Coincidentally Enough…

January 31, 2007 at 1:10 pm | Posted in Atheism, Beliefs, Religion | Leave a comment

…..earlier today I posted some of my thoughts about this thing called god.  Later on ABC’s Nightline did a story on athiesm, and how it seems to be gaining strenght in the US.  You can read about, or see the video at www.nightline.abcnews.com.  These sites were also mentioned on the broadcast and are worth checking out for those of you who are open minded or curious.  http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/
http://www.rationalresponders.com/

Interesting to note, the people, interviewed on Nightline, responsible for these websites showed some of the vicious, vile hate mail and death threats (laced with some pretty nasty language).  How very Christian-like, huh?

I’ll be posting more of my thoughts on this topic.

Can Hardly Wait for the Mudslinging!

January 31, 2007 at 8:53 am | Posted in political, political commentary, political rants | Leave a comment

As we gear up for the next presidential primary I’m not looking forward to those fun television spots where each potential “winner” tells us all the bad things we ought to know about the other guy.  In reality, campaigning for political office is nothing more than applying for a job.  We, the voting, taxpaying public are the employers and the candidates are our prospective employees.

I picture a reception area with two or three job seekers nervously awaiting their turn to interview for a much coveted position within the company.  The intercom buzzes, the secretary ushers the first candidate into a plush office for a face to face interview.  Now is the time, I had been taught, to put your best foot forward, convince the powers that be why they should hire you.  Display your accomplishments, abilities, strengths, virtues, etc., in other words….show them what you can do…. make them understand why you are the best person for the job.

If I apply the political paradigm to finding employment in the private sector, the scenario I’ve just described might play out a bit differently.  Let’s say I’m the job applicant.  My interview does not consist of mentioning even ONE thing about myself or what I am able to do.  Instead I would launch into a diatribe about the other applicant still waiting to be interviewed.  I could say that I happen to know his ‘Rolex’ watch is a fake, and imply his designer suit may have fallen off of a truck.  I might also mention while in the elevator on the way up I gathered, from his end of the cell phone conversation, that this man is cheating on his wife.  I make sure to emphasize how this information is proof of my rival’s lack of character.

Were it not for the, “I’m John Doe and I approved this message”, that comes at the end of a campaign ad, I wouldn’t even know which candidate the spot is promoting; the opposing candidate’s misdeeds are often the entire context.  During the last election, I got to the point where these ads just about made me want to choose the candidate being bashed.

What in the world makes these morons think that simply pointing out the shortcomings of their opponents will make me want to hire them for a job as important as representing ME?  How, from this information, am I expected to know what you have done so far?  How will this give me any indication of how you might handle important decisions, or react to difficult situations?  What it does tell me is that you have no ability whatsoever, and you are trying to cover that fact with a pretty damn lame diversionary tactic.  It also insures that you will NEVER get my vote because in your ‘job interview’ all you have shown me is your complete incompetence and utter lack of character.

I hope people pay attention to how our job applicants behave between now and the election and don’t buy into negativity.  Ask not what the candidate’s opponent did or didn’t do, ask instead, what can you do, what will you do, and how will you do it?  And to the candidates I say, ENOUGH already!

God?

January 31, 2007 at 8:30 am | Posted in Atheism, Beliefs, Religion, What if? | 11 Comments

I’m a devout atheist, my boyfriend believes in god, which surprises me as he is very intelligent.  I’ve always thought, believed, that intelligence and the belief in a god were polar opposites.  Maybe this is a fluke, who knows.   

Every now and then we get into discussions about the existence of a god.  I always keep it light as I respect his beliefs, and I think he respects mine, but I do love to play with ideas.  Recently during a recent one of these discussions, while remarking on the kind of sadistic god that would allow the craziness that is going on in the world, I had an idea.   

Thinking about the little soldiers or army men that children used to play with, long before x-box and game boy, I thought, out loud, that maybe that is what the world is really all about.  Maybe all of the believers are right and there IS a god, and we are just the playthings, the army men, and like the little boys (and girls) of decades past, god likes to play war.   

Obviously this is one of god’s favorite games, because he/she/it plays it so often.  The rare times when there is world peace might be when god is sleeping, eating, getting a check up at the pediatrician’s office, or maybe playing with some other, not quite so favored, toy. 

If this is true then I wonder, when there were fewer people on earth, was that just the beginning of god’s collection of little soldiers.  Maybe he got one every time he had a happy meal.  Or maybe every time good ol’ Uncle Bob came to visit, knowing little god’s passion for the little play people, he would bring a new bag.  As the collection of little figures grew, so did god’s ability to stage play wars.  With a single sweep of god’s little fist an entire army could be wiped out. 

And I’ll bet the earth really is flat; because where else would god be playing with the little people?  The dining room table, the living room floor is the earth.  It all makes sense now.   Is there other life out there in the universe?   YES….it’s being played out by many god’s on many dining tables, bedroom floors with little plastic army men, Barbie dolls, GI Joe’s, etc.   

God?  Who knows his /her name, could actually be Mark, Robert, Melissa, Tanya.  And probably not all of them like playing war.  We just happened to get an especially bratty little god.  What would our lives be like if we got a Barbie loving god?  We’d find ourselves being dressed and undressed, having our hair styled and re-styled, being stuffed into cute little cars and cardboard and plastic houses.  Sounds pretty peaceful, until this god has a little hissy fit and pulls somebody’s head off, throws it across the room, and then the dog runs off with it and uses it for a chew toy.  That would really suck.

You Only Need WHAT to be President?

January 30, 2007 at 12:05 pm | Posted in Bush, government, political, political commentary, political rants, president, stupidity | 5 Comments

To become president of the United States, a candidate must have lived in the country for at least 14 years, be a natural-born U.S. citizen, and be at least 35 years old.  These are the ONLY qualifications required to hold the highest and most powerful position in this country.  This may have worked at the time the constitution was drafted, however, in case you didn’t notice, times have changed. 

If we’ve learned nothing from the disaster that now sits in the oval office, it seems the minimum requirements need a bit of upgrading.  It need not be complicated, we don’t need pages and pages of legal jargon, just a few important additions to those cited above.This should include a minimum IQ to insure that the person who’s finger is closest to the ‘button’ is in possession of critical thinking skills such as abstract reasoning, creative problem solving, etc. (you know, little things that could come in handy when dealing with the security of millions).    

Candidates should also be required to possess basic skills, including proficiency in our country’s native language.  The president is and should be a role model for children, instead as an example, we now have someone who obviously didn’t (or couldn’t) do their English grammar homework and yet somehow got to be president.  What message does that send?  Instead of an intelligent, articulate, eloquent sounding individual, we have someone who speaks his own version of the language.  Maybe he is speaking Texobonics, Idobonics (like Ebonics, only dumber); where no rules for pronuncification existify. 

 In addition to being a role model, this is the individual who represents us (we the people) to the world.  Do we want someone we can be proud of, or do we want to be embarrassed? Along with the new qualifications: minimum IQ which should at least be above average, and proficiency in both speaking and understanding English, a psychological evaluation should be included to insure that we never again have a sociopath representing us in Washington.


Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: