Stop, people. Just stop.

A matter of integrity... 

 I've heard a lot of people saying that this presidential race will be historic, because we're going to follow up the first African-American president in history with either:

• The first female president (Hillary Clinton).
• The first Jewish president (Bernie Sanders).
• The first Hispanic president (Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio).
• The first flesh-eating lizard person president (Donald Trump).

I am defending Donald Trump. 

It is disgusting to me, as a progressive, to judge if someone is fit for duty as president simply by their race and/or religious background. It isn't fair to say that just because the last seven or eight white Christian male presidents have been slimy no-good politicians who were in all actuality exceptionally incompetent executives or just simply awful, awful failures as human beings, that the Donald won't (slough off the very things that define him and) become the exception. I won't do it, and neither should you. So STOP CALLING HIM A LIZARD PERSON. It isn't fair to this proud Dam Troll-descended citizen with his flowing synthetic dyed-orange hair.

So c'mon progressives, we're better than that. For shame, all of you!

 

Redneckin'!

Media Mike's Soapbox: Agnosticism vs Atheism

This week, "Media Mike" attempts to clear the air.

So it's come to this.

I was in a forum for another Youtube video where people were metaphorically shitting on modern art for reasons like, "it looks bad," "it's lazy," and my personal favorite, "it's offensive to my religion."

Being the bull-headed argumentative jerk that I am, I took exception to this last one, and got into a semantics argument with someone who had the title "Dr." in their screen name, which leads me hope that this was just some clever nickname, and that the person in question was not an actual doctor as they could barely comprehend the English language let alone carry a complex discussion where they might actually learn something.

Dr. Stupid (as I will refer to him from now on) was particularly confused about the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism." A lot of layman seem to have preconceived notions about what these words mean; often they believe that you can't be theist, atheist, or agnostic at the same time. This needs to be addressed.

GNOSTICISM: What is it?

The word "gnostic" is derived from the same ancient Greek word that we derive the word "knowledge" from. And that's really what it means in its simplest terms: "to know." This means that gnostics have perceived some sort of fact or data that they derive truth from. Now, I'm NOT saying that someone's knowledge can't be wrong, but until it is proven otherwise, or until you learn to set a standard for the efficacy of such knowledge, you can claim it. Being "agnostic" means that you don't know, or that your knowledge does not meet your own standard of efficacy, of course.

This term is most often applied to knowledge of gods and the supernatural, but really it can be applied to knowledge about almost anything.

THEISM AND ATHEISM: Really?

These terms specifically apply to belief, and belief DOES NOT equal knowledge; they are like apples and oranges. You can hold a belief in light of knowledge, in the absence of knowledge, or in spite of it (though the latter is disgustingly dishonest -- RE: Republican politicians). 

Theism is the belief that (supernatural) deities exist. That is really all that the term can be applied to. In the video I allude to belief in pocket change, but in reality it can only be applied specifically to belief in gods. Atheism is not the antithesis of theism: Theism is a positive assertion of this belief, but atheism is merely the lack of belief in the assertion, not theism's negative opposite -- that's known as "anti-theism," or the belief that no gods could or do exist. 

What does it all mean?

It means that you can use one term to describe knowledge, and one term to describe belief. That means that you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. The agnostic part of that equation is key: These people are being honest in that they don't know, and are usually open to another argument as long as someone makes a case for it that meets their intellectual standards. The gnostic theists and gnostic atheists (and gnostic anti-theists) are the ones that are perpetually dishonest. They claim knowledge based on things that they could not know by the very definition of what they're arguing. These are usually the people that are assertive about what they believe, and are ready to give evidence on why they believe it. 

And therein lies the problem.

Gnostic theists tend to cite the Holy Bible as evidence for their belief (which is a whole other can of worms that we're not going to get into here) or personal experience which usually amounts to, "I prayed for this thing to be done, it was miraculously done, and that's why I believe," never stopping for a moment to realize that by their own doctrines that they cannot ask their god for those kinds of things to be done, and whether the thing could have happened by other factors like chance. If you have proof, you don't have faith, and if you don't have faith, then your god has no power over you.

Gnostic atheists and anti-theists are every bit as annoying. They cite science as evidence for the lack of the supernatural (even though by its very definition science does not test or explore that outside of the realms of physics or cosmetology, which are both real-world studies and are not beholden to creatures from beyond) and make positive assertions based on an incomplete model of the world around them.

My biggest issues with gnosticism are these: 

1. Without a complete model of the universe and everything in it, how could you know for sure? 
2. If you're hearing voices, why do you assume that's a god? 
3. If your books and studies claim to show supernatural knowledge, why do they often lack descriptions of common things we know to exist in reality, that have real impacts on our lives (like viruses, for example)?

Now, knowledge can be incomplete or incorrect, but beliefs can't really be wrong as long as you continually question them. I will close by saying that in an honest world, we're all agnostics, but you probably knew I was going to say that already.

A pain in the R.E.C.T.U.M.

It's (not) debatable

I've been hearing versions of this argument repeated for so long, I just thought that I should post it so that people know what to look for...

... But before we get started, I just want to iterate that even given the tone of this post I am not trying to single out a particular person, just a group of people who are professing oppression based on reasons that they can neither define nor cop to. So if you find yourself making this argument to someone, anyone, ask yourself: "Am I a R.E.C.T.U.M.?"

The argument:

I keep hearing from Republican/Evangelical/Churchgoing/Tea-party/Ultra-con/Moralists (RECTUMs) asking for a "logical" debate. Unfortunately, this debate always seems to go the same way:

RECTUM: "You're just making assertions, show me the evidence!"

RATIONAL: "Here are several scientific studies that have been peer-reviewed."

RECTUM: "Peer review is a scam. Show me the evidence!"

RATIONAL: "This scientific experiment shows step by step how they came up with this conclusion."

RECTUM: "I don't understand the language. It could mean anything. You need to show me some evidence!"

RATIONAL: "Here is a course of study that defines the language, shows how to perform the experiment, and what to look for."

RECTUM: "That takes too long. You need to show me the evidence!"

RATIONAL: "Here is a historical overview of how this process has affected the environment/test subjects over time."

RECTUM: "You weren't there to see it happen. I wasn't there to see it happen. Show me some evidence!"

RATIONAL: "You're not taking this seriously, are you?"

RECTUM: "Aha! You're making assertions, and you still haven't shown me any evidence!"

Rinse and repeat.

Feels like Monday.

"Media Mike's" Soapbox: Is Carson A Hypocrite?

The inaugural episode of "Media Mike's" Soapbox asks a very simple question:

Sharp-eyed viewers may notice that I appear to be reading off the screen in this one. That's because I'm lazy and didn't bother to learn my lines before delivering them (also because I threw this video together in like, 4 hours I had lying around).

I should also note that I have yet to read an article stating that Ben Carson either performed abortions or was directly involved with the harvesting of fetal tissue, only that his name is listed on research studies that involved fetal tissue, which no doubt helped to further his career on some level. I mean, they guy needed all the help he could get... 

Random Play track 2

Welcome to the second edition of Random Play.
Leading off is a selection from Elle King. The album is named Love Stuff. This lady is apparently the daughter of Rob Schneider but we won't fault her for that. She is a talent in her own right. She reminds me of Nancy Sinatra,  bluesy, firey and a straight to the gut voice.  The album is a blend of pop, bluegrass, blues, and rock.  Pop songs include Ex's and Oh's, Make you smile,  The party song Last Damn Night,  Bluegrass/ country songs America's Sweetheart, Song of Sorrow, Kocain Karolina,  and the Blue numbers, Ain't gonna drown, and Under the Influence. The album is a great mix of songs and I would encourage you to check it out in it's entirety.

I was given Royal Blood's debut self titled album to check out. This two man group hails from UK . Just a drummer and a bass player is all this band needs to pull of it's blend of rock. The bass player uses many effects to give the music a fuller sound.  They have similar sound to early Black Keys, the Pack AD, and White Stripes.  I think my only complaint of the album is that every song is of a similar pace and feel. It could have used a slowed down ballad.  Album stand outs are the songs, Figure It Out, Ten Tonne Skeleton,  Come On Over, Out of The Black, and Little Monster.

 Now onto all that is news in the blues.
Seminal bluesman Buddy Guy released a new album entitled Born To Play Guitar.  Here is the title track Born To Play Guitar. another Thick Like Mississippi Mud.  The album is so new that I can't link to many of the albums tracks. With the loss of B.B. King it could be argued that Buddy Guy is the last of the great Bluesmen.  Buddy has not lost a beat despite having just turned 79. The album is what the blues should be. If you like the blues check it out.
I stumbled  across Matt Andersen and would recommend him as well. He is a soulful singer and talented guitar player. I will see him live next week and expect a tremendous show as he is one of those rare instances where he is better stripped down and live than in studio.  Here is a sampling, Drift Away, and Coal Miners Blues.

I'll just briefly mention some other notables if you choose to delve into them.
Dustin Kensrue  album Carry the Fire.   (singer songwriter)
Wild Ones album Keep it Safe. ( cross between 80's synth pop and cranberries)
Noah Gundersen album Carry The Ghost Primer  (singer songwriter)
The Lonely Wild album Sun as it comes.  (cross between Lord Huron and a Sergio Leone spaghetti western soundtrack)

Till next time. Keep your ears to the speaker. (at a reasonable volume)