Masoni Raves About

The Next Phase — The Masoni Review

2011-02-25T15:08:00.000-04:00

To those long-time readers and followers of Masoni Raves About, you might be interested in the new project I've begun working on. While what you’ll see is something of a work in progress, the site is actually some four years in the making. In March 2007, I began this blog, Masoni Raves About, which became an outlet for my opinions on everything from the latest political issues to the loudest of summer blockbusters. In 2010 I shut down this venture, leaving behind some 200,000 lifetime visitors and a few dozen regular readers.

The Masoni Review is the spiritual successor to this blog, seeing as it will still offer many of my and others’ opinions on political news and entertainment. However, this time around the tone will be far less adversarial, focusing instead on the generation of interesting and relevant content. With the help of a few editors we’re in the process of finding, we hope to offer the best sort of articles on technology, entertainment, and current events. I’ve got some great things planned for this little corner of the web, and I can’t wait to show them to you.

If you’re interested in following our progress as we steadily work towards launch, you can Like our page on Facebook to receive the latest information. You can register on the new site to leave comments and Like or tweet various posts with your relevant social networking accounts. Thanks for your interest and feel free to leave feedback, comments or questions for us. Thanks, M.

Navigate to The Masoni Review

Waxing Indignant

2010-01-24T16:01:00.002-04:00

I think I may be done blogging. My longstanding political and philosophical blog, Masoni Raves About, represents a time in my life when I was frustrated, iconoclastic, and ideologically alone, and I needed an outlet to express my opinions in a public forum. While my opinions haven't changed all that dramatically, my childlike need to broadcast them has.

The blog as it stands is but a shrine to my now-waning idealism, my naive conviction that the elements of our society I perceived as evil or destructive could be changed. I now understand that power has been wrested from the idealists - from the ideals themselves - and rather lies now in the hands of the manipulative and unwavering powers who would rather disseminate and nurture hateful ignorance than correct it.

I created my blog as a teenager at odds with his circumstances, hoping that through reasoned explanation his mind might be better understood by others. I now understand that no amount of logical argument will clear up the things adverse to my worldview, and no matter where I go I'll be surrounded by forces who hate at least something I stand for. In short, I'm yet passionate about my ideals, but I suffer no delusions of realizing them - this country has robbed me of that. So rather than exhausting my limited resources and time trying to change the warped minds of racists, bigots, and homophobes, I'm instead going to carve a niche for myself in the society they've constructed.

I have no power to change what I cannot tolerate, and that will remain true no matter how much of myself I pour into a child's weblog. Wilhelm Stekel reminds us that “the mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.” I suppose this means I've come of age.

Top 5 Albums of 2009

2009-12-31T17:19:00.003-04:00

Yes, I could have compiled a list of 10 or even 25 albums, but laziness and thrift convinced me otherwise. I also could have made a list of the best albums of the decade, a project I may yet tackle, but the list would be 50 or maybe 100 albums long at its shortest. Included should be a short sample of each track I identify as a "standout favorite," courtesy of the recently-acquired-by-Apple Lala.com. So, without further ado, of all the albums and breakout artists the world became familiar with in 2009, here are my 5 favorites.

5. Manners, Passion Pit
electronic | Frenchkiss Records

This electronic group from Massachusetts wowed ears worldwide with their first album, following a promising EP from last September, which has fast been embraced by not only electronic music aficionados but also the mainstream pop culture elements, everything from radio stations to commercials for the Palm Pixi. Standout tracks include "Sleepyhead," "Make Light," "Little Secrets" and "Moth's Wings."

4. Blood Bank - EP / For Emma, Forever Ago, Bon Iver
indie folk | Jagjaguwar

Yes, listing both a band's EP and its subsequent album as number four might very well be construed as cheating, but for Bon Iver I'll make an exception. Producing some of the most soulful acoustic music around today, these folk-hipsters introduced us to one of the best albums and sounds of the year. Favorite tracks from either disc include the moving a cappella "Woods" and "Skinny Love."

3. Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix, Phoenix
indie synth pop | V2 Records

These French rockers have long been familiar within indie music crowds, but their 2009 masterwork has transcended these barriers and become known as some of the most recognizable and fun music around today. While the album seems flawless from song to song, my favorites include "1901," "Lisztomania," and "Fences." Try listening to these guys in the car - you won't regret it.

2. Merriweather Post Pavilion, Animal Collective
psychedelic pop | Domino

As for this dense and near-perfect record, it deserves the countless accolades it has been accorded over the past few months. Topping most top albums lists I came across, this album is simultaneously reminiscent of the Beach Boys and likely to induce a psychedelic stupor. There really aren't many stronger songs than the others, every one seems so perfectly suited to its track position on the album and its placement amongst the other masterpieces. That being said, the standout favorite - the flagship track, if you will, - is doubtless "My Girls."

1. Veckatimest, Grizzly Bear
psych folk | Warp

A perfect album from a group likely to become my favorite over even longstanding champion Radiohead, Veckatimest is without question my favorite album of the year, if not among my favorites of all time. No album since Kid A has so effortlessly matched meaningful and understated lyrics with powerful music reflecting a profound instrumental prowess, and this record's intense fine-tuning is best appreciated on a set of speakers which will do its interwoven melodies justice. I cannot express the depth and complexity of each individual track without overstating this record's perfection except by saying this: if you listen to any of the bands or albums listed here, make it Grizzly Bear. Like Animal Collective's opus, the tracks on this album are each too wonderful to order, but my personal favorites are "Southern Point," "Two Weeks," "Ready, Able," and "While You Wait For The Others." You can click here to play the album through iLike.com, since Lala.com regrettably doesn't offer free listening to Veckatimest. M.

Response by Masoni on "God, Take 7"

2009-12-20T17:14:00.001-04:00

Following Hollanes' response to my original God, Take 7, here is my own reply to his refutations. Basically, I'm continuing the flow of debate here. Italicized are his replies to my original arguments. Enjoy, and feel free to offer your own opinions on the matter in the comments of either my or Hollanes' post.

The question of evil is a good one to ask. Personally, I think that evil exists because without evil, what makes the good, good? If you don’t have anything to contrast to then you’re just left with a gray area of moral actions that is neither good nor bad. Without things like disease, how do we appreciate good health? Without poverty, how do we appreciate wealth? Evil, and anything that is unfortunate, exists so that the good parts in life are just that much better.

...[h]e create[d] evil so you can recognize what it good. Without evil, what is good? Do good things become great things and not as good things become the new evil? There has to be something to contrast.

First, I'd like to point out something like a perhaps-unintentional pun which seems to have arisen in your first sentence: "...evil is a good one to ask." I've heard this argument before, in many different forms, that evil is a necessary component to the human understanding of good. Without appreciating the terrible parts of life, the cancer and AIDS and starvation, you wonder how humans could appreciate the good. This argument is a dangerous one to present for a great many reasons, foremost among them your unintentional assertion that "good" and "evil" are relative terms - good as merely the absence of good. Why is this dangerous, you ask? It seems perfectly reasonable that god could have created "good" things and evil sprang up as a direct result of that, and therefore god is not directly responsible for the creation of evil on Earth. It is essential, however, to understand that good and evil are two sides to the same coin, and that in a theocentric worldview god would be directly responsible for everything, up to and including the indirect fruits of other inventions. God himself is solely responsible for this sort of logical dichotomy in the first place, and - since god is infinitely powerful and created absolutely everything, - could have easily created a world where neither good nor evil necessitates the other. To say that god accidentally or indirectly created evil by creating good would place limits on god's infinite power and infinite foresight.

I’m actually unsure of how to word my argument; it’s awkward going from thought to actually explaining it on paper for this one. I’d have to say that God created free will as a gift. I know that sounds a little cheesy, but think about it. You have the freedom to do whatever you want, whether it is against God or not. Maybe God gave free will with the intent that people would recognize that he has granted them that privilege and to do anything other than good would just be a slap in the face. Maybe it has something to do with the next point that you bring up, predetermined fate.

This and your next refutation are very similar in nature, and so I will respond to each simultaneously rather than in kind.

I think the fact that God has granted us free will gives people the ability to choose their own fate. The best way that I can describe this is a train track. I can choose whatever train track I want, I have been given the free will to do so, but when I choose that track and I go down it, that fate is sealed. I can choose to go down the track of killing, but that would lead to other things and ultimately, my not so pleasant after life. But lets say that I choose a track that isn’t as extreme but is pretty bad, one like dealing drugs. I can choose to go down that track that leads to something bad, but at the same time I can turn that around. I can choose to get off at the nearest stop and take a different track to the fate that I so choose. My high school band teacher always told us that you can always be used as a bad example and I completely agree. Maybe you screwed up, but now the entire band (or community) knows what not to do. This would also go back to why God has created evil...

Free will as a "gift" is another common argument, a concept within which many Christians seem to find great deal of both solace and comfort. First, I'll refute the assertion of free will as "gift," then explain why free will is completely nonexistent and therefore beyond worrying about. God giving humans free will as a gift is like a parent giving his child a live grenade for Christmas. Yeah, it could be kind of cool to show your little schoolmate friends the weapon of war your super-cool parents trusted you with, but in the end it's a completely irresponsible and irrational gift-giving decision which represents either wanton disregard or malignant intentions regarding their child's wellbeing and safety. Free will seems a terribly dangerous gift because it allows god's beloved subjects to choose into eternal damnation. Here, have free will. It's a gift you can do whatever you want with, including doom the fate of your everliving soul to an eternity of suffering. You're welcome! What kind of all-loving and all-forgiving god would give humans the utilities to defy him and thereby lock themselves into this miserable fate? Why would a parent give their child a hand grenade which could kill them at any moment? Plain and simple, they wouldn't, and neither would the Christian god.

Secondly, I didn't actually need to pen any of that because free will cannot, and does not, exist (of course I believe that humans have the faculties to determine their own courses of action, but here I'm speaking of "free will" as a construct of Christian theology). You offer the "train track" analogy, a classic of Christian apologetics, as a method to reconcile two mutually-exclusive yet commonly-accepted theological concepts, free will and god's infinite knowledge of everything, including events in the future. Before you choose the "train track"course of your life, god knows which one you're going to pick. He knows millennia ahead of time which specific tracks you're going to be presented with. And, as for changing train tracks later in life, please understand that this isn't altering your chosen train track - chosen for you by god, not by you at the beginning of your decision-making life, - it is instead merely continuing your train track over which you have no control. If you reform your life after decades of drug dealing, you're not changing god's expectations for your life, you're meeting them. God knew those changes would come, because such events were predetermined by god's all-knowledge of the future. In short, you can either have an all-loving god who "gifts" humans free will, or you can have an all-knowing one who can determine your future life for you. You cannot have both.

Good point, but I have to ask; if everything has just existed forever, how did it get here? Yes, I know about the Big Bang, but who says that God’s hand couldn’t have pushed that along? Also if the Big Bang has put everything we know into place, what created what was before the Big Bang took place? I guess I’m just confused because I can’t see how something can just pop into existence without some greater being creating it. I can look at the computer that I’m typing this and know for a fact that what I’m using didn’t just come into existence, it was made, which brings up the next point that you made.

As for your first sentence, you answer your own question: it didn't "get there," it's always existed. If you take issue with some perceived logical inconsistency in that explanation, I'd point out that I could pose your selfsame question about god. Nothing "pop[ped] into existence" without a god, matter and energy have always existed. The Big Bang eventually leads to an inevitable Big Crunch, when the dark energy forcing the universe to expand either runs out or dissipates significantly and the matter of the entire universe collapses back in on itself over billions of years back to a hyper-dense ball of matter and potential energy about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. This tiny mass, comprised of all the matter and energy in existence, will eventually become unstable and again explode into another universe in another Big Bang, a universe whose physical laws and properties might be completely different or similar to our own in inconceivable ways. It is unknowable how many times this cycle has happened before or how many times it will happen again after our current universe ends.

Going back to what I was saying before, I can look at my computer, my TV, a building, and know that it didn’t just pop up out of nowhere. I don’t need to see my computer being made to know that it was I don’t need to meet the maker of my computer to know that someone made it. God gives us signs through miracles big and small; you don’t have to physically see him to know he’s there. God isn’t going to email you, he won’t call you on the phone, and he’s not going to stop by to chat over a cup of coffee. And really, the fact that God doesn’t care if you discover him goes back to free will. I also don’t understand why you would go to say that he is an “omnipotent trickster”. He has made something (life) that no one can seem to grasp the meaning to. People have been trying to figure out the meaning of life for a very long time. I don’t understand quantum physics but am I going to just say that it’s far too complicated for most people to understand and that Einstein was just some “omnipotent trickster” looking to fool us all?

Yes, you can observe manmade physical objects and understand that they were either crafted or manufactured by humans. You can observe a painting and guess at a painter, et cetera - another favorite argument of Christian theologians for centuries. I would argue that you can guess that each painting has a painter and each sentence an author because such relationships are part of your experience and frame of reference. As for the universe, there are no other known or observable universes you can compare ours to - there is no frame of reference. Therefore, it could very well be that the universe is wholly unlike any painting in that it required no creator and has always existed.

As for god stopping by for a cup of coffee, I understand this pretty well. My only point with that particular argument in my original post was that it's unreasonable for him to expect people like myself, whom he himself is responsible for creating and whom he knows everything about, to accept his existence on faith rather than evidence. I don't accept anything on faith, why would I make an exception for god? Additionally, your ignorance regarding quantum physics is completely irrelevant to the argument you're trying to make, since quantum physics is possible to be understood in human terms and god is not. A better example would be that you are unable to understand magic but you don't think J.K. Rowling an "omnipotent trickster," since both magic and god are outside the realm of human comprehension - and I would argue that this is because neither exists.

The only thing that truly bothered me was your ignorance to capitalize the word “god”. While I don’t believe in the god Zeus, I still capitalize his name “Zeus,” I don’t capitalize god in that sense because that isn’t his name. I know for a fact that you know this and it is offensive to see you ignore it.

Yes, I understand that "god" is considered the proper name of the Christian god, but - as you've doubtless noticed over the course of this post, - I refuse to capitalize it. "God" is not a name, it is a classification, and to blur its definition as such is to force a belief down my throat. This decision is not intended to be offensive, and I apologize if I've frustrated you again, but it's instead a failure to subscribe to the subversive syntax Christian hegemony have forced upon the English language. In naming their chosen deity simply "god," the traditional neutral term for a supernatural being, they have forced those discussing Christian theology to accept their god as the only, or at least best, deity around. If I called Masoni Raves About "Blog," and forced everyone else to capitalize it as such, I would be forcing a form of respect out of people who have no respect for my blog whatsoever, which is hegemonic and unfair. Furthermore, the actual name for the Christian deity is "Yahweh," which is actually a proper name. I mean no disrespect to Christians who decide to capitalize his name and all his modifiers (His, Him, et cetera), but rather have personally decided not to submit myself to a Christianization of language.

I look forward to your thoughts. M.

Walt Whitman and the American Identity

2009-12-20T15:38:00.003-04:00

Poetry is transformative, although usually intended on merely an individual level, altering each reader’s personally-held perspectives and world-view. Whitman’s “Song of Myself,” featured in his oft-recast anthology of poems Leaves of Grass, was aimed not at any singular reader but rather at American society and culture as a whole, hoping to reconcile the countless disagreements then dividing the nation and thereby prevent or curb the inevitable onset of the American Civil War. Such high aspirations for one’s work are traditionally not uncommon amongst poets, especially poets of Whitman’s stature, but I would argue that none before or since were quite as successful or memorable as “Song of Myself.” While its value may not have been fully appreciated at the time of its first publication, “Song of Myself” represents a turning point in both the collective and personal American identities, inspiring a new and expansive era of individualism which, to this day, differentiates the United States and its constituent cultures from every other society in the world.

Whitman’s is a song involving a transcendentalist glorification of self, a spiritual sentiment tied intrinsically to his undying fascination with the subtleties of the natural world. While, for many modern Americans, this proto-environmentalism might seem something of a polarizing issue, the transcendental themes in Whitman’s work might be relatable to those same particular readers, as spirituality, too, has long been an important element in qualifying the American identity. The United States is among the most Christian country on the planet - by percentages and numbers, - and this somewhat-cursory note of an emphasis on spirituality infused with an individualist work ethic is only the beginning of the shared focuses of Whitman’s poetry and the American psyche.

At first glance, the poem’s self-centeredness and exuberant self-praise might seem somewhat conceited, as readers would be unaccustomed to reading epic poems glorifying exclusively the merits, imagined or actual, of their respective author. First, it should be understood that Whitman throughout “Song of Myself” adopts a literary persona which encapsulates the spirits of not only himself but also those of the collective American people, thereby making the narrator’s self-referential claims adaptable to any reader and to no readers in particular. In a poem aimed at reevaluating American values and restructuring the American identity, this decision was indeed a wise one. And yet, these lines can still be interpreted as directly referring to Walt Whitman himself without losing any of their intrinsic meaning. Whitman could be prototypical of the American populace, representing them and yet considering himself entirely separate from them. In this instance and interpretation of the poem, Whitman as both subject and narrator remains entirely relatable to readers, seeing as he would still be intended to represent the average American thinking man.

How appropriate is this approximation of the quintessential American identity as one obsessed with self? One could argue that self-centeredness - here not necessarily implying selfishness - is a foundational element in not only our democratic system of governance but also in our traditionally-capitalistic economic arrangement, each of these focusing almost entirely on personal influence and individual glory. Does the executive branch not glorify a single person? Is every vote not said to count? In our multinational free-market capitalism, are not both the chief executives and the low-level manufacturing laborers honored for the respective individual efforts? Our country is, and always has been, one focused exclusively upon individual successes and glory, creating something like a dog-eat-dog arena in nearly every aspect of American daily life and culture.

“I am an acme of things accomplish'd, and I an encloser of things to be,” claims Whitman in line 1148 of his work. In very much the same vein, the exaggerated achievements of the particularly driven individuals are always more fixated upon by the imaginations of typical modern Americans than the triumphs of a dedicated team of researchers: the unrivaled media attention devoted to antics of the super-rich and famous, the reverence and respect accorded to businessmen who do well for themselves and personally save a failing mega-corporation (Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, Inc., springs to mind), and our candidate-centric political system are all testament to this universally-held and uniquely American sentiment. Consider, for a moment, sport: are not American sports focused on individual statistics and achievements, like a football team’s star wide receiver making a winning touchdown catch, while the rest of the world’s games are occupied with concerted team efforts and cooperation? While these elements are doubtless essential components of American football, baseball, basketball, and others, this would be difficult to glean from the highlight segments on sports network television. We Americans subscribe to a society famous for being psychologically individualist when compared to the more collectivist cultures of Europe and Asia, and that cultural meme is doubtless an integral part of Whitman’s poem.

“Song of Myself” represents the poetic summation of everything that subscription to our uniquely American culture, which can be simply understood through the lens of individualism. This ongoing trend, predicted - if not inspired - by Whitman’s historically and culturally significant poem, is reflected in nearly every aspect of our contemporary society, from our chosen system of governance to our capitalistic schemas and propensity to glorify - or, perhaps more apt a label, worship - wealth and success. One can only hope that a reemergence of the themes from Whitman’s poem, so timely and appropriate in the years leading up to the American Civil War, would have better luck assuaging the political disagreements which currently divide us.

---------
This is the 300th post in the history of Masoni Raves About. For the celebratory entry, follow this link and scroll down to the near bottom. Thanks for your continued readership and support.

On Living Deliberately and Remembering Not to Talk About It

2009-12-20T15:32:00.000-04:00

A Study of Thoreau through the Lens of Palahniuk

“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.”

-- Henry David Thoreau, Walden (78)

What is it to truly live? This fundamental question has been raised countless times through the generations, and never more poignantly and influentially so as in this Thoreau quote concerning his famous exodus to Walden pond. His influence is felt throughout even modern literature and the arts, in such unlikely of places as contemporary author Chuck Palahniuk’s 1999 masterpiece and bestseller Fight Club. Its message, inherited from Thoreau and others, is applicable to the numberless multitudes who seem to pass through life, caring only for that which might advance them to the next stage of cultural development, engaging themselves fully only in acquiring those countless ephemeral pleasures readily available in our world capitalism. Can this even be called living, both Thoreau and Palahniuk ask, the mundanities of everyday existence punctuated by hedonistic blowouts come weekend nights? The message both authors impart is that there is so much more to life than culture would lead us to believe. The human spirit is not confined by societal constructions like careers and educations, not limited by the imaginations of the old and unadventurous men in control. As Palahniuk so bluntly yet eloquently puts it in Fight Club, “You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis.” The fact that millions, rather, billions of talented, unique, and interesting human beings choose to live their lives confined by these invisible cultural barriers is a tragic prospect, and that’s exactly the lifestyle Thoreau was railing against with this quote. In order to truly live, he would argue, it must be on your own terms - and ideally separate from external influence. The crux of Henry David’s entire worldview is epitomized in this particularly quote - wholly compatible with and perhaps easier understood through the lens of modern the equivalent Fight Club - is that people should “live deliberately,” carving their own paths separate from societal influence and take note of what they truly value in life.

From this summation, Thoreau would seem the type to offer an elaborate essay when presented with a straightforward true-or-false question. This [admittedly] childlike dichotomy misrepresents the sort of nonconformity Thoreau here espouses, which determines the course of one’s entire life, alters the very lifestyle within which one chooses to spend his meager century on Earth. The urgency of Thoreau’s implicit call to action is universally and timelessly understood: none of us, without exception, will be here forever. “On a long enough timeline,” explains Palahniuk, “the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” With such limited time and so much yet to accomplish, we humans must not fall into a routine of mediocrity and living by another’s standards. According to this worldview, the act of falling into a predestined and assigned societal role is among the greatest disservices of man to himself. “This is your life, and it’s ending one minute at a time,” offers Palahniuk in one of his most famous and memorable lines, urging the reader to take charge of his existence while there’s still time.

Fundamentally, “living deliberately” entails deriving meaning from everyday life. To truly appreciate and take stock of what we consider valuable, regardless of whatever social stigmas are attached - watching a sunset, stargazing, or observing an ant colony at work. Noticing these “insignificancies” and considering them worth a mention, while the rest of humankind obsesses needlessly over class and gender and sport, is an important part of reevaluating - quite literally - your lifestyle and priorities. Finding meaning in a seemingly absurd universe is seldom easy, however, as evidenced by a key turning point in the plot of Fight Club. Anti-hero and eventual antagonist Tyler Durden intentionally totals a car with several passengers riding along, and upon emerging from the wreckage exclaims, “God damn! We just had a near-life experience, fellas.”

In the world of personal computers, those who strain every ounce of capability and productivity from their machines are called “power users,” focused on getting the most from their computing experiences. These end users boast more effective and fruitful encounters with technology, and tend to enjoy increased longevity in the machines they care for so dearly. In very much the same way, I interpret Thoreau’s quote as encouraging the audience to wring out every ounce of beauty, originality, creativity and interest out of everyday life, resulting in a happier, more eventful, and altogether more satisfying experience in their lives. For me, this is exactly the point that both Thoreau and Palahniuk alike are trying to get across: just as there is so much more to each computer than simple commonplace applications, life is infinitely more interesting and expansive than the simple, day-to-day experiences that most people settle for at the bequest of societal pressures.

Those who appreciate and relate to Thoreau’s message, history’s so-called “power users” of life, have preserved his idealogical call to arms over the generations so that we modern readers, and eventually we moviegoers, could grasp Chuck Palahniuk’s interpretation of similar ideals in a contemporary context. For many, both the various works of Henry David Thoreau and Palahniuk’s Fight Club have proven influential, thought-provoking, and - in many cases - life-changing literary experiences, leading to readers breaking new metaphysical ground in their own lives. While conformity plagued the world as Thoreau in his time perceived it, it would appear that his suggestion to “live deliberately” has provided the antidote, encouraging those listening to squeeze every last drop of experience out of every moment of their lives.

Hollanes on "God, Take 7"

2009-12-08T15:26:00.002-04:00

Masoni posted this awhile ago and this topic came up when having a debate about almost anything you can debate. Masoni and I have debates on a regular basis about topics such as the one below and remain good friends. We recognize that we don't have the same beliefs at all and we enjoy to poke and prod one another about them. I invite anyone to join in on the debate and have some fun with it.

Firstly, there is the question of evil. Suppose there is an all-loving, all-benevolent god hiding up there somewhere - and then try to explain the existence of evil, disease, natural disasters. Pangloss would argue that this is the best possible world god could have created, but that limits god's ability - remember, he's supposed to be omnipotent, also. So if god could have made a perfect world, where everyone is happy and there is no suffering (which is entirely possible if there is, in fact, an omnipotent god), and if he would have wanted to create said world and provide humanity with eternal joy (which, if he's all-loving and all-benevolent, he would have wanted to), then he would have. God, if he existed as Christians understand him, would have made a perfect world. But we don't have a perfect world, and therefore either god does not exist as Christians understand him (this is to say he either isn't all-loving, all benevolent, or omnipotent), or that said god didn't create the world (which is to say he's not our creator). Or, of course, god does not exist at all in any form. Whatever way you slice it, the Christian version of god is out.

The question of evil is a good one to ask. Personally, I think that evil exists because without evil, what makes the good, good? If you don’t have anything to contrast to then you’re just left with a gray area of moral actions that is neither good nor bad. Without things like disease, how do we appreciate good health? Without poverty, how do we appreciate wealth? Evil, and anything that is unfortunate, exists so that the good parts in life are just that much better.

Second, there is the question of free will. If this god is all-loving and all-forgiving, why would he allow the humans whom he loves so very much to choose into evil? And, of course, why would he make such an action punishable by eternal suffering in hell? If he loves us so much, and is willing to forgive even our worst grievances, why would he even create hell as an alternative in the first place? Take my case for example. If god loves me so much, he would come down from heaven and stop me from being an atheist and writing this post right now. He'd try to save me from disbelieving in him and save me from dooming myself to eternal suffering. But he hasn't, which means one of two things: either god doesn't love us, and isn't all forgiving - maybe he's even a vengeful and evil god; or he doesn't exist at all.

I’m actually unsure of how to word my argument; it’s awkward going from thought to actually explaining it on paper for this one. I’d have to say that God created free will as a gift. I know that sounds a little cheesy, but think about it. You have the freedom to do whatever you want, whether it is against God or not. Maybe God gave free will with the intent that people would recognize that he has granted them that privilege and to do anything other than good would just be a slap in the face. Maybe it has something to do with the next point that you bring up, predetermined fate.

Third, there is the question of free will versus predetermined fate. If god is truly omnipotent, he would have knowledge of the future. If he has knowledge of the future, then he knows what actions and decisions humans are going to make in the future. And, if he knows our future decisions, we cannot have free will to make our own decisions because they've already been made for us. Therefore, there are a few options: either god does not know the future, in which case he is not omnipotent; god does exist and does know the future, in which case he would have lied to us about free will and therefore is something of a trickster, and we have no faculty to make our own decisions; or god does not exist at all. The third option there is the most likely.

I think the fact that God has granted us free will gives people the ability to choose their own fate. The best way that I can describe this is a train track. I can choose whatever train track I want, I have been given the free will to do so, but when I choose that track and I go down it, that fate is sealed. I can choose to go down the track of killing, but that would lead to other things and ultimately, my not so pleasant after life. But lets say that I choose a track that isn’t as extreme but is pretty bad, one like dealing drugs. I can choose to go down that track that leads to something bad, but at the same time I can turn that around. I can choose to get off at the nearest stop and take a different track to the fate that I so choose. My high school band teacher always told us that you can always be used as a bad example and I completely agree. Maybe you screwed up, but now the entire band (or community) knows what not to do. This would also go back to why God has created evil. He creates evil so you can recognize what it good. Without evil, what is good? Do good things become great things and not as good things become the new evil? There has to be something to contrast.

Fourth is the question of necessity. Theists love to taut their "something from nothing" or "ex nihilo" idea, which is that god created the matter of the universe from nothingness. Theists like Aquinas exclaim that the universe must have had an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, an unshook shaker, who got things going in the beginning. They argue that everything that exist has a creator, and many atheists make the mistake of accepting that as a premise. However, nobody on Earth believes that everything in existence has a creator - especially not theists. The uncaused cause argument collapses because it essentially says, "Because everything has a creator, therefore there is something that does not have a creator - and that could only be god." The conclusion violates the first premise! Therefore, we have a couple options: either there is an impossible uncaused cause, which - if I may mention - is impossible; the universe came from nothing, and came into being all by itself (and don't let theists tell you this is impossible, although it does sort of lend itself to pantheism); or god doesn't exist and the universe came into being by some means that science doesn't understand quite yet. I believe the third option, because it is most likely that the universe was spawned by some reaction of the fundamental elementary particles science already understands and can quantify than by some giant benevolent fairy in the sky.

Good point, but I have to ask; if everything has just existed forever, how did it get here? Yes, I know about the Big Bang, but who says that God’s hand couldn’t have pushed that along? Also if the Big Bang has put everything we know into place, what created what was before the Big Bang took place? I guess I’m just confused because I can’t see how something can just pop into existence without some greater being creating it. I can look at the computer that I’m typing this and know for a fact that what I’m using didn’t just come into existence, it was made, which brings up the next point that you made.

Fifth, and last, is the question of contact. I sort of touched on this one in point 2, but it's worthy of elaboration. If god exists, and if he wants what's best for humanity, why wouldn't he make himself known? Why would he leave humanity in the dark in some cosmic puzzle or mystery game aimed at gleaning the truth of his existence? If god existed, he'd tell somebody in some form other than a 2,000-year-old manuscript or suspicious visions to devout Christians. If you're there, god, give us a sign! It's ridiculous for god to expect humanity to discover him without any proof, evidence, or reasonable guidance - and, if he's omniscient, he knows that. So, there are a few options on the table here: either god is not omnipotent and therefore cannot send down a sign in modern times, which would mean he doesn't exist as most humans understand him; he's a deistic god, who doesn't care about the lot of humanity, and doesn't care if people don't discover him and doom themselves to hell - and therefore doesn't exist as Christians understand him; or he wants life to be a cosmic puzzle, in which case we have an omnipotent trickster again; or he doesn't exist at all.

