who we have outsourced so much responsibility to, those people are the ones who wield the true power, those are the people who make the gears of society turn. It's an idea expressed by writers from Orwell, to Vonnegut, to Palahniuk. However, Do Not Fuck With Us, was a less appropriate tittle, in my humble opinion.

So, why today? you may ask. Today is May 19th, and the birthday of Malcolm X, a man I had the pleasure of studying over the past term. A man who understood unity better than most. His story, and political thought has been an inspiration to me, and in many ways this blog would not exist without his influence. It is he who has inspired me to say enough, no more. To stand up and tell the truth, to those who need to hear it; to make some noise. He has done this purely through example, by living that which he believed every day of his life; and by forcing me to face the truth that he told, and for this I am grateful.

Can you count? the essential question this blog seeks to ask. Do you not see what the few are doing, at the expense of the many? do you not see how you are divided, when really you should be united? Why do you squabble over petty things, when serious wrong is being done? There is so much division in this world were there need not be any. We have lost any sense of epistemeic humility, and with it our epistemic (and possibly our actual) empathy. We are forced so often to focus on the I that we lose sight of the WE, the group that this I is a part of. We need to remeber that not every song is about just us. And if we can realize that, if we can let that which does not matter truly slide, we can accomplish so much more, together.

Cut Government Spending

So, apparently its kind of hard to maintain a blog, as well as finish your last year of univesrity (hence the post drought lately) and I'm not out of the woods yet. However I could not let this go by without my notice.
the Globe and Mail today reported that Alberta (the province I call home) will post its largest deficit in history this year - 4.7 billion dollars. It has been an interesting few years to reside in Wild Rose country, to live through the so-called economic boom time we've experienced; but now thats all over, no mure surpluses for us. Time to dip into our "emergency savings"
The Globe reports, and I qoute:

"The government's decision was relatively easy compared with the drastic alternatives it faced, he said, including the option of laying off thousands of public service workers such as nurses and teachers."

In the past year alone we've seen our health care system overhauled, going from a model emulated by the other provinces in this country to the model that they all abandoned. We've also seen the conservative ministers give themselves a hefty raise that works out to 54 thousand dollars more for steady Eddy, and 42 thousand more for cabinet minsters, of whom there are 23. that adds up to 1,020,000 dollars. Compared to 4.7 billion its not much, but when we're dipping into "emergency savings" because its better than firing teachers and nurses, it is cause for reflection.

Why aren't you clammering to return your raise Eddy? or the cabinet ministers? I'll tell you why not, because they don't care about the people of this province. The average, hardworking tax paying citizens of this province doesn't mean anymore to them than the dirt on the bottom of their shinny loafers. We don't produce heft campaign donations, we don't bring oil revenue into the province (not directly anyway), hell we barley even vote. Why should they care, when we barely do?

When things are good, they are the first to take their cut, their share, while they toss us a four hundred dollar prosperity bone for our troubles. But as soon as things get ugly, here comes the conservative government crying poverty, asking, nay telling, us that we are the ones who must sacrifice. Public workers are the first to have their financial blood spilt on the alter of spending; those who educate us, keep us healthy, who ensure us this lifestyle we love so much, (those who, quite frankly, sacrifice enough in what are largely thankless jobs) are the first on the economic chopping block when the economy dips. The people who contribute the most, who help to make this province what it has been and is, receive the least benefit, and are the first to be turned on when its belt tightening time. Its either break open the piggy bank or start firing people. If that doesn't demonstrate how little these people we've placed in provincial office are concerned for the citizens they represent, I'm not sure what does.
I'd be more upset if we didn't in some way deserve this kind of disrespect from the provincial government. We earned it the hard way, with a 40% voter turn out. We demonstrated our lack of care and concern for the governance of this province, we showed the conservative government that we weren't going to stop them from doing pretty much whatever they wanted. We are reaping what we have sewn, or rather what we have failed to sew.
Before we start axing public services, jobs that keep people employed and putting money into the economy so that it, you know, doesn't colapse; and before we break into these "emergency savings", perhaps it is time to start considering some GOVERNMENT spending cuts.

