How About A Belated New Year's Resolution?

This Xmas was a bit of a mess in my family. Various health problems in the family caused us to split up this year and fly to different parts of the globe to see family members in need. The relatively last minute and spontaneous nature of these trips, at a particularly high traffic time no less, caused us to spend quite a bit of money on airfare. My ticket, having to travel the farthest and the closest time around Xmas due to my job, came to a whopping 1,200 euro, nothing to sneeze at. However I am fortunate in that I have a good stable job now, so it was a cost that I could absorb without too much gritting of teeth. However, one of my family members surprised me and covered the cost, despite my protests. I realized: I am finally in a place in my life where I can absorb this cost without feeling it too strongly. So, how about paying it forward?

I've decided my belated new year's resolution will be this: donate 100 euro per month to various charities. They need it more than I do right now.

For January? It has got to be the Atheist Community of Austin. They have put out so much excellent content, for free, that has been keeping me company through my late nights pipetting and staring down a microscope.

And for February? I'll have to think about it and let you know ;)

I've Always Said It.... And Now This Study Proves It!

Let's keep with the science theme shall we? Because I just love this study. Turns out, as I've been telling people that I am particularly self-aware, science backs me up! New evidence out: Lucid dreamers are more self-aware. Woop!

Now everyone calm down, I know this doesn't prove that every single lucid dreamer is an awesome self-awareness machine and everyone else sucks, take a breath, and allow me to take the tiniest victory lap for every time I've heard "Yeah, well, everyone thinks they're self-aware, but nobody actually knows they are, if you weren't you'd still think you were!"

OK, I'm done now, and a little back story for those who are interested (If you're not, skip ahead to the end).

It is very common for people to find it hard to escape their own context. For me, this was lucid dreaming and self-awareness. For a long time I thought that people who were not self-aware were simply being intellectually lazy, they were just not thinking about their own behaviors the way I would endlessly ponder my own, but if they just tried (perhaps with a little outside guidance) they could do it. I also didn't know until I went to college that most people could not, at the very least, notice they were dreaming and wake themselves up, if not change the landscape of the dream entirely.

The more I looked into it though, the more I discovered that I am actually particularly awesome at lucid dreaming.

One of my first memories of controlling my dreams was when I was no older than five, since I had not yet changed primary school at the time. I was often plagued by recurring nightmares, many of which I still remember in vivid detail. As they were recurring however I recognized them as dreams, though that didn't make them any less scary at the time. I then realized that I could wake myself up from them quite easily. It took me a couple of tries at first, squeezing my eyes shut and opening them again, until I managed to pop my real eyes open. 

This, however, did not solve the problem of falling back asleep into the same nightmare, so as I got older my skills developed. I started confronting the monsters in my nightmare and telling them to piss off when I finally understood that they were not real, just in my head (though I also found out the hard way that lucid dreamers can feel pain in their dreams). When I was having one of those "oh no I'm late I have to get to this place now and I can't manage it" dreams and I recognized it I would stop trying to get to wherever it was and start opening up random doors along the street, knowing my brain had just put them there as backdrop, just for the amusement of seeing what my brain would put behind them when given such short notice to come up with something. I then realized that I could put whatever I wanted behind those doors and just step into a whole new dream if the one that I was in got boring. I also perfected my ability to fly, which I have been able to do for as long as I could remember and was astonished when I discovered I was in the minority. I can now flit through different dreams at will, fly like superman and even erase entire characters from my dreams by simply snapping my fingers at them.

OK, after that little window into the depths of my psyche, how about the actual science?

Recently, the Max Plank Institute published a study which correlated Metacognition, or "thinking about thinking", with lucid dreaming abilities. 

Well, this makes sense, to an extent. Usually people are not aware they are dreaming when they are doing so, but if you are capable of lucid dreaming perhaps the part of the brain responsible for self-awareness is more developed, as it has had "more practice". This study simply gives evidence to that effect.

If you find the original article a little difficult to digest, IFLS sums it up very nicely. 

Ahh science, always interesting and, once in a while, hits particularly close to home. I do love it :)

How To Speak Of This Injustice

I can't handle injustice very well, it gets under my skin the way nothing else really does. I find it hard to even put it into words, because I can hardly bring myself to believe that it happens, and when I am accused of exaggerating (something that is common given the heated way I tell stories, despite the fact that I almost never do it) just adds insult to injury for me. I will therefore let Cenk do the talking, as he is so much better at it than I am.

Please, please sign this petition to free Stephanie George, and pass the word on to as many people as you can. This epic failure of a war on drugs is destroying lives, and is built on the most monumental hypocrisy. I am amazed at how few signatures it has. Let's change that. 

