Lets say you bought a car. Lets call this car the AutoyCar.
Lets say you also decided to treat yourself to the best so even though the AutoyCar was a lot more expensive than the competition, all your coolest friends drive them so you figure it must be worth it.

After getting it home you decide that you want to do a little work on it to make it reflect your personality and needs a bit more. So you set out to get a new set of wider rims and tires. Wider is safer after all and if you can find them in your favorite color all the better.

Only when you get to the tire shop you discover that AutoyCar restricts the rims you are allowed to put onto their car to a select few they decided look best. As for wider tires there are none available. Only the AutoyCar approved aesthetic changes are allowed. 

At the rim shop the salesman states they cant put anything on an AutoyCar  that was not approved even if it will fit or AutoyCar will sue them out of existence as they have done to so many others in the past. You take a look at the rims that are approved by AutoyCar but none looked like they were your style. None were in your favorite color and all were twice the price of other similar ones made for other models of cars.
You leave empty handed.

Annoyed you decide that maybe a better stereo would be nice. Only to discover on arrival at the auto electronics store that AutoyCar restricts your stereo choices to 7 very expensive ones. This time you are determined to get something and look into each of the 7. You find the first three are made by AutoyCar and are quite out of our price range. The 4 remaining ones are identical to their non AutoyCar competition except for the more than double price tag.

While watching you looking at the non AutoyCar stereos the salesman tells you that if you try to install any of them in your AutoyCar it will disable your car completely.  He did note that there were a wide range of stereo covers that would allow you to change the look of your AutoyCar approved stereo. Dejected you storm out of the store.

Now you are really annoyed and head back to the AutoyCar dealer for an explanation.  There their senior AutoyCar Expert enthusiastically tells you how as an owner of the AutoyCar “you can proudly drive the very best car available on the market. In fact this car can never crash, will never break down and never needs service.“ Yet in this very breath he also tells you that “Any service your AutoyCar may need of course must be done only at the AutoyCar dealer and if anyone other than a certified AutoyCar Expert tries to do so much as an oil change then the car will lock up until you pay a fine. “

But wait there’s more.

His enthusiasm rising by the second he begins to tell you how the other big car manufacturers are greedy, controlling, corporate monsters and that little AutoyCar is the preferred company for those who want to buck the system.

Now pissed off, you point out that this year AutoyCar reported greater sales than its competitors so how small could they really be?
Furthermore with a wide range of aftermarket parts and accessories available for the competitors that could improve the safety and performance of their products, exactly how is it they are the ones controlling you?
Lastly you point out that all the approved AutoyCar accessories come with a much higher price tag than the exact same thing from the competition.  So where is the greed?

With a sideways glance, now guarded and reserved the Senior AutoyCar Expert states that all further complaints will be handled by the corporate office in Hipster City.

On your way home you see your good friend CoolKat who also has an AutoyCar. You decide to stop and ask him about his.

He excitedly starts telling you how great it is to own an AutoyCar and how cool the company is. How their offices in Hipster City have an indoor miniature rainforest in the center. How his AutoyCar has the “Speed Appearance” package installed. Its all only cosmetic of course. He tells you how the AutoyCar cant crash.

“Wait” you scream, “I just saw a news story about one that crashed just a few miles from here.”

He laughs and replies that that must have been one that the owner did not have tuned up regularly at the AutoyCar dealer and therefore was not the fault of the car.

“What about the gas mileage?” you ask.

“It’s the best.” he blurts out. “I get 22 MPG”.

“But wait” you say. “I saw the same size cars from the competition advertising 36 MPG. What about those?”

He gives you a sly “In the Know” sideways glance.
“Those are big corporate car makers” he whispers. “You know they all lie.”

You shrug and wonder if you should mention that the government is the one who decides the MPG but decide he seems a bit conspiratorial and will probably suggest the government is in the pockets of the competition.

So you ask him to see his AutoyCar. He stammers and looks around for a moment then quietly mentions that its at the AutoyCar dealer. “Why?” you ask. To this he mumbles out something about it not accelerating as it used to but it coulden't be cars fault it must be because he failed to take proper care of it or maybe was doing something wrong. He assures you the AutoyCar Expert was going to show him how to properly drive it, “for free” once they fixed what he must have damaged. 

You turn and walk away. Your head swimming and wondering if you made the right choice.

What do you do?

Embrace the AutoyCar life. Ignore the faults completely and buy into the cultish belief. Put on whatever blinders you need to in order to justify to yourself the exorbitant price you just paid for what now looks to be “just another car”?

Or do you try to return yours and buy a Gluuber Car from down the street. Its very new to the market but getting great reviews. Some problems have cropped up with the Gluuber Car and the Gluuber management has admitted to them and done well to addressed them right away.

Or maybe you will get that MicroCar that gets such great gas mileage. OK so it is ugly and in no way “cool” but the reliability rating is great and it has so many options its hard to decide which will suit you the best.

Questions:

Does this story offend you in some way?

Do you feel it may be that you bought the wrong “car” but cant admit it because you have to justify the large amount of money you paid just to have the “Cool Persons” car?

Do you think Im really talking about cars?

Gay marriage. For or against? This is a topic that’s been cropping up a lot lately and I thought I ought to throw in my two cents. Im Against. Wait what? 

Don’t go flying off the deep end calling me a bigot or anything because Im also against heterosexual marriage.

Yes you heard me I’m against the institution of marriage or more accurately against government approved marriage and as a person of logic you should see the reasons right away. Abolish the concept of government approved marriage and replace it with my solution and you end government bigotry against homosexuals. OK well you end it only in regards to marriage. And yes I do have a replacement idea that I will enumerate on in a moment. It will not only fix the bigotry against homosexuals but will also end it against others who are excluded from the government sponsored marriage and even might help deal with a little of our current health care coverage issues. Read on.

Let us first define what we are talking about though because the term marriage is so loosely thrown around.  I am not talking about a private institution such as a church, mosque, synagogue, temple or for that matter the local Elks Club performing some sort of marriage ritual for two or more people. These rituals have meaning primarily only within the social group they effect. Or at least should. And quite frankly these private organizations have every right to exclude any people from their rituals for any reason. That’s the American way. Seriously for those of you trying to force a particular group of people to accept you for any reason into their group just stop. Not only will catholics never allow a homosexual couple to marry in the “eyes of god” but they should never in America be forced to. Enough said about private marriages.

I’m talking about going to your local government. That is, the marriage legally endorsed by a government body that now binds you together in a legal manner. The proverbial justice of the piece marriage but for any marriage to be legal in the eyes of the government you need to get a marriage certificate from your local governing office. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but the end result is the same. You and another person are now married legally together in the eyes of the United States of America as well as many other governing bodies around the world.

But what just happened, really? You have not really agreed to stay together “till death do you part”, that’s more an “eyes-o-god” sort of concept. Divorce, at over 50% in the US, negates that clause.  Nor have you really agreed to remain faithful, respectful, honor or obey or any of the other random words that one spews out during the service and you responded to with a kneejerk “I do.” What you have agreed to in the eyes of the government is a financial incorporation.

“Cynic!” I can hear you screaming from the rooftops but deep down you must realize that this is really the truth. All the other things you said “I do” to can be broken at any time without consequence except for financially. Sadly even the responsibility for being a parent is not enforced by the government. Only the financial responsibility is. You are free to make a child and abandon it from a parental standpoint. You are not free to abandon the financial responsibility however.

You have agreed that from this point forward your debits, profits, business ventures, capitol and all other financial responsibilities are combined. Shared. Inseparable. In fact this is so true that in some cases where some assets are desired to be keep free of the marriage a prenuptial agreement must be signed by both parties. There is one other thing loosely related to finances you are now “entitled” to share. Health Insurance.  More on that in a moment.

The financial responsibilities of a government sponsored marriage are the only things you said “I do” to that cannot be negated in full by divorce. Stop and think about this then come back and keep reading because this cynic still has not dropped the real bomb.

Feeling depressed now?

So what homosexuals are looking for in government sponsored marriage is really just combined financial responsibility and the benefits that come from it. That is to say it is easier for a married couple with a combined income and legal financial responsibility to qualify for a large loan. Because they are legally required to pay back that loan jointly and because their now legally combined household income and assets can be attacked in the event that they, together, default on that loan. Because of this union of financial responsibility the bank will, or should be more willing to, give it to them.

They are also able to combine their tax liability to their benefit. Although it is not always to a couples benefit to combine tax liability it is, for the most part, only married couples who can legally combine their tax liability for their benefit and financial gains.  Im sure some tax lawyer out there knows some loopholes that can be utilized to circumvent this but we are not talking about getting around the laws, Gay marriage rights are about being exactly equal in the eyes of the law not getting around a bad law.

Furthermore, their joint status now allows them to legally combine health insurance. Meaning that whichever of the marriage partnership has the better insurance policy, say through their job, can now put the other on their policy and the combined status generally will save them money over two persons having insurance individually. So again even though Health Insurance is not necessarily a monetary issue it still really is. Also if one partner is not employed or if their employer does not offer insurance they can benefit from being married and jointly insured through the others insurance. As far as I know that only applies to married couples at the moment.

So love, honor, respect, sexual faithfulness and all the other morality based, tear jerking concepts that you say “I do” to at your wedding are the concepts of the private organizations endorsement of marriage and subject to the moral codes of that organization. Legal government marriage is a financial bond.

That about wraps it up for what government sponsored marriage is. You can tack on all the stuff about love, honor, respect and till death do us part but the government cares little for any of those things. At best they can be used later down the road in the divorce court as ammunition to benefit one party or another financially and even infidelity, although grounds for divorce will not negate your financial obligations. It may however gain you leverage in dividing that responsibility but not much more than that.

On to the original statement and my personal view on a solution to marriage for our modern society.

We all know that most state sponsored marriage laws exclude homosexuals from being married legally and therefore taking on the financial responsibilities and reaping the benefits thereof. But others are excluded from this government sponsored marriage and oddly enough often times even by the gay community. Polygamists.

Yes polygamy, the right for three or more people to marry in the eyes of the law is illegal. In fact you can be arrested for it in some states. I don’t think the same can still be said for homosexuality and no the sodomy laws cannot be enforced anymore so let it go. Here is a question I have posed many times to many people who view themselves as “diehard liberals” and the responses I have gotten are often decidedly conservative.

Give me one “non-morality” based reason that polygamy is illegal. You cant. The fact of the matter is that in many cultures it is and continues to be the norm.

Now ask yourself to envision the polygamist household. Is there one man and several women in your head? Then you’re a sexist.

The term polygamy means that three or more people are married to each other. The number of people and the sex of any of them is irrelevant.  As long as there are three or more adults willing to commit to the shared responsibility and enjoy the benefits then that should be enough.

So looking at this from that standpoint the act of marriage from a government standpoint should be nothing more than a contract between two or more people who wish to share the responsibilities of being married and take the benefits. This of course would include the full responsibility of raising any children born into this collective household.

Imagine if you will a child with not one not two but ten parents all legally bound to support that child into adulthood. Furthermore this child would also stand a much higher chance of having one or more parents who stay at home with them throughout the day leaving such things as outside daycare and the dreaded parental nightmare of finding a safe and reliable babysitter in the past. Then there is the issue of healthcare.

Healthcare is such a hot topic nowadays and polygamy has the potential for a built in solution. Two even. First the more partners the family has the more likely they will be to have more than one person with good insurance provided through their work. Second the very guidelines of our healthcare industry could be altered to allow for these large family groups to be given a group rate based on their own numbers. Much the same way a small business of 8 to 10 employees would.

The more you think about the benefits of eliminating the religious and conservative views on what marriage really is the more you have to come to realize that its time to put an end to all our archaic views and move into a new world of true personal freedom.

So does the church have to accept polygamy? Of course not. Any private organization is free to decide what their rules are. The church no more has to accept the polygamist than they have to accept homosexuals. And for that matter any other group of people. They risk alienating too large a group any time they do but that is there choice as a private organization. The government however should not be allowed to discriminate against any group of people for any reason that is not truly against the public welfare. Marriage in the eyes of the government is nothing more than a contract.  Lets stop calling it something religious and by doing so remove the very rational for discrimination. Let churches, temples, synagogues and mosques perform marriages according to their ancient customs.  Let the government endorse and enforce “family contracts” between two or more adults.

OK so maybe someone else can come up with a better name but you get the idea.  Gay, Straight, Bi or Poly. The government should see none of this. To the future.

The Kid Kaos
Top Ten Android Applications


With Google Android taking off in a big way I thought it was time to post my 10 cents on the subject of which applications (Apps) are in the top ten to have on your phone. First lets state clearly that there are a few Apps that you simply should not be without. Google Maps, Flash 10, The official YouTube App, Adobe Reader, etc.  These should be on your phone within the first day. Also there are Apps for things like Facebook, Twitter or Peapod type services that if you use them you should have the official Apps from those services. 

The Apps Im listing below are a little less obvious but still in my opinion they are all must haves. I list them roughly in order of importance to me but really as they are all must haves so just think of them as all equally as important.

Last point. All of these are Free Applications. I do not list any of the paid Apps I have because adding the additional factor of cost -v- usefulness is too hard to weigh in on. 

(Amendment: There is now one Paid App that I would highly recommend at the end of this blog.)

I used to think Sears was the company to go with because they stand behind all they do 100% with great customer service. No longer do I think this.

First Im basing my timeline mostly on the timestamps from the email chains that have been going on between myself and the Sears Customer Service and Sears Price Match representatives.  The actual times are probably slightly before the email timestamp but the few minutes should not make much of a difference.

 Second Im going to do my best to remember the exact words spoken to me by the Sears Customer Service representatives while I was on the phone with them.  As I did not record our calls I may be slightly off.

Third and finely for any Sears representatives out there who may stumble upon this. Please realize that in this age where the consumer has an abundance of shopping options just a mouse click away you must alter your business practices to gain and keep your customers. You are no longer the only game in town nor are you even the easiest and you are certainly not the cheapest. People like me chose to shop with you because of your strong reputation for great customer service. People like me are walking away from you because you are failing to meet those expectations. You are not immune to the repercussions of these hard economic times.

The story from the beginning. On Sunday afternoon I decided to purchase an item from Sears costing $495 plus $56.95 in shipping and handling charges. At 2:57pm that order was completed.  Shortly after that I was looking for another item I needed on a competitors site. Probably due to the ever growing ability of internet sites to track what you have been looking at and searching for, that site showed me in the sidebar the same Item I had just bought from Sears. The competitor’s site had the item listed for $389.54 and offered free shipping. So we are talking about a substantial difference of $168.94.

At 3:30pm I contacted Sears customer service via the phone and requested the order I just placed be canceled. The customer service representative stated that if I filed a “Sears Price Match” request on line that I will be guaranteed to get the difference, including the free shipping plus 10% back.(Sears Customer Service Lie #1)  I specifically asked at that time that if my request was rejected for any reason would I still be able to cancel the order. I was told in no uncertain terms that I can cancel the order at any time before its shipped. (Sears Customer Service Lie #2)

I then went on line to Sears and filed the Sears Price Match Request, providing all the relevant information. Sunday at 3:55 pm I received the email confirmation for that request. So just to be clear from the time the order was placed to the time I began the process was a documented 1 hour.

On Monday at 1:16 pm I received a reply to my Sears Price Match request stating it was granted but only for the amount of $107.20. This, by their numbers, represented the “difference of $97.45 and an additional credit of $9.75 to reflect 10% of the difference.” Monday at 1:29pm I asked about the shipping and handling charges and why they were not being credited as the Sears Customer Service representative stated they would be. On Monday at 2:31 I was told that because the competitor was a membership club they did not offer price match on their shipping and handling charges. Fine, I accepted that explanation and on Monday at 2:51 pm I had canceled my order with a Sears Customer Service representative via the phone.  At this time I was told that the item would be canceled and I would be refunded the full amount. (Sears Customer Service Lie #3)

I was assured that this would not be a problem so at that time I placed the order for the item on the competitors site, knowing that the charges from Sears would soon be reversed. Therefore having a large amount of money coming out of my account would not be too much of an issue because $582.70 would be returned shortly. (Don’t scream about the math not adding up remember tax is added to that total.) Lets also take a moment to note that when I confirmed the cancelation the Sears Customer Service representative confirmed all of my contact information including both my home and mobile phone numbers.

On Monday at 11:15 pm I received the shipping confirmation with tracking numbers for UPS. I of course was asleep at this time and could do nothing. On Monday at 11:31 pm I received a notification from the Sears Customer Service representative that my order could not be canceled because it had already been shipped.  Now when I contacted Sears Customer service about this I was told that I did not cancel the order soon enough. Am I to believe that Sears shipping and handling department is so disorganized that it takes a full 8 hours for them to report that they have shipped the item to you? Well maybe I am to believe that.

Anyhow I am at that time told by the Sears Customer Service representative that the only recourse I have at this point is to refuse delivery of the shipment when it arrives. The Sears Customer Service representative assured me in no unequivocal terms that I would not be charged for anything. I asked specifically “Will I be charged any type of Restocking Fee?” the Sears Customer Service representative stated “No I would not.” I asked specifically “Will I be charged for any shipping or return shipping?” the Sears Customer Service representative stated “No I would not.” I asked “Will I be reimbursed for the missed day of work while I waited around for the UPS delivery so I could refuse it? ” the Sears Customer Service representative stated “ No I would not.” OK so that is probably not a reasonable expectation but, heck, I might as well ask. Lastly I asked why no one ever tried to contact me via the phone to tell me that my cancelation had failed. I was told by the Sears Customer Service representative that they did not have my contact number.  (Im not calling that a lie. They really may not have had access to mt numbers during that part of the process. Just because they confirmed it in the previous part of the process does not mean they actually had it later. I will let you be the judge of lie or no lie.) Moving on.

As it turned out there was no need to stay home from work as my wife was able to be there to deal with it. However when the UPS guy showed up he informed us that there were not one but two of the items on his truck for us.  He thanked us for the large print note on the door that saved him from bringing both the heavy items to the door only to be told to take them back.

So here we are on Wednesday at noon, assured by the Sears Customer Service representative that “I would not be charged for anything.” I will await the final outcome but don’t hold out too much hope that this is really over yet.

One final note to the Sears corporate office or stockholders or whoever might actually care what happens to the Sears business.

I am in the process of remodeling my home because the housing market has changed and it looks like I will be staying here longer than originally anticipated. I just bought several high end Kitchen appliances from Sears. You have my money and I have the appliances. More importantly at that point I was very happy with Sears and had already begun tagging items from Sears for purchase in the near future. This was one of those items. But there are many more including a large capacity front loading Washer and Dryer for the laundry room and to be honest everything else for the laundry room because at the moment it is unfinished and lacking any cabinetry or shelving. I had intended to buy everything I could from Sears simply because of the initial experience. This one very bad experience has not only ended my plans to use Sears for my future remodeling needs but from any future purchases including the very tools I will need to build out the finished laundry room. I in fact canceled my Sears Credit Card mere moments after my last conversation with the Sears Customer Service representative. Lowes, Home Depot and Sam’s Club will be the benefactors of Sears’ failure to take proper care of their customer.

We live in a new age where you can no longer rest on your laurels. You can no longer assume that the customer has no choices available to them. You can no longer opt for the cheapest route to customer service. And most of all we live in times where large corporations that no one thought would ever go out of business are failing and vanishing because they failed to keep up with the times and take full care of their customers. You have lost me but I would hate to see another Corporate American Icon fall to the times. More importantly I would hate to see all those Americans who rely on you for their bread and butter finding themselves without a job in these very hard times.

Part 2 (The process of thought)

I believe strongly that the pros of religion have been grossly outweighed by their cons in our modern world. Religion has outlived its usefulness and should by reason of logic be cast into humanities turbulent past or at least be removed from public concerns. And if you will allow a moment of rant I will explain my reasoning.

Beginning in the past. The way past. In the early days of human existence when kings of supreme power ruled large tracts of land. Land they often had never seen for themselves inhabited by tens of thousands of people who had likely never seen or even heard of this all powerful king. What's a ruler to do to enforce his beliefs, morals and power? Large armies are a good start. But armies are hard to control and can quickly become the problem rather than the instrument to solve the problem. Communication is sketchy at best so direct contact with your subjects is a practical impossibility. But a God on the other hand is omnipotent. Gods see all and know all. Therefore you can never escape His (yes, and Her) wrath for your indiscretions.

Ahh, the beginnings of a great idea. The rules and values you desire others to follow no longer came from you but instead from an all seeing all powerful God. Often many Gods. And what better way to reinforce your power than to declare yourself the one true vessel of God or even that you are in some way "The God" or part God.

Historical(ish) Note: Somewhere in the area of 3000 BC to 2400 BC The Sumerian cities were "electing" their leaders. At some point one of them refused to step down and, at least in the city of Kish at first, we began to see the ruling class passed from father to son. One such case was Gilgamesh of Uruk who claimed to be 2/3 God. This opens the door for some rather twisted questions about parentage but the whole concept opened the door to a ruler of absolute power. ‡1

This trend became a rapid success. A ruler could simply adopt the common Gods of the area and begin dictating "Gods" will to the people. This proved a rather good way to enforce ones will on the masses. And in times of crisis, flood, famine, inflation, one could always pass blame to the Gods and avoid, sometimes, the often terminal loss of the throne. 

Put this way it sounds rather conspiratorial but it was really not. Most Kings were benign and truly were trying to do the right thing for their people. Proof being we heard nothing in history about most of them. With no centralized governments and shaky communications not to mention the inherent issues of policing the masses. The "Caus God Said So" way of law making was without a doubt a driving force in civilizing the world. People now had a sense of unity the "Us against Them" mentality. Unity creates social structure. Social structure promotes specialization and with specialization comes a deeper reliance on the social group. Cyclical. 

For more on the nature of societal growth, in particular the pre civilization aspects of it and the necessity of social groups, see "I don't Really Like My Friends". If you don't have it just ask.

Even the wars waged in the name of Gods have had a rather positive effect on our growth into civilization. With war comes need to invent. Inventions of war have often become the technology of the future in times of peace. Witness the Internet. Created to allow redundant systems of nuclear death during the "Cold War", now no more than a civilian mass communications system. Necessity is the mother of invention and nothing necessitates rapid invention like impending death from ones enemies.

(An Aside: Dollar for dollar the Internet is truly the best value the world has ever gotten for a military application adapted to non-military purposes.)

So Gods create or are kings. Kings instate Gods laws. Masses must follow the laws or suffer the wrath of the Gods. Laws create order. Order allows growth. Growth requires more laws. And so on. What's this all have to do with the premise that we no longer need religion? Read on.

Back in the present we find ourselves in a very different world than our early ancestors. The mass infrastructure of Governments has taken the place, in most cases, of Gods law. Crimes are caught, tried and punished by an entity outside God. In our case, here in the USA, that entity may be your local, state or federal law enforcement and criminal justice system.

Travel and communication is easy today and in some cases nearly instantaneous. Laws are routinely made, instated and enforced by the social group as a whole. Not by any one person. We elect our leaders and set time limits on their terms of office. We Pay police officers and other law enforcement officials to seek out and capture criminals. We have a multitude of devices to assist us daily in our massive social interactions.

Take for example the lowly traffic light. Its silent power is truly a testimony to our ability to govern ourselves in our daily social interactions. Without this simple law enforcement device, I would suggest that your daily commute to and from work would all too often erupt into a striking example of Darwinistic survival of the fittest. But we have them and for the most part obey them. And more or less, depending on where you live, we have rather uneventful drives to and from our destinations on a daily basis. Let us take a brief pause for reflection on what the world would be like without that unsung hero of societal order, the traffic light.

We live in a huge societal group and then within many smaller groups inside that larger one. You are an American. A group. You are a Marylander (substitute your state here). Another group. You are worker in [Insert Your Company Here]. Another group. You are a family member, a part of a group of friends, a member of an organization. All groups and the list of groups you may belong to at any given moment, if not infinite, it is at least rather staggering. Even in a traffic jam you are a member of a group. Albeit not one you're happy to be in.
(I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members. -Groucho Marks)

Each of these groups has its rules and means to enforce them. Often the rules of one, higher, group will supersede the rules of the other. But none the less there are many rules now instated throughout our society and all are enforced in one manner or another by something other than God.

Nor do we find ourselves short on social groups to interact with and offer support, assistance, forgiveness, guidance, education and all the other aspects of human interaction that the Gods once held in their divine grip long ago. In fact for every argument that I have heard for the "Need" of God, I am able to rapidly name a social group who can readily fill that need without divine interference. So what does religion do in our society, our world, if it is no longer truly needed for the purposes once required of it? It becomes a divider.

Religion, and by extension Gods, has become the dividing line between people. "So what? All groups divide people from each other." You might say. And you would be correct but few groups structures operate with the absolute devout power of religion. By its very need, as a provider of law in our early days, the Gods are always correct. More importantly "My God" is always correct. Yours is evil.

Let's look at that statement a bit closer because it deserves broader inspection. It is, or was, important that with so many Gods available to choose from that ones own God was the one truly all powerful and all knowing God. This mentality was required to force the belief that you must follow the rules commanded by God through his vessels. Kings, priests, sages, profits and the like spoke of their Gods as the only "true" Gods. All others were dammed to an eternal hell or other generally lousy fate. This was a must because if your god were only as omnipotent as the one next door what was to prevent you from going over to his side when the tides turned against you?

This mentality prevails today, although many "moderate" religious persons attribute less and less importance to the "all powerfulness" of their Gods. And for them it will be a very short hop to the side of no Gods. But there are others. Many others who still believe. Faith is a powerful weapon. Faith inherently defies logic. So reasoning with the faithful is an effort in futility. No amount of reason will convince a devout follower of any God that their God's rules are wrong.

Taking an easy example. Lets look at the so called Tel-Evangelists. Their followers routinely give away all their money to the point of destitution because their God, aka the Evangelist, said they must give. Even in the face of absolute corruption on the part of the Evangelist they will defy logic and defend his actions. "God said give me money to build an amusement park". And the money flows in. Caught in the act of adultery he does not loose his followers, no they rally together to deny the accusations and give more money to support him in his time of need. Blind Faith is a powerful thing.

I call this an easy example because of the foolishness of the Evangelistic social group. It is often rather more comical than frightening. But lets take a bigger bite and risk alienating a much larger and more dangerous social group. Maybe even the largest of the God groups. Certainly the most powerful. Christians. Notice I did not say Catholics, or Protestants, Unitarians, Baptists or any of the numerous deviations from the main source. God.

The Christian God may be the most interesting of all the Gods man has thus far created. An offshoot of the Jewish concept of "Only One God", a rather novel idea in its day, the Christian God has proliferated throughout the world on a scale unlike any other. It has formed the basis for many of the early ventures in civilization of our small planet. It has caused and, yes, ended many a war. It has been benevolent and malevolent throughout history. And what of it today?

As I see it, and this is all just my view, I'm sure you have your own, Christianity is finding itself with its proverbial back against the wall. Faced with no further use in making laws and increasing competition and opposition, it seeks to enforce its will with dogma of ages past and blind faith. Faced with diminishing power in teaching it turns to the faithful to actively suppress the information that defies its doctrine.

Case in point the many parts of this country, and likely the world, not only turning the pages of history backward but indeed actually ripping the offending pages out of the history books. Noting the recent re-trend towards the teaching of "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" ‡2 as it seems to now be called by its proponents. I say "re-trend" because we have fought this battle before. (1925, Tennessee -v- John Scopes.‡3) And here we are again fighting the backwards ignorance of religion all over again. Worst of all in some places they are winning.

I have heard many Americans saying that the Muslims are a backward people living in the distant past refusing to step forward into the future of global unity. This may be true but many of these very people still hold that their religious beliefs should be adhered to by those who do not share their way of thinking. Think I'm crazy. OK here is another easy example. Why would anyone oppose the desire for two men or two women to marry? There can be no logical reason. Marriage as a concept supersedes religion. It is found in virtually all human societal groups and takes on many, many forms. Most of which do not fit with the Christian view of marriage. But that's an easy one. As a liberal Christian you may say "Sure what do I care if Gays get married?  And we can even let them benefit from the legal and tax benefits of being a married couple."  Hummm, what was that term "Married Couple"? Let's take a bit harder stab at this topic.

Give me one logical, non-religious based reason why bigamy is illegal.

I'm taking all offers and have posed this question to many people already. The fact is that bigamy is in no way logically wrong. Like all choices in life it has its pros and cons but between three or more consenting adults there is no reason, other than Gods law, that they should not be aloud to marry. And more so benefit from the legal aspects of government approved marriage. To date I have had no logical takers on this question. I have however been called everything from a pervert to the Anti-Christ for even posing it.

With a few notable exceptions, such as abortion of an unborn fetus in humans, there are no logical arguments for most of the, religion based, laws of moral conduct that we have instated in our society. Nudity is banned from TV, on the whole, yet rampant murder killing and mayhem is prevalent even in our children's cartoons. (Have you ever watched Pokemon?) A few simple words are forbidden from being spoken but freedom of speech is a motto of the American way.

The video game company, RockStar, came under fire for an "Adult Only", game they made whose story line and gaming action involved mob violence, killing police, mass murder of innocents and so on, all in graphic, blood soaked detail. But the game was not pulled from the shelves in mass until a grandmother discovered the above mentioned game of graphic violence she had bought for her 14 year old grandson, contained a viewable, only through computer hacking, scene of un-explicit sex. (Note: The game states clearly it is not intended for anyone under 18. No legally operated store would sell it to anyone under 18. The game is treated in the same manner as Playboy Magazine, being kept behind the counters and ID required when in doubt.)

This is the effect of a Christian based religion on our morals based laws. Why do we ban the word "Fuck" from TV? The word procreate has the same meaning yet is aloud. We ban it because our religiously based moral code has always said to. In the early days of radio when this and many other words were being banned it was Christianity that led the fight. In today's society the FCC purports that no words are banned and only the context they are used in is regulated. Given the only "contexts" where the word "Fuck" could be sensibly used they have essentially banned it from any use.‡4  Interesting note; I can find no hard stance on the FCC's site regarding violence on TV or radio.

Would it not make more sense in today's world to let the market decide what they want and do not want to hear? There are literally hundreds of stations available and if you do not approve of a particular word being used then simply don't watch the show using it. If there are enough of you who are offended to the point of not watching I assure you the word will not be used. TV stations want ratings and will always go with the majority view of their target audience. But for those of us who would not be offended by a simple word, we have no real option on commercial TV. Your Christian based morals dictate what we can watch. If we want to see a show with profanity we must pay extra for that right. These are your rules and you should abide by them but I should not have to abide by your moral rules simply by default.

These are the "Moral Rules" we are all required to follow but whose rules are they really? I believe they stem from the predominantly Christian run government who was prevalent at the key points in time when the standards were made, and may still be running things today. One might assert that our government is run by the "Will of the People" but in fact it is run by those most vocal and to some extent those with the most money to throw at their cause. From a political standpoint our elected leaders listen to those who support and threaten their position the most. That is to say those with enough passion or money to rally a large number of people to vote for or against them. Inherently those who do not care too much one way or another about something are going to be less inclined to sustain the efforts of someone who has the passion of faith motivating them. This is why time and time again the Christian view is the one carried out by our government.

By all the best estimates I can find, only 33 % of the world population is, in some manner, calling themselves a Christian. There is no reason I have been able to find to suggest that this number is not equally representative of the USA as well. (My numbers come from several Internet sources including government and privately compiled data. The data are truly only educated best guesses based on representative populations and should not be construed as facts. I recommend searching out the available data yourself and drawing your own conclusions.) Assuming this number is accurate then 33 % of our population is dictating the moral values, to some extent, of the other 67 %. Is it not time to update these standards and our societal view of morality in media as a whole? Maybe even change our overall view of what is morally acceptable and what is not in all aspects of life? Question: Sex -v- Violence which do you find more "Morally Objectionable"?

OK I got personal there for a moment but the point, I hope, was made. Although we like to think we live in a world of personal choice and a separation of church and state we do not. These archaic ideals with no logical foundation in modern society are routinely applied to those who do not wish to adhere to them. I dare say the majority of us who are not Christians do not wish to adhere to the beliefs of the Christian Church as applied to what we watch on TV. Certainly logic plays no roll in it. And yet that is still the case. A religion that shunned sexuality and embraced violence (Crusades, witch hunts, and I will even go so far as to say abortion clinic bombings) dictates the moral code of our modern society. And not just what we watch on TV or play on our gaming consoles.

Who you can marry. How many people you can marry. In some states, still, what you can do with the person in bed even after you are married. Yes there are still sodomy laws on the books in some states.‡5  Although I shudder to think how a state would go about enforcing them, so in all practicality, they may be moot. However, it is still an atrocity that they are still in place and a testimony to our Christian roots that they were ever there at all.

I personally am ready for an America where if ones personal decisions cause no person outside of you harm then you can do what you want. An America where each person is truly free to decide what their personal moral values are with no consideration to what Gods they warship if any at all. Where each Americans Religious beliefs remain their own and never manifest themselves in another's life. Truly an America the Free.

One last, very controversial, thought.

Is it such a far leap from Christians banding together to prevent a woman from getting an abortion, even by use of force, to a man strapping a bomb to his chest in the name of his God and walking into a restaurant? Maybe or maybe not and I will explore that question for myself but for now I plant the seed in your mind.

Think for yourself and decide.

 

References:

‡1 Larry Gonick, The Cartoon History of the Universe, 1990.
I highly recommend these books. They give a brief, very entertaining overview of history and a wealth of excellent references to follow up with for greater detail.

‡2 http://www.venganza.org/
This site is both lampooning the "movement" towards "Intelligent Design" as well as advocating taking direct action to contact leaders who are in the position to end "Intelligent design" as a scientific theory. There are some entertaining aspects to it but in the end it fails to follow up on its own assertions and confirm its "facts".

http://www.ksde.org/commiss/bdaddr.html - Kansas State Department of Education
This is one of the main targets of the above "spoof" site. Research into their actual scientific curriculum, however, only slightly supports the venganza.org assertions.
From http://www.ksde.org/topics.html we find the PDF file of the "Science Standards: Draft of August 9, 2005". This draft specifically notes that "Intelligent Design" is not a part of the Kansas educational curriculum, however, in the next paragraph it also states "…these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this [Intelligent Design] scientific disagreement." See, Science Education Standards: Draft 2d - August 9, 2005 Page ii Paragraphs 3, 4 &5.

‡3 For a very intelligent and interesting take on the 1925, Tennessee -v- John Scopes trial. Commonly know as the "Monkey Trials". See: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm There are many takes on this pivotal point in American history, however, so I highly recommend extensive research on the subject. Interesting note: The driving force behind the abolition of teaching evolution and Darwinism was the politician William Jennings Bryan, a democrat. So not all fundamentalists are Republicans.

‡4  http://www.fcc.gov/
Read their guidelines carefully. Wording is everything. Here are some key excerpts.

Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time.
To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:
An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

These are very subjective criteria. Underlining is my emphasis.

‡5  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003. This legal document is rough reading but a good synopsis is available here http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm. Also available is a map showing all of the states that still have the laws on the books. Though good luck enforcing them given the Supreme Courts decision. 

NOTES:

1. The writing "I Don't Really Like My Friends" is an excerpt from My Autobiography, still in progress. It is a philosophical view of early man and the results today. Please read it as simply a social theory about the nature of human social groups not a concrete fact.

2. Statistics relating to the percentage of Christians in the world and the USA are not true facts. These numbers come from many sources including the population statistics from the UK and the United States governments. Also used in these estimates are data compiled from non-governmental sources each with their own methods of data collection and, potentially, agendas. Any data based on extremely large groups, in this case the entire world population, is inherently very inaccurate. Again I stress, the data are truly only educated best guesses based on representative populations and available data and should not be construed as facts. I recommend searching out the available data yourself and drawing your own conclusions.

Please remember to think for yourself and verify supposed facts.

Thank you,
From just another American
~Kid Kaos

Life should be enjoyed by the living not dictated by the dead.
This phrase came to my mind while listening to two highly religious persons arguing about religious doctrine.

I will not add fuel to the fiery wrath of all the religious fanatics out there by naming the religions that these two purport to be allied with but instead we will call them pens and cats.

What struck me so boldly was the shear dogmatic blindness that they both displayed while spouting verbatim the words, as interrupted and translated, of long dead men. These were not people of education debating a current issue of the day in which a possible conclusions or logical assumption could be found. They were simply stating, as if fact, what they had memorized from a book written long ago. A book that had been translated many times over by many people. Each with a definitive outlook on the interpretation of those ancient texts. Each adding and subtracting as they felt fit or as the doctrine of the times or king required.
All the wile, listening, I was thinking to myself "Who were these men to tell me how to live today?" and "What did they know of the times I would be living in?"

The obvious answers were that they were men in search of power and control in their own times. They sought to use this relic of their past to assist in this control. That is not to say it was always for greedy or malicious purposes. If the times they lived in required that an adjustment to the obsolete parts of the center for their religious laws, so be it. Maybe their editing helped to bring order to a particularly unstable time or government. But they could not have known what we, I, would face in our time and should have any hold on my actions or the actions of others around me.

Another thought springs to mind in the midst of this boisterous debate. Why should any man, or woman, have any more say than any other in what God intends for us to do with our lives? Am I to believe that these men had an "inside track", on the thoughts and intentions of God? Of course not. They were no different than you or I. In fact I would speculate that you or I might even be wiser than they, given the higher level of education we have been afforded in our times.

Holding my tongue, I fought the urge to involve myself in their all too open discourse. I reminded myself that anyone who would and could spew forth, with such venomous intent, the exact page, paragraph and line of any 500+ page book is not one to be reasoned with. And here I was listening to two such fanatics. In the end it was, what I would call, "A dead mans draw." Neither party had convinced the other that their ancient editor was the correct one and both left with the indignant rage of one who knew they were right no matter what logic dictated.

Unfortunately what I have come to realize was, that these were no mere fools ranting on religious beliefs, they were both high on the chain of corporate America and their whims did affect the lives of those below. These men who so diligently committed to memory the views on life of long dead authors, had the power to inflict those thoughts on many people.

Maybe even you.

A final thought;
Do we really need any religion any more?

Thank you,
From just another American
~Kid Kaos

Microsoft's Bing is truly looking to end the Internet as a method for average people to express themselves by controlling what we can find to only commercial and commercially viably sites. Do a search for most things on Bing.com and the same search on Google.com and you will find a disturbing disparity between the two results. This raises some questions in my mind.

Who will the internet be by and for in the next few years?
Why do we keep letting corporations take over everything we once held dear?
And most importantly where has American Freedom gone?

Any Google search will return the commercial sites as expected but along with those there will be an ample mix of non commercial sites. Sites made by just some random person, not looking to make a buck or start the latest internet craze. Just an average person passing on some info or maybe a great set of pictures.

Bing on the other hand seems to produce a top 25 or so of a very different nature. Completely commercial sites seem to top the lists. Mixed within are personal sites but only those hosted within the big players like MySpace and such. Very few of the usual personal sites I am used to finding on Google will show up even in the top 100 results in Bing.

What does this all mean? Well this is only my opinion but here it is.

Microsoft is seeing for the first time the potential for real competition coming from Google. With a Mobile phone OS that is far superior to any of its MS or MAC competitors and a new PC OS that, is granted in its infancy, but is none the less making strides towards greatness. Microsoft can or at least should be seeing its monopoly loosing its stronghold..

What about MAC and Linux? Neither has ever been a real concern to Microsoft. Linux is just too open and free (not to mention messy) to ever be of concern and MAC is way too closed and limited to be any real threat. The middle ground of Microsoft is what has kept it high on the ladder for so long. And now Google is climbing that ladder with great strides.

Microsoft's response seems to be to stamp out Google before they become a problem by out advertising the former leader in internet searching. Well that along with some dirty tactics by redirecting Internet Explorers default search engine to Bing. In the end I suspect that America will succumb to apathy and advertising long before they realize they were cheated. But the corporatizing of America is a long and old battle. One we just don't seem up to fighting anymore. "Cheap and Easy" is the new American motto.

The consequences of a corporate controlled internet are rather sad, though. Those of us who just liked to "surf and find" are going to have a harder and harder time just wandering into something fun and useful or at least interesting. Commercial and "professional" sites have much to offer but are not always what we want. Sometimes we just want to find some enthusiast who has taken the time to slap together a site all about "X".

Those are the sites that Bing is pushing out and away. Those are the people that Bing is burring under the carpet. You are the person who in the end looses their little piece of the internet. You are now relegated to buying yours from now on. And yes you do pay for your MySpace page in the form of having to be inundated with all those ads all the time. Not to mention all the censorship that corporate run Internet sites maintain.

One by one we are loosing our individual pieces of the world pie. Local TV stations have all but completely vanished. Corporate record industry long ago crushed the real garage bands. The "Mom and Pop" shop is rapidly being swallowed by the "mega chain" and the entrepreneur is succumbing to the corporate development team. Now we will add the internet vanity site to that long list of lost freedoms as Microsoft bombards us with slick advertisements and reprograms our browser defaults to Bing away.

