That's Not Real.... Is That Real?!

I came across this video on Pharyngula as I was eating lunch at my desk. According to PZ, this is a real, genuine political ad for Rand Paul, but I cannot bring myself to believe it.

I almost choked on my sandwich. I have no words to describe my reaction, the closest I can come is 

Is Secular Humanism Only Compatible With Socialism?

I've been on a bit of a The Atheist Experience binge lately during my hours of pipetting and sitting in front of the microscope, and so I came across one particular episode in which an interesting question came up, and one that I do not think was answered or discussed in sufficient detail. The caller (watch from 38:00 of the video below for full context) basically floated the idea that an atheistic morality is only compatible with socialism as an economic structure, because it is centered around humans having inherent value, rather than capitalism, which promotes competition and stepping over your fellow man.

While the discussion travelled towards the limits of how much you can morally expect from an individual to put the needs of others over their own, the caller was steering the conversation towards economic policy, which forced Russell (much to his chagrin) even defend right-wing capitalism a little bit.

What they all failed to acknowledge is that most successful societies are based on an amalgamation of capitalism and socialism. While I agree that a pure cut-throat capitalistic society is not the best strategy, especially from a moral standpoint (what would that even look like? Pure libertarianism? More on that later) pure, unadulterated socialism doesn't work either.

Don't get me wrong, there are good reasons for socialism. The fundamental principle is to base a society on meritocracy, where every person is born equal and is not inherently superior by sole fortune of the circumstances in which they were born. Of course this is also why so many socialist countries have needed to rely on propaganda and censorship in order to convince their people that those in power actually deserve their leadership position (for an extreme example, see all of the ridiculous stories that come out of North Korea to justify the awesomeness of their leaders), but for the sake of argument lets forget about regimes which pervert the fundamental principles of their purported economic structure. Even disregarding the tendency of purely socialist states to devolve into dictatorships, a purely socialist economic structure does not take into account the fact that human beings respond to reward for their efforts.

My father tells an amusing story about when he was in Prague at the very end of the communist era. He had to travel a lot for work, and in this case he was in Prague for the first time with some colleagues which had traveled there before. They arrived late and hungry, and so they all went out in search of a restaurant where they could have dinner. When they knocked on the door of the first one they could find, the manager answered and informed them that the restaurant was completely full. While my father accepted this and turned to leave, his more experienced colleague protested and barged into the restaurant, which turned out to be completely empty. This man then explained to my father that this lie was commonly told because, since the people who ran the restaurant earned the same (and rather meager) wage regardless of the number of clients they served, they clearly preferred showing up to work and doing as little as possible. If your wages at the end of the day were the same regardless of the success of the restaurant, why bother busting your butt to serve as many people as well as possible?

Of course I also do not think that the other extreme is fair either, like servers in the States which have to basically prostitute themselves for tips because their base wage doesn't even come close to the minimum wage, let alone a living one. A healthy balance, in which people are rewarded for their hard work but at the same time do not have to worry about making ends meet at the month, is the most successful model that we have yet come across.

In my opinion, it is possible to have a healthy balance of the capitalist reward structure and basic socialist principles and safety nets. In fact, the most successful societies available today have a mixture of these two principles. Even if we are to disregard the "what makes for a successful society" argument and focus exclusively on morality, how does providing monetary rewards for hard work infringe on the morality of caring for your neighbor? How does allowing people to earn small luxuries, like a nice vacation or a day at the spa, after they have earned it with their efforts bring people to care less about their fellow man? While I absolutely concede that the US has struck the balance too far in favor of capitalism, I do not think that a purely socialist structure is the only one that is compatible with a secular morality. I think there is room for a bit of both within our moral principles.

 

Rand Paul??!! How Did You Get My Email Address??

As I have alluded to in my earlier post, I have been out of the blogosphere loop for quite some time. I haven't been reading articles, signing petitions, filling out surveys or doing anything that would require me to give my email address and thus opening my inbox up to the possibility of politically-oriented spam mail.

So imagine my surprise upon opening my inbox to find an email from Rand Paul, entitled "Sign the petition that Barack fears".

Rand Paul? RAND PAUL??!! How in the holy sweet Jesus on a sandwich did you get my IRISH email address?! This is very weird. This is too much. So, of course, I opened it, and it became immediately clear as to how this happened.

The email, down to the weird font, text size and language style, was identical to the emails I was receiving from our old friend, Eugene Delgaudio.

Remember this guy? Who just wouldn't stop emailing me? Over and over again with his vehement blithering anti-gay hate which was so absurd one might think it was over-the-top parody? Well, it looks like these two are in cahoots, as Rand Paul is using Delgaudio's mailing list to spread his own brand of propaganda, this time anti-unionist in flavor, and even using his same wording in asking for money.

Does anyone else find it ironic that Rand Paul, the self-proclaimed "let the states decide on what to do with gay marriage" libertarian thinks that Eugene Delgaudio's audience, people who subscribe to watch him foam at the mouth over the evil gay villains (if you think that's an exaggeration, just read those previous posts on him), would be the ideal targets for his message?

Just a thought...

Fuck You Libertarians!!

I'm so very sorry that I have been neglecting you. I have been finding very little to say and even less time to say it, and I was wondering whether or not to acknowledge the fact that the United States just, finally managed to re-elect their president. It's not like it was a shock, the math was pretty clear on that before the actual election, so it wasn't exactly a nailbiter. Of course there are the hilariously uninformed that actually were flabbergasted about it (including the Mitt Romney campaign itself), and I suppose it is only because of them that I have decided to talk about this at all. This video just tipped me over the edge in its absolute hilarity, so I figured why not.

Yes, Obama won, and apparently there are some very drunk and incidentally very funny people that are just stinking MAD about it!!!




It's OK, you can admit it, it's pretty funny. Actually, I'm more interested right now in getting follow up interviews with those people that were sure that Romney would wim because God was going to make sure of it, because God was never wrong. My question would be this: Did the absolute creaming of Romney in this case make you

A. Question your belief in God
B. Question your belief that God prefers Romney to Obama
C. Think that Satan might currently be stronger than God?

My guess, it'll be D. Non of the above. There's no reasoning with some people.

Another Dude That Rocks

You may or may not have heard that Ann Coulter was being her usual nasty trolling self on twitter, something that happens far too often for anyone to make a decent argument in favor of giving her the slightest bit of attention. I would never have mentioned it or cared in the slightest, if it wasn't for John Franklin Stephens and this amazing response he posted as an open letter to her:

Dear Ann Coulter,

Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren’t dumb and you aren’t shallow.  So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult?

I’m a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the public’s perception that an intellectual disability means that I am dumb and shallow.  I am not either of those things, but I do process information more slowly than the rest of you.  In fact it has taken me all day to figure out how to respond to your use of the R-word last night.

I thought first of asking whether you meant to describe the President as someone who was bullied as a child by people like you, but rose above it to find a way to succeed in life as many of my fellow Special Olympians have.

Then I wondered if you meant to describe him as someone who has to struggle to be thoughtful about everything he says, as everyone else races from one snarkey sound bite to the next.

Finally, I wondered if you meant to degrade him as someone who is likely to receive bad health care, live in low grade housing with very little income and still manages to see life as a wonderful gift.

Because, Ms. Coulter, that is who we are – and much, much more.

After I saw your tweet, I realized you just wanted to belittle the President by linking him to people like me.  You assumed that people would understand and accept that being linked to someone like me is an insult and you assumed you could get away with it and still appear on TV.

I have to wonder if you considered other hateful words but recoiled from the backlash.

Well, Ms. Coulter, you, and society, need to learn that being compared to people like me should be considered a badge of honor.

No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.

Come join us someday at Special Olympics.  See if you can walk away with your heart unchanged.

A friend you haven’t made yet,
John Franklin Stephens
Global Messenger
Special Olympics Virginia

I'm sorry to say that I highly doubt that anything could change Ann Coulter's mind or heart, but I greatly admire this man for being so very civil to someone that deserves anything but his civility. It takes an enormous strength of character and eloquence that I don't think I would have had. 

John Franklin Stephens, you are our boss of the week. And I say that with the utmost respect.

And Today's Boss Is...

First it was the Irish Prime Minister, now it's the Australian Prime Minister.... I'm getting jealous! When are we going to get a politician that is half as cool?

Who said a boss can't be a woman? No one, this woman is a fucking badass. I tip my hat to you Madam Prime Minister, you rock.

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....

Speaking Of Bosses...

It's boss week up in here. Thanks once again to Pharyngula for letting me know that I missed out on the best of Irish politics. Shortly after I left Ireland ditched that melty-faced twat and elected this awesome man, I belatedly give my congrats.

I read up a little bit on the guy, looks like he asked his pay as Prime Minister be reduced (so now the Prime Minister of a 4.5 million people country is not paid more than the President of a 300 million people country! whoop!) and other little things which lead me to think crap, a little bit of progress. Well fucking done Ireland. Along with France, you're taking steps in the right direction. Rest of Europe, follow suit!

Repost: Sign This Petition!

Alas I am not (officially) American, so this petition cannot be signed by yours truly, but when I saw it posted on Pharyngula I thought FINALLY we're discussing this seriously! I've been blabbing about this for ages, and people either didn't believe it was happening or knew it was happening and didn't think anything could be done about it. I'll let PZ Myers explain:

You know, if I violated tax law and then flaunted the fact to the IRS, it’s pretty much guaranteed that I’ll get slammed down hard and fast. So why do churches get a free pass?

Since 2008, pastors of some churches have openly supported and advocated specific political candidates in sermons to members in early October in an event referred to as "Pulpit Freedom Sunday". According to Reuters, videos of these sermons are sent to the offices of the IRS.
According to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, the provision of the tax code from which these churches derive their tax-exempt status, a compliant organization must not "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of … any candidate for public office."
The IRS has failed to remove the tax-exempt status of these churches despite their violations of tax code. This must change, and the law must be applied equally to everyone.

Don’t you suspect that many of the officers obligated to enforce the law are also members of these same kinds of churches, and are motivated to neglect their duties by a conflict of interest?

Maybe there should be a requirement that all IRS agents be atheists. That would certainly improve the popularity of atheism!

I am fully aware that PZ has a gargantuan following and does not need my help, but this glaring hypocrisy and injustice is something I care about and I want to spread the word as much as I am able to:

SIGN THE PETITION! (If you believe in the cause, of course)

Oh, and read Pharyngula (if you don't already do), tis awesome

Book Review: This Child Will Be Great

Well, what can I say? It’s pretty damned impressive. Nothing like the memoir of Africa’s first female president to make you feel like you haven’t done nor will you ever do anything truly meaningful in your life. Madame President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, you are amazing.

