Prism, Privacy, Security

News flash for Americans: you don't have digital privacy. The government is watching YOU!! NSA and its PRISM program essentially recorded every single electronic activity of every single American.

The support for this evil is BIPARTISAN! President Obama reaction to this leak can be summarized into one word: "TOUGH!" On the other side, the GOP also supports it wholeheartedly. Where is the Democratic Party that support civil liberty? Where is the GOP that fight against the overarching government? Where is the massive bipartisan movement against PRISM? Both sides defends this nasty encroachment and argues that such appalling intrusion to your life could increase security. Dick Cheney for example, said that such measure could prevent 9/11.

Wow, what a compelling logic! Hey, while you are at it, let me give some suggestions how to PREVENT 9/11. As far as I know, no one inside the big house can hijack an airplane, so you would DEFINITELY prevent 9/11 by putting every single American in jail.

What else ... AH, those terrorists are foreginers who abused their visa! How about this: interrogate and WATERBOARD every single visa-applicants to make sure they have good intention!

Heck, why we took any chance, just slaughter every single human being in USA. And Middle East for good measure! After those measures, I GUARANTEE 1000%, 9/11 couldn't happen!

In essence they said "If you crush your house with BIG BULLDOZER, you don't have to worry about the leaky roof!" They say they protect the house while actually they tear down the house, and sold every single part of the house to a shabby junk dealer.

That is just pure evil. The year is 2013, but I am totally for turning it back into 1984.

Criticism of Religion & Racism

Civilized people agree that racism is wrong. Anyone who declare that another race(s) is greedy, stupid, weak, or any other negative label will look like a fool, or a jerk. Or both.

Nowadays, people try to equate all criticism of Islam with "Islamophobia." After that, they equate "Islamophobia" with racism. See how Sam Harris, because of his criticism of Islam, was accused of first Islamophobia, THAN racism. Heck, they even tried to put this in the UN! Repeatedly! Of course this is not only about Islam, some people from other religions also think that their critiques are some sort of racist.  All of this reminds me of the authoritarian dictator named Soeharto from Indonesia, who equate religion with race and class conflict in his SARA policy. That is the context of this discourse, an authoritarian effort to silence critics. A "Big Brother" style effort to censor, and squeeze freedom of speech.

So, why criticisms toward religions are totally different than racism? Why criticism of religion is a sine qua non of a free society?

1) Genetic vs culture

Race is a genetic fact. Your skin color is imprinted inside your DNA. Not even plastic operation can change that. Religion on the other hand is a set of believe. It is a matter of choice. Anyone can reject their old religion and pick a new one anytime.

2) Your religion is not God

God is by definition above criticism. But religion is not God. Religion is a system, an ideology that was BELIEVED that it was written by God, then written and maintained by mere mortals. A critic of religion is a critic to a HUMAN. Don't insult God by equate Him with your preachers or prophet. They are 2 different beings. Oh, what is this has to do with race again? Doubting the truth of some of this believe is racist? Get real! 

Yes, we know you were offended, but your rage
also offended us!

3) Do they have the balls to be criticized?

None make a prohibition to criticize Einstein theory of relativity.

None persecute who hate Picasso's work. 

How come? Because both of them are ballsy enough to be criticized. Because their admirers are sane. smart, mature, and ballsy enough to let others criticized those 2 maestros. They don't throw "RACIST" accusation whenever anyone criticized Picasso's painting or Einstein's relativity theory. The lack of courage to be criticized really put the claim that those religion represent an omnipotent-omnibenevolent-being into great doubt.

4) I am offended!

You know this cliche: "I am offended, therefore I have the right to burn, loot, maim, and kill!" Are you kiddin? Everybody get offended EVERYDAY! An offensive statement is not a racist statement per se. Those people who react against offensive statement with violence are just whiner. They actually proved the point that their religion is a religion of war, of violence. They also humiliate their own religion, making it look far more insecure than other religions. Yes, there are tons of trolls and idiots, who criticize solely with name-calling, ad hominem, and without any substance. Let them embarrass  themselves. No need to make any physical threat to them, let alone attack them with machete. Don't embarrass yourself or your religion.

5) All religions made mistakes
Do you notice that many religion actually REGULATE slavery? Some religion also ordered genocides. Now ... imagine if anyone who try to abolish slavery was attacked as "blasphemer" ... oh right, silly me, that happened all the time. 

So seriously, if that is still not clear enough let me spell it for you: religion IS NOT RACE!

Hiroshima Nagasaki: How We Learn to Love the Bombs

Many peaceniks from the Left blame the US for everything. Now they even don't get the idea that the US has every right to disarm Iran, North Korea, and many other countries. One of their favorite argument is:

"The US is a hypocrite since they already nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, therefore they don't have the right to prohibit others from acquiring nukes!"

That means they never read history. Or choose to ignore it. Here, let me enlighten you guys: 

The Terror of Imperial Japan

Hey, peaceniks, if you think USA is nasty and hypocritical, just try dealing with the Imperial Japanese of the 1930s & 1940s! They raped and massacred the whole city of Nanking, and created a systematic sexual slavery across their vast territories! Yes, let me stress it again: SYSTEMATIC SEXUAL SLAVERY! Got that? Oh, they also spouted that we have to support their empire, since they were creating "The Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Yeah, they had the nerve to declare sexual slavery as "prosperity"!

