Capitalism: A Lesson in Human Nature

I love capitalism. I love capitalism as much as Michael Moore loves capitalism, enough to make another documentary out of it if I had the time and funding. To me, there is nothing quite like the sweet feeling one gets when the upper class clamps down on the proletariat through unregulated big business and authoritarianism. No thinking, just one nation under a god that certainly isn't worth worshiping, even if he exists. No regards to freedom and justice, despite what the conservative façade says, and no escape. You have the freedom to agree with the ideas given, and that is it.

Capitalism lets me take unfair advantage of any individual for my personal gain, and the best thing is the government cannot stop me. In fact, they suppress any struggle from the oppressed, through their Nineteen Eighty Four-esque social policies. They attack their enemies through lies; they call the opposition godless, spineless, immoral and hell-bent on evil. Capitalism lets me change history in order to support the blind nationalism I want, the worship of me and my god that is required to live in the country. I can criminalize anything I want, from sex to science to liberalism, because it is the age of the individual, survival of the fittest without any regard to the populace itself, which evolution effects. It is me against the world, and I am winning mercilessly. I can shun unfavorable groups to anywhere I want, corrupt society’s thought process to perpetually agree with me. I have absolute power, but this time, it doesn't corrupt absolutely; after all, I have been forgiven from my sins.

Nothing is impossible for me, for I rewrite the laws of science at will in order for them to agree with my silly and inaccurate world view. I can gloat about my conquests on the street corner, in Congress, in the middle of a police station, for I have control. I can chose to operate under a shadow, like the Federal Reserve does, or out in the open, because it is my choice, and no one else’s. Humans are horrible, but I am better than everyone else, therefore they deserve this. Even if my religion does not catch on, my reign will still last forever, for I have nothing to atone for, not that I do already. I shape morality however I want for my own purposes. Ayn Rand and Newt Gingrich would be proud of me.

Absolute power, no control, mindless brainwashing, severe inequality.

Isn't capitalism great?

If you know the artist of this piece, let me know so I can give proper attribution.

Disclaimer:

**This piece is satirical. I do not love capitalism**

Gravity: Why Science Fiction Isn't Dead

Just last week I went out to see Gravity, the movie that is claimed to be the best cinematic use of 3D along with the film that will change cinematography forever. I was fortunate enough to see it in IMAX, and experience the movie in the best 3D currently available, and kept both these claims in mind while I was staring at the screen through the plastic lenses that had to be awkwardly jammed over my prescription glasses. I was there to answer one question: does Gravity live up to its hype?

Absolutely yes.

Gravity is the definitive movie of this year, the movie that leaves you with an impact like no other. It is an aesthetic marvel, immersing you into the depth of the cosmos, and leaving you with the awe that only space can inspire. It is Apollo 13 for the era of the space shuttle and international space travel, and kept me on the edge of my seat for the entire ninety minutes or so it ran.

The best thing about Gravity is that it is not entirely implausible. Yes, some minor details are inconsistent with real events, such as the height of the orbits of the International Space Station and the Hubble Space Telescope, or the angle of descent for the Chinese Soyuz clone. However, this is all in artistic liberty; the physics in the movie are as accurate as possible, as I will testify.

The environment itself traps you with Sandra Bullock's character as she deals with her own, internal struggles as she fights for survival against the fatality of space. She is forced to face death right in the eye, and stare at morality head on, having to recognize the morality of her existence as she possibly approaches her deathbed.

This is science fiction at its greatest, holding the audience is suspense while telling a powerful story about perseverance in spite of absurdity, with the ultimate fate of humanity providing the backdrop.

This is why I write science fiction.

The Telescope

(This is adopted from a speech I delivered a few weeks ago.)

Just a little over a week ago, we were all lucky enough to experience a historical event that affects all of humanity. The most intriguing thing about this event, however, is not that it is universal in effect. Rather, it is where it occurred. It did not take place in the United States, as misguided nationalists would want it to be, nor did it take place in Japan, China, England, Germany, or any of the other economic powerhouses. In fact, it did not even happen on Earth. Instead, it happened in the vastness of space. The milestone in question is Voyager 1’s exiting of the solar system and entrance into the history books as the first man-made object to leave the Sun’s influence. It is a great achievement for science, and a testament to the vast size and wonder of space, all of which would be impossible to observe, let alone visit, if not for one object: the telescope. 

I have a Bushnell in real life, but this is close enough.

This is a telescope, not at all dissimilar from the one originally used by Galileo to observe the moons of Jupiter along with the mighty Hubble telescope that takes snapshots of distant galaxies. The telescope is a key instrument of science, and learning about its significance will expand your appreciation for astronomy and astrophysics, along with the necessity of space exploration, along with the unique culture it represents: the culture of science and reason. First, I will give you a brief history of the telescope and the different forms it takes, along with their different uses. Second, I will explain why I identify with the culture the telescope represents, namely, the scientific community. 

