I still don’t have much love for the Creationist movement, but this Ben Stein movie is hilarious. It, among other things, follows scientists who were blacklisted for being associated with “intelligent design.” It’s pretty well done. Made me laugh.

Patriot — a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

Listen, a patriot is someone who puts his society before himself. That’s it.

People that vote in their own interest, like Obama said he expected his supporters to, the ones who chant, “yes we can” those aren’t patriots.

People who voted for Obama because they didn’t take economics and think he will do best for our country, those people probably are patriots.

People who voted for Mc Cain because they hate tall people: not patriots.

Understand?

And yeah, the Nazis were patriots, and damn fine patriots too, Rommel for example. Rommel fought brilliantly against Germany’s enemies. He was close to Hitler, and saw the insanity, saw him sending half of the finest military ever seen into an irrational campaign against Stalin, and may have had something to do with the bomb attempt on Hitler’s life. That’s patriotic. If Rommel were some idiot living in his mother’s basement who simply felt this or that, and tried killing old Adolf, well that little shit wouldn’t have been a patriot.

Abdul Haq was a patriot too, but he fought the Soviet backed communist government of his country. After the Soviets left, and thus the US, he fought the Taliban and died doing it.

Tim McVeigh was not a patriot. He was a selfish seeker of attention, angry with his country for being mean to him – boohoo.

Obama’s neighbor, that one who’s wife blew up those police: not patriots. They were upset with their government so they tried making a point by killing government and police (patriots). That’s butt-hurt-ism, like the German boy living in his mom’s basement.

Protesting: patriotic.

Sit-ins that shut down buildings: unpatriotic.

Is this clear enough? It’s like the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Rub the Liberal of your windshield if this seems smudgy. It’s a black and white issue.

I don’t want any more, “Boo hoo people called me a patriot because I didn’t think we could clean Sadam’s clock and democratize Iraq.”

I imagine people are homosexual for a variety of reasons, but I think the most common is an honest, natural sexual attraction to people of the opposite sex. I admit there are probably a few who can swing both ways, and pick up the lifestyle for a sense of community or something, but I think that’s a definite minority.

I don’t agree with this one: “Clearly, homosexuality, from a christian perspective is abnormal and sin.”

I don’t see it as any worse than praying with a hat on. Homosexuality isn’t in itself harmful to anyone. Therefore, not immoral. Therefore, not sin.

I think the loving thing to do is be non-judgmental of homosexuals as a rule. Like I said before, a small minority may take up the lifestyle by choice, but I think we should give everyone the benefit of the doubt. That is the loving and rational thing to do, in my humble opinion.

Yeah Dr. Dove, that was a bit of logic based on non-Christian premises in defining sin. For that logic to work you need secular premises – and “sin” secularly is a harmful word so it won’t work out either way.

I’ve settled on a conclusion that there are (generally and somewhat sterotypically speaking) two types of homosexuals and how they come to be, 1-genetically/biologically and/or  2-social/emotional/pyschoglogical.

One thing I have never been able to understand is how the whole thing works emotionally, especially for homosexual men. Do gay men have some mutated sexuality that attracts them to the anatomy of a man, their ass, and so on? Or is the ass just being substituted for the intended organ on a man who sexually feels like a woman? But if it’s the case that gay men are men with female sexuality, what about that makes them want to penetrate anyone?

I can’t wrap my mind around it and am sort of glad.

And oh yeah – evolutionarily speaking, I don’t think homosexuality has to be bad for the species. Indeed, homosexuals won’t reproduce if they follow their urges and so on.

I’ll use the word ‘evolution’ but for the record I don’t think the current theory explains biology enough to allow many things we observe in biology, but it’s a convenient word. A population of humans might have been more competitive with other groups if its weaker males, or if some or all of its weak and average males, were not interested in mating with the women – but still contributed to the group.

Take a dog pack as an example – only the alpha male and female breed. Their might be 20 or more dogs but the other non-alpha 18 stick to caring for the alpha’s puppies and otherwise contributing to the pack. If some hanky-panky occurs that female will likely be exiled or have her puppies eaten. And the sex drive of the males can often be problematic.

So in a group a 20 humans, it might be advantageous if only the smartest and strongest male mated with all the women (since people only have litters of 1) while the other men relieved each other’s desire – and could thus stay focused on protecting and caring for the group.

Of course clean cut evolution could account for this. But it can’t account for a lot of things we are starting to be able to see.

It seems like every time I talk to you you’re further out there. From what I understand, you have been moving away from “Christian values” – or however you want to describe the usual Christian thinking – because you don’t want to restrict your logical thinking. It’s understandable.

Allowing yourself to think in difference ways – using different assumptions – basic understandings – is a good thing for any sincere thinker. The danger in this though is producing a big goofy amalgamation of beliefs, like determining anything that doesn’t produce instant and apparent harm is not a sin. Isn’t sin, as described in the Bible, and as used by Christians, a term simply defined as a transgression against God’s will?

As I determine it, many things are sins. For example, if you decided being a pathologist was just too much work and took a job with a buddy managing a hotel – I’d call that a sin. Sure, you’re not harming anyone, and there’s no command in the Bible dictating that you should be a pathologist, and you could grade the passages that could be interpreted as such as being only as important as not eating fish without scales. That’s dishonesty in the effort for honesty though.

If you take the assumption that there is a loving god who is interested in our lives,then you logically have to accept that he has millions of people bothering about things: “Stop my pain” “Don’t let my boy die” “Don’t let me get pulled over with this body in the trunk” and so on. And with your real world logic, you can see God isn’t running around answering prayers, but it would also seem logical that – being loving – he would like most of those prayers to be answered. So it’s up to people to help people. If you’re not using your most helpful talents to contribute then you’re just letting God get annoyed by everyone needing something.

“Let those who can help me hear my cries and let me hear the cries of those I can help.” – Me

Based on that thinking ‘sin’ makes a hell of a lot more sense to me – Bible wise. If you count only direct harm, it makes no sense, but does make for a convenient little Christian/Intellectual mix for getting along with emotional Liberals.

My main point is that it’s better – I think – to recognize two forms of thinking, two sets of initial assumptions, rather than customizing one – when you’re dealing with the subjects of morality, freedom, God, and other non-definitive subjects.

On a related note: Wouldn’t it be cool if they remade the A-Team series in modernday. It could be based on Rangers out of Afghanistan this time. They could kill people now-a-day, not all that shooting and no bleeding. Ohhh the 80’s…

When an ex sends you fabulous pictures of her amazing wedding with her spectacular husband in their lavished mansion on a private island next to her garage with her brand new Mercedes to let you know she’s doing wonderfully and hopes you are too, Noisy Dove recommends the following reply:

Dear [insert name, spelled wrong],

Wow. Congratulations! I could hardly believe the pictures. It’s simply amazing. I guess what they say is true: there is someone out there for everyone. No mater who you are you can eventually find someone to marry you. It’s great to see you have yourself a little starter house and are finally gaining a little extra weight.

I can see you and your husband were wise and didn’t go for the regular big elegant wedding package. I remember you talking about how tacky cheap weddings can be. I’m glad you changed your mind. Good for you. You can use that money for the baby in six months.

So did you ever [inset something you know she didn’t accomplish].

Thanks for the update. I was just thinking the other day about [describe a run romantic time you had with “her”, her being some other chick, obviously confusing her with someone else.]

Well, wish I could have been there. Let me know about your next wedding. I’m always looking for a reason fly back there for a weekend.