I recommend this book not just for the interesting historical aspect of knowing more about the life of such a remarkable woman. It is that, but it is also much more. She is an extremely educated and very smart woman, and while half of the book is a fascinating history not only of her life but also of a country that I really knew nothing about until now, it is also a very instructive book about economics and politics.

Now I know nothing about economics and I am very aware that, at the end of the day, this book was written by a politician. I jumped in completely ignorant of even the basics of economics, so I realize that I was entirely taking her word for it and I know full well how people can distort economic policies to make them sound logical for their own political agenda. However you can look up Liberia since 2006 and see how it’s doing. It seems as though her policies are working, and despite her being a politician I do not doubt her sincerity in how much she cares about her people. In a chapter about what makes a leader, she had this to say:

Sitting in prison day after day, coming to the understanding that if I were going to help the people, I needed to know, really know, their lives, was a humbling and important experience for me. Whenever I was inclined to feel sorry for myself or afraid I would reflect, “Hey! Poor people go through this all the time!”

            Perhaps this should be part of the proper grooming of leaders: to be put in a position where you suffer what the common person suffers. How else can you really understand what you’re working to do?

I agree 1000% with this statement, and it is a point I and many other have made time and time again. It is the point that Michael Moore was making when he was trying to get Congressmen that voted for the war to sign their kids up for the army, and it is glaringly obvious when watching the campaign of candidates like Mitt Romney that they haven’t the slightest clue what the average American has to struggle with every day. To hear it from a politician is particularly refreshing, and it is definitely a policy that I would fully support and think all countries should consider implementing.

It’s not only her passion for her people that makes her so special (and exceedingly rare among people of her profession). She’s nicknamed “the Iron Lady”, but I think only because that is far more polite than stating that she has iron balls. I just love her for her personality, which I think is excellently captured in this anecdote about when she was working in government overseeing spending on a particularly lavish Organization of African Unity conference:

In a nutshell, we simply did not have the money to host the summit. I found myself taking rather strong positions in opposition, both to the overspending on the summit itself and to the many blatantly inflated or downright fraudulent invoices being submitted to the government by contractors on behalf of OAU projects.

            I remember one bill that found its way to my desk […]. The bill struck me as outrageous. I decided to use one of the rubber stamps I had bought in a small souvenir shop in the United States that said BULLSHIT. I felt it was an appropriate response to what I was seeing, so I stamped the bill and returned it to the British contractor.

HA! I love it! Who does that?! Of course this was the most humorous example, there are plenty of others in which she demonstrates that she is not afraid to stick to her principles and speak her mind regardless of the consequences to herself, which makes her an exceptionally rare kind of politician indeed.

Our current economic turmoil makes this instructive aspect of the book ever more relevant to us in the “Western world”. Although of course there are some fundamental differences in our history and where we need to rebuild from, I still think that there is much to learn from a woman such as Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in this regard.

If you know more about economics than I do and do not agree with the efficacy of what she has to say, please explain in the comments section and we can discuss it. I would love to begin to fill this gap in my knowledge. If, like me you know very little about this sort of thing, combined with the amazing historical information, you will love this book.

However, if there is one lesson that I think is essential to take away from this book and apply to the situation we find ourselves today, it is this one:

My release from prison shows the power of the public, the power of the people both home and abroad. Public opinion matters; if it is pointed, focused, and intense, it can turn things around. In this global age individuals are sometimes tempted to believe that they have no power, not even collectively. This is not true. The public can make a difference if it is willing to take a position and stand up for a cause in which it believes. Against a united and committed public, even the harshest of governments cannot stand, for certainly this was a harsh military government against which no one thought they could do anything.

A message of hope that I fully support, and Italians especially need to take note. Go forth, spread the word, get up off your lazy ass, quit whining and start that change! You can’t wait around for an Ellen Johnson Sirleaf to come run in our presidential elections and save the day. Women like her are one in a million.

My Little Head-Rant

Last weekend I was in Rome, as usual, and while I was on the bus I heard a very strange noise that immediately caught my attention.

“…I mean you have to understand, 50% of people don’t pay any taxes! I mean I pay my taxes, you know? But 50% don’t… I mean people want everything to be free, but someone has to pay for it, you know?”

Quiet kids! It is the mating call of a very, very rare species indeed, it’s a Republican outside his own country! The poor English-speaking Italian he was yammering to was nodding his head politely, clearly not well informed in US politics (and why should he be) and taking this man’s word for it. I was incensed, as I always am in the face of blatant misinformation, and went off on an in-my-head-rant aimed at his fat head.

Actually, just under 50% of people in the United States don’t pay federal income taxes, but that’s not the only form of taxes that exist and it is blatantly dishonest to pretend that it is. Those people too poor to pay federal income taxes still pay sales tax, payroll tax, so don’t pretend like they are too lazy to contribute to society. You’re talking about students and people that are poor, how about the multimillion dollar churches that don’t pay a cent in taxes?

