Voices of the Silent

Groups are filled with lots of different people. Even within groups, you have disagreements and in-fighting. Every group has its exemplars, every group has its heroes-- and every group has its fair share of assholes.

Atheists are certainly no exception.

Atheists, however, face a particular dilemma that Christians (for example) do not. Christians, in the United States at least, are already a majority. Now, Christians do have their fair share of assholes like anyone else. Easy example: Fred Phelps. But we know that these are extremists. Everyone knows a Christian. Maybe your neighbor, family members, or even yourself. We know who Christians are and we know that they generally aren't bad people. So it's easy for us to tell that people like Fred Phelps are the exception, and not the rule. We know they're a minority.

But with atheists, it's a bit different. Not everyone knows an atheist, or realizes that they DO know an atheist. Not only are atheists a minority on the whole, but many of us are in the closet. So when extremist "militant" atheists become vocal, and the majority of good atheists stay silent or remain totally in the closet, people have nothing else to judge us by. It's easy to assume that because any atheist they've knowingly come across is a bad person, that all atheists must be bad people; or that good atheists are the exception. When the reality is, it's bad atheists that are the exception, not the good ones.

You might not know this unless you happen to know a lot of atheists, like I do, but most of us are the "live and let live" type, believe it or not. Very few of us are vocal or militant. Most of us simply don't care what other people believe. And certainly, we all have our different reasons for not caring: some of us believe it makes no difference, others of us look at an individuals actions before one's beliefs, and still others are simply apathetic towards such beliefs all-together. But the fact remains that those who do care, and make a big stink about it, are actually in the minority. But the rest of us DON'T SPEAK UP.

Christians don't need to speak up for themselves because they're a majority; everyone already knows that most Christians are alright.

But it's not the same for us, as atheists. Too many of us are still in the closet. Too many of us are still quiet, and let the "militant" atheists speak FOR us, which is a VERY BAD IDEA. But when we remain silent, we are LETTING those militant atheists speak for us, we are LETTING them skew people's ideas of who we are as atheists.

All atheists are different. We all have our different reasons for being an atheist. We all believe different things. We have families and friends. We're people. We're as different from atheist to atheist as Christians are to other Christians-- perhaps even more so, since we lack any unifying beliefs.

So we need to SPEAK UP. We need to tell the world that we exist, and that the bad-mouthing, hateful, militant atheists are NOT the only atheists in existence. That they are in fact a MINORITY amongst us, just as Fred Phelps and his ilk are a minority amongst Christians.

So speak up. Tell the world you're out there. Do it for yourself. Do it for all of us. We need your voice. Stop being silent.

Rant on Political Commentary

We get it, Media-- you think there are assloads of angry women out there, upset that Hillary Clinton did not obtain her party's nomination--and she didn't get the Democratic nomination, either. (See what I did? I just called her a Republican. Laugh.) So, what are you saying? That this was some kind of men vs. women battle that the men won? That doesn't make any fucking sense. It's just voting, and exactly half of everyone that votes is a woman. Obviously there are women that did not vote for Clinton, otherwise we'd have a stand-still that would go to the convention, not a powerful victory by the male candidate.

I know someone is going to shoot off the mouth and say something totally retarded like, "Clinton got the feminist vote, and there aren't enough feminists in this country which is why she didn't get the nomination." Fucking bullshit. Let me clear up a modern myth for all of you right now: Hillary Clinton is not a feminist. Or at least she hasn't proven to me that she is. She's an opportunist, using feminism as a tool to get votes, like the dirty snake she is. Yes, I realize that feminism still isn't incredibly popular as it should be, and that a candidate, even today, would do better for his image to keep quiet about being a feminist. Clinton, however, has the distinct problem of being female, and so embraced a faux-feminism to try (and fail) at winning the feminist vote. The problem with the argument at hand is that an actual feminist won't vote for a woman just because she's a woman--that would be sexist, not feminist, and would be antecedent to everything that feminism is. This is why I imply that Clinton is not a feminist: she accuses everyone who does not vote for or endorse her as being sexist, and claims that feminists should vote for her because she's a woman. She even tried to pull this shit on Nancy Pelosi--Nancy motherfucking Pelosi--a well-known and actual feminist (who endorsed Obama). You see, an actual feminist would ignore gender entirely when choosing a candidate rather than making gender an issue.

So, Media, stop playing the "angry women" BS, and to some of you pseudo-feminists, stop trying to tell everyone that Obama's nomination is a clear indication of a lack of feminism and/or rampant sexism in America and the work that needs to be done, when feminists like my wife and myself voted for Obama. Yes, I agree that sexism is still a problem and that work needs to be done, but Clinton's failure to get the Democratic nomination has fuck-all to do with it. She failed of her own accord, for being a poor fucking candidate--get over it.

Let's stop it with the same shit the Media spews about the "black vote." This was not a black vs. white race, either. 12% of Americans are black, and Obama won the nomination. Clearly, white folk want Obama, too. And let's make no mistake, there were white male candidates: Kucinich, Gravel, Edwards, et. al. None of them made the cut. So yes, whites want Obama. Let's not make this about race. More to the point-- I know of at least one black man who wanted to see Hillary get the nomination and is disappointed by the way things turned out.