Going back to what I was saying before, I can look at my computer, my TV, a building, and know that it didn’t just pop up out of nowhere. I don’t need to see my computer being made to know that it was I don’t need to meet the maker of my computer to know that someone made it. God gives us signs through miracles big and small; you don’t have to physically see him to know he’s there. God isn’t going to email you, he won’t call you on the phone, and he’s not going to stop by to chat over a cup of coffee. And really, the fact that God doesn’t care if you discover him goes back to free will. I also don’t understand why you would go to say that he is an “omnipotent trickster”. He has made something (life) that no one can seem to grasp the meaning to. People have been trying to figure out the meaning of life for a very long time. I don’t understand quantum physics but am I going to just say that it’s far too complicated for most people to understand and that Einstein was just some “omnipotent trickster” looking to fool us all?

The only thing that truly bothered me was your ignorance to capitalize the word “god”. While I don’t believe in the god Zeus, I still capitalize his name “Zeus,” I don’t capitalize god in that sense because that isn’t his name. I know for a fact that you know this and it is offensive to see you ignore it. H.

The Fat Tax, Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love My Diet

2009-12-08T14:59:00.002-04:00

America is notorious for being one of the fattest countries in the world. News reports are littered with articles and stories about the increased rate of obesity in adults and children. Some people blame the changes in typical Americans’ lifestyles, saying that people don’t have enough time to exercise or fix healthy meals with all the time spent at work. Others say that the combination of their lack of exercise and the introduction of video games have caused this. Whatever the cause, Americans are obese and lawmakers are trying to do something about the epidemic. A recent proposal from the New York City health commissioner Thomas Farley and Arkansas surgeon general Joseph W. Thompson is to add a one cent tax per ounce on soda. Does the government have the right to tell me what to eat or drink through taxes? I drink what most would consider a lot of soda, yet I manage to stay in shape and avoid obesity. Through an excise tax on soda, the government would be exercising a power that the constitution doesn’t provide and placing an unnecessary tax on Americans.

According to John Sicher, the one-cent tax that would be placed on soda would increase the current price by up to fifty percent (Neuman). With the economy in the weak state that it is, Americans don’t need another tax and a product most Americans drink almost every day. A bottle of Coke in a vending machine tends to be a dollar, but with the excise tax in place the price could increase to as much as $1.50. Not only that, but it’s estimated that the tax would raise up to $14.9 billion dollars in its first year (Neuman). The increase in price would cause a decrease in consumption and possibly weight loss. This would of course only happen if people slowed their consumption of soda due to the tax and not for health reasons.

Personal health and healthcare are two of the biggest issues in the news today. The universal health care proposal currently making its way through Congress would cost an estimated $1.5 trillion over the next decade (Alternative Press). While a lot of people misunderstand the bill as creating a “free” alternative of healthcare, it really isn’t. Some believe that the tax on soda would help to fund the healthcare bill that would cause an extensive financial burden on the country (Fox News). The money has to come from somewhere!

In addition to its possible ineffectiveness, the government doesn’t have any right to tell me what I can and cannot eat. In essence, the proposed tax on soda would be primarily funding another government program. What the government is actually doing is indirectly telling people what they should and shouldn’t eat or drink through a financial tax. It’s essentially a tax for being a fat person, or for having the eating behaviors of one. This would cause a huge increase in the size of the government and their interaction in people’s everyday lives.

The proposal of this tax has caused the creation of a website called “Americans Against Food Taxes,” whose members propose that, rather than taxing food to help prevent obesity, the government set restrictions to what can be sold in schools to children and extensively educate people on the importance of healthy eating. Their belief is that people won’t learn from a tax, and that education on the matter is the only way to prevent obesity.

This tax wouldn’t just impact the lives of everyday people, but also the earnings of major soda companies in America. Muhtar Kent, CEO of Coca Cola, states that Coke wasn’t what made Americans fat but that lack of exercise has caused the country’s obesity epidemic. The fattest states in the country, West Virginia and Arkansas, already have the tax in place, and it isn’t doing much good for them. Not only that, but if the soda companies’ profits are adversely affected by the tax, which they would be more likely than not, some people are going to become unemployed in an industry that employs more than 220,000 people in the United States alone (Kent).

Look at how the video game industry is revamping games for physical human interaction, and I don’t mean just thumbs. The Nintendo Wii has been available for years now, and Nintendo has released games requiring you to move your arms around and perform different physical activities to complete tasks within the games themselves. Wii Fit has been a huge hit, an expansion to the system whose primary goal is to help users become physically fit - it’s in the name! Microsoft has even jumped on the physical movement games bandwagon with their intention to release Project Natal, a camera which attaches to your Xbox and recognizes your entire body without the use of a controller. Not only does the soda industry realize that it isn’t soda-causing people to gain weight, but also it’s the simple fact that they just don’t get up and move like they used to.

Excise taxes already in place are on products like alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline. Soda seems pretty tame compared to the other goods that excise taxes are placed on. Since alcohol poisoning can prove fatal, long-term use of tobacco products can cause all kinds of cancers, and gasoline has a negative effect on the environment, having a tax on these products makes sense. I’ve never heard of anyone binge drinking Mountain Dew and dying from sugar poisoning, or someone being diagnosed with cancer due to soda addiction. And it’s difficult to imagine a toxic cloud of Sierra Mist suffocating baby seals.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the government the right to tell people what they should and shouldn’t eat through the use of taxes. It’s ironic that the same country whose origins lie in a revolution from a repressive empire imposing similar taxes would employ such measures themselves. The likelihood of a civil war breaking out is unlikely, but taxes like this spawned a massive paradigm shift before. The soda tax is an unnecessary way for the government to somewhat regulate Americans’ diets. What is necessary is education, not a tax that keeps people from learning from their poor dietary choices. H.

On the Objectification of the Female in Popular Culture

2009-11-17T16:48:00.005-04:00

Rapper 50 Cent, pictured at left. Loving the crucifix draped around his neck. How's your friend Jesus feel about your "lollipop," 50?

How many young American women would you guess truly identify with the “bitches and hoes” standard set by popular rap music videos? Outwardly, an overwhelming majority of them would reject such expectations as being rooted in chauvinistic stereotypes - and they’d be correct in doing so, - but how many subconsciously take the lessons learned in MTV’s classroom to heart? From our daughters’ childhood playthings to the clothes they don in adolescence, the sexualization and idealization of the feminine form as an object of lust has a profound and noticeable effect on our country’s psychological outlook, both female and male alike. Exposure to gyrating body parts attached to various scantily-clad women from a young and impressionable age, as is so commonplace in the heyday of internet videos and cable television, can predestine a child to subconscious subjugation of women in a sexual context, predisposing them to a lifetime of unintentional assumptions and accidental expectations. Having grown up on a steady diet of glistening quadriceps and exposed cleavage, how can one expect a teenage boy not to anticipate such treasures lurking beneath the garments of a future romantic partner? These exceptionally high and unrealistic standards, combined with the relegation of the female to a level of irrelevance consigned to a male’s sexual plaything, create a precarious atmosphere for every generation of American culture aficionados. Myths such as these are commonly propagated through rap and hip-hop music videos, which usually seem to feature women either as brazen nymphomaniacs or as demure and unassuming sexual objects, subjugated by the rap performers almost to the point of sex slavery; with each stereotype boasting idealized sexual appendages and a libido that could kill a horse.

In the video for “Candy Shop,” a 2004 track by rapper 50 Cent, our protagonist comes across a mansion filled with dozens of multicultural women dressed in nothing but lingerie. Over the course of the song, 50 Cent offers to “take [the women] to the [titular] candy shop,” where he instructs them to “lick [his] lollipop.” The women in the video, apparently pleased by his explicit permission to perform fellatio upon him, caress his tattooed muscles and douse themselves in chocolate syrup in keeping with the candy theme. The express message of the video and song’s lyrics is that 50 Cent, adopting and self-christening himself in the role of the dominating male figure, has at his disposal an army of women, the equivalents of sex toys in this distorted fictional world, itching to do his bidding and fulfill whatever childish sexual fantasies he might maintain. The video makes the performer’s take on gender roles abundantly clear: men are to drive sports cars and wear expensive clothes, while women are to prance around in their undergarments, smirking seductively while they answer to man’s every beck and call. Is it any wonder that the track was written by two men, 50 Cent and Scott Storch?

What does this teach the innocents who might be unfortunate enough to happen upon such drivel? Boys are indoctrinated from an early age to think of women in a sexual context almost exclusively, effectively curbing their ability to form lasting and meaningful relationships, platonic and romantic alike, with the opposite gender. Men in our sex-saturated society are groomed to consider themselves dominant sensual superiors, erotic conquistadors of flesh who belong on the receiving end of limitless sexual favors, fruits of feminine lust and nymphomania. Even religion, the supposed last bastion of virtue in a world quickly devolving into the cesspool of immorality, reinforces this dichotomy in their theological systems. Most sects of Christianity reserve the highest positions of authority for men, and contain doctrines dictating that woman is the “property” of her husband, and that she is beholden to him for all of his bedroom needs.

Easily among the most disturbing byproducts of this consistently chauvinistic culture is the female's not only tolerance, but unilateral acceptance of sexist lyrics and trends as commonplace, painfully evidenced by their frequent singing along to such classics as Ludacris’ timeless "Shake Your Money Maker." Does this seemingly self-deprecating practice represent an acquiescence on the part of the American woman, an apparent admittance that women can only be financially successful as prostitute or trophy wife? Or, rather, does their compliance indicate a form of defiance against these cultural standard-bearers, much in the same way racial slurs have been gradually integrated into the very minority cultures they once disparaged? Is this method of adoption robbing the lyrics of their thorns, as could be the intention?

In accepting these terrible ideas as culturally significant, these particular women are only perpetuating the trend of degradation sparked by the rap music itself. By purchasing, downloading, and otherwise consuming this auditory trash; and by dancing to it with chauvinistic males at clubs and other social events, the women are only assigning these “artists” perceived relevance and prolonging the cultural meme whose fetishism reduces women to a half-exposed pair of breasts or thighs. Only when everyone with the power to sway musical trends, including critics, listeners of both genders, advertisers on the music video networks, and radio station disk jockeys reject this despicable vogue and silence these chauvinist pigs forever. M.

Why I Am A Pacifist

2009-11-17T13:50:00.000-04:00

Everybody has a secret world inside of them. All of the people of the world, I mean everybody. No matter how dull and boring they are on the outside, inside them they've all got unimaginable, magnificent, wonderful, stupid, amazing worlds. Not just one world. Hundreds of them. Thousands maybe.

— Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 5: A Game of You

Connections Between Edgar Allan Poe and Incubus

2009-11-16T14:37:00.002-04:00

Considering the works of Edgar Allan Poe, and continuing my trend of relating popular music to classic literature, I've a longstanding theory that his works are a primary influence behind the music of mediocre American rock band Incubus. While dark and brooding surface themes are prevalent in both and easy to draw connections between, I've thought for a while that several specific songs contain allusions to Poe's works. Allow me to elaborate.

In their 2006 song "Anna Molly," vocalist Brandon Boyd mourns his titular lost lover, in this case estranged rather than deceased, whose name bears striking resemblance to that of Annabel Lee. He begins by saying that "a cloud hangs over this city by the sea." Additionally, the narrator of the song explains his theory that the heavens, jealous of the love he shared with Anna Molly, were the cause of her demise - or, rather, of their estrangement. Sound familiar? Could this be interpreted as anything other than a modernization of Poe's Annabel Lee? Additionally and ironically enough, the album containing the track "Anna Molly" could become Incubus' final effort as they take a current indefinite hiatus, just as "Annabel Lee" was Poe's last complete poem before his death.

The parallels are simple with "Anna Molly," and many listeners have drawn the connections before me. Another song featuring common threads with an Edgar Allan Poe poem is "Here in my Room," on its surface a traditional love ballad with a unique tempo, could be interpreted to feature allusions to Poe's "The Masque of the Red Death," taking place at an "uninviting" party - a modernization of a ball, perhaps? The lyrics also contain many color motifs as symbols, much like the story by Poe. These connections are, admittedly, more strained than the ones drawn between "Anna Molly" and "Annabel Lee," but I believe nonetheless interesting and worthy of inspection.

Finally, the band's name, "Incubus," is a word Poe himself invented, and used in several works including "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "Mystification." More importantly, the band's music continues the Gothic literary trends Poe espoused and has rekindled these themes in the realm of American popular music. While Incubus is an average traditional rock band with a few popular tracks and fewer great ones, their take on Poe and his gothic themes is something that has interested me for a while now, and something I considered worth writing about. Thanks, M.

---------

This is the 100th post in 2009, putting this year on track to surpass or at least tie 2008 with 113 or more. Time will tell.

Some Thoughts on "Resistance to Civil Government"

2009-11-10T14:20:00.000-04:00

Reading and discussing "Resistance to Civil Government" in a college English course has inspired thought in me about the role of civil disobedience in the modern political sphere, which I thought might be interesting enough to be worth sharing with all of you. Can one person, by openly resisting the practices of a system he disagrees with, alter the course of political discourse or lawmaking in this country? Does one person's dissenting opinion carry any weight in this age of lobbyists and political machines?

A contemporary example which springs to mind is that of the Tea Party, a neoconservative fringe group whose Fox News-inspired antics and protests have garnered considerable media coverage in recent months. Touting picket signs whose slogans question President Obama's nationality and oftentimes seem to encourage a violent takeover ("taking back") of the federal government, these "activists" have been successful in swaying many Republican congresspeople into blocking progress on the health care reform bills endorsed by progressives.

While these people have certainly become a thorn in the sides of our Democratic leaders, is their resistance and protestation the kind which Thoreau intended? I would argue that it isn't, because these activists are still working within the system. As I interpret it, "resistance to civil government" entails removing one's self entirely from the system, escaping the forms of governance you see as repressive in favor of an alternative all your own. You reject government, reject authority, reject the machine and instead adopt a personal system of ethical standards by which to govern one's self.

Much like the civil rights protesters in the 1960s and the gay rights activists today, one must remove one's self from the system, remove one's self from the law and live the way you believe is just, live by the self-imposed laws you find fairest. In this way I believe the spirit of Thoreau's resistance lives on through those protesters and demonstrators who fight for equal rights for homosexuals. The essence of his ideas is there: that the protest exists firstly in one's mind, and is not bound by the traditional avenues of political discourse. M.

Faux News: How to Shamelessly Indoctrinate

2009-11-06T16:15:00.004-04:00

This issue has been an intensely-debated and personal item for me over the last few years. In a secular country whose currency reads “In God We Trust” and whose public schools are adopting Creationism as curriculum, it’s a difficult time to be a Freethinker. Even our Pledge of Allegiance was hijacked in 1954 by adding the words “under God,” a reflexive theocratic measure at the height of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. There are proponents of change, myself included, who would like to see the United States return to its roots - its real roots - by abolishing the federal endorsements of religion which run rampant in our modern government. But our efforts are thoroughly rebuffed by conservative activists who, ironically enough, would like to change our nation’s focus from one of secularism, fairness and equality to one of religious hysteria and theocracy. God does not run my country. His place is in your churches and Bible studies, but not on my greenback. Not in my Congress. The only hope now is that secularists, both those who profess a religion and who reject it, can steer our culture away from the right-wing aims, away from the theocratic nonsense we all decry when implemented in Muslim countries, and prevent a religious police state, prevent a Christian shari'ah from taking root in the land where “freedom of religion” is not only the norm but the rule. This is our country, too. Neoconservative media outlet Fox News is among the last bastions standing in my way - in our way - and I cannot tolerate intolerance.

“Ninety percent of us believe that there is a god,” explains Fox News political commentator Glenn Beck to his ever-expanding audience, “Ninety percent! Yet we seem to be pushed around by ten percent.” Mr. Beck, here citing fabricated statistics as a lead-in to his story about prayer in public schools, has historically shown blatant and uncompromising disregard for the growing population of nonbelievers (i.e., atheists, agnostics and unaffiliated nonreligious) occupying the country he cares for so dearly. Framed by the imposing headline “Stealing of America” and flanked by the American flag, he continues, “And I don’t care, you don’t believe in god, you want to worship a broom, I could really care less” (Beck). Imagine another political pundit on another station using his airtime to mock the Christian faith, likening their strongly-held religious convictions to paganism or fairy-worship. Why, it would be near impossible for such an unapologetic commentator to dodge the lynch mobs on his way home from the studio! Then why is it possible for the hyper-conservative political “pundits,” including Glenn Beck and others, to get away with such hateful mockery and conspiratorial derision? Is it simply because their so-called media outlet, cable’s popular Fox News Channel, boasts a decades-old reputation of misinformation, one-sided smear campaigns, and propagandizing? Are Fox’s ideas indicative of a massive, Christianizing grassroots movement in this country? Beck’s comments are typical of Fox News’ longstanding campaign to marginalize and silence religious minorities - specifically atheists and Muslims - from the forum of political discourse in the United States.

As opposed to Beck’s claimed 90% supermajority, a recent Pew Research survey found that a respectable 16.1% of the country expressed non-belief or non-affiliation. Interestingly, however, they also discovered that zero senators or congressmen represented these beliefs in the federal legislative branch, with Jews, Catholics and Mormons being overrepresented by as much as a factor of 10 (Pew Research). And, to be honest, can you blame atheists for not even bothering to run for public office when statistics indicate a vast majority of Americans would consider voting for every other minority group candidate before an atheist (Paper)? Whether Beck actually believes that various forms of theism have a ninety percent majority in our country is irrelevant, but what is important is that he is misinforming the public and making arguments based on flawed logic and generalizations, which invalidate him as a credible source for factual information, not to mention political news. Credibility aside, Beck’s statements are uncalled for and downright offensive to whatever atheists are unlucky enough to view his program, and he’s a perfect example of the double standard for mass media political commentary regarding religion in this country: those with a god can say whatever they damn well please, and we without one are expected to grin and bear it. Tolerance, they’d remind us, is one of their virtues.

Don’t misunderstand, I acknowledge that we atheists have our fair share of offensive proponents as well. Antitheists, practitioners of a branch of militant atheism, take their personal message of hate to Christians and other religious groups everywhere, methodology ranging from vitriolic internet personalities shouting tirades to dangerous activists utilizing terroristic violence to make a point. Christian groups, too, have their dangerous fringe elements, from the ubiquitous neoconservative Evangelical Christian groups nationwide to the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, whose members protest military funerals toting signs with such colorful slogans as “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “Fags die, God laughs” (“Extremism in America”). Much like most Christians would find such platforms offensive and ridiculous, not all atheists agree or even tolerate our forms of zealots, who hijack our beliefs and make give all nonbelievers a bad name. In the same vein, not all Christians would endorse the sarcastic disrespect of aforementioned political commentators, but for some reason everyone seems to tolerate it. While our two parallel groups share similarities, the difference is the audience - the Christians’ dogmatists are given a massive platform and maniacal cultural sway, and their hate speech is allowed to flow freely and unabashedly over the airwaves and into television screens nationwide. Imagine if such an audience were readily accessible to atheist or even antitheist activists, what a starkly different world we’d be discussing!

A prime example of Fox News’ concerted effort to marginalize atheists from the table of political discourse is the case of President Barack Obama’s historic inaugural address this January. Morning political commentary program Fox & Friends took issue with one line in particular, evident of their ignorant intolerance, cultural phobia, and their provincial sensibilities. “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims,” intoned Obama, “Jews and Hindus - and nonbelievers” (Briggs and Huckabee). As an atheist, I remember exactly how this quote made me feel when I heard it live on the date itself. Trapped in a country drowning in Christian overrepresentation, even this tiny act of inclusion on such an international stage warmed my heart and rekindled my hope for positive change over next four years. However, Fox & Friends co-host Dave Briggs had another opinion entirely of the line, asking viewers “Was it all-inclusive to acknowledge nonbelievers or just offensive?” (Briggs and Huckabee).

Offensive to whom, exactly? To the Christians who were also mentioned, and in fact acknowledged before anyone else? Or offensive to the far-right neoconservative wing of the Republican party who Fox News historically caters to almost exclusively? Former Republican presidential frontrunner turned Fox News commentator Mike Huckabee sheds some light on the issue, explaining to Briggs that “...it’s an honest assessment that there are certainly many people in this country that [sic] are not believers in anything other than themselves” (Briggs and Huckabee). Well, doesn’t that sound familiar? It would appear that both Mike Huckabee and his colleague Glenn Beck had been guzzling the same insensitivity Kool-Aid that morning, because implying that atheists only believe in ourselves is as ignorant, childish, and stupid as alleging that we worship brooms. In addition, the former assertion is highly offensive to Broom-Worshippers worldwide, a target audience Beck may wish to rethink alienating.

To most rational people, the implication that atheists believe in nothing but ourselves is complete hogwash, but the idea is prototypical of an ignorant sort of thinking which resonates with a great number of people throughout the country. Misconceptions about atheism abound, due in part to the countless and oftentimes-subtextual lies disseminated by conservative smear artists like the Fox News anchors. When I first arrived at university, I was reluctant to share my non-belief with people. One classmate in particular did find out, through one avenue or another, and confronted me thusly, “So, since you don’t believe in God, you drink, do drugs, have sex, and stuff like that?” Though offended, I quickly informed him that, “No, as a matter of fact I don’t do any of those things, and even if I chose to it wouldn’t be because I’m an atheist.” The conception that a non-believer could have a complex and hard-fought ethical coda floors many Christians, and this notion that all atheists are hedonists stems from the paranoid misinformation from right-wing hate machines, including our beloved Fox News. This line of thinking is also fruit of religious indoctrination, which misleads millions into thinking that moral standards and codes are dictated to you, not discovered for yourself. It boggles the mind that so many otherwise unique and intelligent individuals subject themselves to the nonsensical rantings of Christian preachers, and that people adopt the force-fed morality without a second thought. Take Emerson’s advice and “make your own Bible!” My personal favorite part of the story is that this particular Catholic Christian student directed his accusation at me from behind a can of Natural Light, which he imbibed in its entirety moments later. Ad maiorem Dei gloriam, right?

What’s more, the fact that such a prominent conservative Republican figure as Mike Huckabee could be repositioned as political commentator and host of the eponymous Huckabee proves Fox’s political bias to be sure, but for rational viewers this accusation was never in question. Fox News has their right to plug and campaign whichever side of the political fence they so choose, and we as the viewer have our right not to take them seriously. But it’s in the realm of religion in particular where Fox markedly and repeatedly crosses the line and outs themselves as politically incorrect, insensitive ignoramuses. For example, in yet another instance of blind hatred and conspiratorial fear, the gang at Fox & Friends stirred the pot yet again while commenting on a Washington state controversy involving an atheist sign placed in close proximity to a Christian nativity scene. The sign was stolen, presumably by pro-religion activists, and the atheist organization was moving to replace it with another sign channeling Moses, ironically reading “Thou shalt not steal.” In my personal opinion, this would be a perfectly understandable and acceptable response, and I’d expect something similar from Christians or any other religious group if their displays were violated or stolen.

Not only did former beauty pageant star and co-host Gretchen Carlson become visibly and admittedly enraged over the incident, she deferred to neoconservative regular guest Michelle Malkin to offer her thoughts on the issue, who in turn encouraged viewers to first “ignore atheists” by likening them to attention-whoring internet “trolls,” and then explains that “making fun of them, too, and mockery is probably the second-best solution” (Carlson and Malkin). She even instructs the audience to “Let them make fools of themselves in public square and say a prayer for them.” In response to this despicably galling commentary from a supposed political “expert,” Carlson - who’d been completely unable to recognize the irony in their quoting a Commandment, and stupidly thought the atheists idiots for using the other side’s beliefs - indulges in a bit of sensationalism, spelling out that “if you let them do that, then over time they will have the control… If you don’t stand up and fight for it, it might just disappear! I’m talking about Christianity!” (Carlson and Malkin). Danger, Christians, danger!

In the most Christian country in the world, when backed by a formidable 76.9% majority, is there really any chance of Christianity up and disappearing? Of course not. This sort of uninformed and misleading scare tactic is one employed almost daily by Fox News anchors in order to strike an emotional nerve within their viewerships’ traditionalist sensibilities. Atheism, ladies and gentlemen, is nowhere near powerful or influential enough to do away with Christianity altogether - some of my more antagonistic atheist friends are thinking, “One can only dream.” But in reality, it’s altogether possible - indeed, proven likely by European countries - that large numbers of Christians and atheists can coexist peacefully with one another, without either of them disappearing into thin air. And, oddly enough, doesn’t their Rapture entail all of the god-fearing Christians suddenly disappearing from the face of the Earth, leaving their clothes and belongings behind to be destroyed in the coming apocalyptic holocaust - one which we atheists are sentenced to endure? So, in theory, wouldn’t it be a positive thing for all the Christians in this country to be suddenly and without warning teleported to heaven, evidently disappearing from the world? Sounds like somebody needs a refresher course on Revelations. I digress.

With vitriolic rhetoric such as this, it’s easy for fear-mongering political activist groups like Fox News to rile a paranoid fervor in their viewers. Is it any surprise that fringe conservative elements throughout the country feel threatened and phobic about the increasing population of atheists, assuming that we want to indoctrinate their children and supplant their lifestyles with secular ones? This fundamental misunderstanding of the secularist movement as a threat is a dangerous one for atheists such as myself, and is a myth propagated by dictatorial media pundits like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Mike Huckabee. If this conspiratorial trend continues, and the marginalization and belittlement of the opposition by such polarizing figures persists, this country’s looming culture war will undoubtedly reach a frightening tipping point, and I sincerely hope that Beck’s misleading lies will be the only things he’s culpable for. M.

---------

Citing Atheists Offensive in Obama Inaugural Address? Perf. Dave Briggs and Mike Huckabee. YouTube, 25 Jan. 2009. Web. 1 Nov. 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twoXZE9U0Io.
"Extremism in America - Westboro Baptist Church: About WBC." Anti-Defamation League. Web. 04 Nov. 2009. http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/WBC/.
Gaylor, Annie L. "Is America a Christian Nation?" Freedom From Religion Foundation, 2007. Web. 26 Oct. 2009. http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php.
Glenn Beck Attacks Atheists and Interviews James Dobson on School Prayer. Perf. Glenn Beck. YouTube, 25 Jan. 2009. Web. 1 Nov. 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJJlgNf06ek.
Lind, Michael. "America is not a Christian nation." Salon.com. Web. 26 Oct. 2009. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/04/14/christian_nation/.
Michelle Malkin: Atheists Should Be Treated Like "Trolls." Perf. Gretchen Carlson and Michelle Malkin. YouTube, 18 Dec. 2008. Web. 1 Nov. 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brBqkmzN4js&feature=related.
Paper, Tom. "US Presidential Voting Likelihoods." Data 360. 30 May 2007. 26 Oct. 2009. http://www.data360.org/report_slides.aspx?Print_Group_Id=99.
Pearlston, Carl. "Is America a Christian Nation?" Catholic Education Resource Center. 26 Oct. 2009. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html.
"The Religious Makeup of Congress." Pew Research Center. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 19 Dec. 2008. Web. 01 Nov. 2009. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1064/the-religious-makeup-of-congress.
"United States Constitution." The U.S. Constitution Online. Web. 26 Oct. 2009. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html.

On "Self-Reliance"

2009-10-29T13:49:00.000-04:00

Today I've got something a little more personal for all of you. Upon a recent reading of Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self-Reliance, I was inspired to pen a quick reflection on the essay's fundamental ideas. Thought my readers might find it interesting; enjoy.

For an online copy of the text of the essay, click here.

The passage in Emerson's Self-Reliance that struck me most was in the final paragraph, where Emerson assures the reader that "Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles." For me, these lines inspire and vindicate me simultaneously, as an affirmation that my lifestyle is the right course of action and that it's worth continuing to pursue. Allow me to explain.

Another quote attributed to Mr. Emerson is "Make your own Bible," an idea that has driven my intellectual development for several years now. During high school, I rejected a religious faith I found repressive, distorted and irrational in favor of secular humanism, a personal atheism infused with a complex and self-imposed ethical system. With no moral authority to [mis]lead me, I developed a sense of morality and ethics on my own to live my life by, and after years of self-examination produced a system I believe to be the most ethically justifiable and objectively forward possible. It shocks many traditional Christians to find that the moral standards I hold myself to are oftentimes more strict than their own!

The reason, I believe, for this consistency is that I developed and discovered my ideals for myself - I myself stumbled upon the pure goodness of human rights, the importance of respecting women as an equal and not a sexual object, the nobility of playing the role of consistent gentleman. My uncompromising emotional sobriety has earned me a two-sided reputation in college, my atheism creating countless enemies and my straightforward ethical grounding earning respect amongst my friends. And the best part is, I wouldn't have it any other way. As Thoreau put it, "A man in the right is a majority of one."

And so Emerson's promise of peace to those who live by their principles grants me solace during a trying time of my life. It's difficult at times to stay true to my hard-fought ideals, but in the end, Emerson offers a priceless sense of optimism. And I'm inclined to agree with him. Thanks, M.

“Let Me Hear Both Sides:” Radiohead and the American Tradition of Political Discourse

2009-10-21T23:36:00.003-04:00

In recent years, political platforms endorsed by rock musicians been elevated to a prominent position in popular culture and in the psyches of mainstream Americans. Artists with uncompromising ideologies from Bob Dylan to John Lennon have been able to affect dramatic change in our nation’s political sphere through the impact of their music in culture. Doubtless one of the most influential artistic forces in music today, experimental rock band Radiohead has defied conventions and shattered expectations for almost two decades. With each new album, the English musicians have reinvented their sound and musical style, blurring the lines dividing alternative rock, electronica and jazz while exceeding fans’ every expectation. While their influence in the world of music is incontrovertible, Radiohead recently took a distinctly more political turn with 2003’s Hail to the Thief, which, predictably, offered the band’s perspective on the contemporary political climate in the United States. Taking cues from conventional political calls to action like Common Sense by Thomas Paine, Radiohead exercised and advanced traditional modes of political discourse in this country.