This Gave Even Me Pause

The other day, I stumbled upon a quick graphic that PZ Myers had made and put up on Pharyngula. Now I consider myself to be fairly educated with regards to women's issues, I talk about it quite frequently and even have been accused of exaggeration, people telling me the situation is really not as bad as I make it out to me. And yet, even I was shocked at this one

That is unbelievable.

Now when I look at this graphic, my mind automatically goes to how my statistically impaired friends would attempt to tear this apart.

The first point of contention being: Yea well, there were women killed in 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan too! So the graphic is even more skewed than this! But that's not really the point, because they were not killed for simply being women. But then that's not fair either, because the women killed by their partners were not necessarily killed for being women, although the fact that they were women definitely was the largest indirect reason for their murder. 

The point of this graphic is the national conversation. 9/11 was a tragedy, and we are reminded of how tragic it was constantly, how many American lives were lost, how devastating it was. We are constantly talking about supporting the troops, and how it is insanity to be losing so many American lives overseas in such a pointless war.

And yet, when is women being killed by their partners ever made a big deal? When is the national day of remembering them? How many discussions about that are had on television? Where are the sorrowful television specials dedicated to so many more American lives lost? 

To Lighten The Darkness

I have decided that, from now on, I will follow every horrible story I post about with one about someone that is inspiring, someone that every so slightly raises my hopes for humanity. I don't want this blog to become tragedy-porn, and either way it is always important that there are people in this world we can aspire to be more like, not just people we can revile.

Today I am also going to focus on someone who is no longer with us, but is still a truly inspirational and amazing human being. Her name was Rachel, and at nine years old she was already totally awesome.

Rachel was your average nine-year-old. She loved Taylor Swift and had a secret crush on Justin Bieber, although she’d never admit it. She had a loving family and a heart that wanted to solve every problem she saw in this world. Once, she cut off all her hair and donated it to make wigs for kids who had cancer. So when she sat in church one day and heard Scott Harrison from charity: water give a talk about how kids her age in Africa didn’t have clean water to drink, she immediately decided to help. 

With her mom’s encouragement, she created a fundraising page on mycharitywater.org, telling her family and friends that she didn’t want presents for her ninth birthday. Instead, she asked them to donate $9, as she was turning 9. Rachel wanted kids like her to have clean water to drink.

She had a big goal: to raise $300 and give 15 people clean drinking water. She fell a little short, raising $220, and told her mom that she’d try harder next year.

A month later, Rachel was in a tragic car accident on highway I-90 near Seattle, Washington. A trailer had jack-knifed into a logging truck, sending logs tumbling down the freeway. More than a dozen cars were caught in the pile-up, and the trailer smashed into the back of Rachel’s car.

When the news spread about Rachel’s story and her birthday wish, people all around the world began to donate on her page. Some gave $9, some $19, leaving comments like “This is the rest of my month’s salary…..” A month later, 30,000 people had given more than $1.2 million.

Not only did she display more empathy and altruism at the age of nine that many people do in their entire adult lives, she also happened to pick a great charity. This is what I look for in a charity, and this is what makes this also a post about supporting them:

When we started charity: water, we made a bold promise to the general public — 100% of their donations would go directly to the field to fund water projects. We'd find another way to cover our operating expenses. And we'd even reimburse credit card fees when donations were made online.

We depend on private donors, foundations and sponsors to cover everything from staff salaries to basic office systems to office rent and supplies. These donors are some of our most dedicated: their investment fuels our long-term mission, our ability to scale as an organization and our mission to continue using 100% of public donations for water projects. 

Great girl, great cause. Feel your spirits rising ever so slightly. 

Forcing The Discussion

And here I am to prostrate myself at your virtual feet for by prolonged and undue absence. I was going through a writer's block, a "crap I have nothing to say, and no one cares what I have to say anyway" phase, from which I have been shocked out of in light of recent viral stories that I want to add my two cents to. 

By now, I'm sure you have all heard about Savita Halappanavar, the most recent face put on the victims of the Catholic Church's meddlings in societies to which they do not contribute.

Savita Halappanavar (31), a dentist, presented with back pain at the hospital on October 21st, was found to be miscarrying, and died of septicaemia a week later.

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

The dead foetus was removed and Savita was taken to the high dependency unit and then the intensive care unit, where she died of septicaemia on the 28th.

There was no chance, none whatsoever that her foetus would survive. Despite this, they chose to put the life of its mother at risk, by choosing the arbitrary standard of a foetal heartbeat as proof it was still alive, thereby directly causing her death.

I wonder, are heart transplants illegal in Ireland as well? The person's heart is still beating when it is removed for transplant, it must be in order to still be viable, but by their own logic isn't that directly killing their patient and therefore illegal?

So why am I deciding to weigh in at this point? Why is this one case so important?

I hope that this is what will finally precipitate a real discussion that we need to have regarding the liberties we give Catholic hospitals. 

Even if it is discovered that this was an isolated case, one in which her doctor was negligent and solely at fault, even if it is discovered that his actions were not in accordance with proceedure at the Catholic hospital in question, even if the administration of said hospital is absolved of any responsibility beyond any doubt, we still need to have this conversation.

This is not the first time that we are faced with the disgusting proceedures in Catholic hospitals. Take ectopic pregnancies, which have 0% chance of survival, since the foetus will burst the fallopian tube and kill the mother once it reaches a certain size. We have heard of Catholic hospitals which refuse to remove the embryo in question because of their "morals", opting instead to remove the woman's entire fallopian tube, greatly reducing her fertility and turning a simple operation into a far more dangerous one. Where was the global outcry then?

What about the sawing of women's pelvises to make them into supreme baby-making machines? 

The problem is the lack of a face, a victim, someone that the whole world rallies around. Now there is one, and with enough people paying attention we need to address the real issue: how much are we going to allow hospitals to get away with?

We need laws, real laws, limiting in explicit words what religious hospitals are allowed to do and still operate as hospitals. If Jehovah's Witnesses decide their going to open up a hospital but refuse to give blood transfusions to any of their patients, even to save their lives? Guess what, you don't get to be a hospital, you don't get a cent of govnerment money and you sure as shit aren't going to be served by ambulences that might bring an unwitting patient to your doors. If a Catholic Church refuses to save a woman's life because she has some foreign DNA inside her? Fuck you, you don't get to be a hospital anymore, end of story. 

Now, when people are really looking and really paying attention, now is the time to act.

Two Heroes In One

Hey guys, my apologies for being so patchy these days, but I've managed to overcome another one of those nasty deadlines that was clogging my brain. Now the adrenaline has left my body and I find myself at a bit of a loss for what to write about. There was one story that managed to penetrate my fog and make me take a minute to reflect on the fact that perhaps there is hope for humanity yet. Sometimes, when on the internet too long, one forgets that the real world isn't entirely made up of trolls, MRAs and Republican crazy people. 

So today when I found out about Madanjeet Singh and what he is doing for South Asia, especially for women, I had to take a moment and smile in knowing that there really are great people, who are also wealthy, on this Earth. I'll let Taslima Nasreen on No Country For Women explain far better than I can:


Madanjeet singh, the UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador and the Founder of the South Asia Foundation is one of the greatest secular humanists of our time. An attack on Malala Yousafzai prompted him to donate one million U.S. dollars for women's education and empowerment. 

Madanjeet Singh sponsored the bi-annual Unesco-Madanjeet Singh Prize for the promotion of tolerance and non-violence. He poured 200 million dollars to create South Asia Foundation as a regional secular youth movement and it has now grown to have chapters in eight countries, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. 

Madanjeet Singh has a dream. He dreams of having secularized South Asia, where everybody regardless of gender, origin, colour, caste, creed, ethnicity, race, religion, language, age, marital status, sexual orientation live together happily. He said, “South Asia, like the European Union, should have a common currency so that friendly relations between the countries can be created eventually,” Not only secularism, he also contributed to the green energy technologies, encouraged people in South Asia to generate solar energy. 
 
I had a great opportunity to meet Madanjeet Singh, a dreamer, a courageous truth teller, a fearless warrior. He has been fighting obscurantism, religious extremism, fundamentalism without any compromise. We do not meet many enlightened persons like Madanjeet Singh, who dedicate themselves to human rights, women’s rights, secularism, humanism and freedom of expression.

I salute him for his great contribution to humanity. 

As do I. If you are one of the ten people who have not heard about Malala Yousafzai and what an amazing person she is as well, I found this video perticularly good in explaining it

You are both heroes. The world needs more people like you.

TYT, I Disagree

Well, this time I'm not disagreeing with everyone on TYT, but I'm particularly disagreeing with Jayar, the one that I tend to disagree with the most on the "TYT Supreme Court" despite the fact that he is also by far the member I find the most attractive (alas, I can separate the two things).

What's interesting is that my usual beef with Jayar is that I find him to be such a prude, whether it be about any story about "sexualizing children" or about teenagers having any kind of non parental-approved sex. What was strange about this time is that my beef seems to be the complete opposite, in that for once I was taking the side of those that are more "sensitive".

The video in question is about FOX News accidentally (?) airing footage of a man trying to escape from police, and later committing suicide by shooting himself in the head. 