None of us buy that b.s. We in Indonesia have a saying "350 years under the Dutch is nothing compared to 3.5 years under the Japanese." Heck, my own grandpa told me the stories how the Japanese stole EVERYTHING from his house, even every single nails and bolts.

And don't let me start about their war mentality. They are baffled by the idea that any surrendered enemy combatants has to be treated with respect. Hey, who can blame them? In their honor-based culture, "surrender" is the apex of disgrace. That's why they keep fighting and fighting, AND RAPING in between. That continued even after the Allied started sending waves and waves of B-29 bombers in mid 1944. The destruction of their fleet, and the end of their oil supply from Southeast Asia in October 1944 didn't convince them to surrender either. Any sane government would throw the towel after that, but nope. To hell with sanity and the well-being of their people, the Imperial Japan keep fightin since their priority is THEIR HONOR!

USA vs Others?

Hey, with that mentality, how can you protest when the US finally nuked their cities? They had it coming. Others wouldn't be that nice. Let's say the Japanese faced nuclear-equipped Russians instead of Americans at that time. The Russians are never as squeamish as the Americans. To ensure the maximum effect of the atomic bombs, they would start nuking Tokyo and Kyoto, the political and cultural capital of Japan. If they have more bombs, they would nuke Osaka, Kobe, and other major cities too.

And now you peaceniks think that Americans is immoral? What other options they have? Here, let me show the other options to you:

A) Stop the war by agreeing "peace" with the Japanese, accepting their terms.

The Japanese were eager to keep China and many other "Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Good luck telling that with a straight face to the Chinese. They would be enraged! They would continue their war against Japan. People in other area like Indonesia would either die in millions because of the harsh treatments, or die in millions because they finally rebel, but the Japanese use superior firepower to massacre them.

B) Asking the Japanese to surrender unconditionally and immediately, renouncing all of their conquest.

Do you live in a fantasy world where "HONOR" were never a part of Japanese culture? Like I said before, they would do EVERYTHING to avoid losing face, even keepin a losin war goes on and on. What's next, asking lions to be vegans?

C) Just keep bombin and blockadin Japan until they surrender

The famine in Japan would be amplified. There would be outbreak of nasty diseases. Japanese would die in millions, slowly, excruciatingly. 

Oh, same thing would happen in their colonies too. That means, another millions would die in China, Indonesia, Indochina, etc.

Oh, the Russian actually planned to invade Manchuria, Korea, and Northern Japan. That means not only Manchuria and North Korea, would fall into communist hand. South Korea and Hokkaido would be grabbed by the communist. Say hello to the "People's Democratic Republic of North Japan." Say hello to total domination of Korea Peninsula by Kim Il Sung's dynasty.

D) Direct invasion to Japanese Homeland

US Navy and Army planned this invasion because they were unaware of the atomic bombs until last minute. They knew the invasion would be ... nightmarish at best. Not only thousands of Allied's and Japanese sailors and soldiers would die, millions of Japanese civilian would perish too. Hey, they already taught their CHILDREN to use a sharp bamboo spear to disembowel Allied soldiers! Those who can't fight would choose suicide instead of surrendering to the Allies. We know that because that was what happened in Saipan and Okinawa. The civilian population plunged to a cliff WITH THEIR BABIES in their hands, instead of surrendering. I can say 5 millions civilians dead already sounds optimistic.

Oh, since the Allies busy with the invasion, nobody would dare to question the Russians when they rolled to South Korea and Hokkaido.

As you can see, the other options are FAR WORSE than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima-Nagasaki. It was THE BEST CHOICE among several nightmarish options. The root of the nightmare is the honor-based Japanese culture. Even the peace party in Japan couldn't convince everyone else. They need Hiroshima-Nagasaki, AND Soviet invasion to silence the war party. Blamed Tojo, Hirohito, and other Japanese militarists, not Truman or the US. 

Don't like that? C'est la vie, life is not consisting of easy black-white option. Grow up and stop whining about  your never-exist childish dream. Hard choices have to be made, and we will be damned if we close our eyes and fool ourselves that all choices are easy.

Reasons Against Gay Marriage

Once again "gay marriage" become an issue in the US. Some people want to ensure the legality of gay marriage. Others try hard to stop it. So, what is the argument against gay marriage? 

It undermines the institution of marriage!

So ... you mean if gay marriage is legal, there would be more divorce? Or you would divorce your spouse if gay people start marrying? Wow, are you really that insecure? 

It paves the way for incest, bestiality, and other barbarity!

Funny isn't it, this argument was also used to stop inter-racial marriage. Funny how exactly the same kind of people, the conservatives, try to stop gay marriage now. History loves to repeat itself!

It is not natural because they can't procreate!

Seriously? By this logic, anyone who is infertile can't marry. Anyone who lost their fertility also has to dissolve their marriage. Including old people. What? That is atrocious? That's because this argument is atrocious!

A child needs a father and a mother! Not two mothers! Not two fathers!

So, what are you waiting, JAIL ALL SINGLE PARENTS! Take their children from them! Give their children for adoption! A mother and a father for every single child! NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND!

It is God's order!