The telescope, while typically pictured as a tube with lenses used to look at the moon, in reality is defined as an instrument used to measure electromagnetic radiation, in most cases light. This leaves a broad space open for many different specialized types of telescopes, categorized by the radiation they detect, observe, their configuration, and location. However, before we discuss the different types of telescopes, it is essential to know where telescopes come from. The lenses typically used in telescopes were invented very early in the Seventeenth century in the Netherlands for use in eye glasses, but it wasn’t until the year 1609 that those lenses were pointed skywards. Galileo Galilee, an Italian physicist, invented the telescope by carefully grinding a set of lenses, one concave, and one convex, and placing them both in a tube. The combination of the two types of lenses provided a magnifying effect when viewed with the concave lens closest to the observer’s eye, and Galileo used this magnifying effect with excellent results, viewing the surface of the moon along with a ribbon of diffused light, a spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy, in the sky. After the invention of calculus by Sir Isaac Newton later in the century, telescopes could be fashioned with greater precision and magnification, and used to find the distance of stars from Earth. However, there was a limit of what the telescopes could observe due to Earth’s atmosphere, as discovered in the early Twentieth century with the advent of some of the largest ground-based telescopes ever built. It was not until 1990 when the European Space Agency and NASA were able to launch the famous Hubble Space Telescope that astronomers and astrophysicists could get the clearest pictures possible of distant objects. The Hubble Space Telescope, along with the discussion about the weaknesses of ground telescopes brings us neatly to the different types of telescopes used today. The main dichotomy between telescope types is one of location; that is, the split between space and ground based telescopes. Space-based telescopes provide the clearest images available, but are expensive to launch and maintain, and are more vulnerable than ground-based telescopes due to their remote location. Ground-based telescopes, on the other hand, are subject to atmospheric interference, but are more reliable than space-based telescopes and more accessible to amateur astronomers than space-based telescopes, for obvious reasons. Ground-based telescopes come in three flavors: refractor telescopes, which use lenses to magnify objects like Galileo’s telescope, reflector telescopes, like the example here, which use a series of mirrors to magnify objects and are the type used by optical observatories on the ground, and radio telescopes, which use massive dishes to collect radio waves and other invisible forms of electromagnetic radiation to paint a more detailed picture of the celestial body. Space-based telescopes are once again dichotomized, this time into reflector telescopes, like the Hubble Telescope, which use a very similar setup to ground-based versions, and radio telescopes, which are essentially ground bases radio telescopes compressed into a much smaller package. Space agencies such as NASA use a combination of the two types of telescopes to create a multilayered view of the night sky, giving astrophysicists the advantage of multiple data types all from the same object. Now that I have given you a brief history of the telescope, I will now explain why I identify with the scientific community that the telescope represents. From an early age, I have always been fascinated with science, and especially space, stemming from my naturally skeptic, evidence-based nature and desire to make a difference. Science is the ultimate form of skepticism and critical thought, and it only made sense for me to go into a field where I can both question everything and explore the majesty of space. Science has always been my explanation for everything. Its demand for the truth, and not merely a convenient one, is something that no philosophy or religion can even begin to rival. Science is humanity’s greatest chance at survival beyond our lifetimes, let alone beyond the planet. It is based on the simplest of things: logic. The scientific method is merely an extension of logic, subjecting hypotheses to merciless peer review in order to pull out any gaps in logic and to ensure excellence and trustworthiness before it is even remotely considered as being true. It is based on hard evidence, repeatability, and the ability to be falsified. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson so famously said, “The good thing about science is it’s true whether you believe it or not,” because evidence is everything. Without science, we would have none of the conveniences or needs we treasure so much, nor would we even have the universe itself. Science is everything, and absolutely everything that exists is science. We are the product of 13.7 billion years of science in action, specifically 10 billion years of cosmology, 3.7 billion years of evolution, and 10,000 years of sociology, physics, and engineering. Science is pro-freedom, pro-innovation, and pro-democracy, everything nationalistic Americans worship, but more so, it is pro-humanity. Science is the future of our race, and I want a part in it. Specifically, I want a part of it in a big way. A really big way. Not from your house to the nearest 7-11 big. Billions of light years big, as in space, the final frontier, in our voyages on the starship Earth, the massive organic starship Earth. I want to study space, in the form of astrophysics, the study of the movements of astronomical objects, and my telescope will be my gateway, my Enterprise if you will, into the vastness and possibilities of the very place that is really our home: the cosmos. It will require a long journey, absolutely, from the California Institute of Technology to the University of Tokyo, and, if we get our act together, into space, but the result will be worth it. I want to educate every one of you on the benefits of science, the majesty of space, but most of all, I want us to change. I want us to put aside the arms of war, the petty arguments, and the pointless nationalism that we are all guilty of, and move onto a brighter, and much much bigger future, one where we not only exist on this planet, but others like it throughout the galaxy. What I want is for humanity to progress into something much greater, and continue seeking the answers to the questions we always are asking: where did we come from, why are we here, and where are we going. This is what science is about: answering questions, seeking the truth, through the only way possible: observation, whether it is from a meager telescope or a massive spaceship, and evidence. That, quite simply, is the reason I identify with the scientific community, or rather, the culture it represents: the culture of humanity.

I sincerely hope every one of you learned why the telescope is important to science, and more importantly why science is important to humanity, along with the scientists that use it. After reviewing the history of the telescope, I told you why it is important to me, and why I love the culture it represents, and what that community will do for all of us. So, please, the next time you see someone stargazing with a telescope, don’t call them a nerd or a nuisance. After all, they are looking at the future of humanity. Thank you.           

The Perplexing Conundrum of Nationalism

I am not anti-American.

This should be obvious, because I choose to live here. If I was anti-American, I could easily hop the border to Canada or Mexico and be on my merry way. I, however have chose to stay here.

What I am not is a patriot. I will not be waving a flag in a parade, nor leading the national anthem at a baseball game. I do not hate this country, but I do not love it either. I find the very prospect of patriotism absurd.

I live in the United States because, at the moment, it has the most freedoms and is safer than any other country in the world, along with being convenient in the terms of work and education. It has an agreeable population, and is a generally tolerant melting pot of different cultures. If work had greater benefits in Japan, I would move there, and likewise for England. This holds true for everyone: if you can get a better job somewhere else, then you will go there.

I do, however, become anti-American, especially when people use being American as an excuse to not think critically and become bigots. Fox News is a prime example of this, with reporters often commenting that if one does not like it here (read: if one does not like the white conservative Christian plan we have for the country), then they can leave. I have two problems with this: the first, is, of course, that the United States is first and foremost not a white conservative Christian country. It may be a country of white conservative Christians, but, to paraphrase Barack Obama, it is also a black country, an atheist country, and a liberal country. The founding fathers specifically wrote the Constitution to make sure of this.  

The second problem I have with this is that as humans, we are essentially identical. We may be the most complex primate in known existence along with the most complex animal, but we are all equally as good (or bad, as Frederick Nietzsche and several others, including myself, would argue). There is no evidence of a superior race, or gender, or nation. There is no reason to be proud of your nation when the people in it are the same as the people of the next country over, and the next one ad infinitum. The contents of the country are all the same; nationalism has no basis.

Nationalism is merely a tool to manipulate the masses and disguise corrupted values in politics. It is one big ego stroking that is unnecessary. Proud that your country is free and gives women the right to vote? Good for you, your country just got basic government right. It isn't something to be proud of. Pledging your allegiance to a country that gives you the right to go wherever you choose is as equally silly. You are right there in the country; why do you need to swear an oath against "Godless" Communism, something that you could choose if you wanted to, as you've been granted the right to choose, when you are standing in a country that isn't Communist? 


Ultimately, on one chooses the country of his or her birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.

We're back!/Vaccines, Autism, and Dr. Oz

It appears the spam has significantly been cut down, and I feel it is now safe to continue our regularly scheduled blogging. Plus, it is summer, and I now am generally free from responsibility.

Be advised that I am planning on making a trip to Amoeba Records sometime in the near future, and thus will have much more material to review.

Anyways, there's a situation that's been bugging be for some time now, and it recently came to my immediate attention a month ago.
I was listening to the radio, abnormally not NPR, and Dr. Oz was a guest on the DJ's morning show, offering listeners a chance to call in about their medical questions. A mother soon called in, and asked Dr. Oz whether she should vaccinate her children because of the "link" (emphasis added)  between vaccines and autism. Dr. Oz responded that yes, it would be beneficial, and she shouldn't worry because the chances are very slim.

Now, while Dr. Oz was right about getting your children vaccinated, two details worried me. One, Dr. Oz is a heart surgeon, not an expert in vaccines, just a heart surgeon that has become a television personality. Two, there is no link at all between vaccines and autism. None whatsoever. This has been confirmed dozens of times by experts on vaccines, and is well known to the medical community. These present issues to the well-being and acceptance of scientific research in the medical community.

The first issue, that of the acceptance of claims coming from non-experts, is an easily solvable one, yet one whose solution continues to elude the general populace. We are so used to either denying everything scientists say, or believing it because it appears on the news, and therefore must be true to society. We fail to take into account that, for one, science is true whether you believe it or not, and two, scientists aren't specialists in everything. You can generally, if not always, hold an astrophysicist's conclusion about the movement of an specific asteroid to be true, just like you can trust that a neuroscientist's conclusion about the location of lobes in the brain to be true. However, you would not go to a foot doctor to get your ears checked. Why would you trust a heart surgeon to put out reliable information about vaccines, even if he's on TV? There is no logical answer to this question. Simply, instead of blindly taking in whatever Dr. Oz. or any other TV doctor says on TV, do some research. Find out what fields are highly specialized, if the one they are talking about is included among that set, and what the doctor in question is specialized in. If it isn't the field they are talking about, then you are probably better off with an expert from that field. Of course, this does not mean that everything doctors say about fields outside their specialty is wrong; rather, the general rule is to research the doctor's background, and use discretion when taking, or not taking, action pertaining to their answers.

The second issue is that of the link between autism and vaccines, and, while probably the most damaging case of scientific misconduct in recent history, can be shortly discredited. As the BBC reported three years ago, the General Medical Council, the organization in charge of medical conduct and accreditation in the United Kingdom, found that Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the researcher centered around the misconduct and the originator of the paper that linked vaccines with autism, had violated several ethical guidelines, forged evidence, and had a severe conflict of interest within his studies, prompting the GMC to redact Dr. Wakefield's paper. [1] To clarify, there is no link between vaccines and autism, and any link put forward in fraudulent and scientifically inaccurate.

In short, Dr. Oz is not an expert on everything, as proven by his misinformation about vaccination, and people should do what I have constantly pushed for in this blog: do research, and think critically.

Spam Spam Spam Spam

There's a ton of it linking here, so I've took a sabbatical on posting for a bit.

But hey, I have a research paper in progress, so I'll have that up for the readers that are actually here when I finish.

For now, keep on thinking.

Ending the no-post blues

I've been short on original content for a while, mainly trying to combat spammers. For now, I will share with you a blog that I follow
Friendly Atheist
Hemant Mehta is a high school math teacher in the Chicago area. He writes excellent articles focusing on discrimination against atheists, and other political topics relevant to secularists. Check him out when you get the chance.

Some Sense About Gun Control

Looky here, another controversial post.

Gun control is the one area where I decidedly separate myself from the rest of the liberal population, primarily because I have a certain fondness for them, and secondarily because of the logical fallacies and incorrect information given out by those who support gun control. In reality, the main problem I have with gun control is their definition of an assault rifle, and the effect of the assault rifles thereof. 

Encyclopedia Britannica, while being infamous for their rate of serious errors, has improved substantially over the past few decades, and defines the assault rifle for what it actually is, by stating the following:

assault rifle,  military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Because they are light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 300–500 m (1,000–1,600 feet), assault rifles have replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic rifles of the World War II era as the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the United States’ M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.[1]

Compare this against the media definition and identification of the assault rifle:

Obviously this is quite incorrect, and meant to be humorous. Instead, here's what the Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 defined as an assault rifle:

So, according to the AWB, an "assault rifle" could be a .22LR bolt action Savage with a pistol grip and a flash suppressor. This certainly does not fit the definition of an assault rifle. In fact, under the National Firearms Act, citizens cannot own fully automatic rifles (classified as "machine guns" under the act) without a Class III Federal Firearms License, which is typically only given to museums, movie armorers, and specialized firing ranges. So, in essences, banning assault rifles is no big deal since they were banned to begin with. Today's definition of an assault rifle is basically anything that looks scary, be it a bolt action .303 British Lee-Enfield No. 5 "Jungle Carbine" with its cone-shaped flash suppressor put there to prevent you from searing whatever happens to be near the muzzle, or a nice little semi-automatic AR-15 in .223 Remington, useful for plunking larger varmints and the odd deer. Basically, the assault rifle mentality is wrong, both in definition and deadliness, as proved by both the examples above and this nice little pie chart I put together based on the FBI Crime Statistics for 2011 (the most recent year I could retrieve):

While firearms do make up most of the homicides, an issue which I will address next paragraph, rifles make up a very small portion of the firearm deaths, and caused less deaths than plain old hands and feet. Even if we were to evenly distribute the unknown total among the firearm category,  rifles still  would be the smallest category within firearms.

Here's where I start agreeing with my fellow liberals: not everyone should have firearms, and background checks should be mandatory  along with a clean bill of mental health. However, just because of this doesn't mean we need to ban firearms because they look scary. Even if we did, we all know how well criminals follow the law. 

They follow it like, well, criminals.    

1. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-rifle

National Day of Prayer: Yet Another Brick in the Wall

Yup, it's that time of year again. National Day of Prayer is just around the corner. This year it falls on May 2, which is either today or yesterday, depending on when I feel like finishing this. This also means it's time to break out my favorite Supreme Court case, Lemon v Kurtzman, the golden ruler of unconstitutionality. This case's influence is summed up nicely here.

National Day of Prayer was established in the year 1952, during the unconstitutional and shameful McCarthy era, where the far right in America quickly showed their lack of consideration for the First Amendment, by instituting this  government sanction of religion, along with adding the facinorous words "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. This was not for the greater good of the citizens of the United States; instead, this was merely xenophobic rhetoric.

The law bringing National Day of Prayer into existence states the following:

The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating
the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the
people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and
meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

That would be great, having one day a year for people to go the church. It would be really great, since people weren't given the right to go to any church they would like any day they would like by the First Amendment.

Oh, wait a minute. They are.

How funny.

So that means that the law has no secular legislative purpose, and that, since it advances religion, it fails two prongs of the Lemon test?

Seems like common sense.

Gee, law seeming like common sense? What trickery is at work here?

So you mean the Constitution outlaws religion interfering with government, no matter what religion?

The people that just answered "no" to these questions are why our country is losing to China and Europe. Perhaps this monstrosity proves Voltaire's point: "Common sense is not so common."

Happy Law Day everyone.

Isn't this wonderful?

I might do this more often.

One lazy evening Something horrible happened someoneone with less talent than the Bieber kid came on TV! Someone worse than Bieber exists!? Yes! He appeared on a stupid TV show last night I saw! Uh oh, that's bad. We're gonna have a bad time A few months later hey! I've finally done it I made music like Bieber! I just went in the kitchen and turned on my wonderful food processor ~ End of experiment ~ written with HTML ~ Comix Markup ~ from cmx.io/edit ~ backed by gist.github.com ~ by Esquire

Educate Yourself!

I'm a big proponent of science education, and Pew Research has given the people of the Internetz the opportunity to compare their knowledge of science with that of the average American. This 13 question quiz covers a wide variety of scientific fields, and allows you to understand which ones you need to improve in. You can take it at: http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/

I personally scored a perfect 13 out of 13, placing me in the 93rd percentile. After you take the quiz, spread the word! Encourage others to take it as well, and improve your scientific knowledge. 

Science rules!

Review: "Delta Machine" by Depeche Mode

Cover art for Delta Machine

The Return of Depeche Mode

If you're this far into the blog and don't know who Depeche Mode is, go here to educate yourself.

It's been four long years since the the last DM release, and four years is a long time for this dynamic band, enough to go from A Broken Frame to Black Celebration.

Is Delta Machine an equally as great shift in the band's style?

No.

But that's a good thing.

Martin Gore described the album as a cross between SOFAD and Violator in an interview after releasing "Heaven," which oddly has failed to receive major airplay, despite the fact it comes form the masters of synthpop themselves. While it does (kinda-sorta) have the vibe from both Songs of Faith and Devotion and the triple-platinum Violator, it seems more closely related to Exciter at most points, while still remaining totally original.

Why You Should Buy the Album

• Here's a simple and silly reason: the baselines. Delta Machine contains some pretty badass synthesized baselines, with "Welcome to My World" and "All That's Mine" (deluxe version only, B side for "Heaven") standing out.
• Those blues tracks, emphasizing that fact that you could call the Mode a blues-rock band and get away with it. "Heaven," of course, is the greatest example of it, with Gahan and Gore's contrasting vocals. "Angel" stands out as well, serving as a slightly more upbeat contrast to the darkness of "Heaven."
• The connection between previous styles of Depeche Mode, such as the nice little primitive synth riff in "My Little Universe."
• The darkness of the album, along with its connectivity to the modern era. "Broken" (no relationship to the Tears for Fears track) makes you say "That is why I love Depeche Mode." "Soft Touch/Raw Nerve" is particularly emotional, reminding us of the often fragile balance between love and hate in our relationships with the people around us. 
• "The Child Inside." "Heaven" is great single material, no doubt about that. However, "The Child Inside" sums up the album quite nicely. It is simultaneously brand new and reminiscent of Depeche Mode's past, along with being both terribly dark and connectable, being a song about the dismay of seeing someone lose their innocence and traits that you connected with and loved. If someone makes this into the background music for a film adaption of Sartre's "Nausea," then this song will be completely and utterly perfect.
• This was originally filed under the con section before I came to my senses: it feels...incomplete...like Depeche Mode could evolve more...like this already great album could influence even greater ones.

Why You Shouldn't Buy this Album

• You're a moron who has no taste in music and rather would listen to One Direction. In this case, you can go with other people, since Sartre correctly pointed out that "Hell, is other people." 

There you go. I said I would write it. As always, give me your eloquent opinion below. Heck, if I like it, I might add it on.