The debate is, should it have been shown? Should it be shown now that the footage is already available? I was shocked that Jayar was all for showing it, saying that as a society we're too afraid to show or talk about death and comparing it to not showing the coffins of dead soldiers, and I was even more surprised that Cenk was buying it. Not to mention the "who cares if the kids are watching" argument, coming from the guy who always goes to the what about teh childrenz argument when it comes to anything remotely sex-y. Sorry Jayar, I couldn't disagree with you more.

I understand that death is a natural part of life. I understand that it is something that is treated with ultimate reverence, often times far too much. I understand that as a society we're becoming far too removed from it, not understanding that those war statistics we hear on the TV are actual people who have lost their lives. Despite all of that, I still think Jayar is really, really wrong here.

I have seen some horrendous things, images that have stayed with me at night when I close my eyes, but things that I think everyone should see. I have seen the (trigger warning) pictures of what happens when acid is thrown in a person's face, I have watched people laugh at a woman being whipped for having the audacity to wear pants, I have seen dead, mutilated children mowed down by soldiers, a University Professor's head split open like a melon for the crime of believing in education, not to mention the horrendously tortured body of a 13-year old Syrian boy for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

These images, these videos upset me enormously, but they have their purpose. This is reality, this is what actually happens. Most times it's not enough to simply know that human rights violations are happening in Syria, you have to see it with your own eyes to truly comprehend what is happening there. With the soldier's coffins, how do you as an American voter really understand the true cost of war without seeing the coffins that are shipped back to the United States day after day after day? Let's be honest now, that's why they didn't show soldier's coffins on television, not because of teh childrenz. What better way to pull the wool over a nation's eyes, what better way to keep a war going and well funded and keep getting elected, when the vast majority of the country just don't get what the war is costing them all. These images should be seen, should be shown, because people need to care, need to understand and need to get involved. 

But this video here? It is of a man, in the most desperate moment of his life, deciding to end it then and there. It is there for his family to see and to know that people are watching it and getting a kick out of it. What purpose does this video have, other than to satisfy a macabre voyerism?  How is this video in any way comparable to videos of soldier's coffins coming back from Iraq?

Sorry Jayar, I'm not buying what you're selling.

Thinking Scientifically, Always

I work in the science field, so I know all too well that scientists and atheists are pefectly capable of cognitive dissonance and all kinds of backwards thinking that we often accuse others of doing. Although we are human, of course, we should know better given our training, so it makes me so angry when I see people in my field of work not applying their critical thinking skills to anything outside of the particular experiment they happen to be working on.

In this case I suppose I shouldn't have expected much more, since the person in question is also a die-hard Catholic (albeit one with an extensive historical knowledge and very much a "the whole thing is one big allegory and full of copying errors so it's all to be taken with a grain of salt" type Catholic). Still, she was perfectly able to crawl right under my skin when I happened to bring up how disgusted I am with what is going on in Greece.

In case you haven't heard, A 27 year-old man in Greece has been arrested and faces up to 2 years in prison for making fun of a Greek Orthodox monk, Geron Paisios. He created a Facebook page in which he called the monk Geron Pastitsios, a type of Greek lasagna, possibly using it as an extended parody linking the monk to Pastafarianism. To face 2 years in jail for something so asinine is ridiculous and something I expect of Iran or Saudi Arabia, not the country that invented democracy. My colleague doesn't agree, or rather, she doesn't believe it.

"Greece is a civil country", she says, "so he must have done something far worse than what you think. You're an idiot if you think that online newspapers are 100% reliable, so he must have said something horrible. Besides, you're not allowed to offend people, you can sue someone for saying terribly offensive things, maybe that person doesn't go to jail but there is a precedent in other civil countries. So, whatever, I'm sure he deserves it".

Oh deary me. A part from her horrible mangling of free speech and libel laws, the core of her argument is so rotten I almost fell out of my chair. What in the hell kind of scientist are you?!

You don't get to work your way backwards from a conclusion, I tried to explain. Of course you can't assume that newspapers have all of their facts straight, but that is entirely besides the point. We have a certain amount of evidence: I have read many articles about this, and they all say the same thing regarding his "crimes". With the evidence that we have, my conclusion is that no, Greece is not behaving like a "civilized country", not even close. That does not mean that this conclusion cannot change based on new evidence that can arise later, however I really don't care how mercilessly he poked fun at the guy, he could have inserted the guy's face into this NSFW cartoon and plastered it all over Facebook, unless he credibly threatened followers of the cult or some similar real crime was committed, my conclusion remains the same: Greece is not to be considered "civilized" so long as they have these totalitarian laws.

You know what the real problem is? Even putting it in the hypothetical: let's say that all he really did was call this guy a pasta name. Let's say for the sake of argument, it is 100% confirmed that that is all he did. Would you be willing to revise your conclusion then? Her answer was still no.

This is about not wanting to see what lies in front of you, not about not being able to or not knowing how. It's about her being religious, and she wouldn't want anyone calling Ratzinger Pope Spaghetti, so she just wont admit that one of the core and most important principles of a free country are being slowly but surely crushed underfoot. 

And ultimately, this is about not thinking what you do in life has any importance outside of the lab. If I was to think in this way regarding an experiment she'd be the first to kick my legs out from under me in utter disgust. 

I, on the other hand, was attracted to this line of work specifically because I value the importance of thinking scientifically, and I think it is the best, most fair, most objective and therefore most humble way to view life.

If you ever see me working backwards from a conclusion, slap me.

Ugh, This Guy Again

Looks like Eugene Delgaudio just wont let up! Even after blocking him and unsubsribing to his loathsome website numerous times some of his emails keeps getting through. Not the daily tirade I was getting before, sure, but far too many nonetheless.

However, I'm kind of glad that this one made it through. It looks like we must have successfully Pharyngulated the last poll he set up, because it looks like he's simply decided to re-run it!



Dear Pro-family American,

The Radical Homosexuals and President Obama claim you now support homosexual "marriage", special job preferences for homosexuals, and promotion of the homosexual lifestyle in schools.

Is it true?  What do you say?

I've prepared the American Morality Survey, specially coded and registered for you.

You see, the Radical Homosexuals are storming through Washington demanding passage of their agenda.

And with the Democrats dominating the Senate and Barack Obama calling the shots in the White House, they say NOW is the time to push their perverse “life-style” on every man, woman and child in America.

And they insist YOU actually support them.

To make matters worse, more and more Republicans in Congress are comming out in favor of the Homosexual Agenda...

The Homosexual Lobby has already rammed through Thought Control and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Now they are determined to pass nationalized homosexual "marriage" before Obama's first term is up.

If they convince just enough Republicans to throw their support behind the Homosexual Agenda... I can only begin to imagine how much more damage they will inflict on our country.

As the President of Public Advocate of the United States, I've devoted thirty years to battling the Homosexual Lobby in Washington.

Backed by Hollywood celebrities, the media and millions of your tax dollars, the Homosexual Lobby have many Congressmen, both Democrat AND Republican, quivering with fear.

That's why pro-family Senators and Congressmen are counting on me to find out if you really support the Gay Bill of Special Rights and the Offense of Marriage Act as the radical homosexuals claim.


Well no worries jackass! I'll be happy to fill out your stupid survey, again, just to demonstrate how much you really are on the wrong side of history with this one. 

Why don't you go join your KKK and skinhead buddies down at the bigot bar, and please leave the rest of us alone.

Passage of the Homosexual Agenda will ignite a firestorm that will rip through families, communities and businesses:

*   Special job rights for homosexuals.  Businesses may have to adopt hiring quotas to protect themselves from lawsuits.  Every homosexual fired or not hired becomes a potential federal civil rights lawsuit.

Radical homosexuals will terrorize day care centers, hospitals, churches and private schools.  Traditional moral values will be shattered by federal law.

    *   Homosexual "marriage" and adoptions.  Wedding gown-clad men smooching before some left-wing clergyman or state official is just the beginning.

Across the nation, government officials are already punishing photogaphers, bakeries and wedding planners for refusing to support homosexual "weddings."

Soon ministers, rabbis and other clergy will be forced to preside over homosexual "weddings" or face penalties or even jail time.

    *   The Homosexual Classrooms Act pushing their agenda into our schools.  Your children or grandchildren will be taught homosexuality is moral, natural and good.  High school children will learn perverted sex acts as part of “safe sex” education.

With condoms already handed out in many schools, Radical Homosexuals will have little trouble adopting today's “if it feels good do it” sex-ed curriculum to their agenda.


Oh please, please, PLEASE be a Poe! This is just too funny. Beware the gay terrorists guys! Lewis Black warned us about them aaaages ago!

This next part puts MRA victim whining to shame


One stormy night, I drove to a mailshop hidden deep in a nearly deserted stand of warehouses.  I'd heard something was up and wanted to see for myself.

As I rounded the final turn, my eyes nearly popped.  Tractor-trailers pulled up to loading docks, cars and vans everywhere and long-haired, earring-pierced men scurrying around running forklifts, inserters and huge printing presses.

Trembling with worry, I went inside.  It was worse than I ever imagined.

Row after row of boxes bulging with pro-homosexual petitions lined the walls, stacked to the ceiling.

My mind reeled as I realized hundreds, maybe thousands, more boxes were already loaded on the tractor-trailers.  And still more petitions were flying off the press.

Suddenly a dark-haired man screeched, “Delgaudio, what are you doing here?” Dozens of men began moving toward me.  I'd been recognized.