And don’t you come to this country whining about it being inconceivable to be able to sustain what I can only assume you mean free health care. We have a public health care system, and for all its problems we would never choose to live without it. The mere presence of a public health care system helps keep down the costs of the private sector as well as ensuring that the private sector offers a more speedy and efficient service, or else people would just rely on the public one and the private companies would go out of business. Instead, you guys have allowed monopolies to form causing the US to have one of the worst health care systems of the Western World, indicated by your low life expectancyrates, high infant mortality rates, and overall crap efficiency despite how much you spend on health care per capita. But what do you care, right? Who gives a crap about children dying as a result of a broken health care system. It’s just poor people, disproportionately minorities, right? Nothing to do with you, it doesn’t affect you. That kid should have though twice before being born poor. It’s not like its mother couldn’t get an abortion if she couldn’t afford to have a child right? Oh wait, let me guess, you’re one of those people that would just as soon not allow that woman have the right to terminate her pregnancy. “Life” is only important to you before it becomes an actual person right? It’s shameful, pathetic and painfully obtuse.

OK so I took a few assumptions regarding his positions there, but there are enough people in the US that do hold the positions I was alluding to that I felt justified in my head-rant. It all took about 3 minutes of me probably giving him a dirty look, but he didn’t notice me and got off at the next stop. I’m not sure whether it was better or worse that I wasn’t standing right next to him and thus blurting this all out to his face, since where I was sitting I would have had to climb over a lady and cross the bus to rant at him, which seemed excessively agro to me.

What do you think? In the interest of setting the poor soul he was yakking to straight (despite the fact I’m sure he didn’t give a crap about the US’s tax problems), would you have crossed the bus? Would you even have said anything if you were standing right next to him?

Yes I'm Happy, Let Me Tell You Why

So by now I'm sure you've all heard about the French elections, Sarkosy (or as I like to call him French Berlusconi) finally got the long overdue kick in the ass that he deserved, and the new Socialist government is in place! It seems as though that Italian fatalism is internationally infectious however, and people seem to be elbowing their way to the front of the line to roll their eyes at the cheering crowds. Do you really think that this guy is going to be any better? He's just slightly more to the left than Sarkosy, but he's still just a politician. Are you really so naive as to think that he will start changing things for the better out of the goodness of his heart? He's not going to take on Germany, ridiculous! I'm not naive and I don't think that rainbows and candy are suddenly going to start raining on the streets of France, but that doesn't mean that I can't be excited about these elections.

I get that it sucks that politics often comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils. Ideally there should always be someone that truly represents you, but usually that is far from the case. However, saying "there is no real progressive here so I'm not going to vote at all" is so, so wrong. What always ends up happening is that the worst of the two (or more) gets elected, and there begins a trend towards disaster. If politicians feel that the public wants a more right wing government they will modify their positions to fit that ideology. Look at what happened in the US for example: the trend has gone so far to the right that if you were to shoot Obama back thirty years (and made him white) he would be perfectly happy in the Republican party, whereas Regan today would be decried by Fox News as a bleeding heart liberal. Every election year we see this trend worsen, and if the people do not speak through the ballot boxes it will only get worse.

I am happy because in France they are finally taking a step in the right direction towards normality. No the new government doesn't have to fix the world, tell Merkel to go fuck herself or keep all of their promises. Like evolution I expect this to be a slow and laborious process, not a quick leap to perfection. However I hope that these elections will change the shift towards a more progressive government, as politicians start modifying their behavior to appeal to what they finally understand is a more progressive people. Even a small step in the right direction is better than none at all, and I think that many need to realize that, stop moaning that they don't live in a Utopian society and do what is in their power to make it better.

So, good on you France. I hope next time around you do even better.

A Good Day For The Italian LGBT Community

How about a little good news for once? Any takers? Excellent!


For years, Italy has been far behind Europe when it comes to gay rights. The Vatican just loves to spread propaganda and stick its nose into a society's business, and because of this last year Italy was described as being second to last in Europe when it comes to gay rights. While Wikipedia seems to indicate that this depends on whether or not you are looking at EU countries or countries that find themselves on the landmass that we call Europe, it is still undeniably something this coutry should be ashamed of.


What is interesting is that Italy actually was among the first to legalize gay sex in Europe in 1890, despite the Vatican's influence. In the 70s the Italian Constitutional Court declared that it was unconstitutional to prohibit gays to serve openly in the military, a decade in which Italy also saw the legalization of many things the church was not happy with including abortion and divorce. However we seem to have stagnated in our progress for rights, and almost every other country in Europe has overtaken us. Yesterday, we took our first step forward to change that.


In a revolutionary decision, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled that gay couples living together are to have the same rights has heterosexual married counples, after a male couple married in Holland were refused the right to have their marriage recognized by the State. While this is not gay marriage, it is a civil partnership of sorts, allowing gay couples the same legal rights with regards to penisons, visitation rights etc. 


All of this was done completely bypassing Parliment, and we will see if there is any blow-back in the form of a proposed Constitutional Amendment from the Vatian's lackies. Until then, let us appreciate this small but significant step in the right direction, and hope that it is a sign of good things to come.

Stop Funding Or Ban It?