Existential Music: What It Is and Isn't

While I was doing research for a paper (yes, fair readers, you will see it), I ran across a whole bunch of junk about existential music after remembering that Friedrich Nietzsche was a composer. This rather angered me, and rather then signing up for half a dozen forums to refute their claims, I'll do it here.

Before I go crushing students who are required to provide such examples of existential artwork, songs, or plays (may I suggest one of the plays in Sartre's No Exit and Three Other Plays?), I will define existentialism.

Existentialism is the ultimate atheistic philosophical school: it states that there is no meaning to life, merely what meaning an individual assigns to it. While most existentialists are atheists, the philosophy was originally founded by a Christian by the name of Kierkegaard. However, religious existentialism was proven to be illogical by the French author, playwright, and father of modern existentialism Jean-Paul Sartre, who made the deduction that if there is no external meaning to life, then there is no external power (god). Sartre was by no means the first atheist existentialist; indeed, Fredrick Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud predated Sartre by thirty years. Existentialism has several “branches,” practical applications of the philosophy within the “soft” sciences, i.e. psychology, political science, and sociology. Its relationship with the “hard” sciences is an estranged one; originally conceived to be separate of science and to replace it within one’s personal philosophy, existentialism now has found a place complementary, not contradictory of science, existing as a guidebook to life in society. There are a few instances in which science and existentialism conflict; one should be able to recognize these, and decide for themselves which side is correct. Existentialism should not be confused with moral nihilism and nihilism in general, although most existentialists are in one of these categories. Moral nihilism states that there are no morals in life, merely those forced upon one by society and religion; it can be seen as another deduction from the overall idea of ''existence precedes essence,'' Sartre's famous way of describing the lack of meaning in life. Nihilism in general is total lack of belief; pessimistic nihilism the idea that since there is no real meaning in life, one's job is to kill themselves and bring upon the inevitable. Existentialism avoids these pitfalls in its political branch.

I'm kind of cheating, as I wrote that a while ago...

And yes, you will get a Delta Machine review this week.


"American Pie" by Don McLean- Stupid Yahoo Answers. This is absolutely not an existential song, it is a piece that chronicles the "Day the Music Died."

Anything by Pink Floyd- Pink Floyd pretty much is the hallmark of angsty music, some of it "teenage wasteland," some of it existential. Floyd's music typically deals with loneliness, depression, and reasons to live The whole group were atheists, so it pretty much makes it easy to classify this one.

Linkin Park- Nope. Teenage wasteland music, yes. Deep philosophical thought, no. 

"Freewill" by Rush- This absolutely qualifies. The narrator chooses between free will and creating his or her own path versus being kept in chains by social normality. Geddy's also an atheist, so it make the case even stronger.

Friedrich Nietzsche's compositions- Yes, of course. Music written by an existentialist will qualify.

If there's anything other piece you think might be existential, comment the name of the song and artist and I will evaluate it.

If you want more of a focus on industrial music, I suggest checking out this article here.   

Stupid formatting.

Dealing With Intolerant Christian (and Religious) Parents- The Spanish Inquisition and You

This post was inspired by one of my friends, who shall go unnamed, along with the countless other people with religious beliefs that differ from their and have cost them that relationship, whether they are young or old.

I'll start this off by saying yes, I am an atheist. So what. The internet is the atheist's domain, especially when the three most popular operating systems in the world were created by atheists.
I have a fairly good relationship with my parents, although my father insists that I'm not an atheist as I "don't have enough knowledge to be an atheist."
I'll also start this off by defining atheism, so, if you do come back at me for this, I can say "I told you so." Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god, gods, deities, etc. Nothing more. I typically attach several more words when referring to myself, which I won't today, for the sake of salience.

Parents constantly demand respect from their children, every day. However, they fail to realize that they often don’t respect their kids. Respect is a two way street, and parents must realize this. They cannot punish their kids for liking a certain band, going along with a certain trend, or having a different philosophy. They must heed the words of Voltaire: “I disagree, but I defend to death your right to say it.” No matter what they believe, they must respect that their child is a human being, and entitled to make their own decisions, including those of a religious nature. The worst possible argument for a certain set of religious beliefs is “That’s what my parents believed in.” Parents impressing their religious beliefs in their children will ultimately fail humanity, and turn the population in unintelligent sheep unable to think for themselves, and parents punishing their children for different beliefs should not be considered loving parents.