What? The same God who forced us to do incest? The same God who demanded us to be sycophant 24/7? The same God who threatened us with infinite torture but has the nerve to claim that he is just? The God who thought that regulating menstruating women is more important than prohibiting slavery? Seriously? I need to obey this monstrous entity? Tell you what, my conscience, my empathy, my intellect, and my decency actually say that I have ONE MORE reason to legalize gay marriage: to piss that slavery enabling dude! Oh, by the way, am I arguing against "God" or against people who are arrogant enough to know "God's will"? Never mind, whatever the case, gay marriage would piss a jerk.

Marriage is between a man and a woman!
Excuse me, please speak with the people who use "God's order" as their argument. Their holy scripture said that marriage is also between:

Oh you two are the same person? So ... I bet you get your wife after burning and looting her country? Yay?

I AM A CONTROL FREAK! I WANT TO CONTROL YOUR LOVE LIFE! YOUR SEX LIFE!

Well ... nobody said this blatantly, but that is what they imply when they try to stop gay marriage right? They may use God, the Bible, biology, or anything as justification, but in essence, this is the foundation of their argument. They are so full of themselves that they think they have the right to control how others love, how others fuck. 

So, are you a control freak? Really, that is the only relevant question in this debate. The rests are cosmetics.

Terrorism, Religion, Fanatics, Moderates

In today's world, thousands, or even millions religious fanatics used terrorism to reach their goal. Suicide bombing, mob attack, pogrom, etc. are practiced repeatedly. For many, such monstrosity is baffling. How could those religious fanatics do that?

Fanatics vs Moderates
Well, basically, religious fanatics give this kind of arguments to validate their terrorism:

"Quetzacoatl ordered us to kill them!"

"Quetzacoatl told us that those who rejects him are sinners, and deserves to be killed as a warning for everyone!"

"Quetzacoatl has wrote a holy book that explain to us that it is correct to kill them all!"

Etc. I think you got the point.

Basically, religious moderates give these kinds of arguments to counter terrorism:

"Quetzacotal order us to love everyone."

"Quetzacoatl told us that killing is prohibited."

"Quetzacoatl has wrote a holy book that explain to us that we have to be friend with everyone!"

Etc.

What are the problems with those counter-arguments from the moderates? 

1) Who can judge what Quetzacoatl really said and ordered?

2) How to falsify or prove any order or words from Quetzacoatl?

That means, the moderates use theological arguments to counter the fanatics claims. Since as far as I know Quetzacoatl never deny or approve ANYTHING from ANYONE in our current time, that also means, the moderates use flimsy-unprovable arguments to attack the fanatics' flimsy-unprovable arguments. It is like witnessing 2 small children arguing which one will won the fight between Superman vs Ultraman. And there is another hole in this kind of argument too.


Fanatics AND Moderates
One similarity between any kind of fanatics, are their own assumption of the total primacy of their religion. Or ideology.

Every Nazi insist that the "Aryan identity" is the most important, to hell with gender, profession, nationality, religion or any other identity.

So does an Interhamwe militia in Rwanda. For them "ethnic identity" is the most important. Kill all Tutsis, regardless their gender, profession, nationality, etc.

So does any religious fanatics. Only their religion matters for them. Gender, profession, nation, etc are irrelevant  or even ... distracting so has to be suppressed with zeal!

The problem with the religious moderates' theological argument is, that means they ACCEPT this premise and try to fight the fanatics on their ground. This kind of discourse confirm and strengthened the premise of the total-primacy of religion.

Fortunately, that is not the only way to debate a religious fanatics. Secularists, nationalists, and many others attack the moral ground of the fanatics differently.


Fanatics vs Secularists, nationalists, etc.
Basically, the arguments against religious terrorism from them are:

"We have our official criminal laws, and killing is a criminal offense!

"Have you ever heard about the human rights? One of those rights is the right to live. Others are the freedom of religion."

"Do you realize that such terrorism is bad for business? Do you know that the income of millions of people's will be destroyed by terrorism?"

Etc.

That means, the secularist, nationalist, etc used philosophical-pragmatical arguments to counter the fanatics claims. Unlike theological arguments, these arguments are not based on unobservable-supernatural explanations, therefore they are debatable, falsifiable, and provable.

But such arguments could only work if you debate with a normal person. A brainwashed fanatics often couldn't get any philosophical or pragmatical reason. They could easily dismissed any moderates who try to reason this way by branding them "hypocrite cherry-pickers" or even worse "traitors."

So, how if we try to convince the fanatics with theological arguments, while arguing with non-fanatics with philosophical-pragmatical arguments? The problem is, that means we argue incoherently. We have to start with the fundamental first: is there any PRIMARY identity that trumps every other identity in every occasion? Who actually has the authority to interpret God's law? Trying to debate in different ways without answering this fundamental question only undermines your argument. Anyone can pointed out that you are cherry-picking your religion, only using verses that suited your point of view, etc. So what is the best way?


The Best Method?
In my opinion, to be consistent we have to remind EVERYONE that they are not God, and no human can equate themselves with God, because it is a blasphemy. Heck, not only they are mere mortals, their prophets who wrote their books and scriptures are humans too!Their prophet is not God.

What? One of their prophet LITERALLY believed to be the incarnation of God despite all contrary rationals and historical evidences? And they even try to explain his Godhood with absurd argument, and pointed out since it is absurd, that means he is the true God? Wow ... okay ... let's see ... is that an exception or is there anything like that in another religion ...

Oh, here is its "sister religion" who claimed that God is singular, and no human can claimed to be God! Let's see .... anyone who draw the picture of their prophet would be beheaded? Pointing out that prophet had done some wrong also offended every single follower of him? 

... OK, I give up. They prefer to insult their own God, my intelligence, and everyone else while insisting that we have to respect them! 

Dear the rest of humanity, let them speak their minds. Let them reveal how vicious, how ignorant they are. Just make sure they STAY AWAY from any kind of power. 

Oh wait, many of them wields FORMAL POWER in some countries that prepared to go nuke. We are really screwed ...

Mexifornia & Multiculturalism

Mexifornia is a book by Victor Davis Hanson, a military history professor, about illegal immigration in California, published around a decade ago. Nevertheless, the immigration problem is even more relevant today, especially after immigration become a hot issue that reduce votes for Mitt Romney.

This book is about something even bigger: the validity of multiculturalism, the ideology which states that every culture is equal. This book argues that is not the case.

The Problems

According to common sense, Mexicans should adapt to American culture once they were in California. According to multiculturalism, that common sense is racist. California has to adapt to the Mexican culture too since both culture are equals. 

So, because of multiculturalism, the illegal immigrants children have to be taught both English and Spanish. They master neither of them. 

Because of multiculturalism, "cultural studies" popped out in Californian universities. They basically teach that Mexico is a victim of American imperialism, that white people are just blood-sucking imperialist, that current Mexican culture is equal with American culture.

So, is multiculturalism can solve the immigration problem? Hanson brought several important pointsregarding illegal immigration problems:

1) Most of the Mexican immigrants are not even "Hispanics." They are brown-colored Indians. (p. 42.)

2) Oh, no matter how rich those Indians are, they are still pariahs in Mexico because of their darker skin color. They enter America not really to get rich, but to get even. (p. 58.) 

3) Legal US Citizens from other states pay more than twice what illegal immigrants pay for their education. (pp. 79 - 80)

4) If California accommodates Mexican  culture, wouldn't it means it turns itself into Mexico? Changing California society into the society those immigrants escaped from doesn't sound helpful to them. (p. 92.)

5) Who are the victims of the illegal-aliens criminals? Most likely they are another illegal-aliens. (p. 125.)

Those problems are totally ignored by multiculturalism. 

The reason for that willful ignorance is the crux of the problem: multiculturalism itself is antithetical to the reality that a culture can be superior to others. In this case, American culture is better than the current culture of Mexico. Just pick ANY indicator. GDP, GDP growth, Human Development Index, Corruption Index, crime rate, etc.. All of them pointed out that Mexico is a far worse place to live. No wonder so many Mexicans tries to escape to USA! And no, this is not about geography. Baja and Florida Peninsula is very similar, but the former is a wasteland, while the latter is a multiracial settlement. (p. 94.) 

But multiculturalists will deny this. They actually will accuse anyone who say things like this as "racist." Excuse me, but some culture IS inherently racist. Just asks those Indians who are treated like pariahs. American culture who actually say "your status is decided by your money" can be said as "materialistic" or "shallow" or many other things, but NOT racist. It is your money that matters, not your skin color. Oh yeah, by the way, giving favorable access and discounts to high-level education BASED ON YOUR RACE sounds like the very definition of racism. Now, who are the racists again?

You got the point, the problems created by illegal immigration WILL NEVER be solved by multiculturalism. Heck, multiculturalism DEFINITELY will exacerbate them!

The Solutions

So what is the solution? Hanson offered 3 options:

A) Continue the open borders, but this time with total cultural assimilation

-> People can still get the cheap labor.

-> In 50 years, race will be irrelevant.

-> But the law will still be contradicted. An unforced law undermines the whole legal system.

B) Fortify the border to shut down illegal immigration. Or at least minimize it.

-> The end the cheap labors -> market value of every legal worker would increase.

-> No more unenforced immigration law.

-> Solve the problem in 20 - 30 years.

C) Option #A & #B at the same time.

-> Wage for every legal worker would increase even faster.

-> No more unenforced immigration law.

-> Solve the problem immediately!

Then there is of course the 4th possibility ...

D) Continue the multiculturalism education

-> Education quality will be reduced.

-> Crime will soar.

-> California become Mexifornia, and people will start moving out, just like they move out from Mexico.

Will USA avoid option #D? Maybe. Maybe not. We are talking about American politics here, who already become the butt of the political joke around the world.

Let me close this with the most important point in this book, from page 135:

"But that subjugation of race to culture is forever a fragile state, not a natural condition. Each day it erodes if not actively maintained. Race, chauvinism, ethnicity creep hourly back into social life if not battled by citizens of strength and vision. A few malicious people can undo the work of centuries."

Health Care: Fundamental Rights vs Commodities

There are 2 kind of stuffs in this life. First, we have stuffs that we fundamentally need, stuffs that we regarded as our fundamental rights. Other than that, we have commodities. Many stuffs positioned between those 2 extremes.