116

116 Canadian soldier have fallen in the American led Afghanistan conflict since 2001. One Hundred and Sixteen.

I'm sure you already know how Fox feels about this, but in case you were unaware:



I hope you'll forgive any further typing errors in this post, knowing that I am now vibrating with rage. The pure ignorance displayed in this clip astounds me. Will someone please explain to me how this is “in no way an attempt to make light of troop efforts.”

116 soldiers. 8 years. YOUR fight. How dare you, Mr. Gutfeld. How fucking dare you. How dare you bandy about ridiculous stereotypes about Mounties, horses, and draft dogging Americans. How dare you say WE are relying on YOU to do the work for us, relying on you for security. Who the fuck are you? I don't see any long service medals on your lapel, asshole.

And for next time, here's a tip: if you aren't even aware what countries are participating in your war that you are apparently so worked up about, its perhaps best not to shoot your mouth off. Perhaps if you guys had been paying more attention, instead of splitting your forces between two un-winable wars the Canadian forces wouldn't be so road worn and weary. It couldn't be because they've been busting thier humps in the desert for 8 YEARS. No, no no, its cause they're stupid and they wear bright red jackets. You're on a 24 hour NEWS (and I use the term loosley) station, time to start acting like it.

How dare you issue a bullshit "apology", hiding behind your "satirical take on world events". Don't you understand that apologizing doesn't mean saying "we're sorry you were offended"; it means saying "I'm sorry we offended you". What we said was wrong, we should not have done that. That's a fucking apology you ignorant dolt. There is a diffrence between an apology and an excuse, I suggest you learn it.

How dare you chastise one of your guests for using stereotypes when you yourself have based a whole segment of your show on stereotypes. How dare you.

116 Soldiers. 116 Canadian soldiers and 8 long years. This is the thanks we get. refresh my memory, what exactly is it we're doing in the graveyard of empires again? Weren't we looking for something? don't you hate when that happens? You get up and go to another room to retrieve an item and by the time you get there you forgot what it was you came for, so you figure you'll just stand there and look around eventually you'll see something that'll spark your memory.
sounds like a fine strategy, should work like gangbusters.

Ummm..... What?

Our finance minister was hard at work this weekend at the G20 meetings, voicing Canada's concerns for the future of the global economy, which is apparently that the banks aren't fixed. The CBC's The World This Weekend reported on Saturday Mr. Flaherty as saying, and I quote:

"We've been talking about this for a long time, and we still have a problem where the markets are not functioning properly because some countries have not fixed their banks. So I wanted them to fix their banks. And they all agreed to fix their banks, or they need to fix their banks. So I'm happy the banks are going to be fixed."

Read it again, it's OK I'll wait. I had to listen at least a dozen times trying to figure out whether or not it was a loop of some kind. No it was not a loop, this is one statement. But, I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief now folks. Minister Flaherty wanted the banks fixed, and now they will be. Halle-freakin-luja.

Am I being too picky? Is it to much to ask that my politicians don't sound like Muppets with wiring problems when they speak in public? Or a malfunctioning Disneyland ride? For next time minister, those little knobby things in front of you? Yeah, those are microphones. They make it so I (and others) can here you, even when you're far, far away.

Please Mr. Flaherty, don't do that again. It may not make us look bad, but it doesn't make us (and especially you) look good either; and every little bit counts in the building and maintaining of an international reputation, sir. And given our governments obvious desire to carve out some kind of new niche for itself in global politics (our bid for both a two year seat on the UN security council as well as secretary general of NATO), it might be good to think carefully about the words coming out of your mouth; again just cause they aren't bad, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are good.

I Want My Opposition

So a little house cleaning done today with the new look, I'm trying to find a format that's a bit easier to read. But hell this blog isn't about aesthetics so I hope you like the new look, if not let me know.