As I retreated to my car, the man chortled, “This time, Delgaudio, we can't lose!”

Driving away, my eyes filled with tears as I realized he might be right.


Imaginary dark-haired man is right. You are going to lose this battle, because the world is going to progress, social justice will prevail, with or without you.

Ever thought of just letting go of the hate? You don't need the burden.  

In all seriousness, please take 30 seconds of your time to fill out the (extremely badly worded and biased) survey, and spread it to as many people as you can. The message needs to be loud and clear: enough is enough. 
 

Repost: Sharia Law In The UK

I received this email from Maryam Namazie, a woman whom I greatly admire and instrumental in the Nude Photo Revolutionary Calendar (which still hangs proudly on my wall). I want to repost it here, because I think it is something that more people, especially those of you that live in the UK, need to be aware of.



 Dear Friend,

We are writing to you today to ask for your urgent and immediate support.

As you may have seen in the papers recently, there is growing evidence that young children – some as young at 5 years old – are being “married” to older men in Sharia courts across Britain. This is increasingly being sanctioned by the Islamists who run Britain’s network of Sharia courts, and there is evidence that this practice is growing.

Recent Investigations

A recent undercover investigation by the Sunday Times found imams in Britain willing to “marry” young girls, provided this was carried out in secret. The imams had been approached by an undercover reporter posing as a father who said he wanted his 12 year old daughter married, to prevent her from being tempted in to a "western lifestyle".
 
Imam Mohammed Kassamali, of the Husaini Islamic Centre in Peterborough, sanctioned the marriage, but stressed the need for total secrecy. He stated: “I would love the girl to go to her husband’s houses (sic) as soon as possible, the younger the better. Under sharia (Islamic law) there is no problem. It is said she should see her first sign of puberty at the house of her husband. The problem is that we cannot explain such things (the marriage) if the girl went tomorrow (to the authorities).”

Abdul Haque, who officiates at weddings at the Shoreditch mosque, east London agreed to carry out the formalities of the wedding. However, he told the reporter that he should “tell people it is an engagement but it will be a marriage”. He added: “In Islam, once the girl reaches puberty the father has the right, the parents have the right, but under the laws of this country if the girl complains and says her marriage has been arranged and she wasn’t of marriageable age, then the person who performed the marriage will be jailed as well as the mother and father”.



Earlier this year, it was also reported that at least 30 girls, some as young as 9, were “married” in sharia courts in one London borough alone. Clearly, child “marriages” are an abomination; they are nothing short of religiously-sanctioned child rape and paedophilia.

Sharia proponents deceptively say that forced marriages are unacceptable under Sharia and that both bride and groom must choose to marry as if that is the issue at hand. Islamists have gotten away with years of misogyny against Muslim women under cover of “choice” and are now using similar language with regards children. Nonetheless, child welfare must take precedence irrespective of religious beliefs. This is something we must urgently remind the Government of. Sharia courts are a scandal and must be stopped.

Arbitration and Mediation (Equality) Bill

One important way to tackle this matter is to galvanise support for the Arbitration and Mediation (Equality) Bill introduced to the House of Lords last year by crossbench peer, Baroness Caroline Cox. The Bill is due for a second reading in October.

The Government has so far declined to support Cox’s Bill. They do not believe there is a parallel legal system in operation. They also insist that everyone has full right of access to the British courts. This is simply not the case. There are many with little or no English language skills, trapped by community pressure, who believe Sharia courts operate as real courts and who regard their decisions as legally binding. The idea that they can easily instruct a high street solicitor to help them access their full rights under UK law is far from reality.

The Government must be pressured into taking immediate action, including by supporting Cox’s Bill, and shutting down Sharia and religious courts. If child welfare takes precedence then the Government is duty-bound to take action.

Sign our new petition in support of Baroness Cox’s Bill; tell the Government that enough is enough! Please sign it now.

Help Us

Baroness Cox has said in the past that her Bill was inspired by One Law for All. To donate to our important work, please either send a cheque made payable to One Law for All to BM Box 2387, London WC1N 3XX, UK or pay via Paypal.

. We need regular support and also for supporters to commit to giving at least £5-10 a month via direct debit. You can find out more about how to join the 100 Club here

If you shop online, please do so via the Easy Fundraising’s website. It won’t cost you anything extra but can help raise much needed funds for One Law for All.
We look forward to your immediate intervention in this matter.

Best wishes,

Maryam Namazie and Anne Marie Waters

Spokespersons

One Law for All

BM Box 2387

London WC1N 3XX, UK

Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731

onelawforall@gmail.com

www.onelawforall.org.uk



I bolded that last part because this is an amazing discovery for me. You're saying that I get to feel good about shopping for embarassing numbers of books and DVDs on amazon without having to feel guilty AND not spending any more on them?! It costs nothing to sign up, they take no percentage of what you raise for the website, and you get to shop the way you normally do AND contribute to your cause of choice. Win-win-win, I just signed up four minutes ago. Amazon here I come!