No time period in recent memory have been as politically divisive as the opening years of this new century. George W. Bush’s controversial and contested victory in the 2000 presidential election fragmented the country into polarized political extremes, followed soon thereafter by the psychological trauma and cultural panic that was September 11, 2001. This environment of political turmoil produced a great amount of political backlash, including near-universal polarization of mainstream perceptions of government organizations and leadership, ranging from resentment towards leadership officials and rebelliousness to virulent patriotism and widespread support of armed forces shipped overseas. This polarized culture produced some of the most emotionally-charged political activism in history, and is reminiscent of the pre-Revolution America within which Thomas Paine found himself: widespread popular discontentment with the system of authority, a culture itching for upheaval and revolution, and militaristic elements approaching their boiling points. But why should a bunch of postmodern rock stars like Radiohead be labeled our century’s equivalent of Thomas Paine?

The fact of the matter is, popular culture icons have supplanted historical geniuses in the minds of everyday Americans, and musicians like Thom Yorke, Radiohead’s lead vocalist and songwriter, have become the movers and shakers of our media-fueled society. Radiohead is considered a “concept album” band, each release embodying and working from within a central idea or overarching theme. For 1997’s OK Computer it was isolation and detachment in a technological society, for 2000’s Kid A it was mother nature’s reclamation of human civilization as a result of biotechnology and rampant consumerism (“Radiohead's Anti-videos”), and for 2003’s Hail to the Thief it was political discontentment and ideological revolution. Anyone unfamiliar with the music of Radiohead would balk at these suggestions: is it even possible for such complex ideas to be properly expressed through a medium as low-brow as rock music?

In the time of Thomas Paine’s political activism, ideas were expressed almost exclusively in the form of political tracts, lengthy or, oftentimes the case for Paine’s essays, short enough to be printed upon a massively disseminated series of pamphlets. These articles could be as emotionally charged as any rock ballad today, with admonitions of pacifist countrymen like “challeng[ing] the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show a single advantage that this continent can reap by being connected to Great Britain” (Paine 994), or arguments appealing to pathos like “the injuries and disadvantages which we sustain by that connection are without number, and our duty to mankind at large… instruct[s] us to renounce the alliance” (Paine 994). In truth, political pamphlets containing vitriolic language and an uncompromising commitment to change could be considered the angst-ridden “rock anthems” of the eighteenth century colonies.

A real modern example of the rock anthem, “2+2=5,” opener of Hail to the Thief - while obviously inspired more by Orwell’s dystopias than by the political treatises of Thomas Paine, - nonetheless presents a great deal of politically-charged information right from the beginning. The album’s vocals begin with Yorke asking an anonymous authority mockingly, “Are you such a dreamer / To put the world to rights?” As the song progresses, however, his perspective becomes increasingly pessimistic, mentioning that “January has April's showers / And two and two always makes a five,” casting doubt upon the administration’s rejection of climate change science by likening it to the Oceanic doublespeak in George Orwell’s classic 1984. Additionally, every track on the album is listed with its subtitle in parentheses, and the composition’s full name is “2+2=5 (The Lukewarm.),” suggesting that the intended audience of Yorke’s lyrics is political moderates and apathetic swing voters. Immediately after Thom mourns the environment’s being led to ruin comes the song’s volta, “It’s the devil’s way now / There is no way out / You can scream and you can shout / It is too late now / Because you have not been paying attention.” I fail to imagine a clearer call to arms than the frustrated lyrics here, as he repeats those last few words in a repetitive, deranged whine until the song’s conclusion.

While other songs on Hail to the Thief are less activist and more personal to writer Yorke, who dedicated multiple tracks to his newborn son - specifically, “Sail to the Moon,” - the primary focus of the work was to reflect the tumultuous political climate within which Yorke’s dystopian vision was composed. In a 2003 interview with NME magazine, Yorke provided a little more context for the album’s subject matter and stylistic elements, explaining that his listening to common buzzwords and phrases on the radio in the months following September 11, the War on Terrorism, and Afghanistan inspired the lyrics and imagery that makes the album so unique. “I was cutting these [phrases] out,” said Yorke, “and deliberately taking them out of context, so they're like wallpaper,” a wallpaper with which he framed his apocalyptic reverie (27).

Exploitation is an argument utilized by both Thomases Paine and Yorke, and each make convincing emotional appeals to readers’ or listeners’ pathos. For Paine, this exploitation came in the form of the British taking advantage of the American colonies, asking of those wishing to make peace with the overseas aggressors to “tell [him] whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land?” (996) He also challenges pacifists to answer whether they “can still pass the violations over… hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on?” These are all strong emotional appeals designed to rile a defensive aggression in readers, and to inspire them to reject the system of governance which had imposed such perceived injustices upon them.

In the case of Radiohead, exploitation of the working class at the hands of the capitalist machine is the subject of “We Suck Young Blood (Your Time Is Up.),” a nightmarish piano ballad which could define the album’s distinctive sound. Between handclaps and haunting backup vocals Yorke asks of potential laborers, “Are you hungry? / Are you sick? / Are you begging for a break? ... Are you strung up by the wrists? / We want the young blood,” casting monopolizing corporations as vampirish monsters preying on the weak and disadvantaged (“We [Capitalists]” 116). Thom’s distinctive falsetto wailing continues for another five minutes, interlaced with intense piano crescendos and a cappella backup vocals. The result is an effective metaphor relating real capitalism with a terrifying horror film where controlling vampires exploit the dependent elements of society, producing a memorable and visceral image in listeners’ minds.

Yorke, in the spirit of Paine, uses his art form to affect serious political change in contemporary society, utilizing similar rhetoric and presenting traditional arguments in a nontraditional and atypical media. Although separated by centuries and for the most part ignorant of one another, one cannot help but imagine that both Thomases would have gotten along famously, as both of them encouraged their cultures to, as Paine intones on page 997, “oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! … and prepare an asylum for mankind.” M.

---------

Harris, Shannon M. "Thomas Paine 1737-1809" Heath Anthology of American Literature. 6th ed. Vol. A. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2009. 989-91.
Paine, Thomas. "From Common Sense" Heath Anthology of American Literature. 6th ed. Vol. A. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2009. 992-7.
Tate, Joseph. "Radiohead's Anti-videos: Works of Art in the Age of Electronic Reproduction." Postmodern Culture 12.3 (2002). Postmodern Culture. Web. 21 Oct. 2009. http://pmc.iath.virginia.edu/issue.502/12.3tate.html.
Tate, Joseph. "We (Capitalists) Suck Young Blood." Radiohead and Philosophy. Ed. Brandon W. Forbes and George A. Reisch. Chicago, IL: Open Court, 2009. 111-21.
NME Magazine. 3 May 2003: 27. Print.
Yorke, Thom. Hail to the Thief. Radiohead. Nigel Godrich, 2003. CD.

Apple's New Offerings

2009-10-20T16:14:00.014-04:00

What exciting news this morning to notice that Apple's online store was down, traditionally a key indicator that they're covertly updating one of their world-famous product lines. It stung, yes, to see these new updates a mere two weeks after posting this article about the company's apparent stagnation in the innovation sphere, but the new products are a welcome change nonetheless. I have a lot of opinions regarding Apple's newest product releases, and I'd like to share them with you here.

MacBook
The consumer-focused MacBook line, with the brief exception of a 13.3" aluminum model bearing the moniker for a few months, has seen zero changes from the design standpoint since its inception in May 2006. The low-end $999 option has been carried over since the introduction of aluminum unibody MacBook Pros as an affordable alternative with marketing targeted at students. The economical carryover has since become the only remaining non-aluminum system in Apple's lineup, and remains so even after this morning's design refresh.

The new white MacBook features a polycarbonate unibody design, a casing sculpted from plastic rather than from aluminum. It sports a speedier processor (2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo) and larger internal hard drive (250GB, larger even than the cheapest 13.3" MacBook Pro's measly 160GB). The most noticeable change is the dramatically curved corners and tapered edges, which give the notebook a distinctly pebble-esque appearance. Perhaps most importantly of all, the MacBook now boasts the multi-touch glass trackpad used in the MacBook Pro line, bringing multi-finger gestures and more to the low-end economy option.

For a fresh[er] design and a price point sure to attract students the world around, the new, redesigned polycarbonate MacBook earns an 8.3 out of 10.

Mac mini
The littlest Mac has been around since 2005, and in that time has not even once been physically redesigned. I'd been hoping for something exciting today, something with the width of the Apple TV and the footprint of an Airport Express (an exaggeration to be sure, but perhaps someday a possibility), but was again disappointed by the lackluster effort that seems to plague Apple of late, inspiring my latest blog post. The hard drive sizes doubled (160GB and a generous 320GB), the lowest price dropped $100 to $599, and - most interestingly - a new "Snow Leopard Server" option was introduced for $999 with no optical drive and 1TB of storage.

For a sheer lack of effort and disappointing subtle alterations, the virtually unchanged Mac mini receives a 4.6 out of 10. The server option is what saved this "update" from oblivion.

iMac
While the aforementioned products are great and all, the real news today is the refreshed iMac line, with a couple improvements which, to be honest, blew my mind. Sporting a new unibody enclosure reminiscent of their 24" LED Display, the flagship Mac brings new processors and hard drive capacities to the table. But the real story of the iMac itself is its display: available in either a 21.5" or massive 27", this looming, gargantuan beast of a screen utilizes the environmentally-friendly LED backlighting to illuminate its ridiculous 2560 x 1440 pixels (that's 16:9, the same aspect ratio in HDTVs). While the screen is truly incredible, let's speak for a moment about the real marvel: the peripherals.

On August 2, 2005, Apple introduced Mighty Mouse, a computer mouse with a scroll ball for easily navigating documents and web pages in 360 degrees. The little wonder has reigned supreme for over four years now, but customers (myself included) have experienced issues with the little scroll ball, which over time refuses to operate. In conjunction with these issues, Apple recently came under fire for the name "Mighty Mouse," which was suggested to be in violation of a great number of copyrights. Well, today Apple replaced their bundle of joy with something much, much nicer.

It's called Magic Mouse, and it's the world's first multi-touch computer mouse. Making use of Apple's revolutionary multi-touch technology, Magic Mouse enables you to scroll and navigate documents and web pages - the functions of their faulty scroll ball - with a flick of your finger across its surface. Essentially, the Magic Mouse is a MacBook Pro's multi-touch trackpad draped over a computer mouse's form factor, and the results are as beautiful to behold as they are exciting to use. Oh, and it's exclusively Bluetooth. Not only that, but the Magic Mouse now comes standard with every new iMac, along with the Apple Wireless Keyboard. Shazam!

For innovations galore, including a display that turn heads and a mouse to change mice forever, the new iMac earns a whopping 9.5 out of 10 - they still haven't gotten rid of that chin, or the annoying bump on the back. Do those two things; you earn a 10.

Thanks for reading and enjoy your days, folks. M.

Paranormal Activity

2009-10-13T15:47:00.002-04:00

by Hollanes

Paranormal Activity is currently the top trending topic on Twitter and has generated massive amounts of buzz across the web and other news sources. People are already calling it the scariest movie ever, a very bold statement to say the least. Right before the movie started an employee of the theater said that after the movie starts we have one hour and if we feel that the movie is too intense or too scary we would be given a full refund for the ticket. Has Paranormal Activity lived up to its hype?

Personally, I have to say that I was scared before I went into the theater, for the time I was in the theater, and even for the next few nights. The movie has a way of getting into your head and taking you for a suspenseful ride that may leave you scared to death or just disappointed in general. The hype behind the film had a lot to do with the overall feel of the movie and what was expected going into it. I felt that the movie was scary and lived up to the reputation it has been given in the few weeks that it has been out, it is packed with suspense that builds and builds like you wouldn't believe. The film starts with small occurrences that almost everyone has felt like they've had at one point in their life, and then builds to the main characters interacting with the paranormal activities.

The special effects were really cool and I think the small budget of the film had a lot to do with that. The film's budget was a mere $11,000, not giving the director much money in the way of special effects. It was really just old fashioned movie effects which sold the movie even more. Had there been an actual view of the demon or maybe more physical interaction with it I don't think I would've been as scared. People fear what they don't understand and the director really played off that idea. The audience doesn't know anything about the antagonist other than the fact that it is a demon and that it has 3 toes on each foot; you are left completely in the dark about the appearance and name of what is making you regret paying around $8.

After the movie I'd have to say that I was a little scared, it was pretty pathetic actually. I saw the movie with my girlfriend and one of her roommates; neither one of them was scared of the movie at first. On the way home we discussed what scared us and what didn't and I felt that the one thing that really made the film somewhat believable compared to any other scary movies was the way the small paranormal activity that was experienced elevated from small to very big. Once it's time for bed the film really got to everyone. We all ended up being scared of being dragged out of our bed by a demon or one of us becoming possessed; like I said, it was pretty pathetic.

All in all I'd say the movie was the scariest I've personally seen, much scarier than something like a slasher movie or the typical scary movie that comes out. Paranormal Activity earns an 8.5 out of 10. H.

---------SPOILER ALERT---------

Basic Synopsis: The movie starts off with the main characters, a couple, Katie and Micah. Katie has had odd things haunt her ever since she was 8 and now the occurrences are starting to become more frequent. Micah decides that he is going to film what is going on and the couple later finds out from a psychic that a demon is haunting Katie. The demon eventually becomes aggravated with Micah, who taunts the demon and tries to challenge it almost every chance available to him. Much later on Katie becomes possessed by the demon and kills Micah, the one thing getting in between the demon and Katie. The end of the movie states that Micah's body was found by police and that Katie's whereabouts are unknown; a pretty generic horror story ending.

Update 6.6: About Hollanes

2009-10-12T21:57:00.018-04:00

Hey everyone, Masoni has added me as a new author to the blog, which it looks like is a big step from the normal content posted. I'm a conservative Christian who is interested in technology, music, and sports. Although I said that I'm a Christian, I wouldn't consider myself a major practicing believer in God. I guess compared to Masoni I would be considered pretty religious. I don't go to church, and I haven't read the entire Bible either. In my opinion you don't have to attend church to believe in God or worship him for that matter. I basically believe the basic morals presented in the Bible and use them to make myself a better person in my day to day life. My conservative beliefs are pretty fundamental; smaller government, lower taxes, etc. You'll get to know them.

I'm a Mac user and I try to keep up to date with the latest technology, no matter what it is. I like a lot of indie/alternative rock and I can tolerate pretty much everything else as long as it isn't country music.

I'm sure you guys will get to know me a lot more through my future posts, arguments, and beliefs. Masoni and I plan to have mini-debates through posts which should be very entertaining. Feel free to introduce yourself through comments to this post. H.

[More after the fold.]

[Update 6.6.1 | 13 Oct]: (1) While I'm aware that making a premature jump from Update 6.5 to 6.6 went against all the updating conventions and self-imposed rules I have in place, I still believe it is essential to move on with the forward progression of new features. This incremental update is to announce divisions within updates, represented by lower-case letters in parentheses, like (a) or (b), followed by the update. This will probably come in handy when announcing multiple new upgrades with one mini-incremental update. Additionally, just a quick note: seeing as I posted 6.5 and 6.6 so close together, don't expect to see 6.7 for quite some time. Most updates will be found within this post for the next couple of months, and I'm hoping to put version 7.0 off until mid-2010. We'll see. Thanks, M.

(2 | 13 Oct): And here's our first exercise of the new divisions system, seeing as I have a multitude of exciting news to announce. (a) First, you'll doubtless notice the rearranged interface elements along the top of the blog's home page. The logo has changed and been shifted over, as discussed in the last update, and the social Google Friend Connect bar has returned in all its floating blue glory. (b) Next, there have been some major compatibility overhauls going on in the background over the last couple of days. Many HTML elements slowing down the loading of our main page have been altered or removed, providing a [hopefully] easier and speedier user experience. Additionally, the new mobile version of the site has been launched (available by navigating to http://masoni.mofuse.mobi or by clicking the gray rectangular button at left), with support for iPhone (as a nifty web app on your home screen) and other internet-enabled mobile devices. (c) Finally, there's a new commenting policy coming through the pipes which should be hosted and live through the link at right sometime this afternoon. Thanks for reading and enjoy your major update! M.

[Update 6.6.2 | 20 Oct]: (1) Thing is, I'm tired of the same old navy and beige we've been kicking around for the last few months. Playing around with the color scheme of late. Currently using a grayscale theme; might give something like green a try. I know, green! Feedback is always welcome and encouraged.

(2 | 20 Oct): (a) Having tired of the tried-and-true navy blue, I've switched the blog's color scheme to white and red, reminiscent of the old red-and-black theme from 2008-early 2009. (b) The logo has been switched to the squarish text logo, in red, because the circular "mra" logo grew tiresome over time. Perhaps that really was a failed experiment. (c) I'm working on some new themes and logos, so consider this red setup "limited edition." Relatively soon I'll have the new look live, and suffice it to say it's going to blow your mind. (d) Much more new content on the horizon from both Hollanes and myself, so stay tuned and don't touch that radio dial. This is C-Dog, out (a reference to video game Fallout 3. Don't worry if you didn't catch it, the fact only proves that you're not a nerd). M.

[Update 6.6.3 | 6 Nov]: (1) We've been slacking off thus far in November, so here's a preview of what we have in store. The new theme has launched, and it's very much a return to the old navy standard that we all came to know and love. The main banner logo is now centered and significantly larger, and there have been some tweaks to the members panel at upper left. Additionally, you'll notice that the "social bar" at top has again disappeared. More content is en route so stay tuned and don't touch that radio dial. M.

(2 | 10 Nov) I've posted revision 2.3 of our Comment Regulation Policy, (a) so I'd appreciate it if you'd review it and familiarize yourselves with it before posting additional comments. There are only some cursory changes to it, but it's nonetheless enough to warrant a new tenths place numeral. (b) What sort of changes do you think would denote a version 3.0? Think about it while reading the policy, linked to at left or above, if you don't mind terribly. Thanks! M.

(3 | 17 Nov) Great success - we've reached and surpassed 62,000 visits and 22,000 unique visits since our last check. Crazy bojangles! That places the current count at 62,100 / 22,069 / 296 / 41 / 107. Hoorah! M.

[Update 6.6.4 | 8 Dec]: (1) (a) We've passed up both the 63k and 64k visit count milestones, in addition to the 23k unique count milestone. Current count is 64,049 / 23,681 / 298* / 42 / 107. Is it just me, or are these things getting less exciting as the years go on? (b) *As for the number of posts, I don't believe I'll be jumping the gun and posting Update 6.7 in commemoration of post number 300, so perhaps there will only be a little blurb at the bottom of whatever post that ends up being with a link to the mini-celebration coming up in this post. We'll keep you posted. M.

(2 | 15 Dec): (a) Given that these incremental updates and their miniature kin are intended more to satiate my obsessive-compulsive disorder than actually be read, I've implemented the "[More after the fold.]" feature to hide their complexities from view in the default pages. (b) To see them, if you actually do read them, simply click on their links and be automagically redirected to the full posting. Isn't technology cool? (c) In additional news, expect the 300th post to arrive within the next few days, and with it a great deal of jubilation and fanfare. Whoopie! (d) Also, for the sake of prolonging this mini-incremental update even further, and for the sake of earning more letters further down the alphabet, anticipate some subtle HTML alterations aimed at speeding up the page's load time dramatically. Let me know if you notice any changes in overall snappiness! (e) And, finally, it should be officially noted that these letters are called "micro-incremental updates," making the order of size "update," "incremental update," "mini-incremental update," and "micro-incremental update." Just for the sake of continuity, you know. M.

[Update 6.6.5 | 20 Dec]: (1)

300th post!

The newest post, "Walt Whitman and the American Identity," published live at about 2:38 PM ET on December 20, 2009, is the 300th post in the history of Masoni Raves About. Thought this milestone required notation and documentation. M.

(2 | 20 Dec): (a) Our newest numbers are 64,667 / 24,174 / 300 / 42 / 107 as of December 20, 2009 at approximately 2:43 PM ET. (b) My newest goal is to beat or tie the record of posts from 2008 with the remaining days of December, which was 113 posts. That adds up to 7 new articles in eleven days, but based on my ability and proclivity to post multiple large posts in a single day, over the span of a few minutes, I should be able to at least tie the record. (c) As those intentions should suggest, expect a slew of new content from both Hollanes and myself leading up to the new year, and [hopefully] continuing thereafter. M.

(3 | 20 Dec): (a) Additionally, a couple of other things I forgot to mention. First, as to the date of the somewhat-overdue Update 6.7 - I can't promise anything. I'm going to wear out the micro-, mini-, and regular incremental updates before considering posting another update, unless, of course, something major should come up before that happens. (b) So, don't expect much of anything until at the very earliest late January or early February, or, perhaps more likely, around March. (c) Should I stick to my word and wait to post 6.7 until months from now, that would make version 6 the longest-standing in Masoni Raves About history, potentially (and almost certainly) extending more than a year. (d) Second, about a minor, and since retracted, design change to the overall appearance of the site. Late last week, for a few hours in the afternoon, an experimental design change was live on the page, making a new incarnation of the navigation bar visible to all visitors. (e) I'm still considering this change, seeing as it would make site navigation and direction much easier, but I took the feature down some mere hours after making it live. Expect to hear more about that in the future. (f) Fourth, and finally, I don't believe that the [More after the fold] feature introduced in 6.6.42a&b will continue to appear on the site, and I may even retroactively remove it from the posts it currently affects. Again, I'll keep those few of you interested enough to read my update technobabble posted. M.

Why I Fear for the Future of Apple

2009-10-06T11:13:00.006-04:00

Good morning, readers, and welcome to another exciting edition of Masoni Raves About. Today, in light of the recent poll on the most popular and in-demand content, we'll be discussing a viewpoint that I [unfortunately] hold concerning a subject very close to my heart. I believe that Apple, if it continues on its current course, will become as irrelevant as Microsoft and fail. Yes, I said it: Apple will fail if they don't make some changes. Maybe these flaws are directly attributable to the absence of Steve Jobs for the last few months, and perhaps his safe return will provide Apple with some much-needed direction in the coming years. Regardless, here are a couple of reasons why I think Apple is ruining their brand.

Stagnation
Innovation is what Apple is known for, and has been the major draw of the Macintosh and iPod brands for decades (in the case of the iPod it's been for just under a decade, but I digress). The original iPhone was a huge leap for the world of smartphones, reinventing the way people communicate over the telephone and the internet. The first major upgrade to the handset, the iPhone 3G in summer 2008, was another major improvement upon the original, boasting major connection speed improvements, a sleek new design, and an even more appealing new price point. Accompanying all this was iPhone OS 2.0, featuring the revolutionary App Store and hundreds of new features and innovations. Following these two home runs, however, Apple fell into a routine of stagnation and disappointments.

It all started with the iPhone 3GS this summer, which offered nothing more than a 3 megapixel camera with video and voice control, both of them features which even "dumb" phones have had for many years and both of them could have been made available on the 3G through simple software tweaks. What else? Well, a new chip made the S significantly snappier? Oh, and iPhone OS 3.0, which - in all honesty - meant the inclusion of MMS and not much else. In fact, for iPod touch users, 3.0 meant almost exactly nothing more than a bit of eye candy.

What happened? These failings are evident across Apple's product lines: Mac OS 10.6 - while a major upgrade from the programmer's perspective - meant little to the mainstream consumer. The Mac mini hasn't seen a major face-lift since its inception in January 2005! And don't even get me started on their most recent iPod event in September. Actually, yes, get me started.

What changed this September with iPods? Well, the iPod shuffle is available in a few more colors, a move which everyone anticipated. The iPod classic was bumped up to 160GB, a size it was available in at its first release but which Apple had discontinued. The iPod touch is available in a new size as well, and nothing else changed with Apple's new flagship product. And the nano? It got a video camera and a bigger screen. A video camera? While it may yet become a major selling point in the portable media player market, the logical place to put any sort of camera is on the iPod touch, right? Wrong: the iPod nano was the only product to see a major change this September. That and iTunes 9 - but the new iTunes is something different entirely.

In short, Apple has failed to produce anything exciting and interesting in a long time, and this drought of innovation is becoming painful to watch. For years Apple has been far ahead of the pack, but now they're catching up. Hopefully the rumored iMacs will be released sometime soon (maybe today) to alleviate this dearth of improvement, and maybe the fabled Mac tablet will rejuvenate Apple's brand once more, as the iPod and iPhone did in 2001 and 2007, respectively. But should they fail to release anything interesting, and waste January by refreshing the MacBook Air, Apple is surely in for some fiercer competition from the likes of the Zune HD, Android phones, Windows 7, and others.

Abandonment and compromise
I've been a Mac, iPod, and eventually iPhone user for many years now, and among the most frustrating things has been the rapidity with which Apple refreshes their product lines. You might see this as a direct contradiction of the arguments I made in the last section, but believe me that it isn't. Allow me to elaborate.

The iPhone 3G was the ideal, the perfect product for just about every niche user and mainstream consumer possible - it was relatively affordable when compared to the previous generation, featured some new innovations to make it appealing to old users, but the 2.0 software was available to early adopters in all its glory, with the App Store and everything intact. A 2007 iPhone got all the advantages of the 2008 model, save the 3G network connectivity and redesign. Everyone was pleased - who wouldn't be?

Then came the iPhone 3GS in 2009, boasting some significant speed boosts and an impressive new 3 megapixel camera. There wasn't much changed about the physical design, but the prices were fair and the 3G was even more affordable. As for the software? Well, that's where things became ridiculous. The 3GS could shoot video with its new camera, but jailbroken 3G iPhones prove that the function is more dependent upon software than on the hardware camera. And voice control? Purely a software application reserved for the "premium" 3GS models. What gives? They made the software fair for customers who'd dished out their several hundred dollars in 2007 by making 2.0 backwards compatible, but 3.0 left both 2007 and 2008 iPhone users out in the cold (2007 even more so - they didn't even get MMS or Bluetooth tethering).

Additionally, in the Mac line, there is a large disconnect between "consumer" computer prices and "professional" computer prices. Yes, there are quite a few products which fall snugly in between (the 13 inch MacBook Pro springs to mind), but the affordable options like the white polyurethane MacBook and the Mac mini feel underpowered, antiquated and cheap. Apple has begun a trend of offering the last generation technology as the "economical" option, like the 3G at $99, the 2nd-generation iPod shuffle still being sold as an alternative, and the aforementioned white MacBook, something which personally annoys me to no end. Apple has for years been considered the premium option of computer electronics, and, although it makes business sense to expand their market share, Apple should never have to compromise on offering the best possible products simply to attract more users. It's just a pet peeve of mine, a company of Apple's stature balking at their longstanding ideals. Apple, take a tip from Watchmen's Rorschach: never compromise, even in the face of apocalypse.

That's all I've got about Apple today. Maybe (hopefully) these arguments will be rendered irrelevant by the release of new iMacs or Mac minis soon, maybe even today. But until that happens, I hope you've enjoyed reading my beef with Apple's latest trends in providing mankind with increasingly disappointing technology. M.

Open Thread for a Christian Nation

2009-09-30T11:14:00.002-04:00

In lieu of new content (yes, I know), here are a couple of YouTube videos by LiberalViewer, both discussing Fox News and their portrayal of our nation as a "Christian" one. Is it wrong for a major media outlet to adopt a religious agenda? Are any of you Christians offended by Obama including us atheists in his inaugural address? I, for one, was very happy to see our new president be inclusive of non-believers some 8 months ago, and - even from the Fox News footage - have trouble understanding what exactly was offensive about his statement. Is it any more offensive than his inclusion of Jewish or Muslim people, for example?

That second video featuring the entertainingly-backwards logic of Huckabee, America's favorite politician-gone-pundit, really really grinds my gears. What do you think? Answer the questions the videos raise in the comments, I'm curious to read your responses.

I apologize for the lax blogging around these parts, but my schedule restricts any real writing of late. Stay tuned. M.

The Promised Land in the Age of Discovery

2009-09-16T23:31:00.003-04:00

Hey guys. I decided to put an end to the recent string of what I'd like to call "meta-content" with a lengthy essay I wrote for a class on English Literature. The prompt involved "[d]iscuss[ing] the role of religion as a driving force in the exploration of the Americas and as the basis of a particular writer's perception of his/her life in the new world." I thought the opinion I present here is an interesting one, so please share your thoughts and criticisms in the comments. Thanks!

It’s difficult to imagine being among the first to discover an entirely alien world, filled with mystery and seemingly infinite beauty. What secrets lurk in its lush forests, waiting to be uncovered by an educated eye? What treasures hide beneath its mountains, instantaneous riches for whomever was lucky enough to unearth it? And, perhaps most important and intriguing of all, what spiritual significances attach themselves to this landscape untouched by human hands, transcendental experiences awaiting discovery? The prospects are staggering, and inspire fantastic daydreams in adventuresome imaginations everywhere. This was the stage for Europeans after the Americas were discovered, a mood of adventure and exploration ran rampant during this period, leading young men and women the world around to risk their possessions and their very lives in an effort to make new lives for themselves on the shores of this untainted continent. Among the most important of these explorers’ motivations were the possibilities of new religious discovery and the opportunity for spiritual growth in this new land, giving early explorers and colonists an interestingly theocentric perspective.

The beautiful rain-forests of Central and South America and the vast expanses of unscathed arable land predictably produced comparisons to Genesis’ Garden of Eden from the Biblically-versed European explorers. “For I believe that the earthly Paradise lies here,” writes Columbus in his Narrative of the Third Voyage, “which no one can enter except by God’s leave” (Columbus, 148). Of course, the Christian faith was an integral part of the lives of the early explorers, including Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca of Spain. In a letter to his king following his belated return home, de Vaca attributed both his tragic experience in the New World and his fortunate return home again (159) to the unpredictable and oftentimes unforgiving will of God. Since God and religion were both so fundamentally intertwined with de Vaca’s personal life and his sense of national identity, his formidable explorational efforts in the New World were doubtless attributable at least in part to his Christianity. In fact, throughout his La Relación, de Vaca interestingly refers to other Europeans he encounters not as “white men” or by their country of origin, but rather as “Christians,” as though that were their important unifying quality differentiating them from the Native American “savage” pagans (de Vaca, 168-170).