Don't left it to the free market

One thing is for sure, the free market is an excellent method to distribute commodities. This is where the conservatives & libertarians in USA screwed up. There are so many things that are so fundamental that nobody sane regard it as "just a commodity." 

For starters, no one proposes to disband the US arm forces to reduce the deficit. Why? Because every American knows that THEY CAN'T LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE THEIR SECURITY!!

Here is another thing that anybody glad the state totally prohibit it: SLAVERY. Hey, you can argue that "prohibition of slavery only create slavery black market!" or "I don't trust those politicians to handle slavery!" and so on. But not even the most die-hard libertarian argue like that. Why? Because humans ARE NOT COMMODITIES!


Universal Health Care
That bring us to (universal) health care. Can we left health care to the free market?

Nope. 

Because health is DIRECTLY about human life. IT IS a very fundamental thing that a human need to survive. How dare you refuse to threat a dying man!! I thought we already agree that life is sacred, that human life is not commodity? End of discussion.

What? You are not convinced yet? Here is the philosophical argument, that includes even non-life threatening health-care.

The right is VERY BIG on equality of chance/opportunity. I agree with them. Give everyone the same shot. The problem is, NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME CHANCE! Some people were born poor. Some people were born rich. Some people were born genetically perfect, while others prone to diabetes, high blood pressure, low blood pressure, heart attack, and so many other disease. To level their chances, we need to pool our resources and make sure EVERYONE has the same chance to compete. Hey, success is hard to achieve, why you refuse to eliminate one of the biggest and most common handicap: the difficulty to finance health?

Maybe you still dislike it because that argument is basically about "justice" or "equality." Let me put it this way, if we already know that we have already pay our healthcare with our taxes, you have MORE FREEDOM to choose whatever you like. Want to open a restaurant but afraid that you don't have enough money to pay for your expensive asthma medications? Not anymore, you already pay it. Eager to go to Disneyland but you need to pay for your insulin? Nope, you are free to go since you already pay your insulin. Etc. 


In essence, this is not a choice between freedom or equality. Universal health care is for both freedom and equality. Universal Health care is a right for every human being, not a commodity. Now time to wait for the conservative-libertarian-right to come to their senses, and start helping in DESIGNING a good universal-health-care instead of raging a holy war against it. Time for the USA to FINALLY become a true developed state, just like many others.

Gun Control Won't Work!

Give me more PLEASE! MORE!

After hearing the arguments from the NRA, I think this is basically their idea:

Premise #1: "Gun control won't work because bad people will always get guns." 

Then they continue:

Premise #2: "Hence the only thing that can stop bad people with guns is good people with guns."

Hey, let me use their logic AGAINST THEM:

"Arm guards won't work. The bad people will just kill the guards first before killing everyone else. On top of that, he can used the deceased guard's gun."

See? Therefore arm guards are useless! But no, they won't accept this argument. They will keep proposing the idea to put more guns.

Just listen to the conversation between CBS and the president of the NRA. The president keep spouting on "people who conspire to piss on the 2nd amendment." The safety of the children is their #1 priority ... as long as the solution is MORE GUNS BABY! Tell you what,  their ACTUAL top priority is "making more people buy more guns!"  On the sidelines, the world can crash and burn as far as they concern. No, sorry, that is not entirely true. They actually will SEIZE the "crash and burn" as an evidence that WE NEED MORE GUNS! Sick, sick, sick!

In essence, the NRA argue against gun control with PESSIMISM. 

At the same time, they argue for turning every single place in the US into OK Corral with OPTIMISM.

They refuse to admit in many cases, gun control law makes it harder to obtain firearms, and monsters were forced to use knife or any other less-deadly weapon. In China for example, a piece of trash attack a local school with knife, injuring 22 students. None were killed. Imagine what will happen if the Chinese love their guns like the Americans. But no, they only buried their head while keep repeating the 2 premises that I put in the beginning.  No wonder, John Howard, an Australian conservative prime minister once said something like "We don't want to import American gun disease!" That means "right vs left" or "Conservative vs Liberal" is not the issue here. The issue is between gun fetish vs healthy society.

So ... why the NRA acted like this? Simple. It is hard to say no if your paycheck is based on how many times you say YES! NRA got its money and power from gun-nuts. Of course they won't say no to them. They are not extreme right or extreme left, they are just greedy and exploit Americans with gun-complex. Understandable, but not acceptable, since saying NO to those gun-nuts can actually save lives.

How NRA Commits Suicide

Previously, I sarcastically recommended to arm the principle to solve the problem of gun violence in school. Looks like the NRA totally agree with that. Like usual, their solution in essence is to put more guns into the population. They blame mental illness, movies, television, video games, etc, i.e everything BUT guns.

Wait, are they serious? I am 100 % sure that people got their love of guns partially from those medias! Violent movies, series, and video games make more people love guns! Are they seriously blamed the medias which indirectly support their recruitment? Looks like they are really desperate to pass the buck.  Notice the focus. They already mention access to guns for the mentally ill, but chose to focus on providing more guns to America. Everything has to be done ... as long as it doesn't bother the gun sellers.

Some of the conservative leading figures supported that. Other even blamed Jon Stewart for the tragedy. Seriously, JON STEWART!

Heck, they ignore the fact that monster got his guns from a law-abiding citizen: HIS OWN MOM! This is not the only case where a piece of trash got their guns WITHOUT resorting to the blackmarket, see this MotherJones article. It shows that most monsters got their guns from legal sources. Look, that basically prove that we have to regulate legal guns more tightly, make sure that less psycho able to get guns.

Look, this tragedy IS NOT an excuse to make every single gun illegal. But the NRA is just too nutty to handle the rights of the gun owners. In few years, I bet they will start blaming even their own mother, their own son, or ANYTHING but (easy access to) guns. In few years, the fight will be between everyone against the NRA. Yes, they are starting their own suicide. You don't want to stick with wackos like them, you can be "guilty by association."

I hear that the NRA previously was about safety and training, NOT about make sure everyone can buy guns casually. Time to get back.  Time to return to the organization that is free from those wackos who thought that "More guns" is a good rule of thumb. Either that or just created a new rival organization, and move on.

Love Jesus!

Jefferson Bethke.
From this website.

Remember when I said that I hate the idea that God asks us to suck His ass 24/7?

 "The Great" Jefferson Bethke reminded and PROVED me that I made a mistake. I underestimate the problem. Jesus himself asked to be loved MORE than your mom, your dad, etc. Jesus asked for EVERYTHING! 

Wow ... 

It is NOT ENOUGH to say "Halleluya" in every occasion, you have to put God (READ: your preacher.) above everything else. No, Bethke even plainly said that Jesus (READ: your pastor.) demanded OBEDIENCE from us, ABOVE everything else. Yup, Jesus (Read: your priest.) ordered you to put Him HIGHER than your loved ones.

I am sure, many of you will protest that "READ: your preacher/pastor" statement I put after God. Let me ask you this: does God EVER give any order to you directly? Hmm? If you answer "Yes," I suggest you make an appointment with your psychiatrist, looks like you got a schizophrenia. If you answer "Well, not directly ..." I should pointed out to you: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT VALID!! More on that later, let's first dissect his argument.

Bethke try to b.s. his way by saying that:
1) So many other things actually ask for EVERYTHING too, e.g.: mistress, boyfriend, job, power, etc.
2) Jesus only asked for everything AFTER he sacrificed himself for us.

Okay ... I am not really agree with #1, but let's for the sake of argument we assume that he is correct about that. So ... you said that 2 wrongs makes a right? Isn't that wonderful, the Messiah actually doing the same thing that those "despicable things" done: asking for TOTAL OBEDIENCE? 

The 2nd point is even worse. First ... what sacrifice? Okay, He suffered on a crucifix for one day, died for 3 days, but in the end, he came back to life. Hey, if He is NOT a God, okay, being crucified IS A BIG DEAL, but as far as I know, the Christian God is OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT. So, why such a fuss? Why His follower whined about small problem like that? Oh yeah, even if you try to b.s. that "He was a human too, thus He suffer greatly!" I have to point out that MANY HUMANS suffer like Him too! How many people are crucified by the Romans? How many people died during a famine? Uh, uh, I know, how about the suffering of thousands of women who were accused as WITCH by the church? Or the suffering of the victims of inquisitions? Etc. Stop exaggerating his suffering. Start talking about the victim of His follower.

Oh, by the way, he did that without our concern. So ... he did that only to BLACKMAIL US, only to have an excuse to torture us forever if we don't buy it? It reminds of a statement from a mafia: "Hey, you should be thankful that nothing happens to your nice shop here, you know, we are the reason for that. So YOU HAVE TO PAY US!" That didn't surprise me. God of the Old Testament already approved this mafioso mentality. Just read the story about David, Nabal, and Abigail. Let's return to the previous point: when religion say "God" it actually means "priests/preachers/pastors."

Let me put it like this, we know everything about "Jesus sacrifice" from one single book. Yes ONLY ONE book. One single source. Why only one? The church for centuries BURN EVERY SINGLE CONTRADICTING RECORD! And it was not even written by Jesus OR directly during his time. And that book is very long, and complicated. Hey, this is the  same book that recorded that God is not consistent, He also screws-up repeatedly, and He even forced His creations to do incest to survive. So ... you want me to listen to a dude who regulate slavery, racism, and child abuse? In order to defend that book you has to do a "theodicy" or in a less fancy words: "pulling same excuses from your ass to sugar-coat God!" and who can do better other than the people who has the INTEREST in make sure you view God favorably, like ... your pastor? Q.E.D.

Oh yeah BTW, if you refuse to believe those preachers, God will torture you forever in His private dungeon, called Hell . Nice!

So let me recap, God (Read: the priests) actually ASKED us to praise & obey Him unconditionally & constantly, and whining when "so many other things do it too!" His track record is awful, and He (Read: the church) mentally blackmailed us and in the end, for good measure, He (Read: the preachers) threatened anyone with eternal torture. I don't know about you but for me ... that sounds like an insecure bully.  

And now, this Bethke HAS THE NERVE to ask me to love this bully? Pissed off, and go **** yourself. Oh, by the way, Happy Holiday!

Amazing Quotes 24:Political Order in Changing Societies 2

Let's continue the collection of amazing quotes from "Political Order in Changing Societies." This time, let's cover chapter 4 -5.

Countries which have political armies also have political clergies, political universities, political bureaucracies, political labor unions, and political corporation.

