Well, I have 6 days until I have to officially move back to college. The bright side is that I get to see a lot of friends again, I get to read the New York Times (though I could have just done that online), I'm forced to get dressed, and I get to learn stuff. Downside, well, I won't see a lot of friends until winter break, no filming, and no sitting around in my underwear which, frankly, is awesome.
On a more serious note, 20% of Pakistan is covered in water with more than 1,000 dead and many displaced. I'd like you, as my only reader, to help in recovery and humanitarian aid. You can click here and make a donation to help the people of Pakistan. I donated $150, and I'm strapped for cash. Will you match me?
And now, ladies and gentlemen, the Foo Fighters!
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Be sure to check out my friend's and my Youtube productions group, Unwanted Guests Productions. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll thank us for both laughing and crying.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Point of Ire
A group of Muslim radicals are attempting to rubs America's face in the tragedy of 9-11 by building a mosque in Ground Zero.
--EDIT--
Sorry, a Tea Party "enthusiast" hacked into my blog and wrote that. What it should say is "Xenophobia is spreading as a massive smear campaign is being waged to stop a Muslim community center and mosque from being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero."
This is a story that has caused many to revert to "American pride," where the mightiest fist thumping the hairiest chest is always right. How dare they infringe upon this hallowed ground where the mighty lay fallen?
"They." There seems to be this notion that all Muslims are secret terrorists hoping to undermine the well-being of every American. In reality, an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the United States are very moderate and/or liberal, and actually oppose the rhetoric of the extremist Muslims who are to blame for the many atrocities. The Imam heading up the building of the community center, for example, worked in an interfaith outreach program, attempting to bridge the gap between the different religions. But of course, it could all be part of his nefarious and beguiling cover.
Of course, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles, all Jews are embezzlers, all Christians are manic depressives, all Chinese people are emotionless, all black people are criminals, etc. See where stereotyping fails? If not, get glasses.
I would talk about the freedom of religion allowed in the US Constitution, but I'm sure that's been beaten to death. What I'd rather talk about is the rhetoric used by Muslim extremists to recruit young people. The common perception is that the US is at war with Islam as a whole, evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its support of Israel, aerial drone bombings, etc. As that is the case, what better way is there to show solidarity with the Islamic world than to support the construction of this mosque and community center? Why not show the world that the United States upholds the values elucidated in the Constitution to every demographic equally?
Perhaps people don't realize that the best way to completely win a war is not with guns, but with overwhelming support.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
--EDIT--
Sorry, a Tea Party "enthusiast" hacked into my blog and wrote that. What it should say is "Xenophobia is spreading as a massive smear campaign is being waged to stop a Muslim community center and mosque from being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero."
This is a story that has caused many to revert to "American pride," where the mightiest fist thumping the hairiest chest is always right. How dare they infringe upon this hallowed ground where the mighty lay fallen?
"They." There seems to be this notion that all Muslims are secret terrorists hoping to undermine the well-being of every American. In reality, an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the United States are very moderate and/or liberal, and actually oppose the rhetoric of the extremist Muslims who are to blame for the many atrocities. The Imam heading up the building of the community center, for example, worked in an interfaith outreach program, attempting to bridge the gap between the different religions. But of course, it could all be part of his nefarious and beguiling cover.
Of course, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles, all Jews are embezzlers, all Christians are manic depressives, all Chinese people are emotionless, all black people are criminals, etc. See where stereotyping fails? If not, get glasses.
I would talk about the freedom of religion allowed in the US Constitution, but I'm sure that's been beaten to death. What I'd rather talk about is the rhetoric used by Muslim extremists to recruit young people. The common perception is that the US is at war with Islam as a whole, evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its support of Israel, aerial drone bombings, etc. As that is the case, what better way is there to show solidarity with the Islamic world than to support the construction of this mosque and community center? Why not show the world that the United States upholds the values elucidated in the Constitution to every demographic equally?
Perhaps people don't realize that the best way to completely win a war is not with guns, but with overwhelming support.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Friday, August 13, 2010
Thought Experiment
Imagine this: an Atheist runs for president and has a viable chance of being elected. Assume that he or she is a Democrat, as an Atheist in the Republican party is about as likely as Glenn Beck passing a math test. (An Atheist being nominated for president for the Democratic party is unlikely as well, since the party as a whole hopes to gain votes from moderates.) What would happen?
Firstly, the morals of the Atheist nominee would be challenged; the common belief is that morals are grounded in religion, and those without religion are immoral, rabid sexual monsters (cough*catholicpriests*cough) who would destroy all civilization because of a preference for mass anarchy.
It's more than likely that religious groups would protest fervently, heckle, send death threats, etc.