While at first these Native Americans, accidentally labeled “Indians,” may have posed something of a frustration to the conquistadors, before long it dawned on certain clerical authorities back home that these “savages” might prove useful in another form of conquest: that of their souls. “Franciscan, Dominican, Augustinian, and later Jesuit missionaries” from around the world flooded to the Americas, each interested in earning his respective sect a piece of the conversion pie (131). These missionary expeditions, with the Récollets and Jesuits “establish[ing] their missions amid the… woods of the north,” and the Franciscans placing theirs in the southwestern territories of New Mexico, served as some of the first exploratory expeditions into the uncharted American landscape (131, 134). Despite a great deal of Native adversity, their Christianization remained a top priority for the Europeans during their first encounters with the “savages.”

For Christopher Columbus, the first European to survey the New World (which until his death he confused with the East Indies), his mission was a profoundly spiritual one. A firm believer in Old Testament scripture, Columbus, as mentioned before, was convinced that the miraculous new hemisphere he had found housed the fabled Garden of Eden. “Holy Scripture testifies that Our Lord made the earthly Paradise in which he placed the Tree of Life” (148). After summarizing a few of the geological features he’s encountered, Columbus offers that “[a]ll this provides great evidence of the earthly Paradise, because the situation agrees with the beliefs of those holy and wise theologians and all the signs strongly accord with this idea” (149). But what can these theories tell us about Columbus’ mindset, his motivations for exploring this mysterious world he had discovered?

Not only did Columbus believe he had discovered the hiding place of the legendary Garden, but he also considered it his responsibility to fulfill the promise of the Old Testament. Despite misconceptions that Columbus was interested exclusively in treasure and enslaving the exotic peoples he encountered, in reality he considered his voyages to be especially spiritual ventures - in addition to the nationalistic and financial benefits - due to his intense religious faith. As Jim Sullivan explains in his brief biography of Columbus, “From giving each landfall and sighting a Catholic name to compiling religious texts in his ‘Book of Prophesies,’ Columbus frames his explorations not as the opening of a new world but as a Spanish Catholic fulfillment of Old Testament traditions” (138). This passage conclusively shows that Columbus viewed himself and his fellow explorers as participants in some sort of spiritual journey, perhaps best described as an effort to fulfill or renew the broken covenant between God and Man (Genesis 3: 13-24). While some would argue that his greed remained his primary motivating factor, an awestricken Columbus was so overcome with the natural beauty and promise of this new land that he “concluded that the Orinoco River must lead to the ‘Terrestrial Paradise,’ or Garden of Eden” (Sullivan, 138). For Columbus, the New World was the Old Testament made physically manifest, a perspective which ended up casting an undue metaphysical significance upon his every discovery.

Interestingly, for all of Columbus’ intense spirituality, he nonetheless seemed to maintain a few major character flaws which evidenced themselves during his voyages to the Americas. For example, he displayed an interest in enslaving the Natives he encountered, a decision which alienated him from some of his European peers and “undermined his credibility in Spain” (137). It would seem that his religious fervor extended just up until the point when a quick buck made itself readily available, and there his Roman Catholic moral coda collapsed in the face of exploitation and greed. Apparently the innocent and unassuming Taino Indians were Columbus’ kryptonite.

This would be the case for many to come after Columbus, regardless of whether they had initial intentions of achieving spiritual enlightenment. As with the missionaries racing one another to “save” the largest population of Native Americans, it would seem that every man’s religious enthusiasm can be distorted or curbed in the face of great abundance and potential wealth. Religion was an important and, for many, indeed the primary motivation of explorers coming over to the New World, allowing for the rapid acquisition of territory within and knowledge about this mysterious unaltered landscape. But, once they were here, many of them abandoned it in favor of their greed.

Let me know what you think in the comments. M.

Bibliography

Columbus, Christopher. "From Journal of the First Voyage to America." Heath Anthology of American Literature. 6th ed. Vol. A. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2009. 138-46. Print.

------. "From Narrative of the Third Voyage." Heath Anthology of American Literature. 6th ed. Vol. A. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2009. 146-49. Print.

De Vaca, Alvar Núñez Cabeza. "From Relation of Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca." Heath Anthology of American Literature. 6th ed. Vol. A. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2009. 159-70. Print.

Genesis. New International Edition. BibleGateway.com. Web. 16 Sept. 2009.

"New Spain." Heath Anthology of American Literature. 6th ed. Vol. A. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2009. 131+. Print.

Sullivan, Jim. "Christopher Columbus 1451-1506." Heath Anthology of American Literature. 6th ed. Vol. A. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2009. 137-38. Print.

Update 6.5: Social Media Refresh

2009-09-15T16:39:00.006-04:00

May I introduce you all to version 6.5 of Masoni Raves About, launching today. With this update we're focusing on integration with social media applications, as well as new ways for readers like you to get involved with and influence the content on this site. I'm very excited about getting started on this, so let's begin.

User Participation in Design
First, you've probably noticed the new logo at the top of this post. When I'm making a new logo for the blog, I usually keep it under wraps until I'm totally sure that's the aesthetic direction I want the blog to take. This is one of the first levels of "transparency" I'm implementing: user input and participation in the design of, function of, and changes to the blog. Every time I'm contemplating some major change to the user interface, graphical design and overall layout of the blog, I'll make an effort to run it past the readership first. You may have to check the mini-incremental updates (which will doubtless begin multiplying somewhere below sometime soon), but, believe me, they'll be there. So, my first question to kick off this new project: what do you think of this new spin on the MRA "brand?"

Facebook
If you use Facebook as prolifically as I do, there's an easy way to get connected with Masoni Raves About and our content. Just click here and become a fan - it's that easy. You can leave comments on or "like" status updates, communicate with other fans in discussions within the application, and take advantage of an instant route of interaction between the blog administer and the end user.

Twitter
Administrator Masoni maintains a Twitter account, accessable here. You can follow me for regular updates on pretty much everything from things I enjoy or dislike to minor updates on the blog. There is a certain degree of trust in my revealing my Twitter handle, and should anyone abuse this privileged information I can remove it just as quickly. Just saying.

User Participation in Content
That's right, I want to hear from all of you! What sort of content do you like to read? Which types of articles do you enjoy or appreciate most? Please vote in the following poll to let me know what you want to see more of, and then check back in over the next few weeks to see the fruit of your efforts.

Administrator Accessibility
As always, readers with comments, questions or concerns can contact blog administrator Masoni by emailing masoni@masoniravesabout.com. The current count is 59,334 / 20,146 / 283 / 37 / 106. Thanks, as always, for your support and continued readership. I have a lot of great stuff planned on the horizon, so never stop checking in! M.

[More after the fold.]

[Update 6.5.1 | 6 Oct]: (1)

60k

We've surpassed 60,000 hits! The current count is 60,206 / 20,818 / 285 / 37 / 107. Thanks for visiting and leave comments!

[Update 6.5.2 | 12 Oct]: (1) Changed around the arrangement at the top of the page, switching to the new circular logo from the old banner text and bumping the content closer to the top. Feedback would be very much appreciated. Additionally, I've started a tumblr blog at cjmasoni.tumblr.com, check that one out as well. Thanks a lot ladies and gentlemen, M.

(2 | 12 Oct): We've reached 21,000 unique hits as of 10:00 PM ET on October 12. Joyful, joyful. M.

(3 | 12 Oct): I realize I'm breaking a cardinal rule of update protocol, but we're adding a new author to the site this evening and a new update, 6.6, is necessary. Unfortunately this particular update, 6.5, will fall by the wayside and be entirely forgotten. I tossed around the idea for about thirty seconds of delaying adding incremental updates to 6.6 while 6.5 was filled up, but I find that overly cumbersome and dull. 6.6 it is, and look forward to welcoming our newest author. Thanks, M.

Radiohead Album Reviews Kickoff

2009-09-14T22:58:00.012-04:00

Hey guys, and welcome back to Masoni Raves About. This post is announcing a new project of mine extending into the future, called Radiohead Album Reviews. The feature is exactly what you'd assume - I'm going to be doing extensive, comprehensive, track-by-track reviews of all seven major Radiohead LPs, going in chronological order and starting with Pablo Honey. Before I begin, please take a moment and vote on which Radiohead album you personally believe is the best.

Thanks for voting and please leave comments elaborating on your opinions! I'll probably do other bands' albums this way, like The White Stripes or Animal Collective, but only time will tell. Thanks, M.

Health Care Reform Open Thread

2009-09-07T19:58:00.006-04:00

Hey everyone, and welcome back to Masoni Raves About. I'd like to introduce a new feature to the blog, called Open Threads. Here I encourage readers to leave their own opinions on an issue, debate amongst one another and share their perspectives in the comments. Today, the issue at hand is a hotly contested one, health care reform.

What do you think? Is the President's plan for a public health care option the best for our country? Is he involving the government too much in personal matters like health care, or too little?

I want to hear your opinions, so don't just vote but also leave comments outlining your views! Thanks, M.

New Book by Dawkins, "The Greatest Show on Earth"

2009-09-06T20:01:00.004-04:00

Found this video particularly interesting, and especially relevant to the contents of this blog based on previous discussions amongst our readership. Definitely going to pick this title up sometime soon. Feel free to offer your impressions of the video, Dawkins, and his book; as well as your opinions about evolution in general in the comments section of this post. I promise to provide original new content sometime very soon, perhaps in the form of a couple reviews or a good, old-fashioned rave.

N.B.: You may need to resize your window to view the entire frame of this video, or open it in its original form on YouTube by following this link.

Thanks for visiting! M.

The Importance and Impact of Duchamp's Fountain

2009-09-01T19:40:00.003-04:00

This one's an essay I wrote for an art appreciation course I'm taking, but I thought the subject matter was interesting and relevant enough to the usual content of this blog to include. Here I present my case for considering Marcel Duchamp's Fountain, pictured at left, a work of art.

In 1916, during the height of World War I, a group of revolutionary emerging artists gathered in Zürich, Switzerland to discuss their new movement. Legend has it that, when challenged by onlookers to give their collection a name, they hurled a French telephone book against a wall and christened themselves with the first four letters on the exposed pages: d-a-d-a. As their cultural movement began to take root and form, art experts the world around began to realize that Dada was something unlike anything they’d seen before. This movement, epitomized by Marcel Duchamp’s 1917 work Fountain, has had a profound and lasting impact upon our culture’s understanding of art. Not only is Fountain a work of art, but it has also helped redefine what experts consider art, making it infinitely more significant in art history.

Duchamp’s work was oftentimes in direct opposition to traditionally-conceived understandings of what qualifies as art. Throughout his career, Duchamp indulged in a form of “anti-art” called “readymades,” where he’d discover an ordinary preexisting object - such as a bicycle wheel or, in the case of Fountain, a urinal - and present it as art with a minimal degree of modification. This practice represented the least interaction possible between an artist and his creation, and was a violent departure from any other pieces of art ever created. Duchamp himself tackles naysayers in the Dictionnaire abrégé du Surréalisme, arguing that “ordinary object[s are] elevated to the dignity of a work of art by the mere choice of an artist.”

But how can a mere urinal, plucked from location on an artist’s whim, possibly stand proudly in museums beside works like the Mona Lisa? Duchamp’s contemporaries raised similar questions, some outraged by the lack of effort involved in creating - or, perhaps more appropriately, re-representing - Fountain. The most curious aspect of Fountain is that in 1917, the year it was created, it didn’t fall cleanly into nearly anyone’s definition of art. In 1918, many of those people had to adapt their definitions to include it.

Like most works of art, Fountain and its aftermath are impossible to appreciate without first understanding the historical context within which it made its debut. Countercultural sentiments were rampant following the advent of the first World War, and the Dada movement was precisely what the populace was looking for in art. Irreverent and reactionary against a system of institutions that had led Europe to ruin, Dada had found its niche in a disillusioned culture itching for change. This isn’t to say Duchamp’s timing was perfect by any means - his radical take on artistic expression surely made him a fair amount of enemies. But the Dada movement and specifically Fountain were indeed timely in that they revolutionized art and scoffed at tradition during a time of reactionary cultural upheaval.

Perhaps the best reasoning behind considering Fountain a true work of art comes from editorial author Beatrice Wood. She argues that “[w]hether Mr Mutt [the pseudonym under which Duchamp signed the piece] made the fountain with his own hands or not has no importance. He chose it. He took an article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view – created a new thought for that object.” This is the most compelling justification for considering Fountain a work of art: in selecting the object from many, and presenting it in a different context, the artist assigns significance to it - a significance reserved for works of art.

Quite simply, Duchamp’s Fountain is art on its own terms; it’s art because it says so. Nothing created before or since has been as instrumental in changing our culture’s understanding of artistic expression as was this piece of “readymade” art. Duchamp’s creation helped transform perceptions of what qualified as artistic expression, and itself was art because of the significance assigned it by Duchamp’s modified context. While he may not have altered anything physically about the urinal itself, the altered environment - from the bathroom to the museum floor - is what makes Fountain particularly unique and thought-provoking. M.

Fox News Has No Idea What They're Talking About

2009-08-30T18:01:00.004-04:00

In a recent article from Roughly Drafted Magazine, a great blog concerned with technology and, specifically, Apple news, writer Daniel Eran Dilger manages to combine everything I'm interested in into one marvelously funny piece. Entitled "Fox News reports new Mac virus that is neither Mac nor viral nor new," Dilger slams the Faux News network for their sheer misunderstanding of basic computer knowledge, their affinity for sensationalism and their all-around incredibility. I'll quote from his article and supply the link at the bottom of today's post.

A faith-based approach to science news

Since that’s what many people want to believe, and what unscrupulous fear mongers selling Mac anti-virus software want the public to believe, there is now additional “data” for supporting such a faith-based conclusion, in the form of a false headline. Never mind that the story itself is contradictory and based entirely upon reports from biased sources who profit from creating a climate of fear.

The report also fails to mention how anti-virus software would protect users, even the “online porn-hunters [who] are the intended victim of the latest ploy,” from falling victim to a trojan. Does it block them from downloading every bit of software they try to install with warnings that it might be dangerous, as Mac OS X already does?

Wrong to be Right.

Fox specializes in both. Sometimes, it fails to identify the country it drummed up support to invade. Note to Fox editors: Iraq is not Egypt. No wonder America can’t read a map.

Other times, it appears that Fox really is intending to flat out lie, as when it identifies one disgraced Republican after another as a Democrat: Mark Foley, “wide stance” Larry Craig, former Illinois Governor George Ryan, and “gone missing” Mark Sanford.

An excellent article that fits perfectly into all of my (and, hopefully, my readership's) interests. Ah, Fox. When will they learn? M.

[Link to the original article] http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/07/30/fox-news-reports-new-mac-virus-that-is-neither-mac-nor-viral-nor-new/#more-3667

[Addendum] For humor's sake.

Glenn Beck Beats from wreckandsalvage on Vimeo.

District 9 Will Blow Your Mind

2009-08-14T19:04:00.004-04:00

Ahoy, loyal readers, and welcome to yet another film review as the summer blockbuster season winds down. This movie in particular is one I've been anxiously anticipating since I first watched the teaser trailer several months ago, and my expectations for its quality were exceedingly high. The film in question is District 9, a startlingly original science fiction allegory for apartheid South Africa. In all honesty, I expected to be slightly disappointed, seeing as I'd irresponsibly built District 9 up in my mind to be this summer's knock-your-socks-off movie. I've done this before for lesser films in the past, and I have without exception left the theater feeling cheated and disheartened. But after seeing the midnight showing of District 9 last evening, I didn't. District 9 exceeded every expectation.

The premise is where the originality of this gem begins. Twenty years prior to the film's present day, a mammoth alien saucer appeared hovering over Johannesburg, South Africa. After weeks without incident or contact, humans entered the craft and discovered a race of shrimp-like creatures derisively dubbed "Prawn." The aliens were worker drones, and had little initiative on their own to fix their immobile craft or fend off the encroaching humans. Government organizations hired private military contractor MNU to confine the aliens to a concentration camp immediately under their spacecraft, the camp being the titular District 9.

The film follows MNU cubicle-man Wikus van der Merwe, portrayed brilliantly by little-known actor Sharlto Copley, as he begins serving eviction notices to aliens in District 9. While there, he comes into contact with an alien technology, and this exposure drives the remainder of the film. I won't spoil much more for readers, but suffice it to say the plot delivers more than enough horror, action, and subtle political commentary to satisfy just about any moviegoer.

I'd like to offer a word about this movie's more violent sequences to those readers apprehensive as to whether this film is up their respective alley. To be frank, the action in this film is nothing short of shit-your-pants incredible. Alien weaponry allows for a whole bevy of exciting special effects, most of them involving something between vaporization and dematerialization of hostile human targets. More than once the crowded theater erupted in a shocked bellow of disbelief at the gruesome spectacle on the screen, usually then devolving into a collective laughter at the incredulity of it all. One could mistake my above commentary as presenting the movie in a negative light, but suffer no delusions: I loved every moment of it.

The primary theme of inhumanity this film projects is a powerful one, and audiences leave the theater siding with the aliens and loathing the inhumane humans. The greatest triumph in District 9 wasn't any groundbreaking special effect or innovative film-making technique. It was to create an alien that human audiences could relate to, sympathize with and root for. Never before has a film so fully captured the essence of what makes us human and successfully placed it behind eyes from another planet. After witnessing around two hours of the worst human nature has to offer (like weapons trafficking, genetic experiments on live test subjects, and using alien innocents as target practice), moviegoers will feel compelled to embrace something wholly in opposition to themselves, which, in my estimation, makes for an incredible film experience. For offering the most thought-provoking and fun material yet this year, District 9 quite appropriately earns a 9.6 out of 10. M.

Ice Floats, Or: How I Learned You Don't Need Science to Write Science Fiction

2009-08-12T16:26:00.003-04:00

This past weekend, a friend and I decided to venture to our local theater and spend a few bucks on G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra - the latest Hollywood blockbusting opus, - with the explicit intention of making fun of a plot which promised to be ridiculous at every turn. I left the theater suffering from both a stunned silence and something like a muted exaltation at being able to pen this review. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to make something perfectly clear: G.I. Joe is not only the worst movie of the summer, it's doubtless in the running for worst of the year and, some would argue, worst of all time. Yes, worse than Transformers 2.

We entered the cinema toting popcorn and an ill-fated soft drink, expecting a weak (or nonexistent) plot bolstered by a formidable kaleidoscope of special effects. You know, usual summer Hollywood. While G.I. Joe certainly held up the first end of the bargain, offering one of the most disjointed and infantile plots in modern memory, what was so staggering about this film was how it failed to deliver on the second. Like Transformers 1 and 2, the visuals became bloated, fast-moving and difficult to comprehend before the camera switched inexplicably to something else. Only, unlike the Transformers movies, these visuals were bad - really bad. At several points, the effects were so under-polished as to become laughable, like an arbitrary school of terribly-rendered CG tuna which would have been more at home in a film from the early 80's. Amidst the cartoony explosions and painfully under-developed CG disaster sequences (like a visibly-fake Eiffel Tower collapsing into a Seine whose water appeared as though it'd been pulled out of a mid-90's Sci-Fi Channel original made-for-TV movie), it was understandably quite easy to forget exactly what was going on.

The muddled and downright silly plot failed to clarify anything. An ambiguous group of bad guys, at first operating under the auspices of fictional arms dealer MARS and eventually becoming the famous terrorist syndicate "Cobra," creates a form of nanotechnology that can essentially do anything - eat buildings, control subservient soldiers' minds, dissolve humans - effectively filling any inconvenient logical holes in the movie's plot line. MARS sells this technology to NATO in the form of four warheads, which are transported by Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayons), two ultranationalistic and patriotic "American heroes" inexplicably serving for NATO in the "not too distant future." Shortly after coming under attack by Cobra operatives, apparently trying to steal back the warheads they themselves manufactured, these two talking heads are rescued and subsequently join the G.I. Joe team, an exclusive outfit of international special operatives run by Dennis Quaid (I make no distinction between Mr. Quaid and the character he portrays in the film for comedic effect).

Over the course of the film, the Joes face off against Cobra on several continents, standing idly by while the Baroness (Sienna Miller) destroys the Eiffel Tower, causing no casualties, immediately following an unrealistic fight which doubtless resulted in dozens dead or dismembered and millions of dollars in property damage. Bravo, Joes. The Baroness manages to kidnap Duke and transport him to Cobra's secret underwater military base beneath the Arctic ice cap. Here's where things begin getting ridiculous. Spoilers follow.

The Joes infiltrate the underwater base and begin making an effort to rescue Duke from having his brain infested with nanobots which would render him subservient to almighty Cobra Commander. Okay, that's fine if you accept the premise of the film. Dennis Quaid leads a massive fleet of submarines against a complementary Cobra version, and they have a battle more reminiscent of Star Wars than Das Boot. Eh, fair enough. The Joes proceed to destroy the underwater submarine base by detonating charges inside the polar ice cap and SINKING HUGE PIECES OF ICE to crush the facility. Alright, are you kidding me?

Did the screenwriters honestly not understand that basic law of science, taught to most children and some primates in the first grade? Guys, ice is less dense than water. It floats. It floating is the reason the polar ice caps were above the Cobra base in the first place. It floating is the reason life exists on this planet, and maybe others, by allowing aquatic life to flourish beneath the surface despite subzero temperatures above. Guys, pour yourself a tall, cool glass of water. Hell, go ahead and take a sip. Now, drop in a few ice cubes. Report back to me your findings.

For lackluster special effects, an incoherent and childlike story, rampant racial and sexual exploitation, and for sheer scientific misunderstanding, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra earns a 0.2 out of 10. The 0.2 is merely because Joseph Gordon-Levitt, star of (500) Days of Summer, is [unintentionally] hilarious as Cobra Commander. M.

Time Travel is a Bunch of Hooey

2009-08-02T12:03:00.003-04:00

I watch a lot of movies in the theater, averaging two or three a week. And I'm that guy who whispers usually-accurate plot predictions to the person next to me, oftentimes ruining an upcoming surprise for an eavesdropper with less foresight. So, I see - and criticize - tons of movie trailers, but none have annoyed me enough to warrant their own rave until The Time Traveler's Wife. Starring Rachel McAdams and the first big-screen Hulk, Eric Bana, the film adaptation of a popular novel promises a juicy love story taking place across time.

See, Eric, the "time-traveler," has an issue with his inability to stay put within the time-space continuum. Granted, I've never read the book and obviously haven't seen the movie, and all of this has been gleaned from the showy trailers. Regardless, this premise provides for oodles of plot complications that bring screenwriters into fields they had no intentions of concerning themselves with. Compiled below is a list of problems I see with the trailer that should ruin the film for any astute moviegoer.

In the trailer, a sentimental flashback scene features a full-grown Eric Bana talking to a child version of Rachel McAdams. "You and I are friends," he tells her, "In the future." She denies the possibility of time travel - quite accurately, I might add, - and he persists to fade into oblivion, proving both that time travel is possible within Hollywood's warped reality and that the film boasts an moderate special effects budget. Cute, you're saying. But the problem here is that Eric Bana will meet Rachel McAdams at a point in the future where she recognizes him but he doesn't know her. Their relationship has to begin somewhere, and if it's not at the first point chronologically when Rachel first sees Eric Bana, as I assume this scene covers, the movie has all sorts of problems.
A pregnant Rachel McAdams lounges in a bathtub having a conversation with Eric Bana. "We name her Alba," he informs her, "She's so beautiful." This is, presumably, the first Rachel McAdams has heard of the name Alba, and so one begins to wonder: if Eric Bana is reporting from the future of some yet-to-be-seen development, does he actually cause it? And who actually came up with the name Alba? It definitely wasn't Rachel McAdams, and Eric Bana is simply telling her about what happens. Now that it's established as future reality, however, Eric Bana has effectively made it true. Rachel has no choice but to name the child Alba, subjecting her to a childhood full of ridicule and ill-natured playground banter.
"Major events pull me in, like gravity," explains Eric Bana. The Wikipedia entry for the novel calls Bana's involuntary time-traveling condition a "genetic disorder," meaning he's had it his entire life. This raises the following issues:
Question one: how did that work out when he was an infant, dependent entirely upon his parents? What, he'd just disappear one day and pop up a couple weeks later?
Question two: how can he understand which events really are the major ones if they're the only ones he's ever experienced? If he's hopping from time to time and only witnessing weddings, funerals, first dates, et cetera, then he's titling these "major" events relative to what, exactly?
Question three: if he's living a fraction of the lives normal humans live, why does his hair become grayer over the course of the preview? And why does it seem his hair becomes grayer relative to real-life chronology, since he's going back and forth through time? At some points he'd be much older than Rachel McAdams when they see each other, and other times much younger.
Question four: since he's only living through these "major events," is he going to die much later than McAdams? Or, maybe, has he already died during a venture into the past? What, exactly, is the range of his time travel? Can he travel before his own birth and after his own death? Can he travel to, as it's called in a popular YouTube video, "dinosaur times?"

These are my gripes with the trailer for The Time Traveler's Wife. If you have any of your own, feel free to add them to the comments. I demand logical consistency from my movies, especially those concerning time travel - maybe that's why I enjoy Minority Report and Donnie Darko so much. M.

(500) Days of Summer

2009-08-01T11:53:00.003-04:00

You know, I'm usually pretty impartial towards the traditional "romantic comedy." While I recognize and acknowledge that these films certainly have their place - simultaneously offering celebrity starlets an easy paycheck and predominantly-female audiences an afternoon laugh, swoon and sob, - I rarely have counted them among the more artistic films Hollywood occasionally graces us with. The trailer for (500) Days of Summer, however, promised to be something different. A sarcastic voice-over informs us that, "You should know upfront: this isn't a love story. This is a story about love."

Suddenly, I'm intrigued. Not to mention the film stars the beautiful and talented Zooey Deschanel and the unexpectedly-hilarious Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who'd starred in film noir homage Brick a few years ago. (500) Days of Summer promised to be quirky, untraditional, and honest, and the understatement of the century would be to say it delivered handsomely.

Its narrative adopts a fractured timeline, jumping between different segments of the 500 days in question. It leaps from scenes months after their breakup to ones from their first date, but never once became burdensome, confusing or even gimmicky in the least. In fact, the only somewhat-gimmicky part of this film was also among the best sequences in modern comedic cinema.

Immediately after the protagonist, Tom, finally sleeps with the titular object of his affection, Summer, his stroll to work through the streets of Los Angeles becomes something of a cross between a musical dance number and a parade. An animated bird appears to wish him well and, when he pauses to adjust his hair at a mirror, his reflection is an image of Han Solo, winking. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I have never laughed so hard.

(500) Days of Summer avoids falling into the indie-film rot category with Garden State and Juno, both of which existed mainly to popularize a couple of up-and-coming independent musical groups. While the Smiths and Belle and Sebastian are mentioned in Summer, it never becomes as pretentious or painfully trendy as its predecessors.

Unlike the usual dichotomy in so-called romantic comedies, in this film it's the guy who believes in true love and Summer who rejects it. And, in a stroke of filmmaking brilliance, following their breakup Tom manages to transform Summer into art, a theme artfully explored, by tearing apart his previous life and starting anew in a beautiful montage (yes, a beautiful montage) set over Wolfmother. See? That's what's so incredible about this movie: it breaks every conceivable rule, milks the cliches and still manages to come out perfect despite them.

Finally, this film seemed tailored to fit exactly my taste. It routinely made references that I felt unique in appreciating, like the character Summer's admiration of my favorite artist, René Magritte (she even had a green apple atop a bowler hat on her apartment's coffee table); a lengthy homage to filmmaker Ingmar Bergman inserted mid-film to express the depths of Tom's depression; and a quick line within which Summer refers to Tom as "young Werther," referencing the titular character of Goethe's masterwork. For these reasons, among others, I give (500) Days of Summer a 9.3 out of 10. M.

My Fear for Human Evolution

2009-07-30T12:46:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine is quite adapt at taking notice of the eye colors of people she meets. Mine, she claims, are the lightest blue she's ever seen. Although it's rather nice to have something unique for irises, my light eyes make it damn near impossible to see in sunlight. Of course, being homo sapiens technophiles, our innovations have spawned a band-aid for that particular issue in sunglasses. But, from an evolutionary standpoint, that's a disadvantageous genetic quality that I might pass on to my children, and they to their children.

In a hunter-gatherer scenario, where every human is fending for himself and danger lurks behind every tree trunk, these disadvantageous mutations would have been weeded out fairly effectively: having lighter eyes might have made me a poor hunter, and the genetics for blue eyes would have gradually disappeared from the species' gene pool. This is how natural selection works, allowing those with superior mutations to live on and perpetuate their useful genetic data to their offspring. This is how it works for mountain lions, penguins, sharks, bacteria, and all other flora and fauna inhabiting planet Earth today, save the homo sapiens.

So what happened? Why is it that natural selection can no longer function effectively for the human race? Technology happened. Evolution graced our species with the most advanced collection of molecules in the universe we know of: the human brain. Our brains recognized the issues of the day, and used technology to adapt rather than evolutionary processes. Tigers attacking your village? Invent a spear to fend them off, rather than humans evolving to be quicker, stronger. While such an alternative would have resulted in many more dead humans over the many generations required to effect such a genetic adaptation, it may have resulted in biologically superior human beings. Or the extinction of a human race which failed to adapt. Either or.

Regardless, I am of the opinion that the course of human evolution into the future will have little to do with DNA. Our adaptations will come in the form of increasingly advanced technology. A deadly disease begins killing people off? Invent a medicine to treat it rather than humans gaining a gradual immunity (and, in the process, helping spawn ever more drug-resistant bacteria). Human tissues atrophy in zero gravity, grounding interstellar exploration? Invent a form of artificial gravity, or treat the symptoms with some steroid growth hormone. Walking becomes a hassle? Invent [or, make use of the already-invented] Segway people-movers to make that arduous trek to the refrigerator a breeze.

So, this is my fear for the future of human evolutionary development. Nobody is dying because of inferior genes, although I can't say I'd want them to. Instead, we're inventing ways to sustain them, and they're able to reproduce, passing on potentially-dangerous genetic information over the generations. I fear that someday humans will become gelatinous blobs, our only interactions with the outside world filtered through forthcoming technological advancements which hinder our advancement as a species. Rather than finding out, however, I'll just keep shielding my eyes from the horrible truth with some sunglasses. M.