-- Page 194

Corruption in a limited sense refers to the intervention of wealth in the political sphere. Praetorianism in a limited sense refers to the intervention of the military in politics, and clericalism to the participation of religious leaders.

-- Page 194 - 195

Independence frequently left a small, modernized, intellectual elite confronting a large, amorphous, unmobilized, still highly traditional society.

-- Page 200

... while other social forces can pressure the government, the military can replace the government. Monks and priests can demonstrate, students riot, and workers strike, but no one of these groups has, except in most unusual circumstances, demonstrated any capacity to govern.

-- Page 217

... their [the military] historical role is to open the dor to the middle class and to close it on the lower class.

-- Page 222

Even more so than other groups in society, military officers tend to see parties as the agents of disunity rather than as mechanisms for consensus-building. Their goal is community without politics, consensus by command. By criticizing and downgrading the role of politics the military prevent society from achieving the community which it needs and they value.

-- Page 244

The role of the city is constant: it is the permanent source of opposition. The role of the countryside is variable: it is either the source of stability or the source of revolution.

He who controls the countryside controls the country.

-- Page 292

Urban migration is, in some measure, a substitute for rural revolution. Hence, contrary to common belief, the susceptibility of a country to revolution may vary inversely with its rate of urbanization.

-- Page 299

Revolutions produce little liberty, but they are history's most expeditious means of producing fraternity, equality, and identity.

-- Page 311

Marxism is a theory of history. Leninism is a theory of political development.

-- Page 342

Amazing Quotes 23: Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies

From Harvad Uni

Whenever we speak about "development," we think about GDP, economic growth, war against poverty, etc. Nice, but it neglects the fact that political development is also fundamentally important. To address this imbalance, Huntington wrote "Political Order and Changing Societies" in 1968. Until today, it is a classic, and many considered it his best work. Below are the best quotes from chapter 1 - 3 of that book:

Men may, of course, have order without liberty, but they cannot have liberty without order.

-- Page 7 - 8

They (the communists) may not provide liberty, but they do provide authority. They do create governments that can govern.

-- Page 8

More than by anything else, the modern state is distinguished from the traditional state by the broadened extent to which people participate in politics and are affected by politics in large-scale political units.

-- Page 36

It is not the absence of modernity but the efforts to achieve it which produce political disorder.

-- Page 41

The calling into question of old standards moreover, tends to undermine the legitimacy of all standards. The conflict between modern and traditional norms opens opportunities for individuals to act in ways justified by neither.

-- Page 60

In functions and power American presidents are Tudor Kings. In instituional role, as well as in personality and talents, Lyndon Johnson far more closely resembled Elizabeth I than did Elizabeth II. Britain preserved the form of the old monarchy, but America preserved the substance. Today America still has a king, Britain only a crown.

-- Page 115.

The assimilation of new Groups into the political system means, in effect, the expansion of the power of the political system.

-- Page 143.

Nineteenth-century monarchs modernized to thwart imperialism; twentieth-century monarchs modernize to thwart revolution.

-- Page 155

The legitimacy of the reforms depends on the authority of the monarch. But the legitimacy of the political system in the long run depends upon the participation within it of a broader range of social groups.

-- Page 167

The more vigorously a monarch exercises authority, the more difficult it is to transfer that authority to another institution.

-- Page 179

Review of "The Lady"

If you have read anything about Burma/Myanmar from the media and hope that this movie will provide more information, keep your expectation low. Very low. Bottom-of-the-barrel low.

Let me summarized the movie in one sentence: innocent-pure-kind hearted-one dimensional Suu Kyi fight against power hungry-cruel-demonic-one dimensional military generals. Yes, this is a typical Hollywood flick. Pure "entertainment" complete with oversimplification and cheesiness.

The filmmakers did EVERY SINGLE TRICK to make Suu Kyi looks angelic, and the generals looks devilish. They showed how Suu Kyi's father singing Kumbaya with the minorities leaders, and Suu Kyi herself said "Democracy without the minorities is meaningless." Another example, when Suu Kyi waited the acceptance speech of her Noble peace prize, the evil military cut-off power to her house at the last minute to make sure she can't used her radio! When that scene started, I already sighed and muttered "please, oh please don't use this trick. Please ..."

Thanks to the film one-dimension portrayals, no wonder after the first 20 minutes, I started to see a halo on top of Michelle Yeoh's head, and some fire & brimstone when the generals gathered. I even convinced that the generals headquarter is located at Mount Doom.

Hey, why don't they mention the Panglong agreement? In that agreement, basically some minorities have the right to secede  from the Burmese state. Why they don't incorporate this important detail in Suu Kyi's struggle? Maybe because ... it will make the conflict not one-dimensional? Ah the horror of the higher dimensions ...

What else bothered me? Let's see ... other than the "love for her country," this movie is also focusing on the love story of Suu Kyi and her families. It could be interesting but since this is a one-dimension film, it became so cheesy that no cheese-based snacks was allowed in the theater. Add to the facts that I am aware of how it would end because I follow the development of Burma to some degree, there is no surprise at all. Zzzz ...

Final verdict: 50/100

It could be lower, but I am aware that for so many people who has no clue about Burma, this film could be very moving.

