You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2011.
Ever wonder what is wrong with society? These guys may have the answer. I’ll let you know, I have not read the book yet, but it does look promising.
Plus a interview with one of the authors of the book.
Many religious Americans can simply not look in the mirror. The deranged reflection looking back is not a palatable imagine. This Sunday Disservice was started by Mystro with the third video that is going to be posted. The back story was missing and I decided to see which interview Dr.Winell was referring to during her presentation. As it turns out, Dr. Winell was interviewed on CNN about the Colorado shootings by Rick Sanchez. The interview provides back story and generally meanders along. But all of sudden, the conversation gets very interesting at the 5:00 minute mark when Dr.Winell mentions the secret suffering of people trapped in fundamentalist christian sects.
Rich Sanchez seems to go apoplectic as he begins feverishly defending christianity.
“but you’re not saying we can blame the faith for this…right??”…. @6:20 he begins arguing for incredulity as religion, particularly his religion could not possibly be responsible for such an atrocity.
The good doctor deflects his question pointing to multifaceted nature of situations such as these, and certainly religion was not the prime pathological factor, but one of many in the case.
Watching the hoops Dr.Winell has to jump through not to say the obvious that religious belief and faith in this case was the cause of shooting is impressive. The implicit taboos about criticizing delusional behaviour are clearly in the foreground during this clip. It gets even better though as Sanchez, true to his word had Dr.Winell back again, ostensibly with a Pastor this instance (to provide “balance” I imagine) to further discuss the case.
Hilarity ensues:
At 0:40 Sanchez reads a list of what life is sometime like in fundamentalist christian lives, and promptly dismisses it as raving of a mad man. Journalism is about bringing news to people and helping them learn more about their world, would it not be good journalism to see if Mathew Murray had a point? Of course not, how could we even think that the doctrine of christianity is delusional and evil…and to look into it on a news show(?), beyond the pale.
@1:40 – Sanchez relates the obvious and then proceeds to cut off Dr.Winell with questions about which christians are the nutjobs, and which are not. It is obvious he has dismissed the idea that most religious belief is toxic in nature and plays a minor riff on the “No True Scottsman fallacy” with regards to christianity in general.
@6:35 – Sanchez intones – “You’re not religion and christianity are you?” – What an incredibly dense question, no kidding she is against religion and christianity as a subset thereof, that should be obvious. What the good doctor has to contend with would be the results of saying yes she was against religion and christianity in a country that is embracing the delusional tenets of christianity with increasing fervour year after year. The social consequences would be dire for the good doctor if she were to make such a (factually correct) assertion.
This was, in Sanchez’s words an ‘amazing conversation’. Oh indeed it was amazing; an amazingly frightening portrait of a country that will not critically examine that factors that cause so much harm to its’ people.
And of course the video of Dr.Winell speaking after the interview beginning to describe what RTS is and the effect it has on people.
Perhaps, as the doctor states, if we can label RTS we can get more help for the people trapped in fundamental religious though prisons, so they to can breathe the free air of rationality.
Important Update: It is also nice to see the skeptical community is doing its job and calling the Zeitgeist Movement on its bullshit. The site Conspiracy Science has a great breakdown of the gaping holes in the ‘logic’ and ‘reasoning’ used in the the first two films. I suspect the third film, posted here is also as full as crap as the first two.
It is nice to see a director break down such complex topics in our society. Peter Joseph places capitalism and our society under a critical lens and examines the system that is methodically stripping our planet of resources and turning it into items we really do not need.
Fractional reserve banking? Covered in within the context of this film, as well as inflation, the business cycle and how the structural features of our system are grossly inefficient and are actually harming the social fabric of our society.
I’m very glad this film points out that it is the egalitarian societies ( yes, the evil spectre of socialism once again) that fare better in almost all categories that measure a societies health, productivity and innovation. It caught my particular attention because I’m constantly bombarded with the notion that “competition drives innovation and because that’s what capitalism is ergo its all good.” This particular meme is exploded as you are shown graph after graph of data pointing out that the societies that redistribute wealth acutely are the ones that do better in the world, economically, politically and socially.
I’m not entirely happy with the movie as it gets a little tinfoil hatty around the idea of Big Medicine and Big Pharma…but one must take the bad with the good. I link to the trailer and the movie for your viewing pleasure.
I’ve only seen the first two parts, but they have been generally quite good. Its LOTHR length, so make sure you have your popcorn and comfy chair ready if you intend to watch the entire film. The website to see the first Zeitgeist and the Zeitgeist Addendum can be found here.
The content of the documentaries mentioned are pretty much guaranteed to rile my conservative readers…I look forward to the comment section of this particular post. :)
Note: Please where possible reference specific points in the movie, I’m going nuts trying to find the specific parts when referenced by name alone.
Important Update: It is also nice to see the skeptical community is doing its job and calling the Zeitgeist Movement on its bullshit. The site Conspiracy Science has a great breakdown of the gaping holes in the ‘logic’ and ‘reasoning’ used in the the first two films. I suspect the third film, posted here is also as full as crap as the first two.
Music has history unto itself, listen to the second movement and read(from wikipedia) about how it came into being and its form.
The Philharmonic Society of London originally commissioned the symphony in 1817. Beethoven started the work in 1818 and finished early in 1824. However, both the words and notes of the symphony have sources dating from earlier in Beethoven’s career.
Second movement
Scherzo: Molto vivace – Presto. Duration approx. 10 mins.