Religious beliefs are not something to expel someone out of a house over, nor are alternate lifestyles or sexualities. Parents are not the morality police; no one is the morality police. There are no legal punishments for being an atheist or Buddhist or a Satanist or a progressive Christian. There are, however, consequences for abusing a child over religion, or running them out of the house over it. These parents, are, at least, no better than the image of the “blasphemous” beliefs they hold. If they really care about their beliefs more than their children, then they do not deserve to be parents. It is that simple. One can almost see children booted out of their house over their beliefs as an opportunity to find adults that care about them, not their beliefs, an unfortunate opportunity, but an opportunity nonetheless. The kids would finally find a place where they belong, instead of a household dominated by bigoted, corruptive, unjust religion.

The only course of action for parents to take is, of course, talk about it. If the parents personally know they cannot make a cognizant substantiated argument for their belief system (which no religion can), then they have no reason to be mad at their children. No, even if they have a reason, parents have no reason to punish their kids over beliefs. Parents often forget that children too are protected under the First Amendment, and that denying them the option to choose their beliefs is denying them the right of freedom of and from religion, and ultimately showing them you don’t love them.

Denying your children this is denying them a brain to make decisions with. It’s their life, and it’s now or never.    

The Supreme Court and Prop 8

Tuesday, March 26, 2013, marks the start of the Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of California’s Proposition Eight, which makes the marriage between homosexuals illegal. However, before I tell you why they are going to rule against Prop 8, I need to clear up an issue: the disputed neutrality of SCOTUS.

The foremost reason people claim the Supreme Court slants one way or the other is their rulings on controversial issues, which is seen as bias. They are seen as being personally in favor or not in favor of the issue on hand, whereas SCOTUS’s purpose is not to be the morality police, but rather to decide whether something is legal or not. Of course, existentially, the legality of something may very well determine the morality, but that’s another post.

SCOTUS is the ultimate authority of legality and constitutionality, and their rulings do not necessarily reflect their personal views. For example, in the landmark case Lemon v Kurtzman , the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of government-funded religious displays and activities, while simultaneously creating the “Lemon Test”, which still stands today. The Lemon Test reads as follows:

 Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.[1]

This was seen as a quite liberal decision; however, the Chief Justice at the time, Warner Burger, was considered both a conservative and an originalist, meaning he believed that it was not the Supreme Court’s job to strike down laws, but merely to uphold them. One can clearly see the conflict between the justice’s personal views and that of his ruling.

Now that I have established SCOTUS’s neutrality, I will predict what ruling they will make in the coming months.

The main legal argument against Prop 8 is that of the first part of the 14th Amendment, which reads:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[2]

Specifically, the part about “abridge[ing] the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” along with “nor shall any State…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

I think it would be correct in assuming that privileges include the right to get married, and that it is the purpose of the law to uphold these privileges. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to deny citizens a privilege such as marriage.

Case closed.

But not quite.

The argument for Prop 8 defines marriage as between a man and a women, citing tradition. I guess that also means we shouldn’t have a democracy, or free speech, or abolition, or cars for that matter, because these are not traditional. Gee, see how that logic works against you, hard righters?

The second way the pro-Prop 8 attorneys are blatantly disregarding the 14th Amendment is by also defining the purpose of marriage as for reproduction. According to this logic, infertile men and women, along with the elderly and those who do not wish to have children, cannot marry. What would be really interesting is if one of the pro-8 attorneys turned out to be infertile, or gay for that matter.

Any other arguments, especially those along the lines of “It’s against the Bible” will be easily thrown out by SCOTUS as hogwash, with the justices citing, “This is not a Christian nation. It may be a nation of Christians, but it was in no way based on the Christian religion.”[3]

Simply, the only reason to keep Prop 8 is if you are homophobic bigot that enjoys taking rights away from people different than you.

REFERENCES

1.  http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html

2.  http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html

3.  http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

An Introduction to Depeche Mode

I love Depeche Mode, so much, in fact, I named this very blog after one of their songs. I first encountered them way back when the radio was decent enough to listen to. After hearing “People Are People,” I quickly looked up the song to figure out who the hell this amazing band was. After finding out, I finally went onto IHeartRadio and surrounded myself in Depeche Mode’s unique sound. Since they have just released their thirteenth studio album, Delta Machine, I’d like to introduce the most definitive electronic act of all time, before I review Delta Machine later this week.
Depeche Mode originally consisted of Martin Gore, David Gahan, Andy Fletcher, and Vince Clarke. Clarke left after the first album to form Yazoo and Erasure, and was replaced by Alan Wilder; Wilder left after the release of Songs of Faith and Devotion, and the band has consisted of Gore, Gahan, and Fletcher ever since.