Amazing Quotes 20: Ingersoll pt. 3

Atheists are wrong. There is a God. Ingersoll is the God of quotation. He is so good that I decided to put this 3rd list of his superb quotations. Yes this is my third list, here are the first and the second:

As long as every question is answered by the word "God," scientific inquiry is simply impossible.

-- "The Gods" (1872)

"Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy a coffin."

-- "Heretics and Herecies" (1874)

I do not believe there is any being in this universe who gives rain for praise, who gives sunshine for prayer, or who blesses a man simply because he kneels.

-- "Some Reasons Why" (1881)

In all ages hypocrites, called priests, have put crowns on the heads of thieves, called kings.

--Robert Green Ingersoll (1884), quoted from Herman E Kittredge, A Biographical Appreciation of Robert Green Ingersoll, Chapter XII

The clergy know that I know that they know that they do not know.

--Robert Green Ingersoll, "Orthodoxy" (1884)

It seems to me impossible for a civilized man to love or worship, or respect the God of the Old Testament. A really civilized man, a really civilized woman, must hold such a God in abhorrence and contempt.

-- "Why I am an Agnostic" (1896)

It is told that the great Angelo, in decorating a church, painted some angels wearing sandals. A cardinal looking at the picture said to the artist: "Whoever saw angels with sandals?" Angelo answered with another question: "Whoever saw an angel barefooted?"

-- "Superstition" (1898)

Mourdock, "God's Intention," and Spider-Man

In the heat of the 2012 election, suddenly Republican senatorial candidate, Richard Mourdock, said that "pregnancy from rape is something God intended to happen." And everybody is screaming. The democrats seizes it to discredit Republicans. Mitt Romney who before this fiasco endorsed Mourdock now throws him under the bus. Etc.

Folks ... let's think about that, although that statement looks nuts, Mourdock actually didn't contradict logic. Let me explain ...

First, remember what Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker? "With great power came great responsibility"! Using this valid logic, we can have "With infinite power came infinite responsibility." And of course "With no power came no responsibility."

Second, in case you forget, the Abrahamic God is not only omnipotent but also omniscient AND actively participates in this world. Since power is about relationship, a human has NO POWER compare to God.

VOILA, there you have it, "A God with infinite power is responsible for every single thing in this world." Hey, if God didn't permit that, who can object? Satan? Are you joking? Even Lucifer x 1.000.000 is still no match for God! 

So congrats guys, you can label ANYTHING as God's intention, as long as it already happened! The holocaust? God intended that! Rwandan genocide? God permitted that! W. won 2 presidential elections? With God's blessing! Obama defeated McCain in 2008? Of course God love to see that! 9/11 tragedy? God's will that too! Etc.

Christians will object by saying "God give human's free will." Irrelevant. Without any power to object, a will is only a will, it will be made real if and ONLY if God give His permission.

Don't like it? Maybe you should try God from other religion who has some limitation. Or God of Deism who only watched everything for whatever reason. Or atheism, where God is non existent.

So, thank you mister Mourdock to remind us how wonderful and responsible your God is!

Amazing Quotes 18: Money!

Money doesn't look complicated. It is a tool to buy something. It is a tool to count your ability to acquire new property. Why so many people are so crazy about it? Maybe these masters could help. One of them even have his face printed on money!

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

-- Alexis de Tocqueville

He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money.

-- Benjamin Franklin

The lack of money is the root of all evil.

-- Mark Twain

Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind?

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "Some Mistakes of Moses" (1879)

“While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.”

-- Groucho Marx

Money is the most important thing in the world. It represents health, strength, honor, generosity and beauty as conspicuously as the want of it represents illness, weakness, disgrace, meanness and ugliness.

-- George Bernard Shaw 

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

“If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to.”

-- Dorothy Parker

“Making money isn't hard in itself... What's hard is to earn it doing something worth devoting one's life to.”

-- Carlos Ruiz Zafón, The Shadow of the Wind

Friendship and money: oil and water.

-- Mario Puzo

Amazing Quotes 17: the Bible

Ah, the Bible, the holy scriptures of Christianity. Revered by so many, but turned off so many too. These are some of my favorite quotes about the Bible:

If your Bible is an argument for the degradation of woman, and the abuse by whipping of little children, I advise you to put it away, and use your common sense instead.

--Lucy N. Colman (The Truth Seeker, March 5, 1887)

So the choice before us is simple: we can either have a 21st century conversation about ethics—availing ourselves of all the arguments and scientific insights that have accumulated in the last 2,000 years of human discourse—or we can confine ourselves to a first century conversation as it is preserved in the bible.

--Sam Harris in his response to readers & criticisms

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.

--George Bernard Shaw

According to the Bible, God had never revealed himself to these people and he knew that without a revelation they could not know that he was the true God. Whose fault was it then that they were heathen?

--Robert G. Ingersoll "Why I am an Agnostic" (1896)

"There was no place in the land where the seeker could not find some small budding sign of pity for the slave. No place in all the land but one-- the pulpit. It yielded last; it always does. It fought a strong and stubborn fight, and then did what it always does, joined the procession-- at the tail end. Slavery fell. The slavery texts in the Bible remained; the practice changed; that was all."

--"Mark Twain and the Three R's, by Maxwell Geismar, p.109

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."

--Lynn Lavner