I have been thinking about this point of possible disagreement I may have with Ayaan Hirsi Ali ever since I put down Infidel that I wanted to discuss her further. As I mentioned in the book review, Ayaan Hirsi Ali glosses over some of her political opinions at the end of the book, vaguely mentioning what they are in the context of the story but never elaborating or explaining why she came to such conclusions. It is in this indirect way that I noticed that, at the very beginning of her political career, she mentions that she does not think the Dutch government should be funding Muslim schools, despite the fact that Article 23 of their Constitution endows them with this right (I presume that is how the article was interpreted, seeing as the Article seems to be more about the freedom of parents to choose how to educate their children, but see for yourself and let me know if there's something I'm missing). Later on, she mentions trying to ban Muslim schools altogether, as well as abolishing Article 23.

This is the point in which I tend to disagree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. One thing that we can agree on is the issue of funding. I absolutely agree that the government should not be funding any religious schools, Muslim or otherwise, and I also think that they should pay the same taxes that any other private entity has to pay. However, this is a far cry from all-out banning and removing a parent's right to choose (within certain bounds) how to educate their children.

I tend to balk at the idea of banning things because, having only recently left teenagerdom, I remember full well what indiscriminate banning can do. It causes a backlash, a resistance, a barrier to reasoned dialogue because it feeds the flames of the fear of persecution, something that most religions wallow in. It turns the debate into an attack on religion and faith itself, not one on the blatant discrimination that was at the heart of her problem with the schools themselves.

I suppose that this, in essence, comes down to the definition of Islam that Ayaan Hirsi Ali outlines in her book. The way she was raised as well as for millions like her, Islam is at its heart a sexist, violent religion. Furthermore, she claims that because of the fact that the Qu'ran is the "word of God" and cannot be questioned, you cannot be Muslim as well as believe in the true equality of the sexes.

To this I have to make the obvious connection to other main religions. Yes, I agree that Islam is not peace. Yes, I agree that at its foundation it is a sexist, racist and violent religion. However, I believe that it is something that it has in common with the other Abrahamic religions. There are some unbelievably sexist, racist, violent and outright immoral things in the Bible and Torah, and there are still some fundementalists or orthodox believers that hold to these tenants as "truth" because their holy book contains the one true and only word of God (let's not forget this eye-roller in a long list of examples).

However, when it comes to Christianity and Judaism, the majority of believers seem to (admittedly conveniently) have disregarded these unpalatable parts of their religion. It is not the social norm to abhor slavery, despite the Bible defending it repeatedly. It is the social norm to be disgusted by domestic violence, despite the Bible allowing for it. Humans will forever find ways to twist and ignore parts of their religion in order to be able to hold on to it despite their evolving morality. I do not think that the followers of Islam cannot do this too, and every one of the Muslim people I know are a testament to that fact.

It is because of this that I do not think that banning any religious school is the way to go, it is too broad and I think it sends a message that will cause this fight to come to a standstill. Instead, I would propose, a part from not giving any religious institution government funding, to enforce some basic rules in human rights that should be present in the country anyway, making to exception for religious institutions.

You can rule that schools cannot be segregated based on religion, race or gender. You can mandate certain guidelines for education, including sex education and science. You can prohibit the teaching of inflammatory beliefs involving homophobia, sexism or racism. These rules should apply to everyone, every school, no exceptions. If there is a religious school that doesn't like it tough shit, close your doors, because the values you teach are not compatible with the values of the country you live in. These are some rules that the US could benefit from too, another disgusting example of religious discrimination here.

You can decide that your want to declare a political war against faith, all I am saying is that I believe it is a different fight, and one that will be far slower in reaching a conclusion. In this case I believe that the war is about discrimination and the suffering that is allowed and being ignored for the sake of "religious tolerance". I think that making a strong distinction between attacking faith and attacking values that are not compatible with the law of the land will be the quickest way to get to carving out the social tumor of religiously tolerated inequality and suffering. While I know that there are some people that will never be swayed by reasonable arguments and believe this to be religious persecution regardless of the method, but I think this is the best way to get as many people on board as possible.

This is why I do not think that the Dutch should just flat out ban every religious school. It is an uneducated and naive one perhaps, but it is my opinion nonetheless.

Where do you stand on this issue? Why?

Book Review: Infidel

I don't know why, when I decided to bring Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali along with me for my weekend excursion, that it would be one of those books that is very interesting but a little laborious to read. Regardless I was curious, I had heard a lot about her as one of the most influential atheists in modern times, and a black female one to boot, so I brought it along and began reading it Saturday morning.

By Saturday afternoon I was half way through the book and completely lost to the world. Far from being the clinical, dry theological discussion I have no idea why I thought it was going to be, it is a heart wrenching story of this brave woman's life that I had no idea had been through so much.

What struck me most about her initial account of her early life was the utterly calm tone with which she recounts her terribly abusive childhood. There is no sensationalizing what happened to her, no sense of "poor me I was so abused", no dwelling on the violence of some of the scenes that she revisits from her past, but it is exactly this lack of drama that made her story so powerful to me. The chilling stoicism with which she tells her story is in itself the dramatic climax: her story of abuse is nothing special, sensational or spectacular, what happened to her is still happening to millions of girls worldwide. What makes her story amazingly rare is not what she suffered in her youth, but the fact that she managed to escape the shackles that bound her and live a free "western" life that so many of us take for granted.