And don't think I haven't been able to see through some of Obama's hypocrisy and politics-playing. Yeah, I'd rather see Obama as the next President over McCain or Clinton, but that doesn't mean I don't have a bone to pick with him. Obama said he wasn't about playing the "same old Washington game." He said he wasn't about "playing politics" yet he commended Clinton for her "bravery" (in running). Cut the bullshit, Obama, you are just trying to have a slice of her fan base. But I suppose people are right when they say there is no such thing as an honest politician. Or if there is, no one takes them seriously, especially as they would likely run with third parties, like Ralph Nader.

So maybe some of you, whether you're the media or not, should check your facts and your basic logic before presenting a faulty political analysis. It might make you look less stupid.

Comic Books and Revolutions

So, my friend and I are working on a comic book and posting it up at drunkduck.com. Here's the first page:


Don't worry, I won't keep updating this blog with new pages from the comic. So if you want to keep yourself updated, check out the comic at http://www.drunkduck.com/R_Evolution/.

Letter to Kansas City Star

Before I have you read the letter I wrote to the Kansas City Star, as background information I'll provide the letter in the Star's Letters section that prompted me to write one myself.

"Trample the weak. Hurl the dead."

Is this the national slogan for the government of Myanmar? No, I saw this on a T-shirt while getting coffee on a quiet Johnson County morning. I might have forgotten this, except a man beside us in line commented about it. Smiling, repeating it to memorize it. How cool. The man in the T-shirt said his company gave it to him and he really did not think about it when he put it on.

These were not angry young men trying to shock, venting frustration at the world. No, these were middle-aged, normal Johnson Countians, running family errands, not thinking.

Normal people, who now cheerfully say compassion is not cool. "No mercy" has been made contemptibly clever.

We have freedom of speech here, and I will defend that freedom. But also, we have the freedom to think. If we do not think about what we say, even on a T-shirt, we are no different from the thugs running Myanmar.

Robert Cain
Overland Park

I have to wonder what kind of silly, black and white world Robert Cain (Letters, 5/31) lives in to honestly suggest that someone wearing a T-shirt with the slogan, "Trample the weak. Hurl the dead," (or repeating the slogan aloud) is on the same level of vileness as the "thugs" (as Cain so refers them) of the government of Burma.

To suggest that utilizing free speech in a way you do not agree with constitutes villianizing a person's character to such a putrid level is not only ludicrous but somewhat disgusting. Would Cain have us live in 1984 and institute thought police? Should we all love Big Brother? Perhaps this is an extremist view of Cain's thoughts-- but it illustrates the same kind of extremist view he applies to those who harmlessly repeat meaningless phrases.

Does Mr. Cain never swear? Never laugh at a horribly inappropriate joke? Has he never had lustful thoughts while with a significant other? Never enjoyed a PG-13 movie? I'm sure there is some moral principle Mr. Cain has broken. Does this make him "no better" than those "thugs" of Burma's government? In Mr. Cain's strictly black and white view of the world, yes. But in my view of the world, it just makes him human.

Knowing your Whisk(e)y

In the world of hard liquor, people usually have a general sense of what you're talking about when you mention a type of spirit-- at least from what I've noticed. For example, mention vodka and most people will assume you're talking about grain vodka (unless you're in an area where potato vodka, for instance, is generally assumed): Smirnoff, Grey Goose, Most Wanted, Bellevedere, etc. Even tequila generally refers to a pretty specific class of liquor, despite discussions of whether something is 100% agave (Patron, Don Julio, Cazadores Reposado) or not (Jose Cuervo) or if it has a worm in the bottle (Monte Alban). And even with spiced rum, rum flavors, and the like, "rum" also means a pretty specific thing.

However, say "whiskey," (with or without the "e") and you might as well have said "liquor." Okay, perhaps that is an exaggeration, but there is something to be said for the diversity found within the class of alcohol known as "whiskey." Everyone has a different idea, or no idea at all, of what "whiskey" refers to. If someone mentions whiskey, I don't entirely know what she's referring to. Is she referring to bourbon? Is she referring to blended whiskey? Or is she referring to scotch? If she's referring to blended, does she mean American or Canadian? And if she means scotch, is she including Irish whiskey? It isn't clear at all what "whiskey" is referring to except a broad category of liquor that includes American blended whiskey, Canadian whisky, bourbon, straight sour mash whiskey, scotch whisky, Irish whiskey, and possibly others.

Is whiskey a class of liquor, like rum, tequila, or vodka, or is it a meta-class of sorts that describes several classes of spirits (bourbon, blended, scotch, Irish)? At what point do you say that a class becomes a meta-class--or can it? Think about this before continuing.

---

Allow me to elucidate here. So far I have stated or implied that rum, vodka, and tequila are sets (yes, I've switched from "classes" to "sets," just deal with it) of spirits, including some variations and many brands. For clarity's sake let us call these "tier 1" sets. I realize there are more spirits than what I've listed, but let's keep this from getting over-complicated.

