My personality defect test July 19, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Blogging.add a comment
Your Score: Braggart
You are 71% Rational, 57% Extroverted, 42% Brutal, and 57% Arrogant.
You are the Braggart! Like Muhammad Ali, you would surely tell everyone that you are “The Greatest” whilst bragging incessantly about your intelligence, your skills, and your abilities. You tend to be a thinker rather than a feeler, and combined with your extroversion and arrogance, this makes you someone who probably just LOVES to brag about his accomplishments. Despite this, however, you are a very gentle, tender person and truly care about others’ feelings. You just happen to care more about yourself. Unlike Ali, of course, you are rather rational as opposed to emotional, and you are also much more gentle. But his arrogance and extroversion best reflect the most visible aspects of your personality. But his afro and his penchant for rhyming…not so much. There is not really much to dislike about you, aside from the fact that you can be incredibly annoying, and you probably never shut up about yourself. You may be one of these people who refer to themselves in the third person. If you have a nickname, it is probably one you gave to yourself, because you are too cool for the nickname others have given you–like “doofus” and “shitface”. Your personality defect, in summary, is the fact that you are extremely overconfident, extroverted, and perhaps rather lacking in emotions. YOU ARE THE GREATEST! Or so you keep telling yourself every night as you stare at yourself in the mirror and practically make out with your reflection. Maybe one day everyone else on the planet will agree with your assessment of yourself. Nah, I’m just kidding. We think you’re an arrogant dickhole. But a NICE arrogant dickhole, so no worries.
To put it less negatively:
1. You are more RATIONAL than intuitive.
2. You are more EXTROVERTED than introverted.
3. You are more GENTLE than brutal.
4. You are more ARROGANT than humble.
| ink: The Personality Defect Test written by saint_gasoline on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test |
Michael Vick indicted on dogfighting charges July 18, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Animal Rights, Blogging, News and politics.3 comments
The Lizard Queen has the full scoop. I completely agree with her thoughts, with one exception.
Seamus doesn’t have a vicious bone in his body.
Oh yeah? Check out this vicious dog:
He looks like a killer, doesn’t he? Why, he’s such a threat that I once saw him bark(!) at a bug(!!).
Let them eat cake? July 16, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Dubya, health care, wingnuts.add a comment
So says Bush about healthcare:
Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he said last week. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”
This issue’s been pretty thoroughly covered, after all. I’ll just note that only a rich person who’s never been poor would think bankrupting oneself (in an age where credit card companies continue to keep you broke after a bankruptcy) is a solution to health problems.
YouTube Goodness: Cindy Sheehan and a wingnut July 14, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Iraq, wingnuts.3 comments
A wingnut confronts Cindy Sheehan, claiming we need to stay in Iraq for the Iraqi people-you know, the ones who want us gone? The best part is near the end, when he claims he isn’t enlisting because the country needs him to make money. I’m sure that’s of great comfort to the troops he claims to support: “I could pick up a rifle and help you out, but instead I’ll lobby to keep you there while enjoying the comforts of my job.”
“If God were dethroned” July 13, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, Religion.2 comments
Over at Shakesville, Melissa McEwan responds to a particularly stupid piece of anti-atheist drivel. She’s responding to Michael Gerson, who’s central question is “If the atheists are right, what would be the effect on human morality?” Melissa does a fantastic job of shredding his argument, and anyway everyone who has read this blog for any length of time has seen my arguments against “only people who believe in Invisible Sky Men can be moral” (like this one, for example), so I’ll settle for pointing out one additional thing: lies are no basis for morality. Even if every single thing Gerson says is true, his argument boils down to this: God might not exist, but we must pretend he does to act ethically.
It should be obvious how reprehensible this argument is. Gerson would have us believe the only reason he doesn’t prove atheism wrong is that he only has 750 words, but of course his argument is predicated on the idea that he can’t prove God’s existence. But if we can’t be sure God exists, what possible motivation do we have to base our morality on the assumption he does? Well, Gerson argues that without God, we have no objective means of determining morality. But it is in fact Gerson’s argument that undercuts morality, not the other way around: what his argument actually claims is “without the belief in God,there is no objective morality.” But belief in God doesn’t imply God, so Gerson’s “objective morality” is predicated on a universal belief in what might not be there. The “objectivity” whose death Gerson falsely laments is in fact based entirely on an unprovable assumption which Gerson only supports because he apparently needs it to be able to differentiate right from wrong.
Gerson would have problems with that argument taken from any other position. How easy it would be to make a similar argument for the need to believe in, say, reincarnation. As long as you assume people must share your beliefs to be good, any belief can be molded into “believe this or the world goes to hell” with equal credibility to Gerson.