When reading this book I felt incredibly stupid that, despite the fact that I knew of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and of the film that was responsible for the murder of Theo Van Gogh, I had no idea that she was the one that actually wrote the film that he directed. Why did I not know that? Was I just coincidentally blind to this fact, or do people really not really talk about the fact that she was the one who came up with the idea and wrote the whole thing when discussing the film and Van Gogh's death?

Anyway I suppose that is not really too important. What is important is that this is one of the best autobiographical stories I have ever had the pleasure of reading, and all I could think about while reading it was how many people I would be buying it for next Christmas. I am sure that, if I were to speak to her, I would not agree with everything she believes in when it comes to politics, which she vaguely hints at towards the end of the book but never delves deeper into (for example, why on earth would she argue in favor of having the minimum wage abolished?!). Although I would have been interested to know more about how she reached some of the conclusions that she has, this book is not about her political opinions. It is about her life, about how she manages to save herself and not become a victim for life, but rather a woman who stares right in the face of the ugly oppression that tried to claim her and fearlessly takes a swing at it. It's ugly, no one wants to ackowledge the monster that lives under their bed, but there is it laides and gentlemen, it's far uglier and scarier than you imagined, but worse it is claiming far more lives and causing far more suffering than is even close to being forgivable. It's time to face it, to challenge it, because there are very few women who are going to be able to beat all the odds and save themselves. No matter what you think of her political ideas, or methods, or personal theological opinions, you just have to admire the hell out of her for that.

A little extra on the plus side, the book also has a forward written by the late great Christopher Hitchens, which I am sure many people would enjor if for no other reason than they feel he died far too soon and did not have enough time to write enough pieces for his voracious readers. Personally I don't like reading these kinds of forwards until after I have finished the book, as they are generally one big spoiler alert and I want to form my own opinion of what I am reading without holding another person's words about the story in my head. Whichever order you wish to read them is up to you, just so long as you take a few hours from your life and pick up this unbelievably inspirational story.

Another One Bites The Dust...

I've made it very clear what my opinion is regarding talking about people after they have died. I don't agree that a person's bad record becomes null and void just because they die unexpectedly. I was very surprised to find out that Andrew Breitbart had died suddenly yesterday, and I think that this video recounting his life comes the closest to sticking to the truth.

I of course would go farther than Cenk does in this video. I called Andrew Breitbart a scumbag before and I'll call him a scumbag now. I feel bad that his kids lost a father unexpectedly, but that's where my sympathy ends.

Racist? The US? But We Have A Black President!

Oooh doesn't this argument get under your skin? Even more annoying is how often I hear it. The US deserves no pats on the back for being able to look past a person's epidermal melanin content when electing one of their own citizens for President. Apparently, though, not everyone can, and there are still people that do not believe people of darker complexion are even allowed to be citizens. So, whenever you hear someone trump out the "but we have a black president" argument, please let them read the story about this asshole, who has actually filed a suit to bar Barack Obama from appearing on the State ballot.

The best part?

As stated above, for an Individual to be a Candidate for the Office of President of the United States, the Candidate must meet the qualifications set forth in the United States Constitution and one of those qualifications is that the Candidate shall be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States. As Barack Hussein Obama II is of the "Mulatto" race, his status of citizenship is founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before the [purported] ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the race of "Negro" or "Mulatto" had no standing to be citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution.

Of course. Someone better tell Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Allen West and Herman Cain that none of them are or have illegally held office in the US because guess what? None of them are citizens.

Gordon Warren Epperly, you disgust me.

My Personal Reasons For Disliking The Vatican

Of course there are numerous reasons that people don't like the Vatican, and rightfully so. There is the whole pedophilia scandal, but I've talked about that before. There's the stealing babies scandal in Spain, but I've talked about that as well. There's the way they preach against the use of condoms despite the spread of AIDS, and the way that they are bigotted and hateful towards homosexuals. All of those things are excellent reasons to hate on the Vatican, but I wanted to tell a little story of my own. I am lucky enough to never have been abused by a priest nor do I have AIDS. I am not a homosexual nor was my baby stolen from me. I can however relate to another insidious aspect of the Vatican which is not often talked about, but to me demonstrates that as an institution they believe in nothing they preach.

When Catholics are approached with the terrible scandals that their church has to apologize for, they have a certain way of sidestepping the issues in order to protect the "integrity" of their sacred institution. Well the nuns that stole babies from liberal mothers in Spain were terrible, of course, but the Pope never sanctioned such a thing. They were misguided, maybe a few of them were bad people, but you can't say they reflect on the entire church. The pedophilia scandals were horrible, agreed, but they were the actions of a few, they just wanted to protect the name of the institution, not all priests are rapists you know. You can't judge the entire insitution by the actions of those bad eggs. And sure the Pope tells people not to use condoms, but what do you expect? He's a Pope, not a scientist or a President! He tells people to abstain from sex too, but if people are not going to listen to him about that then they'll not listen to him about the condoms either right? It's not like condoms are illegal or anything! Same goes for gay rights. The Vatican can keep them out of the clergy and not let them get married in their churches, but after that you can't blame the Catholic church for the state of gay rights in your country.

Now I know very well that each and every one of those arguments is flawed. But let's suppose for a moment that it was true, and that the Vatican as an institution has clean hands on all of these issues. Let's say that, despite its (albeit monumental) cockups, the Vatican still believes in charity and wants the best for its followers. Let's say that it is grossly misguided in some respects due to its antiquated views that have not yet caught up with modern times. Why do I not believe that? I have a story from my own family that leads me to believe that it is not the core of the institution itself that is fundamentally good, but rather there are a few good people thinking they're in a safe place when in reality they are tangled in a spiderweb.