Depeche Mode were, by no means, the first band to use synthesizers. Indeed, the first use of synthesizers in popular music would probably be considered to be the Beach Boys in “Good Vibrations,” released in 1966. The Beatles followed in Abbey Road in 1969, along with Pink Floyd with Ummagumma. While these first songs did feature synthesizers, they did not play a big part in the sound of the groups, with the guitar being the driving force behind the songs. It was not until Kraftwerk was founded in 1970 that the synth sound was created. Kraftwerk was, and still is, the flagship of early synthpop, and the genre remained basically the same until 1981, when Depeche Mode released their first album, Speak and Spell, containing the infective hit “Just Can’t Get Enough.” This is the number one song people recognize when I play it to them, the “So that’s Depeche Mode” song.

This was before the Pet Shop Boys came to the east end with “West End Girls” and Tears for Fears yelled at the world with “Shout.” However, these two groups served to foreshadow what synthpop could do, with a hint of the dark lyrics and drippy synthesizers that Depeche Mode is now famous for. Their style changed quickly, with the loss of lyricist Vince Clarke and the failure of Martin Gore’s first attempt at an album in A Broken Frame. “Everything Counts” off Construction Time Again was the band’s first single of their darker era, and strayed away from the happier dance-pop of Speak and Spell and A Broken Frame, this time focusing on a serious, mature subject matter, in this case the record industry itself.

Their next album, Some Great Reward, containing the ever famous song of nondiscrimination and peace between minorities, “People Are People,” was another shade darker than Construction Time Again, and also pushed them into mainstream culture. While taking on even more mature subject matter, it still hinted at Depeche Mode’s dance-pop roots, especially in “Something to Do,” with its light “Just Can’t Get Enough”-style beat.

Black Celebration was the end of the development period for Gore’s songwriting, cementing Depeche Mode into the darker side of synthpop. It included the appropriately dark title track, “Black Celebration,” with its rather haunting lyrics, “Stripped” of Say Anything… fame, and “But Not Tonight,” a lighter end to a dark album. “Stripped” was really the only song that received major airplay, while the rest of the album, much darker than the Say Anything… soundtrack, went unnoticed. It was still, however, a groundbreaking album.

The sixth studio album, Music for the Masses, was the true beginning of the dark, popular era of Depeche Mode, with “Strangelove” and “Never Let Me Down Again.” While never seeing much acclaim, its successor, Violator, was the premiere Depeche Mode album, going triple platinum. Containing “Personal Jesus” and “Enjoy the Silence,” it was undoubtedly the most popular album over the band’s lifetime. Three years later, Songs of Faith and Devotion was released, creating the golden duo of Depeche Mode, with these two albums influencing Delta Machine, their latest release. Their content was dark, full of drippy synthesizers and blues guitars, from the social warning of “Policy of Truth” off of Violator to the classic “Walking in My Shoes” from Faith and Devotion.

Ultra, Exciter, Playing the Angel, and Sounds of the Universe have only served to further the image of Depeche Mode’s darkness and signature sound, propelling the already famous band into the spot of best electronic band of all time. Delta Machine will enhance this even more, as Gore, Gahan, and Fletch move their group into the twenty-first century.

Later in the week, I’ll put up the review of Delta Machine. For now, however, enjoy the music. 

Let's see how this works/Physicist funeral

Testy test test
Well, now that that has failed miserably, I suppose I should put something up.
Here's a nice little article by Aaron Freeman, a commentator for NPR.
This is absolutely NOT mine.
Sorry about the formatting, Word screwed it up.

Why You Want a Physicist to Speak at Your Funeral

You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy, so they will understand that your energy has not died. You want the physicist to remind your sobbing mother about the first law of thermodynamics; that no energy gets created in the universe, and none is destroyed. You want your mother to know that all your energy, every vibration, every BTU of heat, every wave of every particle that was her beloved child remains with her in this world. You want the physicist to tell your weeping father that amid energies of the cosmos, you gave as good as you got.

And at one point you'd hope that the physicist would step down from the pulpit and walk to your brokenhearted spouse there in the pew and tell him/her that all the photons that ever bounced off your face, all the particles whose paths were interrupted by your smile, by the touch of your hair, hundreds of trillions of particles, have raced off like children, their ways forever changed by you. And as your widow rocks in the arms of a loving family, may the physicist let him/her know that all the photons that bounced from you were gathered in the particle detectors that are her/his eyes, that those photons created within her/him constellations of electromagnetically charged neurons whose energy will go on forever.

And the physicist will remind the congregation of how much of all our energy is given off as heat. There may be a few fanning themselves with their programs as he says it. And he will tell them that the warmth that flowed through you in life is still here, still part of all that we are, even as we who mourn continue the heat of our own lives.

And you'll want the physicist to explain to those who loved you that they need not have faith; indeed, they should not have faith. Let them know that they can measure, that scientists have measured precisely the conservation of energy and found it accurate, verifiable and consistent across space and time. You can hope your family will examine the evidence and satisfy themselves that the science is sound and that they'll be comforted to know your energy's still around. According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you're just less orderly.