In Memoriam of My Zealousness

2009-07-13T12:31:00.007-04:00

This post has been deleted because I didn't feel it reflected the "new direction" I'd intended to go in. My tone and language were callous and unnecessarily rude to a couple of fellow bloggers whom I honestly do respect, and this misstep was due to my own frustration at a couple of unrelated issues which I allowed to guide my dialogue. I've since learned that I cannot write so much about politics and religion because I become too angry about it.

So, the new direction is coming sooner than anticipated or than I'd originally planned. Expect a bunch of new reviews of movies (Harry Potter 6) and music in the imminent future. Thanks for your continued readership. M.

The Inevitable Evolution Throwdown

2009-07-11T14:03:00.006-04:00

That's right, everyone. I'm challenging the regular readers of this blog to a [somewhat] organized debate regarding the plausibility of evolution. I couldn't resist making extensive use of the blog's new IntenseDebate comment system. So, Barb and Rob R, do you accept my challenge?

In all honesty, I'd love to have a polite and civil discussion of the merits and perceived weaknesses of evolution, and I believe our new comment system will facilitate this. All that new members have to do to get involved is sign up for a quick and easy, free IntenseDebate account.

So, the opening volley of what will doubtless be an epic debate: I hold that Darwin's theory of evolution, in light of scientific progress made since the publication of his book, is nigh impossible to reject as anything other than scientific fact.

Have fun and be nice. M.

Favorite Tech - July 2009

2009-07-09T17:31:00.000-04:00

Hey, everyone! Here's the latest installment in my pseudo-regular "Favorite Tech" series, this one primarily concerning Firefox 3.5 and its best add-ons. To highlight these, I'm going to introduce each add-on in a separate bullet-point to give them their respective fair dues. So, let's get started.

Firefox 3.5
Pictured at right is the "about:robots" page in my customized Firefox window, introduced as a cheeky Easter egg in a beta of the 3.0 release. I feel the page encapsulates the mood and good humor of the Mozilla Developers.

Firefox has long been the internet standard in web browsing, offering a powerful open-source and customizable nugget of brilliant software that millions of users have grown to love. To be honest, the best part of Firefox, for me, are the add-ons that make it so unique, and each user's version of Firefox unique amongst individuals. Here are a couple of my recent favorites, all download-able from the Firefox Add-Ons site.

Yoono - a social networking sidebar application which simultaneously feeds and updates your social media networks, including AIM, Facebook, Twitter, GTalk, MySpace, and many more.
FoxyTunes - control your music from right in Firefox, streaming from online sources like Yahoo! Music, Pandora or Last.fm or just from iTunes.
OmniBar - combines the address bar (dubbed the "awesome bar" by its developers) and the search box into one, giant, easy-to-use text bar reminiscent of Google Chrome.
Fission - places the progress bar when loading web content behind the text in the address bar, now the OmniBar.
Chromifox Theme - my favorite theme outfits Firefox with a full Google Chrome-style makeover. And it looks gorgeous.

All of these add-ons are activated in the above screenshot, so it'll give you an idea of what your browser might look like.

Google Reader
I'm not sure how I've never started using Reader before, but I've just begun and it's fantastic. It's a web application which constantly updates your favorite websites through RSS feeds. Its simplicity and ease-of-use are revolutionary and make keeping up with frequently-updating blogs easy and fun. And they have an awesome iPhone OS web application for reading on the go. Definitely give it a try, it's lovely.

Amazon.com for iPhone
I'm a fan of Amazon, and their iPhone app is among the best designed I've ever seen. Great work Amazon, now about the pricing on your Kindle...

That's it for this edition of Favorite Tech. Keep reading, become a follower and become a fan on Facebook. Thanks, M.

Update 6.4: New Direction

2009-07-08T11:13:00.007-04:00

Ahoy, ladies and gents. There has been a crippling bout of hiatus-fever running rampant in these here parts, and so I thought I might end it by announcing a couple new projects I intend to be working on. But first, a word on the new direction I intend to be taking the blog over the next year or so. It really isn't much of anything new, but simply an explanation of where I have been taking the blog in recent months, and where I plan to continue taking it.

Up until this point, Masoni Raves About has been used as my vehicle for political and philosophical discourse. I've made my viewpoints known through lengthy essays and treatises that, in all honesty, I acknowledge few of you care enough to read. It's gotten to the point that regular readers know my opinions well enough to predict accurately just about everything I could argue, and this leaves me frustrated and feeling useless. Perhaps an exaggeration, but true nonetheless.

There are thousands - literally - of political blogs out there spouting exactly the same content I offer here, and perhaps more eloquently and effectively than I could dream of. It's about time I recognize that whatever difference I might be able to make in the political arena will be inconsequential and anything but unique. I could say very much the same thing about philosophy - the ground I cover is ground covered before. Granted, the run-of-the-mill reader-of-blogs is likely less exposed to philosophical ideas than to political ones, but there are thousands of blogs offering complementary ideas to my own all over the internet. Check out Pat Condell or Thunderf00t on YouTube, they're fantastic.

So while this might be an excuse for this most recent accidental hiatus, Hiatus XX (that's 20!), it's really not - I've been overwhelmed with work, saving up money for university next fall. I believe that a wealth of new projects reflecting my new direction is exactly the antidote to my recent writer's block. So, in bullet points for clarity, allow me to outline my new direction and new projects.

The new direction is a much more criticism-centric one. Many more reviews of books, albums, movies, et cetera. The reason for this is that I've had a ton of fun writing my recent reviews for Transformers, Up, and other movies, and they've been among the most popular posts I've ever written.
The new direction will also be much more me-centric. I'll write about things I enjoy, things I want to write about, without feeling the least bit pressured by the current political climate or content pertinent to recent events. There will be some more technology posts, maybe a couple tutorials, and still a fair amount of raves.
A new project is to write an extensive - and I mean extensive - review for each album released by both Radiohead and The White Stripes. I count both of these bands among the greatest in history, and I think it'd be a lot of fun to work through their opuses song-by-song. Stay tuned for those installments.
A project I intend to keep up with is the "Favorite Tech" series, where I detail my favorite products from the technology world every month. Expect one of those pretty soon for July.
Google AdSense will be appearing on the blog near the end of July. I decided to be upfront about the addition, and tell readers that I promise it'll be unobtrusive and hardly noticeable when compared to other sites.

Yes, this Update 6.4 is a little early; but you'll live, methinks. To finish this relatively-coherent update-the-6.4th, I'd like to reflect on a couple of our current numbers. The current count is 56,144 / 18,072 / 270 / 35 / 96. Eighteen thousand different people have viewed Masoni Raves About at one point or another. At least 35 of these liked it enough that they decided to stick around for the long haul. And the Facebook group has been simply exploding, nearing the 100 mark for fans. Keep joining the Facebook group and the member panel on the site itself, if you please. Expect more content in the near future.

[Update 6.4.1 | 11 Jul]: (1) I've installed IntenseDebate commenting on all new posts throughout the blog. Posts with preexisting comments will not have the IntenseDebate features. New commenting policy in the works to reflect these changes. M.

(2 | 12 Jul): You've probably noticed the template changes and edits to the header and layout. Feedback is always welcome! M.

[Update 6.4.2 | 30 Jul]: (1) Yep, it happened again: you can say goodbye to Hiatus XXI. Our current count is 57,239 / 18,759 / 273 / 37 / 102. Hooray! Additionally, I've just added Google Adsense to the site this morning. Should be up and running relatively soon. Don't mind the ads, hopefully they won't be too intrusive. M.

(2 | 1 Aug): Launched the MRA online store! Check out our awesome products.

[Update 6.4.3 | 12 Aug]: (1) Our current count is 57,846 / 19,158 / 276 / 36 (!) / 102. More content on the horizon, folks.

[Update 6.4.4 | 7 Sep]: (1) Some subtle changes are afoot, such as the Labels sidebar going into cloud form, the Blog Archive sidebar going into a drop-down menu, and some new products available on the online store. Update 6.5 will launch sometime soon, so be prepared! M.

(2 | 13 Sep): The unique hits counter has reached a whopping 20,000 visitors! The current count is 59,220 / 20,066 / 281 / 36 / 105. Keep visiting and shopping at the MRA Store! M.

Transformers 2 Should Be Subtitled "Racism of the Michael Bay"

2009-06-26T13:48:00.002-04:00

The average frame from Transformers. Mind telling me what exactly is going on?

It would be cruel of me to crown this summer's latest blockbuster, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, simultaneously the most brain-dead and least coherent film I've ever seen. Despite its cruelty, however, it would also be true. I cannot express the depth of my confusion and frustration while viewing this three-hour spectacle, but suffice it to say I wouldn't wish the experience on my worst enemies. Transformers 2, as worded perfectly by a reviewer at wonderful science-fiction blog io9.com, could be [satirically] called "a brilliant art movie about the illusory nature of plot." Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it was that bad.

Between gratuitous shots of Miss Fox's scantily clad figure straddling motorcycles (and she's not that attractive! She is the epitome of white trash!) and yet-to-be-explained seizures suffered by Mr Laboeuf, it's easy to forget that this movie's going anywhere. There's a romantic subplot that's easily overlooked, a political undercurrent that's strongly anti-diplomacy and anti-Obama, and Michael Bay's strange affinity for exploiting racial stereotypes. Racial stereotypes? Say it ain't so!

Oh, it is indeed so. Remember in the first Star Wars prequel, when we were introduced to the oh-so-irritating alien named Jar Jar Binks? People were appalled at the time, shouting that Lucas had finally indulged his dormant racism and inserted a needless racial stereotype into his film. And remember when Jar Jar conspicuously disappeared for parts 2 and 3?

That was pretty awful. And, do you remember in the first Transformers flick, which was vastly superior to its sequel in just about every conceivable way, featured an "Autobot" (the name of the good robot army) named Jazz, who spoke in African-American vernacular, performed a breakdancing move and was killed before doing much of anything else? Yeah, that was pretty bad, too. And that's how I learned that director of both films, Michael Bay, had racist tendencies.

Not even that knowledge prepared me for the horror that was Transformers 2. A slew of new, mostly indistinguishable robots were introduced, among them a lively pair of Autobots named "The Twins." Allow me to be momentarily frank with all of you: I have never seen anything more appalling in cinema in my entire life. Not even the Saw franchise has brought me to this level of duress. And the people laughed!

The Twins are two robots, a green one and an orange one, who are assumedly brothers and constantly bicker (the issue of robot reproduction and evolution is something for another day, but the movie fails when it tries taking a crack at the problem). Anyway, both sport severely simian features like wide-set facial structures, massive looming ears, and extreme overbites. One even has a gold tooth! When asked to translate a bit of the robot's language, they look at each other uneasily. "Ah, ye know," offers one in what is intended to be a distinctly "African-American" voice, "Man, I don't do much readin'." They can't even fucking read! Another time, one shouts, "Ima bust a cap in yo ass!" Another time, one shouts, "Aw, hell, he done got shot up in the face!" And the audience laughed throughout! After viewing such flagrant and disturbing hate radiating from the screen and from around me, I'm left with two questions. One: who the hell read this script and said, "Yeah, looks fine. Let's make it a movie." And, second, what the fuck, Michael Bay?

These "little black sambots" aside, let's make one thing perfectly clear: Michael Bay is among the worst, if not the worst, directors in our generation. Helming such gems as Bad Boys and Pearl Harbor, Bay brings his trademark super-quick cuts to the second Transformers film, leading audience members to constantly question what exactly is happening on the screen. Coupled with the sheer visual gibberish of watching two hulking, excessively detailed robot-cars fighting it out in the middle of sandy Egypt, the film is essentially as informative as watching a lava lamp for three hours. Examples of this insanity follow, along with my best guesses of what's going on
:

Well...um, we're in China, and it's on fire.

There are some fighter planes, and they're on fire. Is this still China?

Um, it's a robot milkshake in the making. Yeah, that's it! And we're in the desert.

To finish, I'd like to say a little something about this movie's plot. Or, more accurately, its lack thereof. In a film as ridiculous, incredulous and downright stupid as this one, no words will suffice. And so, I'm going to allow the screenwriters to speak for themselves. I'm going to explain what happens, step-by-step, in the simplest terms possible, and you tell me if you have any idea what's going on. Because I sure didn't. I can't guarantee that this order's correct, but you should get the gist of it.

Okay, so at the outset, there's some clip of cavemen fighting this "Fallen" guy at the dawn of human civilization. There's a voiceover, and then we're transported to the present day. The United States Army has teamed up with the various assortment of good guy robots to hunt down bad guy robots, and today they're in Shanghai, China, which is completely destroyed in the process. Bravo, USA. Cutting to nameless suburbia: Shia finds a shard of the "Cube" - the fought-over, all-important object which was destroyed in the first movie - on his shirt. Wasn't it destroyed entirely to kill Megatron? Oh, it wasn't destroyed after all? Oh, and Megatron is still alive at the bottom of the ocean? Well anyway, it shoots alien characters into his eyeballs. His kitchen appliances turn evil and go haywire.

He goes to college, where every party is apparently like a strip club and every co-ed is apparently a supermodel. One such supermodel takes a liking to him, turns out she's a bad-guy robot. Megan Fox is jealous, but later they decide they love each other. Optimus Prime, leader of the Autobots, gets killed. They team up with the Italian stereotype secret agent from the first movie, talk to an old fart of a Blackbird, and get teleported to Egypt.

The Fallen (the Emperor to original bad guy Megatron's Darth Vader) shows up on Earth and starts attacking cities; says he's looking for Shia. In Egypt, the Twins help them find an artifact from 10,000 years ago, left by the ambiguous "Primes," that is supposed to help resurrect Optimus Prime. It disintegrates, so Shia puts it in his sock. The United States Army shows up en force; a battle ensues, during which time all semblance of order or direction is lost entirely. Apparently, under one of the Pyramids (we should have known these were the only reason for Hollywood to take us to Egypt) is a machine designed to destroy the Sun. The Fallen (a.k.a. Emperor Palpatine), whom, despite his being the titular antagonist we've seen maybe 45 seconds of, wants to activate it.

The battle continues for some 45 minutes. I doze off. Now there's a giant evil robot climbing the Pyramid. Shia's parents are there for some reason. At some point, Shia "dies," and we're supposed to be very worried about it. In a dream he has in the afterlife, those "Primes" tell him that he's earned the artifact, and so when he wakes up into Megan Fox's tanned arms the artifact reintegrates so he can use it to resurrect Optimus. Rejuvenated, America's favorite red-and-blue robot flies up to the pyramid, shoots both the Fallen and the Sun machine, and solves every one of the movie's major problems in the course of fifteen seconds. The movie abruptly ends, inciting applause from the adrenaline-charged, mindless zombie audience.

So there you have it! Sprinkle in a fair amount of unveiled racism and needless sexuality, and you've got yourself a summer blockbuster! Based on all of these reasons, I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen an 0.8 out of 10. M.

Andy Thomson Discusses the Psychology of Religion

2009-06-24T13:02:00.000-04:00

Here's a brilliant speech delivered at this year's American Atheists convention by a Dr. Andy Thomson which explains some of the mental processes and mechanisms behind man's natural affinity towards religion. The subject matter is extremely relevant to my current project on "The Appeal of Religion," so I decided it was enlightening enough to warrant posting. This post should be considered "God, Take 10." It's quite lengthy but, I believe, engaging throughout. Enjoy.

M.

The Future of the iPhone

2009-06-21T15:01:00.003-04:00

A sampling of the "essential" iPhone applications available on the App Store, according to Gizmodo.

Good morning everyone, and welcome back to Masoni Raves About. With both iPhone OS 3.0 and the iPhone 3G S being released this past week, I thought it timely and appropriate to rave about the direction I believe Apple should take their flagship handset. They've disappointed me with many of their recent decisions, and this list is comprised of the things I believe they must do to get back on track. If Apple wishes to maintain their sudden dominance of the smartphone market, here are some of the most important steps.

Never slow your innovations down. As many of you know, I am the proud owner of an iPhone 3G, the second generation of Apple's revolutionary smartphone. When the 3G came out in July 2008, it came on the crest of a tsunami of new features, benefits, and a much more reasonable price-tag. iPhone OS 2.0, with the new App Store and hundreds of innovations, along with a slick new design and connectivity to the 3G cellular data network made the 3G a hot-ticket item in 2008, and the devices sold out nationwide. To put it mildly, the 3G was a smash hit.

But the 3G S, which came out this Friday, was met with significantly less fanfare and minimal press coverage. Many people hardly even knew it was being released. And with good reason: there was hardly anything different about this new iPhone. Sure, 3.0 was nice, and the speed boosts are impressive to technology geeks like myself, but, aside from that, there weren't any real incentives to upgrade from a 3G. "Video recording!" shouts the consumer populace, "It's really neat!" Sure, it's nice, but Apple could have done so much more with this new iPhone. I think it's a missed opportunity to revolutionize the market a third time.

Don't forget about us early adopters. New software features unique to the iPhone 3G S include the aforementioned video recording and voice control (a feature which has been available in so-called "dumbphones" for almost a decade, but which Apple showed off as an "innovation." Pah-lease), which both seem pretty useful and well-implemented, although a tad gimmicky. But both of these new features are ones easily made available to iPhone 3G and even 2G (the first generation) users through a simple software download - they require no additional hardware to function, unlike the compass (more on that in a moment). So what gives?

I honestly believe Apple understands the weakness of their third iPhone, and for that reason made those software features exclusive to the S. Low blow, Apple. Low indeed.

Outgrow AT&T. Common sense dictates that a wireless provider with bloated prices and terrible service isn't the right one for the most advanced smartphone on the market, right? Well, apparently not. Not only can AT&T not provide support for iPhone 3.0's long-overdue MMS capability until "late summer," but the pricing for 3.0's 3G tethering promises to be ridiculous, just like the monthly tariffs have been for two years now. Apple should expand the iPhone to more advanced and more affordable networks like Verizon, the most popular and ubiquitous network in America. This is the real way to reach more customers, Apple, not by lowering the up-front cost to $99 - although that might help.

Keep it simple, stupid. One of the greatest draws to Apple technologies for me is the simplicity of their nomenclature. While other computer companies drown their customers in a sea of haphazard numbers and letters, Apple keeps it simple with product lines and price points, usually dictated by screen sizes and followed by incremental specifications upgrades. For example, there's the 13" MacBook Pro and a 15" MacBook Pro, and everyone knows what you're talking about. For companies like Insignia, from whom I recently purchased an LCD television, their products are dictated by letter designations like "NS-LDVD26Q-10A" - and I'm not making that up, that's the real product title for my television.

This makes things much easier for the customer to differentiate between the 16GB and 32GB iPod touch, or the iPod classic from the iPod nano. It makes sense, and the iPhone line has always been simple. Two price points, which since July '08 have been $199 and $299, have corresponded to two storage options, which until recently were 8GB and 16GB. The products themselves were called "iPhone," and then "3G" was added on later. Eh, fair enough. But now, there's an 8GB 3G at $99 and two 3G S models at 16GB for $199 and 32GB for $299 - it begins looking like something offered by Dell or Insignia, and I begin to wonder why they don't just call them all "iPhone?" What'll it be when 4G goes mainstream? iPhone 4G SS Extra? Come on.

Have higher standards for applications. The modern App Store makes me sick to my stomach. It's nigh impossible to find something worthwhile amongst the ocean of one-use applications, meaningless games and - now - pornography that engulfs the store. There are doubtless gorgeous applications that show off their authors' handiwork: Twitterific, Evernote, Shazam and FlightControl are just a few. But you'd be hard-pressed to find these on your own without stumbling upon such gems as iBeer, Beer Pong Lite Edition, and Bikini Girl Screen Wash.

My proposed solution: create a "Pro" version of the App Store, where only the cream of the App Store crop are available for sale. Only well-made professional-grade applications, currently taking up about 1% of all App Store submissions, would be included. Apple could include more stringent regulations and reject anybody they want to without being called monopolizing or accused of executing unfair business practices - hey, "iFart Lite" can still make it into the regular App Store, right?

Don't "add," build. This is probably the result of my obsessive compulsive tendencies, but nothing irritates me more about the iPhone OS 3.0 release than the addition of "Voice Memos" to the home screen, and, for the 3G S, "Compass." Couldn't Apple have merely built "Voice Memos" into the preexisting "Notes" application, creating something more along the lines of an Evernote app? And couldn't "Compass" exist within the "Maps" application as an added screen or something?

The reason I take issue with this is because I believe it to be typical of Apple's latest iPhone developments: they're not refining (like they are in Mac OS X Snow Leopard), they're adding, adding, adding. And the iPhone is quickly becoming more and more cluttered as a result. So, Apple, please heed this advice from a lowly consumer observer: build on the great product you have now rather than cluttering it with gimmicky knick-knacks and party tricks.

The Verdict

Look, the iPhone is a great phone, but it's not the greatest thing to ever grace humanity's fingertips. I really enjoy mine, and it works great for me, but nothing - and I mean nothing - is immune from my criticism. The iPhone still needs a lot of work to live up to its fullest potential, and it's feedback from customers like you and me that will drive Apple in the right direction.

Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got. This is also our 160th rave. Thanks, as always, for reading, M.

The Appeal of Religion, Pt. 2: Collectivism

2009-06-16T14:00:00.001-04:00

This second section of my "Appeal of Religion" series is closely related to the previous one, Security. The next section, tentatively titled Status, will also be closely related to this one. It's like the natural order of thought, ladies and gentlemen!

This post will have less to do with belief in a higher power as it has to do with one's subscription to a specific organized religion. It is my opinion that much of the appeal of organizations, like religions, political parties, and knitting circles, is the sense of collectivism that comes with membership, the idea that everyone is on the same page as you. It's reassuring and comforting to think that you're part of something bigger, something uniform and standardized, something that could be interpreted as an exclusive club. Here is a more specific breakdown of the reasons for humans' attraction to organized religion in light of their affinity for collectivized thought.

Spoon-Fed Morality

Humans don't really want to think for themselves. Despite Emerson's genius axiom, "Make your own Bible," a vast majority of people would forgo the difficulty and internal struggles of such an undertaking in favor of accepting someone else's dogmas. Rather than taking a moment, or a lifetime, to objectively and systematically determine what it is they truly believe about the metaphysical plane and about issues of morality, ethics, and similar matters, it's much more convenient for the businessmen and soccer moms of planet Earth to latch onto something formulated by someone else.

But how can one be sure they're not being taken advantage of? Few take the time to consider the terrible baggage that comes with such a submission to another's system of thought. If the system assigns authority to those responsible for crafting the system in the first place, something could very well be horribly amiss. This sort of hierarchal leadership schema, which generation after generation perpetuates itself through new internal promotions (the conditions for which are based on obedience and submission to the standing authorities), is doubtless a dangerous one. Oh, and for the record, all of these authority figures are guided by a divinity who remains active within their ranks. Oh, and the sole leader of this organization has the capacity to speak infallibly, although he very rarely takes advantage of that perk. Remind me again who they're worshipping, the god or his activists?

Imagine if a government conducted itself in the example set by the Roman Catholics' Magisterium: there'd be rebellion! Americans, and right-wing Americans, too, would shout "Dictatorship! No democracy! Let the people rule!" And they'd be right. We've seen something similar to this arrangement recently in Iran and North Korea, with a "divinely-appointed" or "divinely-supported" leader making every decision for the captive populace. A dangerous notion indeed.

Non-Compliance Will Result in Eternal Suffering

Sounds like some slogan out of a work of dystopian fiction, doesn't it? Folks, religion is intellectual slavery. The Christian system (and indeed, those of the other monotheistic religions) is broken - no, shattered, - and only remains strung together by a mutual fear of an ill-conceived and empty threat. Allow me to elaborate with one of my beloved analogies. And I do so love analogies, as frequent readers will have noticed.

So, let's say we're twelve years old. I desperately want you to believe that my father is an professional wrestler, despite the fact that I'm fully aware he isn't. Oh, and I'm the neighborhood bully, and you're just an average Joe. Yes, there's some sort of inferiority complex at work here, but we'll leave that unmentioned for the moment. What do I tell you so that you'll believe me? Do I tell you I'll beat you up? No! My daddy's a professional wrestler, right? I tell you he'll beat you up. It's my duty to warn you that you probably should believe that he's a wrestler, else he'll bloody you so terribly that you'll wish you'd never existed. This is what I say to frighten you into accepting something slightly unbelievable, mainly because I'm fully aware of its falsehood. And I dare say that twelve-year-old would be convinced, scared into submission by an imaginary force. An imaginary force!

If you're among those few for whom the last analogy was entirely over your head, keep reading. I'll clear it up. My father represents the Christian god. My twelve-year-old author surrogate represents the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (called the Magisterium for those unfamiliar), or really of any organized religion. My father beating you up represents hell. So, on the more tongue-in-cheek side, I've just likened the Church's teaching about hell to children bullying one another. Then, I proceeded to call god an imaginary force. Twice. Great, now that we're all up to speed...

The point is that, in more desperate times, the Church (and other organized religions) was [were] forced, due to the failure of many of their missionaries, to add a threat of some sort to their teachings. A fail-safe. "Should you reject what we're telling you," they said, "It's not going to be pretty once you're dead." Non-Christians ate it up like hot-cakes. Other religions, like Islam, didn't stop there: they said, "Screw hell, if you don't convert right now we're going to chop your fucking head off." I've argued in earlier posts, like God, Take 7, that the notion of hell, a place of eternal suffering, is incompatible with the Christian ideal of a loving and forgiving god. That's probably because if god exists, I'm certain hell doesn't. Even in a theistic scenario, hell would remain a human invention designed to frighten potential converts into acceptance. And so, another appeal of religion is the comfort which comes in the perceived avoidance of a negative afterlife.

On that note, I'll bring part 2 to a close. That last bit about a negative afterlife should prove the perfect segway into part three, which will concern the Status which comes with subscribing to an organized religion. You'll see. Thanks for reading, M.

The Appeal of Religion, Pt. 1: Security

2009-06-14T09:54:00.006-04:00

This post is the beginning of a rather extensive exposé into why humans are so attracted to religious belief. If my plans come into fruition, this will be a massive undertaking involving multiple postings, the likes of which this blog hasn't really seen before. This should be considered a large portion of the Ecce Lemming project I announced a few months back. Should my plans fail, I doubt many would notice. On that note, let us begin.

One of my greatest challenges as an atheist is relating to people who ardently hold a belief in god. Such a concept is ludicrous to someone like me, having abandoned supernatural thought years ago, but it remains a binding influence on billions of people around the world, and on a vast majority of the people I encounter on a daily basis. How can they all suffer the same delusion? How can they allow themselves to be controlled by a manipulative and greedy international mega-corporation like organized religion? Why are they content with a belief system that entails so much suffering, punishment, and pain?

Rather than tackling these questions directly, I decided to consider the source, the reasons for the origins of religion. Early man didn't have much to worry about besides hunting and gathering, and maybe the occasional reproducing. What influenced him to start looking to the heavens for guidance? Why did he feel the need to worship things he couldn't see, touch, or communicate with?

I believe there are many reasons for this, reasons I will try to outline at length in this new series. The first of which, security, is what I'll be raving about today.

A Guide through the Valley of Death

Humans are scared shitless. All of us, without exception, fears the unknown. Some will deny this claim, say that they're perfectly at ease with the realities of death - their own and those of their loved ones. But, in actuality, they're not - none of us are. The idea that someday each and every one of you reading this, along with every single person you have ever known, will leave this plane of existence is a genuinely frightening one.

It's somewhat comforting to believe that after this life is over, there's another one awaiting us. It's consoling to think that a deceased loved one is now sitting pretty amongst the clouds, chilling out with some angels and watching over us whilst sipping a margarita. And you can understand how these ideas would develop in primitive man, having neither medical understanding nor advanced logical thinking.

Belief in an afterlife is born out of fear and insecurity. Humans are frightened of the unknown, but the time has come to outgrow those childish fairy-tales and accept the realities of life: we're going to die, and there's a very good chance nothing happens after that. I think if more people thought that way, maybe they'd make something better out of the limited time they do have to make a difference, a lasting impression on humankind.

An All-Weather Friend

Remember when you were a kid, and you had an imaginary friend? Your friend, let's call him Vlad, was always there for you. He was your kickball teammate when your neighborhood buddies couldn't play. Vlad was your shoulder to cry on when you were upset about your parents putting you in time-out. He was the guy you'd tell your juiciest secrets to, and you knew he'd never tell anyone about them.

There's a certain security in believing that there's always someone there for you, someone to talk to in times of loneliness, to ask for guidance in times of hardship, to ask for aid in times of need. This is a second appeal of believing in an omnipotent god, believing that god is always there to help you out in a pickle. And, indeed, m[b?]illions of people use god for just that: calling on him when they're frightened and alone, but ignoring him for the remainder of the time.

This is how I always was as a child: I never took the idea of god seriously until I really needed him for something. 99% of the time, I couldn't care less about god - he didn't affect me personally on a day-to-day basis. But when things started getting ugly, I sure hoped I was in his good graces. They say there are no atheists in foxholes, and human nature tells us that this may be true. But I'd wager there aren't any Christians in the bedroom. Or in strip clubs. Or while someone's cheating on their spouse. I'm not sure if Vlad would hang out with you in these situations, but I'd figure you wouldn't want him around at these moments.

Simply Put, An Errand-Boy

I'd like to take a moment and comment on the needlessness of prayer. Rather, more specifically, prayers of petition. Alright, so you have this omnipotent, omniscient god who has a divine plan for every member of the human race. Okay, neat. So this god - let's call him Vlad - has a specific course of events in mind for your future. Remember, Vlad knows everything. He's perfect in every way, and his plan is objectively the perfect one for you. Okay, got it.

Why in a million years would you pray for him to change his plan? "God [Vlad], would you please help me get an A on this exam? God [Vlad], would you please keep my family safe?" Why in Vlad's name would Vlad listen to you? He's got a perfect plan already, and you're asking him to change it? That's what prayers of petition are, ladies and gentlemen: asking an omnipotent god to change his plan. You're making god into your errand-boy.

A relevant anecdote comes to mind. Recently, a student at my school was diagnosed with leukemia and predictably became very ill. The situation was dire, and when hopes were beginning to dwindle, we discovered that he'd found a match in the bone marrow registry. This truly is fantastic news, and I was very happy that he'd have a path to recovery. But people around the school posted signs everywhere you looked, reading "Praise God! [He] found a match!"