I know that taxing religious institutions in the US is something atheists talk about but that many theists think to be a silly issue, especially with regards to the Catholic Church. Tax what, donations? Sure they make money in their private schools, but they have to pay for the living expenses of their teachers, they do a lot of charity work, it's silly to consider making a poor sweet old nun file a tax return!

While that is also a flawed argument, it is still not relevant to the fact that, in Rome, the Vatican owns a shitload of apartment buildings. And no, they don't pay the yearly taxes that everyone else pays on their property. Mario Monti tried suggesting they do, but I'd like to see if he manages to get that one past Parliment. One of the buildings that they own is the one that my grandmother lives in, as she has for the past thirty years.

In her contract, my 88 year old grandmother has a fixed rent, and as luck would have it she is also living in a prime piece of real estate. So of course, what does the Vatican want to do? They want to get rid of her so that they can rent it at 3 times the amount she is currently paying. Therefore, for the past three years, they have been trying to boot my grandmother out on her ass.

First they took away her ability to watch satellite TV, despite the fact that it is her right as an Italian citizen to have access to television. They called her repeatedly, attempting to make it uncomfortable enough for her so that she might leave on her own. She didn't budge, it being far too difficult for a woman in her late eighties to undertake a massive move.

So they took her to court in an attempt to evict her, despite the fact that they do not have a legal leg to stand on.

My grandmother has been paying legal fees for the past two years, fighting the Vatican for her right to live in her home. She has been terrified, for the past two years, that she would have to find another place to live, throw away all of her posessions because she would not be able to bring them with her. She has been selling her books, her furniture, because she does not trust the legal system to be fair when under fire from the Vatican's legal team. So far the law continues to be on her side, but she lives in fear that her luck will run out and that she will have to leave the home she shared with her husband and find somewhere else to live. She has never, in thirty years, been late on her rent. She has never, in thirty years, been a nuisance or complained about a single thing. But they want more money in the bank, so the old lady's gotta go.

Does these sound like the actions of an organization with charity in mind? Keep in mind this is the Vatican itself, not some rogue priest that got a touch of the greedies. The Vatican is trying to kick an elderly woman out of her home to make an extra buck, and they don't even pay a cent in taxes on the property to begin with.

The glaring hypocrisy of it all is they don't pay taxes or contribute to our society, but they think they have the right to dictate how our society should behave.

Because of the Vatican's influence, divorce is very hard to come by in Italy. Because of the Vatican's influence, there are few research institutes that can carry out stem cell research. Because of the Vatican's influence, IVF laws are also restricted. And we have it pretty good, considering that in Ireland you can't even get an abortion.

This, to me, indicates the true motives of the Vatican's exsistence are power and money. I agree that there are some nuns and priests that truly join the church because they have stars in their eyes, they want to help others and think that it is the best way to do it. But I see them as people who go and work for what they think is a charity, but in reality is a corrupt company that is robbing their doners blind. I do not refute the fact that there are idealistic and good people that are part of the Catholic Church, but I think that it is rotten at the core.

Those that really want to do good in this world will find a way to do so, with or without the Vatican. To those that have amassed power for themselves in the Holy See, I think that it is time for them to get the fuck off their high horse.

Either start contributing to society in a meaningful way, or disappear to your private independant state. You will not be missed.

Mario Monti: An Update

I haven't written about the Italian government or the economic crisis in a while, mostly because of the conflicting stories, the misinformation and the fatalism that afflicts this country can be incredibly overbearing. However, I read a great article on my friend's webpage the other day, and surprise surprise not only was it a tad optimistic, it suggested that Italy might finally be getting over the bad rep it has in Europe, but some of the most fatalistic Italians I know didn't shit all over it! Berlusconi was famous for telling everyone that everything was going juuust fine, while not even hiding the fact that he was robbing the country blind, which contributed a lot to the mentality in Italy that whatever they say on TV the reality is surely 1000 times worse. However, it seems as though this university professor may actually be the first level-headed guy we've had in a while. Whether or not his intentions for the country are good remains to be seen, but at least we seem to be at least taken slightly more seriously as a country again. I thought it was time for an update, let's see where we go from here:

Mario Monti: Italy's global player with the ear of Obama and Merkel

Italian PM's standing in Washington and Berlin gives him a great deal of clout as he seeks to negotiate eurozone crisis

• Ian Traynor, Europe editor, and Tom Kington in Rome
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 February 2012 12.58 GMT

taly's prime minister, Mario Monti (right), is in stark contrast to his flamboyant and controversial predecessor. Silvio Berlusconi. Photograph: Michel Euler/AFP/Getty Images

It is a long time since Washington said anything nice about Europe's handling of its debt crisis. Publicly – and even more so in private – US officials have been withering about efforts to stare down the bond markets, save the euro and avert a new slump in the west.

But the criticism abated last week when a priestly, ascetic 68-year-old Italian went to the White House in the latest attempt to shift the terms of the argument raging over Greece, his own country, and the fate of the single currency.

Mario Monti, the Italian prime minister, was garlanded with the kind of praise that may elevate hope over reality as he grapples with the third biggest sovereign debt in the world.