Boycotting: A Clarification

I am a little bit of a couch-potato activist myself, and I am known to participate in quite a few boycotts. I get criticized about this a lot, because I feel that there are many misconceptions that those who are even lazier than I am use to discredit those that participate in boycotts. I was reminded of some of these by one of TheYoungTurks's videos I saw yesterday:

So obviously the hosts are saying come on, it's silly to boycott someone's business because of their political views, or because they support the president. Not that people don't have the right to boycott whatever they like, obviously, but I agree that this particular reason for boycotting a place of business is stupid. Immediately, the right-wing voice of the youtube commenters riles up in protest. BIAS! YOU'RE BIASED! What about the Chick-Fil-A boycott hmmm? Didn't think it was so stupid to boycott a place of business when it was against Republicans!! 

Ugh, I've heard this either-think-all-boycotts-are-equally-valid-or-fuck-off argument before, and I feel that I need to clarify. These are the circumstances under which I personally will boycott a business, and while of course I cannot speak for everyone, I think that I have a logical basis for choosing to do so. 


1. When the business/owner(s) give money to causes I abhor

This, for me, is the most obvious reason to boycott a business. In the case of Chick-Fil-A, the company donated enormous amounts of money to organizations that spend that money trying to deny Americans equal rights under the law. That means that, if I was to spend money there, part of my money would be donated to a cause that I loathe. I don't want my money to go to any such organization.

Now I don't live in the United States, so I can only support the boycott from afar and not actively participate in it, but there are other products that I do not buy for the same reasons: you're not going to find l'Oreal shampoo in my bathroom, that's for sure.


2. When the companies themselves profit from disgusting practices

I will not help a company to profit off of pain and suffering, but this is the one that I get criticized the most for. This is the reason that I will not buy anything from Nestlè, but far too many people are willing to look past killing children in Africa when reaching for their KitKat bar. I'm sorry, there's no chocolate in the world that tastes good enough for me to say "hmm, give money to a company that is unrepentant in the suffering that it causes for a Lion bar? Yea, having a lion bar is way more important". Fuck that. It is also the reason I always buy Fair Trade chocolate: chocolate is a commodity, a vice, and one of the least ethically produced foods there is. If I can't afford to buy it Fair Trade, I don't have to buy it, I don't need it to survive.

This is where misconception number 2 comes in: people will say to me "yea, you think you're going to bring Nestlè down to its knees because you wont buy their cereal? Way to feel self-important! You can't change it, so why bother putting in the effort?" No, I don't think that I am going to change things. But I hate this idea that I have no choice in this consumer-based capilist society. I, as a consumer, can choose which companies I give my money to and which ones I don't. I, as a consumer, would not feel right about telling companies like Nestlè go ahead! You can eat a live wriggling African baby and I'll still give you my money! No, I wont, regardless of how much impact my decision has on the company.

And like it or not, in a very slow way, these decisions are making a difference. In the past 10 years I've seen fair trade items explode on the market. I've seen documentaries on the subject, awareness being spread and more and more companies jumping on the bandwagon.

Enter, if you please, misconception number 3: "Pfft, you think that Starbucks is taking part in this fair trade crap because the owners are nice and cuddly? Because they actually care about people? Please! It's so they can charge 10% more and boost their sales!" Well guess what, i don't care. I don't care if their reasons are greed and not social justice. The fact that they are doing the right thing is enough for me, regardless of what pushed them to do it. So long as they actually abide by the standards that qualify as fair trade, and that those standards are not drastically reduced in order to render them meaningless, I. don't. care. The fact that there are workers who get health care, enough to eat and can send their kids to school is enough reason for me to spend an extra 80 cents on chocolate. 

3. When the company actively discriminates against a group of people

This one is a little trickier, because I need real proof that the business in question is discriminating against people. The whole Gelato-Gate incident is a prime example, but if I was also presented with evidence of a business firing someone for being gay or refusing to hire Muslims I would react in the same way.

The reason I say it is tricky is because I draw the line at someone being a bigot themselves. I think that you're a crappy person if you're a bigot, and I might not be your friend, but I wont boycott you're business because you're ignorant. You are free to think whatever you want, but the moment that your thoughts and prejudices negatively impact innocent people? That's when I get mad, and decide that I cannot support you.

So this brings me to conclude when I wont boycott a business:

1. When the owner has a different opinion than my own about something
2. When the owner is religious
3. When the owner is privately ignorant
4. When the owner is of a different political ideology

Is that clear enough for the boycott-haters, do you think?