The second movement, a scherzo, is also in D minor, with the opening theme bearing a passing resemblance to the opening theme of the first movement, a pattern also found in the Hammerklavier piano sonata, written a few years earlier. It uses propulsive rhythms and a timpani solo. At times during the piece Beethoven directs that the beat should be one downbeat every three bars, perhaps because of the very fast pace of the majority of the movement which is written in triple time, with the direction ritmo di tre battute (“rhythm of three bars”), and one beat every four bars with the direction ritmo di quattro battute (“rhythm of four bars”).
Beethoven had been criticised before for failing to adhere to standard form for his compositions. He used this movement to answer his critics. Normally, scherzi are written in triple time. Beethoven wrote this piece in triple time, but it is punctuated in a way that, when coupled with the speed of the metre, makes it sound as though it is in quadruple time.
While adhering to the standard ternary design of a dance movement (scherzo-trio-scherzo, or minuet-trio-minuet), the scherzo section has an elaborate internal structure: it is a complete sonata form. Within this sonata form, the first group of the exposition starts out with a fugue.
The contrasting trio section is in D major and in duple (cut) time. The trio is the first time the trombones play in the work.
Just a reminder to the wimmenz, your “NO” is really just a yes in disguise and yes, how you dress will make you rape worthy or not. Attitudes from the 50’s? Hell no, here in the 21st century we have misogyny blooming in full masculine glory, and we should rejoice! (?)
“A convicted rapist will not go to jail because a Manitoba judge says the victim sent signals that “sex was in the air” through her suggestive attire and flirtatious conduct on the night of the attack.”
Are you kidding me? But it gets better.
“Kenneth Rhodes was given a two-year conditional sentence last week which allows him to remain free in the community, in a decision likely to trigger strong debate. The Crown wanted at least three years behind bars.”
Sir…Sir! Please hold out your wrist…fetch the wet noodle. *whap* You Sir have been punished!
“Rhodes and a friend met the 26-year-old woman and her girlfriend earlier that night outside a bar under what the judge called “inviting circumstances.” Dewar specifically noted the women were wearing tube tops with no bra, high heels and plenty of makeup.
Which really means: ignore everything I say and stick your penis in my vagina.
“They made their intentions publicly known that they wanted to party,” said Dewar. He said the women spoke of going swimming in a nearby lake that night “notwithstanding the fact neither of them had a bathing suit.”
Holy Frak! These sluts were asking for it!
“The foursome left the parking lot and headed into the woods, court was told. Rhodes began making sexual advances towards the victim, who initially rejected him but later returned his kisses. Rhodes then forced himself upon the woman once they were alone.”
The frigid bitch was playing coy and obviously got what she deserved! But let’s here the longer version in Lawyerese.
“She had a very different understanding of what was in the accused’s mind than he did,” said Coggan. He said Rhodes never threatened the woman, didn’t have a weapon and was simply “insensitive to the fact (she) was not a willing participant.“
Ohhhh, now I get it. He was insensitive to that fact that he forcibly had sex with an unwilling partner. I’m guessing the screaming and the sobbing and the consistently repeated “No’s”, not to mention the struggling, suggested he should continue…
Where does one even start? How women dress determines if they are “asking for it” or not? Or perhaps the venerated idea that one “yes” cancels all the “no’s” after? It is shocking that such attitudes still rest in the minds of supposedly educated people. Consider the impact on women who have been raped:
“Lorraine Parrington, who co-ordinates the sexual assault crisis program at Klinic, a community health centre in Winnipeg, said Dewar’s remarks show there needs to be more education about how women should be treated in sexual assault cases.
‘I was appalled. I was outraged. I was disheartened.’—Lorraine Parrington, counsellor
Fewer than 10 per cent of sexual assault cases are actually reported and Parrington worries Dewar’s comments will discourage future victims from coming forward.
“I’d like to say I was shocked. Unfortunately, I’m not after doing this work for lots of years,” she said. “But I was appalled. I was outraged. I was disheartened.”
Men have to learn women can change their minds, and no, at any point in an encounter, means no, she said.
“People have a right to change their mind. If I decide that I want to be engaged in certain sexual behaviour with somebody I can do that and I’m allowed to say, ‘Stop, I don’t want to do it any more.’ That needs to be respected.”
One part of this quote really jumped out at me…I’ll repeat it:
“Men have to learn women can change their minds, and no, at any point in an encounter, means no, she said.”
You don’t say. Women as autonomous beings, not just objects for the male gaze? Get out of town. If our culture was not a rape culture men would not have to “learn” this simple little fact, it would be implicity known from sea to frakking shining sea. But no, it is most explicitly is not known, hence we get men who are “insensitive” to women’s wishes when it comes to sex, and really it must have been her fault for skinny dipping earlier and wearing high heels and a tube top.
This ruling is being appealed and had better be changed forthwith. The women of Canada are watching.
I’ve never gone hungry in my life. With that statement it puts me in class that most of the world will never see. I have been lucky and had a parent that worked to make my childhood pleasant, enriching and carefree. With that base established I went to University and earned my degree in education and now make enough money to survive reasonably and keep my life nourishing and fulfilling.
I am certainly not upper class, heck probably lower middle class at best, but I have not had to endure decisions such as whether to eat or pay for rent, or fix the car or hope it does not explode on the way to work. I’ve always had the means so I’ve never had to make those decisions.
“Spent” is a game, if you can call living in poverty a game, about the decisions people like you and me have to face if things really get stuffed up and it goes south. What would you do? Go to the Spent website and find out.
I am hoping that the Fox News Canada channel really does not go through. Faux News repeatedly spreads lies, rumours and generally serves as the propaganda wing for the Republican Party in the US. Let us hope their contamination stays south of the 49th parallel.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…