"The prime minister came in at a very difficult time," said Barack Obama. "We appreciate the strong start and the effective measures he is promoting inside Italy … He's also been able to generate confidence throughout Europe."

Confidence has been in short supply in Europe for two years, not least this week as the debt drama in Athens hurtles towards its denouement.

But Time magazine put the former economics professor on its cover and dubbed him "the most important man in Europe" and that "the fate of the world economy rests in Mario Monti's hands".

That may be overwrought, but there is little doubt that Monti's arrival as Italian PM in November has changed the political dynamic among Europe's leaders in their longrunning struggle to resolve the debt crisis. "The situation in Italy is not good, but it is manageable," said a minister from one eurozone country. "Monti is trusted by European partners."

In this, as in character and temperament, he is the very opposite of his flamboyant and discredited predecessor, Silvio Berlusconi. And paradoxically, Italy's weakness makes Monti more influential and powerful for the simple reason that the European elites believe he is their best hope of reforming Italy, bringing down its €2 trillion (£1.66tn) debt (120% of GDP), and reviving the eurozone's third biggest economy.

The European hopes lend Monti a lot of clout, not least in his ability to emerge as the first authoritative challenger to the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, over her stewardship of the euro crisis.

"Monti is the new factor in the equation," said a senior EU official. "He's listened to in Berlin." And he is not shy about spelling out what he expects of Germany if his ambitious plans to retool the Italian economy are to bear fruit.

Last week in Washington he called for Germany to liberalise its services sector, do more to spur domestic demand (echoing US calls), and act more resolutely to save Greece even if Athens was not fully complying with new bailout terms set in Brussels, Berlin, and Frankfurt.

Monti has previously told Merkel, bluntly, that regardless of the success or failure of his domestic reforms, Italy would be hobbled by the high cost of its borrowing. Only Germany could fix that by vastly increasing the eurozone's bailout fund to deter the markets from betting against Italy.

Criticism of German policies on the euro is common, but carries more weight coming from Monti. Senior diplomats say some in the German government are starting to bristle with indignation at his demands.

Monti has already passed an austerity package designed to eradicate Italy's budget deficit by 2013. But critics pointed out that cutting spending was easy compared with kickstarting Italy's moribund economy, the acid test for Monti.

As Monti was being feted in the US, political parties in Rome were trying to water down his bill liberalising parts of Italy's closed shop economy with hundreds of amendments. Around 200 were designed to ringfence Italy's privileged professions. One analyst argued that even if he pushed his bill through, Monti's reforms were mere window dressing. "The way to lift the economy is through real incentives to companies and lower taxation and I don't see that," said Raffaele de Mucci, a politics professor at Rome's Luiss University.

"Monti is lucky that as a technocrat prime minister he does not have to worry about consensus and that is a big difference with the Greek government, but he could yet risk problems when he tackles labour reform."

Monti is embroiled in tricky talks with unions to make hiring and firing easier and has promised to introduce legislation by the end of next month.

"This is the first real test – if he can get through that he will make it to the end of his mandate in 2013," said Roberto Perotti, a professor of economics at Bocconi University in Milan. "Next comes reform of the legal system, which is perhaps the major problem, which no one has been able to change in 30 years and for which he will need the reluctant help of magistrates and lawyers."

If a faster legal system would attract more foreign investment, then so would a reduction in bureaucracy, starting with the scrapping of provincial authorities, which sit between town councils and regional governments. Although they are protected by the Italian constitution, the Monti government intends to hand over their powers to towns and regions, leaving them as "empty shells", according to Treasury undersecretary Vittorio Grilli. Only by making such meaty reforms stick between now and 2013 can Monti hope to have any impact on sluggish growth.

In the meantime, despite winning plaudits for his professorial demeanour – a relief after Berlusconi's clowning – Monti has risked alienating voters by describing the culture of jobs for life so prized by Italians as "monotonous". But no politician, least of all Berlusconi, is keen to oust Monti while he pushes through tough legislation they have spent careers avoiding. And while Berlusconi's party splinters, the centre-left Democratic party is riven by a financial scandal.

"If Berlusconi did the dirty on him it would be the only way to ensure Monti would go into politics, and that would be a disaster for Berlusconi," said James Walston, professor of politics at the American University in Rome.

"Monti's biggest obstacle is bureaucratic inertia, helped by vested interests with key people in ministries who can stop pieces of paper being passed. Compared to that, Berlusconi or the unions can be dealt with because they are visible."

Perotti recalled studying under Monti when the PM was a professor at Bocconi in Milan and said he had brought an enlightened feeling to the university. "He was one of the few who had studied in the US and he encouraged us to do so to make us less provincial."

Decades later, the rest of Italy is also ripe for change, said Walston. "Italy changes when there is a huge stimulus from outside, it happens every generation and it does not happen gradually."

Berlusconi, who degenerated into an international laughing stock and a European pariah, was fond of urging US business to invest in Italy because of the prettiness of the country's "secretaries". On Wall Street last week, Monti appealed for US investment based on his economic and financial reforms.

Already the cost of borrowing for Italy has fallen almost two percentage points to around 5.5% since he took office. That is still expensive, but out of the bailout danger zone. Time may be Monti's biggest enemy since he has pledged to stand down at next year's elections.