And are there any other circumstances under which you would, or would not, boycott a business?

Ladies And Gents, Meet Bosses 4 and 5

Just like they said in the TYT video I saw on this subject this morning, I LOVE that it is football athletes that are being this vocal in support of gay marriage, that they are painstakingly breaking the stereotype that it's "unmacho" and "uncool" to support gay rights. Although linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo came out in support for gay marriage back in 2009, it is a more recent video that seems to have sparked a juicy controversy.

Oooh Emmett C. Burns Jr. did not like that. He was incenced that a football player from a team he actually likes could do something so offensive!!! He wrote the following letter to the owner of the Baltimore Ravens, the team this awesome athlete plays for:


"As a Delegate to the Maryland General Assembly and a Baltimore Ravens Football fan, I find it inconceivable that one of your players, Mr. Brendon Ayanbadejo, would publicy endorse Same-Sex marriage, specifically, as a Raven Football player. Many of my constituents and your football supporters are appalled and aghast that a member of the Ravens Football Team would step into this controversial divide and try to sway public opinion one way or the other. Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment and excitement. I think Mr. Ayanbadejo should concentrate on football and steer clear of dividing the fan base. 

        I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a National Football Franchise Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions. I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbedejo is doing. 

      Please give me your immediate response "



Emphasis my own.

Dude, what the Hell do you think you're doing?! You're a Democrat, and a black man from Jackson Mississippi!!! Are you serious? Do you need someone to explain the definition of the word irony, or hypocrisy?!

Actually no need, cause while Ayanbedejo may have been the first NFL player to speak publicly about this issue, he's got one more on his side, Vikings punter Chris Kluwe fires back with this awesome open letter:



"1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees,” more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for “beautiful oppressionism”).

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about penis? “Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole."

Ooh how I love it! I really hope the guy writes back, though I doubt it. Most importantly I hope that he royally shot himself in the foot with his constituents over this matter, and I hope that anyone that voted for him, even if they agree with him on the gay marriage issue, kick his ass out of office for his abhorrent views on the First Amendment. 

Is that too much to hope for? He is (technically) in the Democratic Party after all....

Like Multi-Tasking, I Can Multi-Care

Over the weekend dprjones came out with a new video that quite honestly got on my nerves. While it was created to promote a cause that I 100% support and am contributing to, I found it entirely unneccessary in its presentation.

Well, I was going to show it here, but he seems to have taken it down as I cannot find it anywhere on his channel. Well, the title of the video was "Atheism +?? Atheism -?? I don't care!" I suppose I can't totally bash it now that there is no objective proof of its existence or way to objectively decide whether or not I'm exaggerated in my reaction or misinterpreted it, but I still want to bring this up because I had found it to be a perfect example of an argument that I encounter quite often. 

The basic sense that I got out of it was "I don't get this Atheism+ movement, but who cares about stupid semantics! I have more important things to worry about like suffering! Look at all the pictures of the poor sick African children!" Well pat yourself on the goddamned back dpr. It was a video promoting the MSF charity event, which as I said before I think is great and I am contributing to it, but it was also an unnecessary dig at a movement whose values, ironically, line up very well with the MSF charity event, not to mention that some of the participants of the event listed in his video are part of Atheism+.

Shitting on something that you haven't bothered to look into or research aside, this argument is one that really gets under my skin and one that I have been confronted with often. Suffering animals in sub-par shelters and puppy farms? Who cares! Don't you know there are people who suffer? Drunk college girls getting raped? Who cares! I'm much more interested in stopping child rape! Innocent people put to death by the death penalty? Who cares! I only care about really important things, like genocide! 

Well I can't speak for the rest of you, but I can speak for myself, and my question is this: why the fuck do you always insist that I have to pick one issue, just one thing, to care about or to think is important enough to speak out about? I don't know about you, but I retain the (rare?) ability to care about a variety different things, without having to artificially squash them onto one ultimate ladder of importance and picking only the one that occupies the top rung. 

This is what I care about: science education and real science as opposed to pseudoscience, equality for all people regardless of race, gender identidy, socioeconomic status or sexual orientation, feminism, gay marriage and other LGBTQ issues. Oh, all of those things are included under Atheism+? Well sign me the fuck up, it seems as though it's values are also mine.

I also care about democracy and freedom to choose your government, free speech, free elections, animal rights, human rights, war and persecution, bringing affordable health care, food and clean water and education to everyone regardless of what circumstances they happen to be born in, literacy, slavery, child abuse, oppression and freedom from as well as of religion. 

I understand that some of those things may not be "as" important as others, and if I really had to choose one there are some that I would more easily discard. But ultimately the question is, why should I have to?