I will briefly note assumptions. Gerson starts with the assumption that his invisible deity has set out what is right and wrong, and so needs to continue to believe in that deity. A more reasonable person, as I have previously argued, notes that
If there is a loving, all-knowing God, surely he has equipped us to make the moral decisions we need; if not, then we must still rely on reasoning to reach those decisions. Either way we can arrive at a morally and logically consistent ethical system that does not rely on a “tradition.”
We should begin any reasonable discussion of morality not with the assumption that an all-powerful being done it, but rather by noting that whether such a being exists should have no effect on our quest to do what is right. Things are right and wrong not because God ordains them so. Even if one believes in God, then the only way one can claim “God is Good” is to note that “God adheres to the standard of what Good is,” which places right and wrong outside God. If God defines the term “good” then to claim he is good is as useless as to say “God is God” or “good is good” for it tells us nothing about ethics.
Yet this is the system Gerson would set up: we must believe in that which we cannot prove, because if that thing exists it forms the basis for morality, and if it does not then the belief in it forms the basis for morality. Maybe Gerson might be comfortable with that, but reasonable people should agree that requiring belief in that which may not exist is a bad way to begin an ethical system, as it throws out the truth in its quest to establish truth.
Repent America continues to lie about Hate Crimes laws July 13, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, constiutional issues, wingnuts.3 comments
Pam notes that the fundies at Repent America are upset that advocating violence against gay people might soon be specifically outlawed in the way Hate Crimes is outlawed for protected groups. Repent America’s director, Michael Marcavage, continues to falsely claim that Hate Crimes legislation would somehow stop him from being able to promote his extremist views in public. This has been repeatedly shown to be a lie–homosexuality would be protected in the same way gender and race are currently protected, and it’s still perfectly legal to be a bigot on those fronts. But that doesn’t stop Marcavage from lying to the gullible fundies who listen to him. Maybe he’s afraid that Hate Crimes legislation would make his dream of executing gay people more difficult to achieve:
“According to the Scriptures, it’s the government’s job to enforce God’s law and to uphold his law, and the Bible talks about how, I don’t want to really get into this — it’ll make me sound like I’m crazy — but it does talk about how [homosexuals] are to be put to death. The wages of sin is death. But I want to make [it] clear that I’m not advocating the [independent] killing of homosexuals. … I’m saying that the government’s duty is to uphold God’s law. … I know that’s harsh, but we have all broken the law, God’s law, and we need to be held accountable.”
When these people claim that they are being silenced, keep in mind what they really want, what they admit to wanting when they think no one is listening: theocracy. Marcavage is worried about hate crimes legislation not because it’s a threat to his free speech, but because real freedom–like the freedom gay people should enjoy from illegal discrimination–interferes with his desire to execute gay people.
So when Marcavage argues that this is all about “criminaliz[ing] Christians for simply sharing the truth of God’s Word” and that “It’s as if they despise and hate heterosexual couples,” understand that what he means is “I’d like to criminalize homosexuality” and “I despise an hate homosexual couples.” It’s the typical fundie strategy: falsely accuse your opponents of an action while taking that action yourself.
Marcavage is a liar, a bigot, and a threat to democracy, as are all of his theocratic ilk.
Which Tarot Card am I? July 12, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Blogging.1 comment so far
This is not going to surprise anyone who knows me, I suspect (though a previous test had me as The Fool):
You are the Hanged Man
Self-sacrifice, Sacrifice, Devotion, Bound.
With the Hanged man there is often a sense of fatalism, waiting for something to happen. Or a fear of
loss from a situation, rather than gain.
The Hanged Man is perhaps the most fascinating card in the deck. It reflects the story of Odin who offered himself as a sacrifice in order to gain knowledge. Hanging from the world tree, wounded by a spear, given no bread or mead, he hung for nine days. On the last day, he saw on the ground runes that had fallen from the tree, understood their meaning, and, coming down, scooped them up for his own. All knowledge is to be found in these runes.
The Hanged Man, in similar fashion, is a card about suspension, not life or death. It signifies selflessness, sacrifice and prophecy. You make yourself vulnerable and in doing so, gain illumination. You see the world differently, with almost mystical insights.
What Tarot Card are You?
Take the Test to Find Out.
[By the way, for my thoughts on the tarot, you can refer to this post.]
Scooter Libby 2, Justice 0 July 12, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Dubya, constiutional issues.1 comment so far
In my continuing quest to note just how unjust was Bush’s pardon commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence, I note that a judge just handed down a 2 1/2 year sentence for the crime of leaking baseball players’ grand jury testimony to the media. Naturally, the Libby case came up:
White also rejected Ellerman’s argument that he should get a lighter sentence because President Bush commuted former vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s 2½-year prison sentence for perjury to probation. White said to do so would open the door to doling out unduly lenient sentences for other white collar criminals.