Now, it's fair that you'd want to thank god in a moment of bliss. Something great has happened, and it's nice to thank the omnipotent god you worship for making it happen. But let's not forget that, if god does exist, he's the reason the student got leukemia in the first place. In fact, god invented leukemia. Now read the text of that sign again, in light of the fact that god cleaned up his own mess. "Praise God! He solved his own terrible, evil situation!" would be more appropriate, or maybe "Praise God! He cleaned up after himself!"

Part 2 to follow. M.

Panda Bear's Person Pitch

2009-06-14T08:57:00.003-04:00

Like I've explained before, my reviews are of pieces that are new to me if not to the rest of the world. So, although I mentioned Person Pitch a while ago in this post, I figured the album was worthy of a full-scale review. For a little bit of background information, the artist Panda Bear is actually a member of esteemed indie experimental group Animal Collective, and this is his solo opus. Being a huge fan of Animal Collective, I had high expectations for this album, and suffice it to say it more than delivered.

From the opening chants of "Comfy in Nautica" to the hypnotic conclusion of "Ponytail," Person Pitch is consistently interesting, engaging, and artistic. The sound is somewhere between Animal Collective's best two albums, Sung Tongs and Merriweather Post Pavilion, but maintains a unique and enthusiastic vibe. In fact, that's a great way to describe this album to someone who's never heard it: it's so excited to tell you something, but it just doesn't know what. And while that may sound frustratingly ambiguous, the result is fantastic.

With this sort of music, "this sort" being modern indie experimental, the objective is more to create something memorable and meaningful than something catchy and popular for the radio. Songs run past twelve minutes, containing multiple distinct sections with titles that name these independent of one another ("Good Girl/Carrots" is one example, in which the "Carrots" half is the superior one). Songs crescendo to a perfectly-pitched climax, beginning obtuse and mellow with chants and water effects in the background, and finishing strong with strumming guitar and flowing vocals ("Take Pills" is a perfect example). Standout bests include "Bros," "Comfy in Nautica" and "Good Girl/Carrots." Listen to these and the rest of the album for free below.

Person Pitch - Panda Bear

This album is perfect to listen to while driving, has an easy beat to walk to, and really fits well into most any occasion. Pitchfork, an influential music review blog, placed Person Pitch at the top of their list of best albums of the year for 2007, and after listening to it, it's easy to understand why. I give Person Pitch a 9.6 out of 10.

Who's Really Intolerant?

2009-06-13T14:48:00.006-04:00

The fact of the matter is, a majority of Americans - somewhere around 90% - believe in some form of a higher power. Beyond that, most of these believe in the Christian god. And while that's well and good, and they're entitled to hold whatever religious beliefs they'd like, the government has consistently, illegally, and unconstitutionally catered to the religious for decades. Recently, I was accused of being intolerant of religions by a theist, who went on to say that atheists are always intolerant of religious people. He also wondered why we atheists had to "incorporate [our] beliefs into everyone else's lives." This frustrated me so much that I've decided to compile a list of examples of how atheists are discriminated against every day in this country.

The Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase "under god," which was added on in 1954 at the height of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. This is an unconstitutional government endorsement of monotheism, which doesn't reflect the beliefs of millions of Americans.
The official motto of the United States was made "In God We Trust" in 1956. This was also made the state motto of Florida by Jeb Bush in 2004. The motto also appears on the flag of the state of Georgia, as well as on Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Ohio license plates.
Many state mottos also feature god, such as Arizona ("God Enriches"), Colorado ("Nothing Without God's Will"), Connecticut ("He Who Transplanted Sustains"), Kentucky ("Let Us Be Grateful to God"), Ohio ("With God, All Things Are Possible"), and South Dakota ("Under God the People Rule").
United States currency includes the official United States motto, "In God We Trust."
Churches and other eligible religious organizations receive tax-exempt status. If that's not a government endorsement of religion, I don't know what is.
While campaigning for the presidency in 1987, George H. W. Bush reportedly said, "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Despite that hateful and discriminatory comment, he was still elected. Imagine if he'd said the same thing about Christians or Muslims. He'd have been lynched!
More minor examples of discrimination against atheists at about.com.

With these realities of our country on the table, who can still rationally say that atheists are the intolerant ones? And who's incorporating their beliefs into everyone else's lives? Sure, there should still be freedom of religion in this and every country, and people should be allowed to worship in any [safe and orderly] way they choose, but these official endorsements of monotheism must stop. Anyone who disagrees with me disagrees with the Constitution of the United States of America. Allow me to reiterate that:

ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME DISAGREES WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Don't get me wrong, I love my country. I love my Constitution, with all the freedoms and protections within. But when someone tries to soil my Constitution, to erase my liberties, because of their religious persuasions, I get angry. And I mean furious. Establishment of religion, anyone? M.

WWDC 09 Predictions - Follow-Up

2009-06-09T11:13:00.002-04:00

Ahoy! This post is the obligatory follow-up post to my Predictions for Apple's 2009 Worldwide Developer's Conference, which is taking place all this week. Yesterday, Apple leadership delivered their Keynote address and released all sorts of new goodies. In this post, I'll gauge my accuracy of predictions based on whether or not I thought it likely for the forthcoming events to occur; for example, if I put the release of an Apple tablet towards the "wishful" side of the likelihood scale, and since it didn't happen, that'd be counted as a correct prediction. Also, if I said something was "released," I'm going to count it as a win if the announced release date is within a month of the conference. So, let's begin.

iPhone OS 3.0 Released - likely - CORRECT: They announced yesterday that the new software would be released on June 17, 2009. Additionally, as I said, they announced that [for the iPhone 3G S] it would feature video recording. Unfortunately, MMS won't be available on AT&T until "late summer." Lame, AT&T.
iPhone 3G 2009 Announced - likely - CORRECT: Called the iPhone 3G S ("S" standing for Speed).
iPhone 3G 2009 Released - likely - CORRECT: The iPhone 3G S will be released on June 19, 2009.
New iPhone Model Variety - unlikely - WRONG: They've priced the 8GB iPhone 3G at $99 and the 16GB/32GB 3G S at $199/$299. I count that as new model variety.
New, Lower, Price Points - likely - CORRECT.
Tablet - unlikely - CORRECT.
Netbook - unlikely - CORRECT.
Snow Leopard New Info - likely - CORRECT: Apple unveiled a slew of new features, including Dock Exposè, a revamped Finder, and revised Stacks. Check out apple.com/macosx for more information.
Snow Leopard Released - unlikely - CORRECT: It's not within a month - Mac OS X Snow Leopard is due out in September (conveniently a month before the announced release of Windows 7).
Steve Jobs - unlikely - CORRECT: But, oh, how I wish I'd been wrong.

Well, I'm getting better at this! I was 9 for 10. Other announcements I hadn't anticipated were the price changes to the MacBook Pro line, as well as changing the 13" aluminum MacBook to the "Pro" designation; the release of Safari 4 from beta; and the inclusion of Voice Control (it's about time!) to the iPhone OS in the 3G S. Thanks for reading and always think different, M.

Veckatimest & Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix

2009-06-08T10:49:00.001-04:00

Although they don't have much in common, I'm combining the reviews of these two new albums that I've only recently had the pleasure of listening to. I figured that, rather than making two extensive posts detailing each, I'd just make a joint review and divide one post in half for each one. Each will be about as long as half a regular-sized review, so they'll be sort of brief. So, without further explanation, let's begin.

Veckatimest by Grizzly Bear

I saw Grizzly Bear live last August when they opened for Radiohead, and I was impressed by their chilled-out and unique sound. Their latest opus, Veckatimest, represents an evolution of said sound to a staggering degree. The album is fine-tuned to a the point of being obsessive, but this effort produces a solid, tight record of Grizzly Bear's best music.

Standout bests include the first track, "Southern Point," the first single "Two Weeks," and my personal favorite, "Fine For Now." A quick anecdote concerning "Fine For Now" - while driving a couple of days ago and listening through the album in preparation for this review, I had an aesthetic experience during this track that I cannot even begin to describe accurately. I was simply overcome with the beauty that surrounded me, a sentiment I now associate with that truly beautiful song.

Although the album leaked on torrent-download sites months before its eventual release, Veckatimest nonetheless debuted near the top of the American charts - quite a feat of an indie group of their caliber. Regardless of its availability online, I'd recommend paying Grizzly Bear their dues at your local record store or on iTunes. For this reason, among others, I give Grizzly Bear's Veckatimest a 9.1 out of 10.

Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix by Phoenix

I must admit, I was wholly unfamiliar with this band until their latest album became so popular on the internet and around the world. I made a decision to download their peppy tracks based on a couple of factors, including seeing them perform their first single, "Lisztomania," live on SNL one Saturday, and by hearing about the bunch of bands they were said to be similar to.

Honestly, I wish this album had come out two years ago, because I would have been absolutely obsessed with it. The sound is similar to acts like The Kooks and Arctic Monkeys (both from the United Kingdom), and American post-punk revival groups like Maximö Park and Interpol. Although Phoenix is from France, their sound is surprisingly similar to these other bands in the post-punk revival genre, harkening back to what in the mid-80's was called post-punk.

Best tracks include "Lisztomania," provided for you via Lala.com above; "1901," and "Fences," whose vocals I swear could pass for a song by the Kooks. Their songs really lend themselves to commercials and movie soundtracks, and I wouldn't be surprised should Phoenix's songs find a second life on the big screen. I'd recommend their good-natured pop, but wish the release date had been a few years earlier: I would have loved this shit then. I give Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix an 8.8 out of 10. M.

On Censoring Internet Hate Speech

2009-06-06T15:38:00.001-04:00

Today's post will be a little brief, but it concerns something rather important and disturbing that has been making its way into my life recently. With Obama denouncing those who deny the Holocaust's existence, a stance I wholeheartedly agree with, CNET.com asks in a recent article whether social networking sites like Facebook should follow his lead and block anti-Semitic or Holocaust-denying member-created groups. This raised an interesting question concerning censorship on the internet. Is it justifiable?

One could argue, and convincingly so, that since the users are making use of space on Facebook's server, Facebook could censor anything and everything it wanted to. It's their private property, so to speak, in cyberspace. And I support their right to do so. But the question remains, should they? If they begin censoring racist, anti-Semitic, pro-hate-speech groups, where does it stop from there?

I wholeheartedly support free speech in all of its forms. As Voltaire says, "I may not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it." Now, I can't make any promises that I would sacrifice myself to allow the KKK their free speech, but you catch my sentiment, I'm sure: I support their right to make asses of themselves if that's what they want to do.

For this reason, I dearly hope that Facebook, and other social networking sites like it, will take no action against these hateful groups. Free speech is important, and should Facebook decide that they'll delete any user-generated content they might take issue with, you'd see a new sort of Holocaust, one that kills off all politically radical content on their site. And I don't think anybody wants that.

But what can be done about these terrible people? Can any action be taken against the hate-mongers in groups like "Holohoax?" I'd argue that no action is desirable, or even necessary. Like those who would deny the existence of evolution, the battle against those who deny the Holocaust has already been won: they're only digging a deeper hole of idiocy for themselves. I say, allow the racists, bigots, and Nazis their podiums - it's the best strategy to convince the general public of how wrong these hateful positions are. M.

The "Intelligent Design" Conspiracy

2009-06-04T14:37:00.004-04:00

It strikes me as tragic that there's even a controversy regarding the teaching of "intelligent design theory" alongside evolution in public schools. The answer to this "problem" is so painfully obvious that it's almost too frustrating to discuss. In this post, I will attempt to frame the debate and make clear for all those reading what we're actually fighting over in this "controversial" issue.

Firstly, let's make one thing perfectly clear: there is no difference or distinction between "intelligent design" and "creationism" in a public school classroom. Many advocates of teaching "intelligent design" in public schools love to make the point that "it isn't 'creationism,'" a word which they assume, and correctly so, carries a negative connotation amongst the more level-minded citizens. For the remainder of this article, I will make use of the terms "intelligent design" and "creationism" interchangeably, for reasons I will make clear in a moment.

Whatever you want to call it, presenting the idea of intelligent design in a classroom environment as actual, legitimate science is not only blatantly misleading to your captive audience of schoolchildren, but also a dangerous example of the religious right's deployment of brainwashing at a young age. No matter what the Moral Majority might have you believe, we live in a secular society, and it has been so since its formation. The First Amendment protects me, and everyone reading this - regardless of your faith - from an officially established state religion. Teaching any sort of religious material, "intelligent design" included, in a state-funded classroom is in violation of the First Amendment.

Allow me to repeat that: teaching "intelligent design" in public schools is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Why, you ask? Because someday those classrooms will be populated by my children, who won't be raised in a theistic faith (they'll be more than encouraged to make up their own minds on the issue, but more on my future children another time). Why should my children, and children like them, be subjected to having the religious beliefs of some of their classmates be presented as course material? And why should they have these beliefs presented as science, ideas in equal standing as Darwin's theories of evolution?

This is why I make no distinction between "intelligent design" and "creationism:" nothing remotely resembling or involving religious faith should have a place in public school classrooms, regardless of whatever politically correct name you want to attribute it. It's all religion, and it's all unconstitutional.

And so, I leave you with this: it's not the people who are trying to get "In God We Trust" off of the United States' money, who are trying to get "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, who are trying to keep prayer out of public schools who are "ruining" this country's values. The people who are trying to get creationism taught in public schools are ruining the country's core values of freedom of - and from - religion. And they must be stopped. M.

Favorite Tech - June 2009

2009-06-03T17:35:00.004-04:00

In keeping with a relatively-young tradition, here are some of the most interesting, useful, and exciting bits of technology that I've come across since last month. Remember, some of these products can be upcoming and still included in posts like these, seeing as I'm anticipating them so vigorously.

Safari 4 Beta

I've transitioned back from Firefox to the Apple-built browser, Safari, whose most recent features and changes are available in the version 4 beta - downloadable from apple.com/safari. The browser really is a pleasure to use, with [predictably] seamless integration with Mac OS X and a wealth of fresh features to make surfing the web easier and more productive. I'm not quite sold on it yet, but it's among the best out there for the Mac right now - I'm on the edge of my seat until Google Chrome for Mac is released.

Flight Control for iPhone

Available for download from the iTunes App Store for only 99¢, this is one of the most addicting games I've ever played. And, with a new update featuring two new maps and a couple new plane types, I guarantee the game has renewed its lease on your free time for hours to come.

Adium

Adium is the most customizable and one of the most popular Mac instant messaging clients available today. I've used Adium before, but always preferred the user interface and integration of iChat - but not anymore. I've begun to appreciate Adium's endless range of interface customization, and even synced it with Facebook Chat so that I can chat with my Facebook friends right from my desktop. It really is handy, and it's available for download at adium.im.

Xbox 360/Xbox Live

A Microsoft product? Yes, indeed. Recently I've been more and more impressed with this game console, especially with the other day's major announcements regarding integration with Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the impressive-but-potentially-useless upcoming Project Natal. I just signed up for my own Xbox Live Silver (that is to say, free) membership (my gamertag is cjmasoni), and I have to say that I've been having a lot of fun with this little white box recently. I'd recommend Left 4 Dead, a zombie apocalypse survival game, Hexic HD, a simple Xbox Arcade puzzle game included with the system, and the always-epic Halo 3.

Well, that about does it for this month's edition of Favorite Tech. See you at the beginning of July for more. M.

Two Thumbs "Up"

2009-06-01T20:02:00.002-04:00

Cute title, right? This weekend I payed a whopping $13.50 for a ticket to Disney/Pixar's latest opus, Up, in 3D. Yeah, 3D! And, it was well worth it - this movie made me all sorts of happy. I was amazed not only by the [predictably] incredible visuals, but also the range of genuine emotion that the screenplay was able to wretch from the audience. I was so inspired that I decided to write a glowing review of it less than twenty-four hours after enjoying it.

The film tells the tale of a reclusive old widower (pictured above) whose house has caught the eye of some big-city developers. Rather than giving himself up to a retirement community, he affixes hundreds of helium balloons to his home and takes off for South America, on the adventure he'd been fantasizing about since his youth. Sounds goofy, but if you momentarily suspend your disbelief, it's unbelievably amazing.

Like I said, despite the stunning animation and 3D effects, what really stood out about Up was its heartfelt story. While I'm hesitant to spoil anything for readers who've yet to see it, suffice it to say you'll be attached to each and every character by film's end, and personally invested in their character development. That's something rare in mainstream live action movies, let alone a family animated film.

When I hear a film is in 3D, I usually anticipate some silly and pointless gimmicks to show off the technology, like objects shooting out towards the camera and whatnot. Surprisingly, the guys at Pixar utilized the 3D technology to add depth and realism to their landscapes, to offer breathtaking shots of the starry night sky, and pepper in a couple other gorgeous visuals.

I'd more than recommend this movie, mainly because the power of its writing nearly brought me to tears. Literally. Up earns a fantastic 9.7 out of 10. M.

WWDC 09 Predictions

2009-05-31T13:28:00.003-04:00

Since Apple's Worldwide Developer's Conference (WWDC) is only a week away, I thought that I might, in accordance with tradition, post my predictions as to what might be released there. Following the headliner keynote, I'll post a follow-up with my score card for the event. Probability of occurrence will be rated on a "Likely" to "Wishful" scale (this is to say that I don't think all the things in bold are definitely going to happen, but that they're popular predictions and I'm rating them on this scale). Individual predictions will be numbered in brackets for easy reference. So, let's get started.

iPhone OS 3.0 Released [1]

likely-+--------wishful

I'd have to say this one is pretty likely, given that Apple has already hinted at an early summer release and made a precedent of June iPhone milestones (the original iPhone was released on June 29, 2007, the iPhone 3G and iPhone OS 2.0 were announced at WWDC 08). I think there might be a bit more to the software than they've revealed, namely video capture and a video editing application, but I can't make a confident judgement call either way on that one.

iPhone 3G 2009 Announced [2]; Released [3]

likely--+-------wishful

likely----+-----wishful

This one's a little more speculative, but still a really good bet. I'd say the next iPhone, with a better camera and a couple modest incremental hardware upgrades, will probably be announced to coincide with the 3.0 Software. There will probably be little fanfare, maybe a brief rundown of new bits and pieces. I think it'll be announced at WWDC, and released about early July.

New iPhone Model Variety [4]; New, Lower, Price Points [5]

likely-------+--wishful

likely----+-----wishful

These should have about the same likelihood of happening seeing as they just about go hand-in-hand, but it's conditional - if #4 happens, #5 will happen. But #5 doesn't need #4, because they could lower the price of the 8GB model to $99 and throw a 32GB one into the mix for $299. Prediction #4 denotes a whole new version of the iPhone, called the iPhone nano or mini, priced lower than its counterparts. Prediction #5 implies a rearranged pricing tier which looks like this: 8GB for $99, 16GB for $199, 32GB for $299.

Tablet [6]; Netbook [7]

likely--------+-wishful

likely-------+--wishful

Both of these are totally wishful thinking, but the blogosphere has been atwitter for years concerning mockups and reported leaked images of these two products. The most likely thing I could imagine would be the netbook option, #7, being an offshoot of the MacBook Air line, and the tablet option, #6, being an offshoot of the iPod touch with a modified version of the iPhone OS user interface. Again, however, totally wishful thinking; and it'll definitely be one or the other if either at all.

Snow Leopard New Info [8]; Released [9]

likely--+-------wishful

likely------+---wishful

Apple has been teasing us with Mac OS 10.6 Snow Leopard for months and months, so it's about time they get around to showing us the new features and UI they've been cooking. Reports suspect that, based on the numerous developer builds Apple as released, the user interface will see an overhaul akin to iTune's current black-and-matte-navy look and feel. We'll see; but, regardless, a release at WWDC is very unlikely.

Steve Jobs [10]

likely------+---wishful

While I sincerely hope he makes his triumphant return from his medical hiatus, I doubt WWDC will be the time and place for this. It's be awesome if the "one more thing..." was Steve Jobs walking out and saying "Boom."

Those are all the predictions I can think of for now. I'll add more as I remember them. As for the follow-up post detailing my accuracy, I'll be marking "Right" and "Wrong" based on the likely/wishful ratings (if it's more than halfway in either direction, that's the way I decided to go with it). Ah, my obsessive compulsive disorder necessitates these clarifications as well as the obsessive formatting guidelines; my apologies. M.

Update 6.3: Comment Policy 2.0

2009-05-31T12:11:00.016-04:00

[Skip down to below the video for the new policy.]

Good morning everyone, and welcome back to Masoni Raves About. There have been quite a few significant changes around here recently, and Update 6.3 should serve to catalogue and finish up this string of changes. So, to begin, here's what we've done so far in version 6 of MRA:

The new domain name, www.masoniravesabout.com, has launched.
The Masoni Raves About Podcast, first as audio and then on YouTube, has arrived and then failed spectacularly. But it's a good quality to admit mistakes, right? Perhaps I'll revive this project at a later date, but it's remaining dormant until then.
Greater implementation of the Google Friend Connect system, with members and the social bar lining the top of the screen. This is what the majority of today's update will concern.

Just a couple of days ago, on May 30th, I changed the commenting system as a temporary measure to combat a slew of spam comments which had been appearing on posts throughout the blog. These really frustrated me, and so I threw up my defenses pretty quickly, but I think that in the end this change might be a fantastic one. You see, it'll increase dramatically the number of members on the blog who would like to comment regularly, and make all users accountable for the comments they decide to leave.

Here's a little bit of information about our Members system. Becoming a member is entirely free, and we'll never contact you with the information you provide. You can connect using your Google or Blogger account, your AIM screen name, any OpenID account, or even your Twitter username. Here's an introductory video from Google regarding Friend Connect:

With that said, I'd like to introduce a complete overhaul of the original comment policy, which seems to have utterly failed. So, without further ado, I present the new comment policy 2.0:

Unfortunately, I'm going to stick with the rule that only members are allowed to post comments at this time. This outlaws anonymous comments, which were never too popular with anyone outside of spammers anyway. All new readers wishing to comment should become a member.
All comments must be pertinent to the material being discussed. This is to say that a comment at the beginning of a discussion must relate to the actual blog post, and the comments below that must relate to the comments above them (this way, the conversations can still take any direction the commenters would like them to). This rule is intended to weed out spam and intentionally-irrelevant comments.
Personal attacks and insults on other members will not be tolerated.
Posting of other members' personal identifying information (e.g., real names, geographical locations, contact information, etc.) will not be tolerated.
Comments violating rules 3 or 4 will be deleted by the administrator, and the commenters responsible will be on probation of the double-secret variety (Animal House FTW). Continued violation of these rules can result in the members being removed or blocked from the site by the administrator.

Now, if your opinions merely differ from mine, you're not in violation of any of these rules. As a matter of fact, ad hominem attacks might not even violate these rules, granted that they're still ridiculous. If you're a current member or have posted frequently in the past, suffice it to say you're not the ones whom these rules are directed towards.

Please challenge any and all of my new rules in the comments! M.

[Update 6.3.1 | 31 May]: (1) The hits counter has just reached 53,000 hits at approximately 1:43 PM ET. The unique hits counter reads 16,331. M.

(2 | 1 Jun): You might notice that the social bar has migrated from the top to the bottom of your page. Enjoy? and become a member as soon as possible. We're at 20! M.

[Update 6.3.2 | 3 Jun]: (1) I know, I've started a fresh incremental update quite illegally, but I thought it appropriate seeing as this'll be reporting the new milestone-mentioning policy. I'll post a mini-incremental update for every 1,000 visits, every 500 unique visits, and every 10 new members. Additionally, each new member will receive a shout-out in said MIU.

(2 | 3 Jun): Current counts will be reported as "#visits / #unique / #posts / #members;" for example, the current count is 53,475 / 16,605 / 257 / 21. This MIU exists because we've crossed the 16.5k mark. M.

(3 | 8 Jun): Current count is 54,030 / 16,924 / 260 / 25. Welcome to new members Ted, RAM, geebob0, Stephen Mayor and Chris Denny. Thanks for joining!

[Update 6.3.3 | 13 Jun]: (1) I've updated the commenting policy to reflect new developments. The PDF of version 2.1 is available here. Enjoy. M.

(2 | 13 Jun): The current count is 54,508 / 17,156 / 262 / 27. Thanks for reading!

[Update 6.3.4 | 14 Jun]: (1) Social integration: you can now become a fan of Masoni Raves About on Facebook! Click the link in the "Ampersand" sidebar content box. It's free and easy, which are modifiers with a positive connotation when applied in this particular instance, but not when applied to your girlfriend or sister. M.

(2 | 16 Jun): The current count is 54,910 / 17,348 / 264 / 30. We also have 60 Facebook fans. Welcome to new members Libby Derethik, Kathryn Potraz, Connor, Dylan Welch, and Jacob Sprang. Thanks for joining!

(3 | 16 Jun): Additionally, you probably have noticed the slight alterations to the site's template in the last few days. I began trying to do something radically different, but nearly ruined the entire thing in the process, and so I settled for something moderately different but still familiar. Expect more raves today! M.

[Update 6.3.5 | 16 Jun]: (1) The current count is 55,004 / 17,381 / 265 / 31 / 64. That fifth number represents the number of Facebook fans our public page has. Also, you might notice that the social bar has migrated back toward the top of the screen - yes, I got bored with it at the bottom. I figured that the combination of these three things - the regular hits counter crossing the 55k milestone, the Facebook fans number becoming officially recognized amongst other numbers, and the social bar moving back up top - warranted a full incremental update. M.

(2 | 16 Jun): Just so there's never again any confusion, new "current counts" will be posted every 1,000 regular hits, every 500 unique hits, every 100 new posts, every 5 new members, and every 50 new Facebook fans. The new information there was the new posts interval and the Facebook fans interval. Thanks, M.

(3 | 16 Jun): Expect Update 6.4 to launch 12:01 AM ET on July 13. It'll likely concern new social networking integrations, as well as tutorials on how to become a fan on Facebook and become a member of the site itself. Thanks for reading! M.

(4 | 21 Jun): We've reached 35 members and 17,500 unique visits; the current count is 55,308 / 17,567 / 265 / 35 / 86. Welcome to new members Jake Derethik, Xavier, Emma, Alexander, and thiggins. Thanks for joining! M.

[Update 6.3.6 | 29 Jun]: (1) The current count is 55,800 / 17,853 / 268 / 35 / 95. Nothing extraordinary to report here, just ending the drought of update information which has been plaguing the blog for more than a week now. New version number! (?) M.

Google Announces Wave

2009-05-30T12:00:00.000-04:00

Yesterday at Google's I/O Conference, they announced something I'm genuinely excited about. Billed as "what email would look like if it had been invented today," Google Wave is a combination of all the ways we communicate on the internet today - email, instant messaging, threaded forums, etc. There really isn't any easy way to explain it with words, so here's the actual announcement and demo at the I/O conference. There are some bloopers and mistakes within it to be sure, but it still gives you a great idea of what the service is all about, and of Google's plans to extend it.

Soon, I hope to see Google Wave become as ubiquitous as email, because I really want to begin using it with my contacts as a primary means of communication. I can tell you for sure that the authors here at Masoni Raves About will doubtless make use of it for collaborative projects when it's released to the public. Enjoy! M.

This Is My Robot Voice

2009-05-25T10:47:00.001-04:00

This weekend, I visited the local movie theatre to see a film I was hoping would be one of the great early blockbusters of summer 2009. Unfortunately, Terminator Salvation failed miserably to deliver. While its previews promised something revolutionary, visionary - a marketing campaign I blindly bought into, - the movie was nothing more than colorful drivel strung together with exploding airships.

In the previews, Terminator offered some interesting questions: a man on death row, named Marcus, volunteers his body to some scientific experiments before his execution. He awakes to a post-apocalyptic wasteland some fifteen years later, only to discover that he has been transformed into the very thing the humans are fighting: a robot. How can someone be a machine and not even know it? What sort of effects does such a revelation have on his psyche? Which side will he choose in the conflict he has equal stakes in, belonging halfway to each side? These questions were somewhat interesting to consider, and for this reason I built T4 up in my mind to be something deeper than its namesakes.

I should have known that in an action film of this caliber, dialogue and plot development would fall by the wayside. Major plot points were highlighted by snappy lines, delivered in haste in order not to distract from some special effects light-show coming up in the next scene. Honestly, I had a lot of trouble understanding exactly what was going on because the important character scenes were so short-lived - and the worst part was, I was almost glad they ended so quickly because the dialogue was so painfully awkward.

The special effects and action sequences were something to gawk at, to be sure, but you can't supplant substance with violence and expect an interesting film. They even included - spoiler alert - a full-CGI version of Arnold Schwarzenegger for the climax of the film, making the effects feel gimmicky and attention-whorish.

Additionally, there were plenty of sheer missteps to make thoughtful moviegoers cringe. At one point, main character John Connor (Christian Bale) captures an evil robot motorcycle and disables it, only to plug his Sony Vaio into its built-in USB port to hack it. Oh lovely! An evil robot has a USB port, apparently included in its manufacture for the sole purpose of allowing humans to sabotage it with their product placements!

Another time, cyborg Marcus (Sam Worthington) covertly enters the machine headquarters Skynet in order to release a couple of prisoners the machines are using to research their next robot model. In the robot control room - which, mind you, is intended exclusively for machines, - he finds a nice little user interface complete with touchscreens and a chair - a chair! - which he uses to smash a robotic face on a telescreen.

My favorite of all, however, is the time when John Connor is passenger aboard a plane flying over the Pacific in the middle of a horrendous thunderstorm. He is denied entry to the human resistance headquarters, apparently located somewhere nearby. To show the character's tenacity, they have him jump out of a moving airplane into the tumultuous ocean to find his comrades. The next scene, he's sitting all wet in the human HQ - a deep-sea submarine. He even plugged his nose before the plunge! Are they serious?

For these blunders, coupled with the terrible screenwriting and needless focus on over-the-top special effects, Terminator Salvation earns a 4.6 out of 10. M.