Why should belief in a deity factor into politics, a seemingly non-theocratic institution, especially in the United States, which was built on religious tolerance? I suppose that's my question of the week to you, my single reader. Feel free to comment if you like.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Firstly, the morals of the Atheist nominee would be challenged; the common belief is that morals are grounded in religion, and those without religion are immoral, rabid sexual monsters (cough*catholicpriests*cough) who would destroy all civilization because of a preference for mass anarchy.
It's more than likely that religious groups would protest fervently, heckle, send death threats, etc.
Why should belief in a deity factor into politics, a seemingly non-theocratic institution, especially in the United States, which was built on religious tolerance? I suppose that's my question of the week to you, my single reader. Feel free to comment if you like.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Proposition ∞
Prop 8 was recently overturned in California. For those who don't know what Prop 8 is, it is a mandate to ban gay marriage. Of course, the decision will be appealed, most likely leading to what will become one of the more momentous Supreme Court decisions of this new century. The battle is, of course, being waged by whom one would imagine it would be: the more religious, conservative people on one side ardently pushing against the more liberal on the other. That story seems almost ubiquitous in every political situation now. What's my opinion on this, you ask? (I assume you asked. If not, well, I'll tell you anyway because I'm sure you want to know.)
To understand the religious reasoning behind the conservative argument, one has to know why the bible urges only men and women to be together, while forbidding homosexual relationships. The main reason, as could be repeated by any historian with knowledge of the time period, was the high mortality rate of children between the 1st-10th century AD (and even beyond then, until hygienic practices became standard). In order to continue the species (emphasis on continue), humans must propagate as much as possible. If only 20% of children survive after 2 years of age, make sure you try at least 10 times. Sure, the emotional devastation of losing 8 kids might be too much, but it's for the continuation of the goddamn human race. Having homosexual relationships undermines the idea of that continuation, and thus the church thought to forbid it. (On a side note, most of the "rules" in the bible are common sense aphorisms to ensure that people have as few problems as possible in life, because we all know that screwing around with your neighbor's wife can get you killed.)
As for the fallacious statements that some organizations tout which usually decry that children raised in homosexual relationships have more problems in life, they are exactly that: fallacious. They have little to no statistical evidence, or really any evidence of any kind. In fact, in my sociology class, I read a study that homosexual relationships are statistically more stable than heterosexual relationships. Shove that in your pipe and smoke it, Palin.
My opinion, as an uber-liberal, somewhat Socialist Jedi, is that each and every person has the same rights as the other. That's it. If one person has the right to marry whoever they wish, then a different person, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation or thoughts on Batman, has that exact same right. That's it. Equal protection of the law is embedded in the Constitution of the US. Deal with it and move on.
I prefer to avoid the normative arguments about how love is universal, since this is more a matter of equal rights than equal love. Personally, I'm glad that Prop 8 has been turned on its side. It's a victory for equal rights and a step toward a better future for the US. With the erasure of Prop 8, maybe, hopefully, eventually the conservative and mundane will realize that love and equal rights are infinite and not beholden to any restraints.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
To understand the religious reasoning behind the conservative argument, one has to know why the bible urges only men and women to be together, while forbidding homosexual relationships. The main reason, as could be repeated by any historian with knowledge of the time period, was the high mortality rate of children between the 1st-10th century AD (and even beyond then, until hygienic practices became standard). In order to continue the species (emphasis on continue), humans must propagate as much as possible. If only 20% of children survive after 2 years of age, make sure you try at least 10 times. Sure, the emotional devastation of losing 8 kids might be too much, but it's for the continuation of the goddamn human race. Having homosexual relationships undermines the idea of that continuation, and thus the church thought to forbid it. (On a side note, most of the "rules" in the bible are common sense aphorisms to ensure that people have as few problems as possible in life, because we all know that screwing around with your neighbor's wife can get you killed.)
As for the fallacious statements that some organizations tout which usually decry that children raised in homosexual relationships have more problems in life, they are exactly that: fallacious. They have little to no statistical evidence, or really any evidence of any kind. In fact, in my sociology class, I read a study that homosexual relationships are statistically more stable than heterosexual relationships. Shove that in your pipe and smoke it, Palin.
My opinion, as an uber-liberal, somewhat Socialist Jedi, is that each and every person has the same rights as the other. That's it. If one person has the right to marry whoever they wish, then a different person, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation or thoughts on Batman, has that exact same right. That's it. Equal protection of the law is embedded in the Constitution of the US. Deal with it and move on.
I prefer to avoid the normative arguments about how love is universal, since this is more a matter of equal rights than equal love. Personally, I'm glad that Prop 8 has been turned on its side. It's a victory for equal rights and a step toward a better future for the US. With the erasure of Prop 8, maybe, hopefully, eventually the conservative and mundane will realize that love and equal rights are infinite and not beholden to any restraints.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)