Remember, the White House has been pushing for more mandatory sentencing rules. But that only applies when the convicted felon isn’t Dubya’s friend.
“If Mr. Ellerman is dissatisfied with his sentence, he should seek a commutation from the president,” White said.
Ouch. I can’t disagree with Judge White: leaking Grand Jury testimony isn’t good. Still, a tough blow for Mr. Ellerman.
Because for wingnuts, freedom of religion means only their religion July 12, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Religion, constiutional issues, wingnuts.1 comment so far
Ed Brayton has the scoop on fundies wigging the hell out because the Senate was “violated” by having a Hindu prayer open the session–a first in U.S. history. Brayton quite rightly slaps them down, so I’ll just note a few highlights of wingnuttery:
WallBuilders president David Barton is questioning why the U.S. government is seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god. Barton points out that since Hindus worship multiple gods, the prayer will be completely outside the American paradigm, flying in the face of the American motto “One Nation Under God.”
Unfortunately for Barton’s argument, the phrase “Under God” was added in the 1950s as a response to the Red Scare. It was not part of the original pledge, and was designed to contrast with Godless Communism, not with Hinduism, which is far from Godless.
It gets worse:
“Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ They were immediately removed from the chambers, arrested, and are in jail now. God bless those who stand for Jesus as we know that He stands for them.” Rev. Flip Benham, Director, Operation Save America/Operation Rescue.
They were rightly removed for disrupting Senate proceedings, as anyone would be in similar circumstances. Moreover, the Founding Fathers would have done no such thing. Benjamin Franklin, who proposed advocated for a general prayer in front of the Continental Congress, was a Deist who would have found the idea that we must honor the specifically Christian God laughable. While there were certainly founding fathers who were Christians, the majority opinion was that religion (defined in so broad a sense as to mean almost any belief system–the Deists were hardly orthodox, after all) was a good thing, but that the government should not be in the business of endorsing any religion. In fact, the decision to ban religious tests for office flew in the face of many state laws and angered the Conservative Religious set of the day.
In fact, we have direct evidence, in the form of a treaty that the founding fathers would have found the idea of America as a “Christian Nation” abhorrent. The Treaty of Tripoli (1796) has this to say:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The intent of this section was to reassure Muslim leaders that the U.S., not being a “Christian” country would have no desire to force a religious confrontation with non-Christian faiths.
Simply put, the founding fathers would almost certainly have endorsed a Hindu prayer; certainly, they would not have argued that only Christian prayers were okay. If Christian prayers were acceptable–and they believed they were–then so would be prayers from other faiths.
In other words, the wingnuts flipping out are misinformed at best and hypocritical liars at worse. Either way,they have absolutely not reason to get all huffy about this.
The politics of terror July 11, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Dubya, Iraq, Middle East, News and politics, constiutional issues.3 comments
Dubya and his cronies are at it again, making vague assertions about an al Qaeda cell that might be on the way or in the US already (Oh Noes!!1!) while Chertoff has apparently confused bad take out with terrorism. The timing, of course, is no coincidence: Bush’s massively failed Iraq policy has collapsed to the point that he’s in real danger of having his own party join with the Democrats to force a withdraw, and so it’s time to divert attention with breathless threats. Jill over at Brilliant at Breakfast explains exactly what’s going on:
So as you hear Michael Chertoff over the next 48 hours opine that it’s such a nice day for a terrorist attack because terrorists like to attack during the summer months, watch Olbermann’s reports again. Think about the trouble Bush is in. Think of the trouble he was already in during the summer of 2001. Then remind yourself that there are many ways to be a terrorist. The Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of — or threatened use of — force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.” That this Administration has already a) made up threats that don’t exist, and b) exaggerated threats that aren’t significant, well, 2 + 2 = 4.
There is no doubt that the U.S. has long been guilty of terrorism under this or any similar definition. We have interfered in other nations political process, threatened and attacked sovereign nations who were no threat to us, and had our political leaders–especially in this administration–use fear as a coercive technique on our own people. I’ll say outright what Jill has already highlighted: the Bush administration is a terrorist administration which uses fear and threats to hold power and manipulate the public will.
I’ve not yet commented much on Impeachment, but I will now: I’m not sure Impeachment is a political winner for the left, and I do not care. The simple truth is that Bush has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and it’s time for Congress to take a stand against him. Whether we have the votes is irrelevant, as is political expediency. All that matters is that this man–and his puppet-master-in-chief, Dick Cheney–has done this country great harm, and done so in violation of the Constitution and the treaties which the Constitution demands he uphold. That same Constitution gives us one recourse, and it is time to use it. Impeach Bush and Cheney. Drag them into trial, and outline the dozens of abuses from the past six and a half years.