McCain's Daughter Supports Gay Marriage

2009-05-25T08:42:00.002-04:00

I never thought I'd say it, but I'm proud of Meghan McCain. Recently, she penned an open letter to the state of New York about "Why the New York GOP should embrace gay marriage." Well, spot-on, Meghan!

Hopefully, this sentiment is common within Republican circles, and we'll begin to see the gay marriage issue become less of a political one and more of a civil rights one. Because, honestly, it's not like one party favors homosexuals and the other despises them, although this may be true of some individuals within each party. It's a civil rights issue, and one's political affiliations should have nothing to do with it.

I thought I'd post this little blurb because it brought a smile to my face this morning. Meghan McCain has earned my respect, because although I don't agree with her on a great number of things, she's proven herself to be open-minded and clearly an objective reasoner. M.

---------
This is the 150th rave on Masoni Raves About. Joyous.

I ♥ Huckabees

2009-05-22T00:06:00.003-04:00

Among the movies to be released in the last decade, I ♥ Huckabees stands alone in that it offers not only a truly entertaining moviegoing experience, but also that it contains some legitimately inspired philosophical and artistic content. As a work of art, the film's best quality is doubtless the complexity and brilliance of its script, which seamlessly incorporates the major themes of modern existentialist and nihilist philosophy into a singular, coherent, and surprisingly watchable movie. Other elements of the production fell a little short of expectations, but the mood was routinely resurrected by a witty exchange of dialogue or mind-boggling extrapolation on some metaphysical worldview. In all, the strongest aesthetic qualities of the film are evidenced in its brilliant writing, which oftentimes outshone the actors and stole the show.

This, of course, is not to say the acting was poor by any stretch of the imagination. Dustin Hoffman (playing the role of existential detective Bernard Jaffe) is among the stronger actors of our generation, and Jason Schwartzman (playing troubled activist Albert Markovski) has yet to disappoint me in his cinematic endeavors. Not only that, some character choices were downright spectacular, such as Mark Wahlberg's fantastic Tommy Corn character, which kept audiences involved and laughing throughout the film; and Jude Law's Brad Stand character who, despite being the antagonist and foil character for Albert, attains the emotional attachment of viewers when his many-splendored life finally comes crashing down around him.

However, while the cast presented an above-average performance, it was still the screenplay, and the dense philosophy interwoven within it, which made the film truly remarkable. "The universe is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere," says Hoffman at one point, and, mercilessly, the dialogue doesn't even pause to allow viewers time for reflection on this staggering and seemingly impossible conclusion. The film jumps effortlessly between various flavors of both existentialism and nihilism, delves headlong into the problems of absurdism, dabbles with transcendentalism and romanticism, and in the process offers audiences enough food for thought to last them years.

The film executes this beautifully by embodying the various characters was the different philosophies presented. For example, Bernard Jaffe (Hoffman) and his wife Vivian (Lily Tomlin) are variations on the same brand of existentialism, whereas Caterine Vauban (Isabelle Huppert) is a satirical sort of nihilism bent on misery and human suffering.

Although marketed as an absurd comedy, the film explores much more serious and darker themes than one would expect of the characteristic film falling into this category. They tackle consumerism and material excess, the nature of true human beauty, the interconnectivity of all existence, the dangers of petroleum use and its effect on developing nations, and, throughout the film, an emphasis on the importance of deconstructing one's day-to-day life and habitual thinking in order to best view existence from all angles. These are some pretty heavy topics which, intermingled with the comedic elements, all add to the richness of this screenplay.

While the screenplay was the most artistically impressive element of the production, the musical direction was another that particularly impressed me. Cheerful piano melodies carry bicycle-riding Albert through the film, adding to the comedic tone of several scenes and intensifying the absurd nature of the humor.

Mainly for the brilliant philosophical handiwork in the screenplay, but also for the impressive direction, acting, and innovative home-grown special effects, I ♥ Huckabees was an extremely watchable, enjoyable, and enlightening film. The experience was less like watching what one would expect of an absurd comedy and more like cracking open Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which is probably exactly what I loved most about it. I give it a whopping 9.6 out of 10. M.

---------

This is the 250th post on Masoni Raves About.

Wolfram Alpha

2009-05-16T14:09:00.000-04:00

Allow me to take a minute and show all of you something I'm very excited about. It's a new web reference, a computational knowledge search engine named Wolfram Alpha. Launched yesterday, this handy tool helps you get quick and relevant information for anything you might be searching for.

If you search the name of a city, and you automatically get population statistics, map data, and current weather. Search for the title of a movie, and automatically get release dates, and names of actors and directors. Search a date for major historical events, a name for brief biographical information, the names of two cities for distances, mathematical equations for their solutions, chemical compounds for their properties, two foods for their comparative nutritional facts, any measurement for conversions of it, any calculation to have it solved, any musical notes to have them played to you, and so much more. It really is incredible.

So, give it a try. I've added it already to my home tab and can see myself using it for research purposes quite a bit in the future. I really think this is the direction Google should go in the future, and I can't wait until somebody makes a kickass iPhone application for this. The home page is http://www.wolframalpha.com - bookmark it, you'll love it. M.

Night of the Living Book Review

2009-05-13T21:33:00.001-04:00

So, I finally caved and began reading the New York Times bestseller by Max Brooks called World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War. To be frank, I wasn't expecting much more than some simple-minded entertainment value from this one - and it doubtless delivered on that count - but it also offered some food for thought and timely political commentary that I hadn't been expecting.

The premise is a common one: a mysterious pandemic arises out of rural China, with the classic zombie symptoms. The disease spreads rapidly across countries and continents, and governments fail to act until it's too late. The world is overrun by swarms of millions and millions of reanimated corpses, devouring entire cities and countries as they bring humanity to near extinction.

The book is arranged as a series of interviews with major players in the "zombie war," which has been over for around a decade at the time of the interviews. The world is just beginning to get back on its feet, and there are still some highly-infested "White Zones" in places like Iceland. The "oral history" aspect added an interesting element to the narration, and the fact that the interviewed witnesses hailed from just about every country under the sun offered not only a global perspective but also an opportunity to infuse a potentially brain-dead work (pun intended) with some political and social satire.

Brooks adds a couple of spins to the traditional zombie canon, specifically regarding the science of the zombie virus. I suppose there's a lot of flexibility regarding a fictional disease, and we've seen modernized versions of zombie horror before in the "Rage Virus" of 28 Days Later, but a couple of these changes irked me. For example, the zombies can survive underwater and live for years and years at the ocean's floor. Zombies go into the ocean in East Asia and reemerge on Florida beaches. In a word: what the hell? I mean, it was sort of interesting, and it explained the rapidity at which the plague conquered the planet, but quite strange to say the least.

There's not much else I can elaborate on for fear of ruining some of the book's spoilers for you, but I recommend this book as a highly entertaining and grisly weekend read. I give World War Z a 7.9 out of 10. M.

"The Cosmological Argument" by MenoftheInfinite

2009-05-12T19:15:00.002-04:00

A brilliant assault on the cosmological argument for god's existence, reminiscent of my own arguments against it in "God, Take 7." Please watch, enjoy, and comment abundantly. M.

An Empirical Argument Against Free Will

2009-05-12T17:20:00.005-04:00

D definition

A axiom

P proposition

Dem. demonstration

D1: Free will is defined as the ability of the mind to choose.

D2: The mind is defined as the phenomenal experience that constitutes consciousness.

D3: Deterministic is defined as that which is governed by strict laws of causation.

D4: Indeterministic is defined as that which is random.

A1: Physical objects follow physical laws.

A2: The brain is a physical object.

P1: The brain follows physical laws.

Dem. This is evident by A1 and A2.

P2: The mind is predicated upon the brain; every mental activity has a correlative physical source.

Dem. To remove the physical part of the brain that harbors memory is to remove memory from the experience of the mind. The same is true of all other brain functions.

P3: The mind is predicated upon physical laws.

Dem. This is evident by P1 and P2.

P4: Physical laws are a) deterministic and b) indeterministic.

Dem. Classical mechanics describe a system of cause-and-effect. Quantum mechanics describe random action at the subatomic level.

P5: The mind is a) deterministic or b) indeterministic, depending on the perspective of either classical or quantum mechanics.

Dem. This is evident by P3 and P4.

P6: Deterministic and indeterministic systems contradict the notion of choice.

Dem. A deterministic system allows only one possibility in any circumstance, and thus allows for no choice. An indeterministic system is random, and thus allows for no choice.

P7: Free will does not exist.

Dem. This is evident by P5 and P6.

To Boldly Go

2009-05-09T17:22:00.005-04:00

Yesterday, I saw J.J. Abram's new science-fiction epic, Star Trek. Being a casual fan of the original television series - casual meaning that I am by no means a "trekkie," - I'd been greatly anticipating this release since I first saw the trailer more than a year ago. I had great expectations for this movie, and it not only delivered, it exceeded my wildest dreams.

The casting was absolutely brilliant, with British comedian Simon Pegg (starring in Shaun of the Dead, among others) nearly stealing the show as Scotty, newcomer Chris Pine creating a perfectly sarcastic and hilarious Kirk, and Zachary Quinto of Heroes playing a very convincing Spock. The writing was surprisingly sharp, the on-screen chemistry between the actors was perfect, and the storyline allowed for a great deal more comedy than I think anyone had expected.

Of course, the special effects were absolutely, breathtakingly incredible. The final frontier looked gorgeous despite the cloud of destroyed spaceships obscuring the view screen. Leonard Nimoy even makes an appearance, in a role more significant than the cameo I'd expected. I won't reveal any details of the plot for fear of ruining it for anyone, but it's slightly mind-bending and still endlessly entertaining.

Although I'd feared Star Trek would be easily relegated to the "Mindless Blockbuster" category along with the likes of Transformers, Spider-Man 3 and The Incredible Hulk, the feature offered a great deal more substance and food for thought than I'd anticipated. And, a bunch of one-line zingers that'll doubtless make their ways into modern vernacular. For these reasons, I give Star Trek a stellar 9.1 out of 10. M.

A Nation in Need of Healing

2009-05-07T18:20:00.006-04:00

This post was not, in fact, written by me, but instead by a friend of mine named Alexander Hurst. The content seemed interesting and topical to this blog, so I thought I might post it with his permission as its own rave. Alexander can be reached at churst12@amherst.edu. And, without further ado, here's the essay from our guest author:

A Nation in Need of Healing

by Alexander Hurst

The United States does not do lengthy, reflective processes like national healing well. Real healing cannot be based on denial or amnesia, but must rather be predicated on the knowledge and acceptance of albeit painful history. Most Americans, however, are unwilling to confront the painful histories of their country, and are perfectly content to just not know, to wallow in a self made pit of national ignorance. Breaking an established worldview is difficult, and so as a nation, we sound the refrain to move on from those things we would rather not remember or reflect on. But we must confront those painful episodes in our nation’s history, and we must embrace our own guilt in our national sins, for only then can the healing that America needs begin.

No healing has been attempted for the genocide of the Native Americans. The force of the US Supreme Court and treaties failed during the Trail of Tears, and no reservation could ever be recompense for the lives, culture, land, and way of life lost to western “settlement.” The abolition of slavery and the Reconstruction merely gave way to a subverted southern jurisprudence that codified slavery-like conditions for blacks. For a hundred years America ignored the problem of segregation and inequality, until the Civil Rights Movement thrust it into the limelight. And even since, most people prefer to think of racial problems as something of the past, something that has been solved. They block out the unsavory elements of modern society from their consciousness, just as they have blocked out unpalatable elements of history. There has been no healing in the United States for the sins that our government has committed in overthrowing foreign governments and leaders like Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran, Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala, and Salvador Allende of Chile. Rarely spoken of are the many brutal dictators that have been placed into power and/or supported through US resources—the Shah of Iran, Sadaam Hussein, the Somoza family, and Augusto Pinochet.

Vietnam, like most wars, was built on an elaborate foundation of lies. The Tonkin Gulf resolution was built on a completely fabricated incident, and much of the actual conduct of the war was lied about. Close to three million Vietnamese were killed, three times the tonnage of explosives used in WWII were dropped on this tiny country, not including the 20 million gallons of chemical weapons and napalm. The US illegally operated in bordering nations, destabilizing Cambodia, which eventually allowed the monstrous Khmer Rouge to come to power.

There are three specific ways through which our culture has attempted to deal with the Vietnam War—amnesia, rewriting history, and justification, which is predicated on the preceding two. There are those who believe that memory must be enjoined to fail for healing to follow. One of my high school teachers became absolutely livid every time someone mentioned one of the terrible crimes of which the US is guilty, like funding the terrorist Nicaraguan contras. He complained about liberals who hated America, and perpetually focused on all the bad things the nation has ever done, but not the good. In response, we are still a nation in adolescence, if not childhood, with plenty of capacity to grow into the ideals espoused in our sacred, formative legal documents. But we will never get there by naively pretending that it already exists, or by rewriting history in accordance with a selective memory of our choosing.

Nixon promoted the theory that the US lost the war because it was stabbed in the back by the anti-war movement and the liberal media. That same theory was expounded by that high school teacher, who, during one class, expressed his hope that the present day anti-war movement and media would not do what they had done during the Vietnam War, when they “made the US withdraw when it was on the verge of victory over the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong.” Others have focused on the specific tactics of the war, holding that our intentions were noble, but that if we had just stuck it out for a little longer, or used different tactics, then the outcome would have been different. These outcome-based theories deny any hint of immorality in the war, and focus only on the efficacy of the tactics, not that the goal was to kill and maim as many North Vietnamese as possible. Needless to say, this imagined alternative history has not been conducive to any sort of healing process.

Once we have excluded the incriminating evidence from our national memory, and once we have rewritten history according to that new memory, it is then possible to justify our actions. The United States is the only nation in the world to have ever used atomic weapons—this is an indisputable fact. But lest our beloved America be guilty of war crimes, as Robert McNamera unequivocally said it would have been found had it lost World War II and the Vietnam War, we cling to the belief that the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Boy was justified. It was the only way to end the war, to prevent even more casualties that would have resulted from an amphibious invasion of Japan... Even if those arguments are true, it does not change history, for history is composed of the hundreds of thousands of dead bodies, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the enduring legacy of leukemia and cancer, and the unleashing of a fearsome weapon over which there is now no control. Belief in American power and might will only beget more war and violence as a tool of policy.

Americans generally aren’t good at seeing their country and its history critically. We want to be proud of our nation and its actions overseas, but denying and attempting to erase those events contrary to the ideal that we want the United States to be does it a great disservice. Perhaps the answer to the question of healing is a truth commission paradigm, which has shown success (ironically), in some of the nations that have been victims of US foreign policy. Regardless of the method, we cannot erase our way through history. This nation will never be able to progress and move forward to become what it ought to be if we cannot accept and remember the wrongs it has committed. Only then can we proceed forward with establishing justice, and restoring the ideals of our law.

Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoyed it. Comments left on this post will reach Alexander seeing as he'll be monitoring it himself, I'm sure. Have the best day of your life so far, M.

The Myths of Evolution

2009-05-06T20:10:00.002-04:00

You know, quite recently I’ve noticed a great amount of ignorance in the internet community regarding the realities of evolution. It’s one of those things that seems to have exploded onto my consciousness and refuses to let up, like a new word you’ve just added to your vocabulary that you begin seeing everywhere. Of course, I’ve decided that the only way to combat such flagrant misconceptions is to write a rave about it, explaining the facts and dispelling creationist myths. This one will doubtless get a bit sticky, but I see it as my duty to humanity, or, at least, the fraction of humanity which frequents internet blogs concerning science, politics, and philosophy.

I’m going to speak in terms that those unfamiliar with evolution can understand, so don’t feel patronized if you’re a little more apt in science than some of my other readers. I don’t pretend to be the expert on all things scientific (that throne probably belongs to YouTube’s Thunderf00t), but I have enough of an understanding of science, and specifically evolution, to feel comfortable writing an informative piece like this one. I’m only dispelling the myths by supplying established facts, not covering any new ground.

By far the worst misconception about evolution, and seemingly the most common, is concerning the relationship between macroevolution and microevolution. To define the two, microevolution is the subtle changes in an organism’s DNA over a few generations within a single species. Most people, even some creationists, say they believe in microevolution, because it’s provable simply by observing quickly-reproducing bacteria over time. Macroevolution is the dramatic changes within a species over millions of years, as in ape-like bipedal mammals becoming Neanderthals. Macroevolution, unlike microevolution, crosses over different species divisions and gene pools. This is where creationists get off the wagon, and shout that there isn’t enough evidence for macroevolution.

They say, and I’ve read or heard it said far too many times, that microevolution is possible (probably because they’re unable to refute the evidence), but that macroevolution is impossible. They say that a creator god placed all organisms on the planet in something close to their current forms, and that over a period of a couple thousand years, they’ve changed imperceptibly through gradual microevolution. This is what many people, creationists, believe about evolution: micro, but not macro, evolution.

But is this even possible? What these creationist pseudo-scientists fail to understand is that microevolution and macroevolution are one and the same. Microevolution IS macroevolution! All macroevolution is is a series of millions of microevolutionary changes over millions and millions of years. If you believe in one, you have to believe in the other - or, at the very least, you cannot pretend that one is absurd and the other is plausible.

Another claim that creationists cling to is that there are such significant gaps in the fossil record that macroevolution must be impossible. They say that there would be millions upon millions of “missing links” buried in the rock that would fall in between the various stages of evolution. Again, what these people fail to understand is how lucky we are to have found any fossils at all! The circumstances necessary to achieve a complete and lasting fossilization of something are extremely rare, and even then the record might be destroyed or damaged by shifting rocks or earthquakes, eroded by floods, or ruined by one of the collective natural disasters over millions of years. Yes, there are indeed gaps, but we’re extremely fortunate that the fossil record is as complete and comprehensive as it is.

I guarantee I’m missing some of the most common misconceptions, but this will do for now, in what will serve as part 1 of my evolution vendetta. If I’ve forgotten something, or if you feel the need to correct me, please leave a comment or shoot me an email at masoni@masoniravesabout.com. Thanks for reading and have the best day of your life so far, M.

Antipelagian Raves About Masoni, Part 3

2009-05-06T17:24:00.002-04:00

Antipelagian and I have been having a cordial little discussion (I wouldn't really call it an argument) over the past few weeks concerning the responsibility of atheism or Christianity for the actions of their respective adherents. Recently, Craig French at Antipelagian wrote a response to the second of my posts, and - while not many new arguments were raised, and the discussion is visibly winding down - I thought I might dignify his writing with another answer.

Since things have already really been wrapped up, I'll make this post relatively brief. I'm not claiming a victory in this one, and I trust Craig won't either, because I don't really look at it as an argument so much as a polite metaphysical discussion. And, in the end, it looks as though we agree on the essentials.

As I mentioned in my previous post, you opt to see pure diversity within atheism...then selectively choose to see Christianity as some undifferentiated monad of uniformity. That's not the case, but that is not my point. In fact, one of my points was that any ethical system developed by atheism is just as good as any other...they're all equally unjustifiable beliefs. Atheism's diversity isn't "proof" that it isn't religious, it's a demonstration of man's self-worship. Obviously each man will have his own opinion, he may be his own god or he'll incarnate his god through society or tyrannical government.
I meant that Christianity has uniform views on god, morals, etc. within any one sect of Christianity. All Roman Catholics subscribe to a set system of morals dictated by the Magisterium, all Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. follow their Church leadership in moral compasses and theology. I should have been clearer, but hopefully I've cleared things up.
Ha ha! Not cleared up at all...in my denomination our church officers must subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith...yet they may also take exceptions...and you don't need to subscribe to the Westminster to be a member of my denomination...and this denomination falls into a more conservative spectrum than most evangelical churches. Again, this isn't really the point I care to emphasize.

I wouldn't say I see atheism as "pure diversity," because there's at least one thing we all agree on. This is why I draw my definition of atheism where I do, because I believe it's probably the only thing all of us atheists have in common: a non-belief in a supernatural deity. Some atheists probably believe in a metaphysical realm, just not a god! I can't imagine something like that, but I'm sure it's possible.

My point with organized religion is that all Catholics, for example, in order to call themselves "true" Catholics, would have exactly the same opinions about god, morality, and metaphysics as the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Of course, few people like this exist, but that's what I'm using as my example, someone who believes verbatim the teachings of his organized religion. This is how I intended to make my argument: these people do believe exactly the same thing, while it's impossible for atheists to have something similar, seeing as we have no Magisterium or organized teaching authority of any kind.

I agree with you in a certain sense. I do not blame atheism...atheism can't do anything. People do things. Unlike Christianity, however, atheism provides a metaphysics where atrocities are inevitable. To drive my point home a bit, let me say this (and this isn't simply for shock value):

Consider a case of cannibalism. If you walked into a room where a man was cannibalizing another man, you might say "Stop! Don't do that!" The cannibal may stop mid bite, flesh stuck in his teeth, and mutter: "Why?" You might respond: "What you're doing is wrong!" The cannibal may respond (if he is an atheist) by saying: "That's odd, tastes like chicken to me".

I'm glad to see that we agree, and I'm glad you don't blame atheism, just as I don't blame organized religions themselves for the actions of their adherents. However, atrocities are not inevitable within the "metaphysics of atheism," seeing as we have no commonly defined mutual metaphysics! Oh, and your cannibal joke was witty to be sure. Mad props. M.

Favorite Tech - May 2009

2009-05-05T19:35:00.000-04:00

Hey, folks. I haven't posted anything in a little while, so I figured I might make my triumphant return to the blogosphere by raving about some of my favorite technological finds over the past month, and reviving an almost-forgotten monthly feature here on the blog. I fully expect most of my tech-savvy readers to be familiar with these particular products or services, but I figure I might be able to share a little something with each of you nevertheless.

It should be noted the criteria for something being featured in these posts - I don't necessarily have to own the item or have purchased the service, but I should know enough about it to recommend it to readers. With that said, let's get started.

Aperture 2.1.3
I recently downloaded Apple's high-end image application marketed towards professional photographers, called Aperture. For those familiar with Mac software, think of Aperture as a souped-up version of iPhoto, with more advanced editing and organization techniques.

One of my main beefs with iPhoto was the focus on "Events" - iPhoto would automatically arrange my photos into groups based on the dates I shot them. Well, what if I shot a bunch of photos of the same thing - say, a beach or something, - over the course of a few weeks? I'd want that little group to stay together because they're all part of the same series of images. These images were scattered amongst others, and it made it very difficult to find them. Aperture organizes photos in "Projects," which is exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for, in addition to events; and even features a great file backup feature called "Vault."

The photo doctoring capabilities are fantastic, and, while I'm nothing more than an amateur photographer with less-than-optimal equipment, I've made great use of these features over the last few days. I highly recommend giving Aperture a try if you're interested in photography; and if you're a professional or even a prolific photographer, it's not only worth the investment - it's essential.

Spanning Sync
This one I don't have, because I'm less than willing to fork out the cash necessary, but it's definitely something I'd make extensive use of if I could afford it. Spanning Sync is an application that automatically syncs the contacts and calendars on your Mac, in Address Book and iCal respectively, to your Google account in the cloud. This allows you to enjoy one of the best features of MobileMe - syncing that information between all computers and iPhones wirelessly - for a fraction of the price.

It really is a breeze to set up, but there's a more complicated free workaround that I discovered and outlined a few months ago in this post. While Spanning Sync is more convenient and easier, it's a tad too expensive for my blood. If you happen to be a little freer with your checkbook, you can give Spanning Sync a try here.

Exporting Keynote to Quicktime & Keynote Remote for iPhone

I'll post a tutorial on this sometime in the future, but Keynote really has become one of the best applications I could have imagined for so many different uses. For example, I've used Keynote presentations with recorded timings or transitions that export to Quicktime to create universally-compatible slide show presentations, recorded podcast videos, and even movie credits.

When you have to play a presentation on the occasional PC, exporting to Quicktime becomes an invaluable ally. When you convert your presentation to the video format that any computer can read, it keeps your transitions in their original locations, so that the video pauses and allows you to click to continue. It works exactly like a slide show, only it's compatible on every computer! It's really fantastic.

Keynote Remote for the iPhone, available for 99¢ at the iTunes App Store, is a great way to control your Keynote presentations over a WiFi network. It works just like iTunes Remote, which is probably the best app available for the iPhone nowadays. Check it out, search "Keynote Remote" in the App Store.

New Amazon Kindle
Kindle, the handheld eBook reader gadget from Amazon, received a significant update today when the Kindle DX was all-but-announced, bringing a much larger screen to the product line. Although I have no intention of buying one (there's a kickass iPhone Kindle application I could use if I really cared about eBooks), I thought the new Kindle was cool enough to warrant mentioning.

NOT Windows 7
Seriously, it looks really lame. I'm sick and tired of people saying this will be Microsoft's "big step forward," and that they're "catching up with Mac OS X." It'll have a Virtual Windows XP mode built in, for Pete's sake. Try telling me that's a step forward.

Thanks for reading, and be sure to leave your comments and suggestions for technological wonders I should check out. Have the best day of your life so far, Masoni.

Response to YouTuber Regarding "It Takes More Faith"

2009-04-28T18:32:00.004-04:00

Hey gang. Here's the second chapter in the novel that is doubtless a productive day of YouTube posting. Be sure to watch TheWoodsofJordan's original video to understand what I'm saying. Oh, and when I accidentally say "theories" and correct myself, I meant "series." Whoops.

I've had to remove the video from YouTube due to some technical difficulties, but at the bottom you can find the full transcript from the video should I never get things up and running again. And here's the link to the original video I'm replying to.

[I don't know why it cuts off at 3:49, but I'm leaving it because I got most of my arguments out of the way before that happened. I finished with something along the lines of "...okay, if you're right, that's probably true. But you should appeal to logic and reason rather than idle threats to our spiritual well-being."]

Thanks for watching and be sure to ~~subscribe to my videos~~, follow the blog, or follow masoni_raves on Twitter. M.

Hi there, TheWoodsofJordan. You know, I don't like doing these video responses but I feel like I need to because the arguments that you bring up in your particular video, "It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist!!!" are some that I've heard a million times and they really, really get on my nerves. So, I'm going to reply to them now and we'll see how it goes.

First off, I'd just like to say that you make a very common "religious" error. Many religious people feel the need to cite the Bible when they're debating atheists, which I don't really understand. It's like, we don't think that's the divinely inspired word of anybody, we don't give that book any authority, we don't think it's anything more than a bunch of words on a piece of paper that a lot of people really really care about. So please, don't cite a book that we don't believe in to prove your argument.

That's like if I were trying to prove that Harry Potter were the divine inspired word of God and you didn't think that - which, hopefully, you don't - if I said, "Oh look! Right here in chapter 1 of 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' he's got this little lighter that takes out all the street lamps. Therefore, little lighters exist that take out all the street lamps. Well, nope. You wouldn't be convinced by that at all, so why should we be convinced by the Bible?

Next, you use the argument that this Earth is so beautiful, "oh my gosh, look at the wind and the fire and the water and all the animals and the plants." Yeah, okay, it's great. We all believe that - atheists do, too. Well, I shouldn't say "all" because a lot of people are probably pretty disappointed. I don't know why. But I think it's great, too. It's unbelievable. You, on the other hand, say, "Yeah, it's so great that somebody had to have designed it; there has to be some creator. Douglas Adams, the author of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series, had a quote which said, "Atheists can appreciate the beauty of the garden without thinking that there are gnomes hiding beneath it." And I think that's a really good way to explain the universe and how great it is and how there doesn't need to be a god; it could be just amazing without there being a god.

Next you say that my god is myself. Well, I'm an atheist and my god is not myself. In fact, I don't have a god - hence the word "atheist." I hate when people tell me what my god is: "Your god is lust; your god is yourself." I hate that kind of stuff. Don't tell me what my god is. I'll decide what my god is or even if I have one. I don't have one. I worship, if anything, logic, reason. That can be my god. It's not myself - I'm not logic.

Next, you say that atheism is self-serving. It's linked to the last argument you made. Is is self-serving to think that there's nothing after this life? Is it self-serving to think that my entire existence is insignificant? Does that help me in my life? No, it doesn't. What is self-serving is a philosophy which says, "You're special, you're going to heaven, and everybody else isn't. That's what religion is to me. Religion is a way to say, "I'm better than everybody else because I believe in god X. I believe in Allah, and therefore anybody who doesn't believe in Allah is inferior to me. I believe in god, and therefore anybody who doesn't believe in god is inferior to me, and they're going to go to hell, and fire and brimstone, and it's going to suck." Well, that makes you feel good about yourself, doesn't it? That's self-serving. That's all religion is, and that's how it should be treated, as just an egotistical little philosophy.

Lastly, you use hell as an incentive to believe in god. You threaten us atheists, saying, "Oh, well I'm going to go to heaven because I believe in god and you're going to hell. Okay, if you're right, that's probably true. But you should appeal to logic and reason rather than idle threats to our spiritual well-being. Thanks for watching and have the best day of your life so far.

Ultimate Questions, Part 3

2009-04-28T16:07:00.005-04:00

Hey folks. I've recorded a new YouTube video regarding my post, "Ultimate Questions," and I thought I might embed it here for the world to see. Leave comments and rate it even if you hate it.

Unfortunately, due to some unexpected technical difficulties, I've been forced to remove my YouTube videos and suspend the MRA podcast project.*

Relatively soon I'll whip up a transcript and put it in here for your reading pleasure. Thanks as always for reading and please either ~~subscribe to my YouTube channel~~ or follow "masoni_raves" on Twitter. M.

*Here's the audio transcription from the original video; which is unfortunately incomplete without the visual aids:

Hey everybody, this is Masoni, and this is my third video for YouTube. It's "Ultimate Questions." I had a blog post called "Ultimate Questions," which raised a great deal of controversy and confusion when I posted it on the blog, so I thought I might clear up some of that as well as extend my message to YouTube.

Now, I was thinking about the fundamental questions, and I realized that one of the primary questions humans are confronted with when they begin thinking this way is how things exist in the first place. Like matter, time, energy, or pretty much anything. This, of course, is after we’ve accepted the existence of our own minds and our ability to attain knowledge about external reality. But this really is one of the most fundamental questions humans can ask when they begin thinking metaphysically.