Onto the Political Hoopla that is today's post:

I'd like to take you all into the Wayback Machine, to a distant time when Canadian politics was in an uproar, that tumultuous time know as December 2008. The Newly empowered Conservative minority called shenanigans when it looked as though they would face defeat in a confidence motion. The opposition parties swung into action, declaring their preparedness to lead Canada with a coalition government. The Liberals faced a leadership scuffle (if you could call it that) and a fresh, new face emerged as the party's leader. Then all of a sudden, the Liberals weren't so gung ho on this coalition business. Instead they would allow the Conservatives to remain in power, with the promise that they could now act as a watch dog, keeping an eye on the conservatives; ready at any moment to (metaphorically of course) leap from their seats and shower the parliament in Conservative blood should they step out of line in promoting the interests of Canadians in these less than stellar global economic times. You know, kind of like an opposition party is supposed to do. hmmm....

Great, wonderful, fantastic; we now have oversight in the parliament, checks and balances (ignoring the fact that parliament should work this way anyway of course). Someone is keeping an eye on those rat finks in power! Champions of the people, HOOORAY for parliamentary democracy! WHOOOOO!!!!

Well... not exactly. First, for some context, here are some basic numbers, or math, as we like to call it in Academistan. There are 308 seats in the house of commons; which translates into 308 votes on any given piece of legislation. The Conservatives hold 143 of said seats.

I realize now that the point I'm trying to make may seem obvious to all who can add, but apparently it isn't to some, so I will continue.

The break down of the rest of the seats, in descending order is as follows: Liberals 77, The BQ 49, NDP 37, and 2 independents. All those numbers added together makes 165. 165 is a bigger number than 143. Which should mean that the Conservative have to reach across the aisle (to borrow a phrase from our American cousins) to get anything passed, they have to gain the cooperation of at least one other party to pass legislation. Why am I belaboring this point? because Bill C-10 received royal assent this week, due in part to Conservative political trickery.

When the Liberals (who dominate the senate) tried to debate the bill, applied some of those checks and balances Mr. Ignatieff promised, they received the political equivalent of the old elastic band and a straight razor. You see, the bill contains all these budgeted amounts of money which usually get paid out on specific dates, regardless of the time the bill becomes law, the start of the fiscal year is common. The money designated for EI payments to unemployed workers is an acception to this common practice. That money is tied directly to the day the bill recieves royal assent.

Why this portion of the budget? Why tie EI payments to the passing of the bill? Leverage of course. If you know you can't get a piece of legislation passed all by your little old lonesome, you could quietly insert a tasty little tidbit like this one, something that contains enough language that the average citizen can understand, while making it to complicated for them to fully grasp the political hustle your force feeding them. This way when that pesky opposition tries to do its job, tries to review the budget, to make sure its squeaky clean and kosher, you can cry foul. This is exactly what the Conservatives did. And wouldn't you know it, once again the Liberals bowed to the pressure and rushed the bill forward.

For those who require visual representation of the conflict so far, this should suffice:




Now, the passing of this legislation does not spell the demise of the Canadian economy as we know it. This isn't about the economy at all, really. its about the Conservatives and Mr. Harper doing everything possible to hold onto political power. Their willingness to use everyday Canadians as political leverage, all the while blaming the Liberals for doing exactly that. These are the people responsible for representing us on the world stage, and for protecting our interests here at home; people who are willing to use citizens as pawns to make whatever they so desire law.

So all that oversight we were supposed to get in exchange for keeping the Conservatives in power, for not going with the coalition government thingy, yeah I'm not really seeing that.

Where were you Mr. Ignatieff? why did you not cry most egregious foul? How many times do the Conservatives have to walk all over you and this country before we get an opposition at all, let alone the one we deserve, or better yet, the one we voted for.

You Are Being Watched

Came across this picture today on DeadDog, who sadly did not post any context for it what so ever. If anyone knows what the source or the story behind this image is please, please let me know.

Either way I think this shot is amazing, what a powerful statement for our changing times, the hunter and the hunted staring at each other, neither quite sure which one of them is which.