Now, does whiskey, as a set, belong on tier 1 with rum, vodka, and tequila, or is it a tier 2 set including the tier 1 sets of scotch, Irish whiskey, bourbon, and blended whiskeys? If we place whiskey on tier 2, tier 1 suddenly becomes full of some related sets (bourbon, scotch, blended whisky, Irish whiskey), and less related ones (rum, vodka, tequila).

It seems intuitive to say that just because a set is more diverse than others does not justify placing it up one tier, and that therefore, whiskey belongs on tier 1, and just happens to have more diversity than other sets in its tier.

However, let us now consider the case of brandy and cognac. These spirits are closely related (in much the same way as, say, bourbon and scotch), yet there isn't a set that describes them both (in the way that scotch and bourbon belong to the set "whiskey"). As such, they are treated as separate sets (presumably on tier 1) despite their similarity. This muddies the entire thought process, here. If brandy and cognac are separate sets on tier 1, then why not scotch, bourbon, blended whiskey and Irish whiskey? Are they allowed to prance around on tier 1 while the various whiskeys get lumped under the same "whiskey" set simply because cognac and brandy do not have their own set they belong to?

I don't really have an answer for this, and perhaps that's because I don't have a vested interest in the specific subject matter. However, the answer could apply more broadly, to other concepts. So if anyone has an answer, please share it.

Marriage

Does marriage change anything in a relationship? I'd like to think that in a good one, legal marriage leaves it relatively unaffected. Sure, it's nice. It's nice to get over that little hurdle and to have all the legalities of coupleship. It's nice to celebrate and have fun-- for any reason, really.

So, yeah-- I got married recently. Here's the evidence:



Our wedding ceremony was pretty small and private. We just went to a judge with two witnesses (my father and his on-again off-again girlfriend) and got it done, and celebrated by going to dinner. That's it.

I don't disparage those who decide to have large ceremonies. Have a blast! Have a party! Do what's right for you. A large ceremony would have been fun for us, but we didn't need it. Plus we're so far from our friends and family. We can always boogie down and party later.

So what does marriage mean to me? As I've told others, I already considered us to be married for all intents and purposes. And of course, I didn't need government "confirmation" of our relationship status. It is nice, however, to have a social symbol (the ring[s]) of our marriage. I suppose we could wear the rings regardless, but it could also be a sign of legal marriage.

I don't know. Maybe I'm not thinking deeply enough about it. (Then again, perhaps I shouldn't be thinking too deeply on it.) What I do know is that I love my wife and I don't want things to change. But mostly the part about loving my wife.

A New Computer

I suppose this is more of a blog entry than an "article" but it may be of interest to some of you regardless. Recently I purchased a new computer. I know: we're talking about me--you're interested already. I'll tell you why this is a big deal. I'm one of those nerds that knows how to put a computer together. I put my last computer together with parts that I purchased or scrapped myself. If I can do all of that, why purchase a brand computer instead of individual parts? I'll tell you why: Windows.

When you put together your own computer, you inevitably have to install an OS (that's "Operating System" for the less tech savvy). You could go with a free Linux distribution, but not only do you have to figure out which of the many "distros" is best for you, you have to find one that actually installs (a daunting feat--I've never been successful). And don't plan on doing any gaming with Linux--there aren't any serious games for it. I mean, at least Mac has the various Blizzard games; Linux has nothing.

That leaves Windows (as far as I know, you can't "put together" a Macintosh). A legitimate Windows OS costs around $300. Yes, $300 just for the OS. For most computers, that's more expensive than any singular component. You would either have to suck it up and shell out the cash, or find and install an illegal version of Windows.

I've tried the latter, and it wasn't pretty. First I installed a pretty basic cracked version of Windows XP. I couldn't update it so I was forced to find a new OS that would fully recognize the hard drive I wanted to install without constantly crashing. I found one in the form of an XP-Vista hybrid. This OS had compatibility issues with some of my games that I couldn't resolve because the OS wasn't legal. Finally I tried one called Crystal XP-- the worst XP hack of all. It was incredibly unstable, randomly crashed, and it crashed so hard that it ended up physically damaging my hard drive.

So I knew what I had to do--or at least I thought I did. I was going to replace the hard drive, an expenditure of at least $80, and suck it up and shell out the $300 for a legal version of Windows. That's a total cost of $380--more if I wanted a larger hard drive. So I strolled into Wal-Mart (it was midnight, I was impatient, and it was the only store open in town save for fast food) and I notice some desktop PCs (pre-built of course) for under $500. I figured the specs were crap but decided to look anyway. To my surprise the specs on these PCs smoked my home-built PC, which I've probably spent over $1,000 on. I had a choice: spend the $400 or so on a hard drive and Windows or spend an extra hundred on what is essentially the same thing plus an upgrade on every single piece of hardware I had and a warranty. You can see how it wasn't really a choice at all.

Lesson? It's cheaper and more convenient to simply purchase a new pre-built computer every few years than it is to try to build one yourself. Putting one together is fun and it's great if you have the money to do it-- especially if you can spend the big bucks and build a truly great machine. For me, though, I'll just have to miss the joy of putting together a computer.

Maybe that's why this feels more like a defeat than a victory.