There are two popular explanations for the origins of things. The first of which, the supernatural, and the second of which, the natural. Now, the supernatural, of course, presupposes a deity who created the world; or a system of deities - a bunch of gods and goddesses who bicker and fight and have sex and all kinds of good things. But I think I'm going to target mostly the monotheistic viewpoint: one god, all-powerful, all-knowing, and - some people say - all-loving.

Now, let's deal with the supernatural first. The supernatural necessitates a ton more questions because it assumes something - a creator god. Because many more questions and answers are necessary to explain why this invented metaphysical realm exists, the philosophies become increasingly complex. They have to invent all kinds of systems of thought and studies and "ologies" and it gets really cluttered and confusing. There are entire fields of study devoted to one aspect of this metaphysical realm they've created.

Now, that falls apart after a while and people come back to the natural explanation, which is much simpler and easier to understand. Here, we stop at one question: how is anything here? We don’t place the “god” band-aid on the situation, but instead we attempt to understand the realities of our existence as best we can without making things unnecessarily complicated. The natural explanation doesn’t pretend to be anything it’s not - there are some things we know we’ll never be able to explain because experiments reproducing the circumstances of certain events - like the big bang - are impossible.

But we do use science, unlike the supernaturalists. We understand that science is the best way to attain any knowledge about external reality; that the scientific method is the best system for finding information and testing theories that the human race has at its disposal. We can use the scientific method to discover things about our origins without actually doing experiments about our origins. For example, we know the big bang is very very feasible because we've studied the way stars and galaxies are moving away from a centralized point. They're all moving - and so is the earth - away from the point of the big bang. The universe is expanding. this we can tell from astronomical observation. However, the supernaturalists would not have this. They have to offer the "read a 2000-year-old book" theory. This, of course, is unscientific and intellectually dishonest.

And so, here's the crux of my argument:

The “natural explanation” stance
is a more reasonable way to approach
metaphysical questions.

That I believe you could grasp on your own, but I thought I'd emphasize it here.

Although science may never be
able to answer some questions,
there is still no evidence to suggest
a creator god, and therefore it’s
both unreasonable and intellectually
dishonest to subscribe to a philosophy
which glorifies one.

If you want more, you can visit my blog at www.masoniravesabout.com. You can find the original post there, which will elaborate a little more, and there are some comments on that post which are pretty interesting and challenge some of my ideas. If you need to reach me, it's masoni@masoniravesabout.com. Thanks for watching and have the best day of your life so far.

Recent Obsessions

2009-04-28T14:10:00.001-04:00

There has been a bit of a hiatus over the past few weeks due to the fact that I've been insanely busy with a play I was in. Yes, I act. Call this one Hiatus XIX (19!). Regardless, I thought I might post a little something updating you on everything I've been into recently. I'm working on a couple of fresh YouTube videos that promise to feature a lot more substance than this post, but, in the meantime, I thought I might share some of the things I'm currently enjoying. Here they are, in something like chronological order:

Tweetie for iPhone and Mac
I've recently discovered this simple and gorgeous little Twitter client for iPhone ($2.99 on iTunes App Store) and Mac (free with ads, $14.99 without until May 4th), and it's replaced a few different applications I'd been using up until this point. It integrates support for bit.ly, my favorite URL shortener, and TwitPic, which is simply incredible. All of this in a beautiful and easy-to-use interface? It seems too good to be true! Download Tweetie for Mac.

World War Z by Max Brooks
I love post-apocalyptic fiction. I love political satire. I love zombies. This brilliant and enjoyable little book delivers. I'm only about halfway in, so I'm going to hold off on a full review, but it's loads of fun.

Swine influenza!
A little frightening, yes, but it's interesting to track the disease's spread from country to country on the numerous live Google Maps layers people have been updating. Watching a possible-pandemic-in-the-making while reading a book about zombie apocalypse? Priceless.

Person Pitch by Panda Bear
From one of the guys from the incredible band Animal Collective comes one of the best albums of our generation. I highly recommend it.

Thanks for reading and stay tuned for new raves and YouTube videos. M.

Update 6.2: New Domain Name; YouTube Channel!

2009-04-17T20:22:00.011-04:00

I know, I'm totally breaking my rule of posting a new update only after the old one's numbers have been exhausted, but this is definitely a significant enough milestone to warrant a fresh post. The blog's domain name has changed from the old (masoniblog.blogspot.com) to the new, gorgeous URL,

www.masoniravesabout.com

Make sure you bookmark it, although the old URL will still redirect you here (it probably has already). Additionally, as for the authors, our contact emails have changed. Now you can email any comments or questions to

masoni@masoniravesabout.com
anton@masoniravesabout.com
wanderson@masoniravesabout.com

Thanks for sticking with us and expect all kinds of fresh posts in the upcoming days. M.

[Update 6.2.1 | 9 Apr]: (1) Notice the new theme and layout? And the new banner? By the way, that's Laika the Spacedog in the banner, launched into the atmosphere by the Russian space program at the height of the space race. She was the first animal cosmonaut, and died tragically of heart failure shortly after launch. She's to be the new mascot of Masoni Raves About. Major changes are on the horizon, so stay tuned. M.

[Update 6.2.2 | 9 Apr]: (1) So, I've decided to post updates much more sparingly, seeing as updates 6.1 and 6.2 have happened so close to one another, and seeing as version 6 was supposed to last us well into 2010. Don't expect Update 6.3 until at the earliest late May, a date which I believe will put us back on track. Regardless of pre-established rules and regulations, any update, no matter how major, will be reported here as an incremental update. M.

[Update 6.2.3 | 15 Apr]: (1) The small gap in activity on the blog can be explained by the fact that I've been on vacation these last few days. The unique hits counter has reached 14,000 hits, which is sort of exciting. There are a couple of new raves on the horizon that I'm legitimately working on as we speak, so keep checking in. Thanks for your patronage. M.

[Update 6.2.4 | 17 Apr]: (1) That's right everyone, the Masoni Raves About podcast has gone to YouTube! Here's the embedded version of my first video, the "Introductory Podcast:"

A transcript will be posted shortly.

Subscribe and keep up with the the latest at Masoni Raves About! I've already got two videos up, one of them refuting arguments from a Christian homophobe! I know, right?

I moved the date of this post to today's date so that it appears at the top of the main page. Hooray! M.

[Update 6.2.5 | 28 Apr]: (1) So, I announced Hiatus XIX in my most recent rave, "Recent Obsessions," and so it necessitated recording here. The hits counter is at a whopping 49,447 - almost at 50k! - and the unique hits counter reads 14,635 - almost at 15k! Expect a slew of new content over the next few hours, and keep checking in. M.

(2 | 28 Apr): Transcript of the Reply to Apologetics:

Hello, Apologetics. My name is Masoni, and for all my readers or listeners or - now - watchers, it's kind of regrettable that this has to be my first video on YouTube, one of these "darn you, bigot." But, it's going to be because I watched this video and it really ground my gears, so to speak. I just want to say to Apologetics that, of course I disagree with you on gay marriage I think that gay marriage is completely justifiable in a secular society like the one we have. The only arguments you can offer against gay marriage and, indeed, the only arguments you do offer, are ones grounded in Christianity and religious fundamentals. And it's like, well, we live in a secular society and we have freedom of religion - and freedom from religion - and so, your religion should have nothing to do with who anybody marries.

So that was my first point. My second point is that you are a big fan of quote mining. "Quote mining" is a term that I learned from Thunderf00t (I watch a lot of Thunderf00t videos, he's the man). Quote mining is when you can take anybody, and anything they say, and find something bad within their quote. For example, if Barack Obama got up and said, "We've got all these bad people saying America sucks," you could say "Oh! 'America sucks!' Those are two words in that quote; I'm going to take that out and say that Barack Obama says that America sucks." Of course, he didn't say that; he doesn't think that. But you can take out 'America sucks' and make him look really bad. So, quote mining is when you take a quote out of context - a couple of words, a phrase, a paragraph - and use it to make a person's viewpoint look stupid.

You do that with this book, "After the Ball," which I haven't read, but I know enough about it to know that you're quote mining. And, you do that to TJ - TheAmazingAtheist - at the end of the video, with that whole "I'm not going to mispronounce anything" and then he says "milt." Well, everybody makes mistakes, everybody mispronounces things. You've mispronounced things before, I guarantee it. Why make fun of somebody for that? Maybe because you're resorting to an ad hominem attack when you have nothing left to say. Just a theory.

[Update 6.2.6 | 28 Apr]: (1) Due to some unexpected technical difficulties, I'm forced to suspend the MRA podcast on YouTube and return to the exclusively text-and-article-oriented style. Sorry to all the fans of the videos! M.

[Update 6.2.7 | 5 May]: (1) AT APPROXIMATELY 8:02 PM ET, THE HITS COUNTER REACHED...

50,000 VISITS!

Thank you for your readership and have the best day of your life so far. M.

(2 | 5 May): You may also have noticed that the blog has adopted a fresh look - new fonts and a couple of changed colors. This is in honor of passing the 50,000 hits milestone. Thanks, as always, for reading. M.

(3 | 6 May): So, things have gotten a little out of whack recently on Masoni Raves About. Between the drought of new content and a plethora of new features that got soon thereafter scrapped, everything feels more than a little disjointed. I thought I might outline the general plan for the future of Masoni Raves About here. I intend to resume my YouTube venture sometime this summer, with a new focus on interaction with the other YouTube users. Posts are going to be more balanced, with more reviews and technology posts than I'm currently supplying - so that's good news for those of you drowning in the sea of philosophy posts. I'll keep you all posted. M.

(4 | 6 May): Also, you can expect Update 6.3 to arrive on Sunday, May 31st in the wee hours of the morning. Update 6.4 should be expected to arrive in mid to late July. Hopefully, a schedule like that will get us back on track to make Version 6 last us well into 2010. M.

[Update 6.2.8 | 10 May]: (1) Notice the new social bar at the bottom of the site? It's an experiment, but it'll allow you to follow the blog with a couple of clicks and leave site-wide comments for everyone to read. Give it a try. Masoni.

(2 | 10 May): I've added a mobile version of the site, available by clicking the "Mobile Version" button in the right-hand sidebar. Version 6.0 through 6.2 has seen some of the most dramatic changes to the blog, from the Podcast project (both audio and on YouTube) to the latest developments, the social membership features and mobile sites. Let's see what'll happen between now and Version 7.0... M.

(3 | 12 May): The hits counter has just reached 51,000 hits! Hooray! And notice that Anton is back, posting his Empirical Argument Against Free Will, so head on up there and leave some interesting comments for us! M.

[Update 6.2.9 | 16 May]: (1) Well, although this sucker is being buried on the second page, looks like I'm just going to have to suck it up until May 31st (or maybe a little earlier - it's as yet undecided). The unique hits counter has crossed the 15,500 mark, currently reading a whopping 15,657. The regular hits counter reads 51,552. M.

(2 | 16 May): Notice that the social bar has migrated from the bottom to the top? Yeah, it looks pretty spiffy up there, methinks. Leave site-wide comments on it! M.

(3 | 25 May): The unique hits counter has crossed the 16,000 mark, currently reading 16,066. The regular ol' hits counter reads 52,359, crossing the 52,000 mark as well. Expect new content in the immediate future. M.

(4 | 30 May): Expect version 6.3 to launch at 12:01 AM June 1st. M.

Antipelagian Raves About Masoni, Part 2

2009-04-17T12:20:00.003-04:00

Craig French, the author over at Antipelagian whom I recently wrote a response to, penned a response of his own. To begin, I'd like to say that he, too, is friendly and easy to have exchanges with, and I appreciate his readership. While we disagree on almost everything (I have a suspicion we might agree on some political issues, but I'll save it for another day), I can appreciate his intelligence and probing mind. With that said, let's begin.

...I don't believe there is a general "mistrust" of atheists from modern Americans. I could be wrong, but I think they are only distrustful of fundie atheists in the same way they are distrustful of fundie Christians. In either case it isn't so much a fear of the propositional content of each group, rather, it is a disregard for anyone so daring as to make dogmatic assertions. There's nothing more distasteful to Americans than certainty.

While I agree that certainty is unpopular among Americans, I am referring to the statistics which support that the average American would rather have any minority living next door to him than an atheist. [Among other things - this article supports the fact that most Americans would trust Muslims, homosexuals, recent immigrants, and just about everybody before atheists. Atheists even rank last in whom parents would allow their children to marry.] Imagine an atheist being elected to public office - yeah, neither can I. I've read all of this somewhere, but it wasn't a major part of my argument, so I'll let this slide.

As for my definition of atheism, I stop at the obvious: a lack of belief in a higher power. While this would make agnostics functional atheists for all intents and purposes, I believe this simple definition does away with the idea that atheism is a system of beliefs or a religion in and of itself. There are atheists who believe a multitude of things, identify with the entire spectrum of ethical values, and subscribe to a plethora of philosophies and schools of thought. For these reasons I contrast atheism and organized religions like Christianity.

I'm not sure how "organized" you see Christianity...I'm not disagreeing with you, per se, but I am pointing out how overly simplified your view of Christianity is.

I meant that Christianity has uniform views on god, morals, etc. within any one sect of Christianity. All Roman Catholics subscribe to a set system of morals dictated by the Magisterium, all Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. follow their Church leadership in moral compasses and theology. I should have been clearer, but hopefully I've cleared things up.

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, saying that because some Christians (of any one sect, take your pick) do evil things, all Christians of that sect believe these are justifiable actions. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm arguing that if not all people who believe in an organized philosophy are culpable for the actions of a minority, then how can members of a unorganized philosophy like atheism be responsible? Or, for that matter, even viewed in a negative light?

You're not appealing to anything other than your own personal offense at what I said.

For the record, I'm not trying to prove anything by expressing offense, but merely explaining why I felt the need to write such a long response. I disagree with a lot of what you've written on Antipelagian, but none of it provoked a response of this caliber, and I wanted to show my motivations.

As for the "bloodthirsty god" comment - I intended to say that THEIR god was the bloodthirsty one, a god they'd created from something else who might demand bloodshed and wrongdoings. When someone commits an atrocity in the name of an almost-pacifistic god, I disassociate the two gods and call the former bloodthirsty. I apologize for the misunderstanding, I didn't intend to offend anyone - save, of course, those who might worship a bloodthirsty god.

Your quoting Henry II and Frederick II show that we actually agree with the fact that religion can be exploited and misconstrued to evil ends. This was another argument of mine - atheism cannot be exploited, as there is no official system of philosophical governance to exploit! It's impossible to kill someone in the name of atheism - atheism has no standard-bearer! This is not to disvalue religion, but only to show another contrast between organized and unorganized philosophies.

You may be surprised to find out that I'm not here to prove that religion has clean hands while atheism doesn't...quite the contrary (as I see atheism as a religion). There is violence born from religion, and the religion of perpetual violence is the one which divinizes the world.

I agree with everything there except the bit about atheism being a religion. This is how I know our definitions differ - my definition of "just not believing in a higher power" could never constitute a religion! Some atheists shudder at the label "worldview," but I don't mind that one as much.

You need to understand that my entire argument hinges on this: neither organized Christianity nor atheism in general is responsible for the atrocities committed by their followers. If a Catholic guy murders someone, even if it's in the name of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church - the Church is not responsible, because it doesn't preach that sort of thing. It's impossible, however, for an atheist to murder in the name of atheism and the established leader of atheism, because there is none! I'm saying that not only is it ridiculous to blame other Catholics for the aforementioned murder, but it's even more ridiculous to blame atheists for the other!

Thanks for the always-civil dialogue, M.

Oh, and P.S.: I sign things "M." out of pure laziness, but that sort of has become my identifier. I suppose I can live with it, although it might create confusion as to why my blog is named "Masoni Raves About" - people might think it'd be better as "M. Raves About."

Response to Rob R Regarding "Ultimate Questions"

2009-04-16T16:14:00.003-04:00

Hey folks. Reader and fellow blogger Rob R posted some interesting rebuttals on my recent post "Ultimate Questions," and since they allowed me to clarify many of my arguments in that post, I thought I'd share them with you in another rave. Italicized text, like this, will serve as the bookends of my comment. Rob R's words will be quoted as I reference them in the rebuttal.

Rob R:

I'm going to go paragraph by paragraph through your two extensive comments. But first, I'd like to point out the fact that I intend not to offer some significant philosophical revelation here, but merely an interesting new perspective I thought my like-minded readers might enjoy.

Before making any decisions about whether or not god exists, every person is confronted with the same primary question: how? How do matter, time, and energy exist? I don't think these are necessarily are the primary questions. Actually, western philosophy for the last give or take 400 years has made the basic question, "how can we know anything".

I understand that the fundamental question is "how can we know anything," but thanks anyway for the passive-aggressive philosophy lesson. I meant the first question confronted when considering the existence of a higher deity and/or the origins of the universe. I probably could have clarified this, but I figured it was contextually self-explanatory.

Your stance on atheistic materialism would of course make this the most important question. In other words, in spite of your discussion on begging questions, you've begged a question to prioritize another set of questions.

The fact is, as important as this question is, there are far more important questions, and one is why anything is important at all. If your mind in nothing more than the product of chemistry and physics in action in the human brain, then the fact that you think the question is important is nothing more than the results of some neurological structures and electro-chemical events within that structure. But can this structure validate itself? if it was unravelled or at least disfunctional, then there is no basis for any importance whatsoever. So it seems to me that to unravel these structures would lead to the result that nothing was important. But here's the problem. My mind indicates to me that certain entities, (like persons) or events have intrinsic worth, that is worth that is not based on anything but that entity or event. But since that worth cannot be sustained without that structure, it stands to reason that the perception of intrinsic worth is an illusion. So here, our minds become decievers. Here, materialism becomes the basis for invalidating one of the processes of the mind, and if we can't trust that aspect of the mind, who's to say that we can trust the part of the mind that led us to be materialists?

I'm not talking about materialism or intrinsic worth. I'm comparing theism and atheism, that's all. You're trying to make an argument out of your "how can we know anything" bit from before, but I'm not biting. Materialism and intrinsic worth are arguments for another day.

In atheism, we stop at the first question by saying we don't know yet.Of course here we see that what it comes down to is choosing your faith. You have faith that our scientific efforts can reveal anything about the universe to us. Furthermore, you have faith that science can reveal that materialism is the answer to everything.

You view theism asking more questions as a positive, but I think this simple argument proves that atheism is a simpler, clearer, and easier-to-justify worldview.Simplicity is not always a virtue in thought systems (ockams blunt, which is useful, is far from our only consideration). I'll agree that atheistic materialism is metaphysically simpler, but perhaps it is too simple to explain the complexities we know of in existence. It may very well be too simple to explain human worth. It is probably too simple to explain mysteries such as how intentionality/purposefulness (in the very mental acts we have of purposing and intending) arises when the laws of physics and chemistry that are supposed to explain everything are currently, by definition purposeless. Atheistic materialism currently appears to simplistic to support robust ethics. It's too simple to satisfactorially explain the extremes of human emotion. It's too simple to explain our aesthetic subtlties such as why one symphonie is so much more intrigueing than another or why a sunset is almost universally considered beautiful. It's too simplistic to explain why we are capable of reaching the depths of rationality we have in our rich and complex developements of logic and mathematics.

So what's the answer to these puzzles? "Just you wait fellas, we'll have all the answers". The answer is faith, but it's not clear that there is any justifiable reason to have this faith.

Here we start getting on-topic, and you point out the fact that I desperately need to clarify some of what I write. I do not have faith in the ability of science to solve the ultimate questions of the origins of life and the universe. I don't! I think it was Craig who pointed out on another post that the beginnings of the universe are impossible to be replicated in an experiment, and therefore the scientific method falls short. Couldn't have said it better myself.

What I DO believe about science is that it is a far more reasonable alternative to religion and theological speculation at revealing the beginnings of things. I'm not sure science will ever yield anything substantial on the topic, but I believe it has a better chance of doing so than religion ever could have. And then, at the end of this comment you devolve into arguments about intrinsic worth and aesthetics. I honestly fail to see the relationship.

I must confess that I wasn't fully satisfied with the clarity of one of the ideas that I articulated above. I suppose it's okay, but it wasn't as crystal clear as I'd like. I'm speaking of the difficulty of sustaining intrinsic worth from the standpoint of materialism.

I feel an example may explain and shore up my claim here. Consider the value we place on children. For parents, children become one of the most important aspects of their lives. Children have intrinsic worth. They aren't worthwhile on the basis of some other good that they provide, but because they themselves are the good that is established. Can materialism explain this worth? Of course evolution is all about passing on the genes for survival. So why for example might a single person want to benefit unrelated children who do not carry genes that are directly from that person? Richard DAwkins spoke of the selfish gene, where compassion helps to preserve the genes that others who have though they are not directly related.

So the value that society and individuals regardless of personal reproduction place upon children and infants can be explained completely in terms of evolution. But this leaves us with an unfortunate reversal.

What is reversed here? It is the view that recognizes the transcendent spirituality of humans, more specifically, the view that suggests we are so valuable that our pattern upon which we are based is nothing short of divine. And our genetic makeup is the means to this end. It is not the form itself, but it is only the blueprints to much if not all of that form. The point of genes is to make possible (among many other things) a creature that is in many important respects, like God. And what is the reversal? That we have a creature of high value is not the point of the genetic structure. Rather, that we value persons so much is the means by which genes are passed on. And if genes could be successfully passed on in other ways, then so much for the value we place on each other.

You refute your own argument here with Dawkins's selfish gene. I don't want to get into the argument of intrinsic worth here, but the selfish gene is a great evolution-based argument for worth. The only con you offer to Dawkins's argument is that it "reverses the view of the transcendent spirituality of humans," something which I don't believe exists.

And now, look. The explanation and elaboration on that post is many times longer than the original rave itself! Thought I'd feature this piece not only for academic interest but also for historical archiving. Thanks, M.

Response to Antipelagian Regarding Genocides

2009-04-15T09:49:00.004-04:00

Last week, a post by Craig French, a friend of the blog and author over at Antipelagian, caught my attention. His article, entitled "Christianity Has Killed Its Thousands, Atheism Has...," symbolizes everything that frustrates me about modern America's mistrust of atheists. The crux of his argument is summed up nicely in his second paragraph,

Consider: atheism is, and has been, a minority position. You do the math...Christianity has killed its thousands over 2,000 years, atheism has killed its tens of millions within the last 100 years.

Since people always stumble over statistics, and so I won't offer any opposing numbers. I will say, however, that his definition of "atheism" doubtless differs from mine. The line that offended me most of all read as follows:

Trying to divorce the ideology of atheism from its leaders' blood-thirsty roles in history is difficult to do when one considers that the "Enlightenment" made man into an autonomous god...from there, the stage was set for man to realize "heaven" on earth by means of instituting its own myth of fall, redemption, consummation of all things.

Well, that's more than a little backwards and offensive, isn't it? Here's the key difference that Craig unfortunately refuses to recognize: Christianity is organized. The various sects of Christians all follow the same established theology, the same established deity, and the same established moral coda. Atheists, on the other hand, are unorganized; we all believe something different about everything. Not all atheists by their very being atheists necessarily agree with their terrible actions, same as you might not agree with those Christians who committed the Inquisition or the Crusades.

Secondly, those genocidal atheists (notice that I do not refuse their existence) weren't committing mass murder because of their atheism! Christian genocides have routinely been performed out of some intensely backwards faith, killing the minority in the name of some bloodthirsty god. So saying that atheists have killed more people than Christians is purely coincidental, like saying that people with blonde hair are more likely to kill people than members of the Socialist Party. See what I mean?

Oh, and, for the record, Hitler was a Roman Catholic. And not only that, the holocaust happened in part because he thought he was enacting god's divine will in wiping the Jews and homosexuals from the face of the planet. And I don't use his Christianity against you, so don't use his make-believe atheism against me! I legitimately believe that religious people intentionally smeared both Hitler and atheism by associating them and attempting to link their ideologies. Unfortunately, Americans believed them. Look forward to reading your reply. M.

[Update I | 16 Apr]: Thought I might share my rebuttal to a comment on this post left by Rob R. As always, these comments help me to clarify what I intended to get across in my original post, and so I always appreciate them - even the ones telling me how stupid I am.

"...atheism is perfectly consistent with so many evil conclusions..."

Oh, is it? Rob, because all atheists are different and we don't all follow one flag, "atheism" in and of itself is perfectly consistent with almost nothing.

And, on Hitler, not only was he an avowed Roman Catholic, but he even mentioned in Mein Kampf that doing away with the Jews was his way of enacting god's divine will on earth. My goal by mentioning Hitler was to show that no ideology is responsible for the actions of its followers, including theism and atheism. Oh, and Nietzsche did not inspire the Nazis - his sister bastardized his works shortly after his death to fit into the Nazi agenda. His true philosophy was entirely separate from Nazism.

Ultimate Questions

2009-04-15T09:28:00.003-04:00

Good morning everyone, and welcome to the first fresh post in a little while. This rave is born of a conversation I had with a vehement theist a few days ago, and the fruit of a little bit of thinking I did on the subject. This is in no way intended to be something like a profound philosophical argument, but merely something interesting that I've been thinking about. Take it or leave it.

So, this theist argued that being an atheist was much more difficult because theism, he believed, offered easy answers to most of life's ultimate questions (i.e., how we are here, why we are here, is there an afterlife, etc.). After reflection, I've found that not only does theism not offer a practical answer to any of the ultimate questions, but it increases the number and specificity of these questions dramatically. Allow me to explain.

Before making any decisions about whether or not god exists, every person is confronted with the same primary question: how? How do matter, time, and energy exist? Most people answer it simply - they say there is a supernatural being who created all of that. Okay, fair enough, but who created your supernatural deity? And who created his creator, and so on? Why did he create us, what are his motivations? What can we know about him? Is he benevolent? Is he still active in our world? The questions continue and multiply. Every seemingly suitable answer to one question spawns a half-dozen more.

In atheism, we stop at the first question by saying we don't know yet. We're not yet sure how everything came into being, but we're sure that a scientific explanation is more reasonable than explaining everything away with some fairy in the sky. I'd be happy to read counterarguments to this, but it seems pretty clear that atheism begs less questions than theism. You view theism asking more questions as a positive, but I think this simple argument proves that atheism is a simpler, clearer, and easier-to-justify worldview. M.

Dustin Hoffman Makes a Spectacle

2009-04-08T00:25:00.001-04:00

Note: The title is taken from the movie's tag-line,

One man will make a mistake, the other will make it a spectacle.

Although doubtless marketed in a traditionally Hollywood campaign with traditional Hollywood tag-lines, Mad City wasn’t the sort of movie you see every day. While it did contain action, bits of comedy, and eventual pyrotechnics, every element of the production was quite obviously driven by a collection of powerful themes that director Costa-Gavras wanted to drill home, all of them concerning the role of the media in reporting - or creating - real events.
The film pits the sly and charming news reporter, Max Brackett (Dustin Hoffman), against the moody whims of would-be hostage-taker Sam Baily (John Travolta). The pair is united by a twist of fate - Brackett happens to be using a museum’s restroom when a disgruntled former employee, Baily, armed with a shotgun and dynamite, begins demanding his job back outside.

Brackett sees an opportunity, as any newscaster would, and ignites a media circus around the events that eventually spins out of control. Thus is one of the fundamental messages of the film, superficially laid out for the 6-year-olds in the audience at about ten minutes in - “the media are vultures.” Not particularly original, but it’s done moderately well: as Brackett goads Baily down the path more palatable to television viewers, he movie does a nice job questioning the fine line between reporting the news as it happens and inventing it.

As media and pop culture attention turns a focused eye on the crisis, the story takes some excellent turns - first, Baily is the poster-boy of the lower class and workers’ rights, then of the difficulties of parenthood, and then of the Neo-Nazi movement. The film expertly shows how a victim of circumstance can be manipulated and misinterpreted to support literally any platform.

Both of the lead actors seemed to have “called it in” for this one, neither of them presenting much more than lazy and unenthusiastic boredom for the entire course of the film. In Max Brackett, the screenwriters offer a genuinely interesting character - who wouldn’t be intrigued by a news reporter becoming the mediator of a hostage situation? But in the final product, the Brackett character fails to have whatever potential the concept might have allowed him; whether this is due to poor screenwriting or Hoffman’s seemingly one-dimensional performance, I can’t be sure.

From the outset, Mr. Baily is an entirely unbelievable character. He’s a total moron in just about every sense of the word, and his motivations for bringing both a shotgun and dozens of sticks of dynamite (you’ll need more than that to wake Hoffman and Travolta up from their apparent daze) into his former place of work are completely ridiculous. Baily’s reasoning behind the shotgun is almost understandable in the sense that he simply wanted irritating Mrs. Banks (Blythe Danner) to “listen to him” - a line that’s repeated about fifteen times before the film’s over - but dynamite?

The film made extensive use of mattè shots, especially when looking at Baily trapped inside the museum. Other than that, the rest of the cinematography was surprisingly rudimentary, filled with medium shots and the occasional extreme close-up for those especially tense moments. Whenever Baily put down his weapon for even a split second, the audience was bombarded with these frequent quick shots of Brackett eyeing the gun, suggesting that the prop might be leading up to some future conflict or resolution. But it leads nowhere, running out of ammunition just when Baily is contemplating suicide. And, honestly, he “accidentally” fires that thing about three hundred times, once killing his former friend and co-worker. How long is the audience expected to suspend our disbelief?

I hate to be picky, but somebody did an awful sloppy job with the editing, because on at least five occasions the audio fails to match up with events on-screen, and dubbing was painfully out of sync. It wasn’t even like the actors’ mouths were just a little out of time, they were saying completely different sentences!

The film in its entirety could be summarized with its most important character, the network intern named Laurie Callahan (Mia Krishner) who is utterly transformed by the media circus by the end of the film. At the beginning, she’s a mild-mannered camerawoman and assistant, willing to help the wounded security guard as the crisis first appears. But by the end, she’s a heartless news-machine, caring little for the death of Mr. Baily and irreverently referring to him as “confetti.”

Although its themes were a tad trite, they were nonetheless effectively and entertainingly executed. The film tells an interesting and somewhat unique story but, I don’t know, I liked it better when it was called Ace in the Hole. Overall, I’d give Mad City a generous 6.8 out of 10. M.