Maybe its time to stop trying to reach for our piece of the pie and accept that we will have to buy it from one of the corporate giants from now on. Maybe its time to realize that freedom is bought not with lives and sacrifice, as it once was, but rather with advertising dollars and corporate partnerships, in our new America. Maybe freedom no longer has the meaning it once held.

All of us have been giving up our freedom piece by piece throughout our collective lives. I think maybe I will put my fork down for a while and watch the sparkly stick burn.

Thank you and goodnight.
From just another American.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist.
~Kid Kaos

I, as I so often do, found myself in a friendly conversation about Atheism. This time on traditions and whether or not the Atheist could have traditions similar to those which religious people hold. The view being proposed to me was that an Atheist, not having the foundation of religious tradition, was unable to connect with their family and community on the same level as those who followed religious traditions. The example given was that without religion such things as the family get together at Christmas was not possible for the Atheist and therefore something was lost in the Atheists life. I approach these ideas in the same manner I try to approach every such issue. With logic, reason and facts.

Most if not all festivals or holidays that religious people celebrate are derivative of previous religion's celebrations and sometimes celebrations independent of religion.

Mid winter festivals are found in many cultures and almost all agriculturally based cultures have some sort of event at the time when the stores and spirits are about to run low. These celebrations bring the community together at a time when moral has the potential to be low and allows a brief moment of joy. Particularly when the weather has changed in the winter months forcing people to stay indoors more often and ration food a bit more. The effect of the winter celebration is to boost moral, allow for a feast in times when food is potentially running low and generally giving people something to look forward to in the weeks or months prior to the holiday.

Is this the exclusive province of religion? Of course not. Our own Thanksgiving celebrations are not based on religion and Christmas, at least here in the US, is more and more becoming a holiday for all not just Christians. In my Jewish family upbringing we celebrated Christmas complete with a tree and presents and this was and is becoming more and more common. The fact is that a winter holiday regardless of what it is called is a very good thing for everyone. And why not call it Christmas? In the United States we call our winter celebration by many names. Christmas, Chanukah, the holiday season and my least favorite x-mass. More on that later.

And what of my holiday celebrations? Well I celebrate them all when I can. Christmas, Passover, Independence day (one of my favorites), Halloween, Chanukah, Thanksgiving, they are all great reasons (excuses) to get together with friends and family. Eat too much food. Exchange gifts. Just plain have a good time. More so they give us pause to reflect on important social issues that we may not take the time to reflect on in our hurried day to day lives. This is what so many holidays are really about.

Christmas is often referred to as "the time of giving". In my mind this is a very good thing. We, for a short time, enjoy thinking about friends and family in a way that we may not throughout the rest of the year. We take the time, or at least should, to think about what each person would want or need and unselfishly buy that thing for them. Independence day (AKA the 4th of July) we should reflect on the meaning of American freedom. I know I do. We should think about those who fought and died to establish our country and the sacrifices so many have made throughout our short history as a country in order to protect that freedom. Thanksgiving we should reflect on our personal prosperity and the sacrifices made to allow us to come this far.

Halloween although it may not be quite as obvious also serves a purpose in our social lives. Throughout the year we would hardly think it appropriate for our neighbors to stop by randomly and request a treat. Yet on Halloween we encourage our neighbors to come by and send up the children. We hand over various treats to the children and enjoy the moment as we laugh at the fun costumes that adorn them. Neighbors we may not even say "hi" to throughout the year will, for a brief moment, make a connection through their children, even to those of us without children.

The point is that some of these holidays are based on religious traditions others are purely cultural but all serve a larger community purpose. Even for those of us who do not share the religious beliefs that spawned the holiday tradition benefit from the true purpose of these celebrations. I will likely never go to a Christmas Mass at my local church but I will certainly give gifts to friends and family somewhere close to the 24th and 25th of December. I can be an Atheist and enjoy my connection to my social community at the same time.

There is one thought that came to mind throughout this conversation I was having. The Christian gives gifts at Christmas because it is strongly expected of them from a religious standpoint. The Atheist has no such religious obligation and could, if so inclined, decline to participate in the "holiday spirit" of giving. So in some way the Atheist participates in these events not out of obligation to do so but because the tradition of the community overrides the religious basis for the given celebration. This to me proves that the religious aspects of the various holidays in not the deciding factor. With or without Christianity we would very likely still have a mid winter celebration. It may not be on the 24th of December exactly but it would likely be very close to that date.

One last final thought to express. I mentioned that the term x-mass, or any of the other variations in spelling, is my least favorite name for the mid winter holidays. I think it is an atrocity to change the name of something for the sake of political correctness. Please don't do this. Christmas is the name we have given to the celebration on December 24th and 25th. If you don't want to call it Christmas for political or ideological reasons then just don't refer to the December 24th event and instead refer to a general mid winter holiday of no specific date or on another date. Start your own if you like. Its not about the exact day its about the social community you belong to and the connection to it that should be embraced. I for one have no objection to the name Christmas and will continue to celebrate it on or about the 24th. I say on or about because in an effort to allow those at work with children or deep religious beliefs to spend the exact days with their families, I volunteer to work on the 24th and 25th every year. As I said the exact day is not important to me only the connection to friends and family. I can do that on the 26th just as well.

We as Atheists should realize that we are not separate from our communities even when those who we live in it with see us as outsiders. Just as I ask that no one pushes their religious beliefs on me I to can not, in good conscience, push mine (or lack there of) on them. And whenever I can I attempt to accommodate their beliefs. Maybe through this action they too may eventually learn to accommodate mine and stop inflicting their default religious beliefs on me. As the holidays roll up around the corner please remember that Atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and all the other possibilities live here, more or less, in peace. Lets try to respect each other and stop stepping on each others toes.

At least until the snow melts.

Your friendly neighborhood Atheist.
~Kid Kaos

Big Tobacco is such an easy target. Yet the real problem is in the hands of the multitude of worthless parents. Turn yourself towards the mirror. Are you holding a sparkling stick?<< MORE >>