Shocking, I know. But CBS's new drama The Mentalist had an awesome pilot last Tuesday. I'd give a quick synopsis, but it's much more worth your time to watch the full episode online at http://www.cbs.com/primetime/the_mentalist/
Suffice to say, the show has a strong skeptical bend to it. After watching the scene in the restaurant, I fell in love with the show. And according to someone close to the show who writes on the SGU forums, the writers and producers are sticking to skepticism. No "I guess I was wrong about psychics" moment thus far. New episodes Tuesdays at 9 p.m. Definately made my DVR.
29 September 2008
25 September 2008
21 September 2008
11 September 2008
Heroes
The other night, me and Sharon had our monthly Atheist Meetup. It's a group of atheists in Milwaukee who met on the internet and decided to have dinner once a month as a group. We don't usually talk much about atheism, it's usually just general science talk. The best part is the age of the members range from 6 years old to well over 80. While I was talking to one of the elderly members, I mentioned that I wear my Scarlet Letter A on my white coat to identify myself as an atheist. What's more, some patients have actually recognized it as an atheist symbol and have asked me about it (so far with only one negative result). After I said this, the woman I was talking to said "What you're doing is very brave, almost heroic. Thank you."
I disagree. I'm not wearing it to be brave, and I certainly don't think I'm a hero. I wear it mostly as a conversation piece. One of the other students actually came out as an atheist and started wearing a pin as well. But to me, hero means so much more.
Travis had a post a while back about heroes, and I commented there, but I thought I'd talk about it on here. I have a good number of heroes. Getting the obvious ones out of the way, James Randi, Penn Jilette, and Mitch Hedberg are personal heroes, in the sense that I want to be more like them. But they've never really done anything "heroic." Maybe James Randi, taking on Uri Gellar, but even that is sort of a stretch. To me, being a hero means taking risks for what you believe in. The obvious choice here (although ficticious) is V from V for Vendetta. But it feels like a cop-out to pick a fictional character (badass as he is).
If I had to pick a real hero, it would have to be George Carlin. He took big risks to speak his mind. If I wear my atheist pin to work, I can't be fired because of it due to freedom of speech laws. I can be despised, but I can't really lost anything. Geroge Carlin risked his career to speak his mind, saying things no one else would say. Up until the day of his funeral, he was hated enough to have protesters and death threats (okay, no death threats at his funeral, but you get the point). He truly was a hero to me and to all the other cynical assholes out there. R.I.P.
I disagree. I'm not wearing it to be brave, and I certainly don't think I'm a hero. I wear it mostly as a conversation piece. One of the other students actually came out as an atheist and started wearing a pin as well. But to me, hero means so much more.
Travis had a post a while back about heroes, and I commented there, but I thought I'd talk about it on here. I have a good number of heroes. Getting the obvious ones out of the way, James Randi, Penn Jilette, and Mitch Hedberg are personal heroes, in the sense that I want to be more like them. But they've never really done anything "heroic." Maybe James Randi, taking on Uri Gellar, but even that is sort of a stretch. To me, being a hero means taking risks for what you believe in. The obvious choice here (although ficticious) is V from V for Vendetta. But it feels like a cop-out to pick a fictional character (badass as he is).
If I had to pick a real hero, it would have to be George Carlin. He took big risks to speak his mind. If I wear my atheist pin to work, I can't be fired because of it due to freedom of speech laws. I can be despised, but I can't really lost anything. Geroge Carlin risked his career to speak his mind, saying things no one else would say. Up until the day of his funeral, he was hated enough to have protesters and death threats (okay, no death threats at his funeral, but you get the point). He truly was a hero to me and to all the other cynical assholes out there. R.I.P.
05 September 2008
03 September 2008
Love Is Hate
Once again, I'm done early pre-rounding, so I'm typing out a post (it's been a while since I recorded one, actually). I thought I'd jump on the bandwagon of destroying Governor Palin. Everyone knows her unwed teenage daughter is pregnant. I don't think we should make an issue out of the fact that her unwed teenage daughter is pregnant, while at the same time she promotes abstinence-only education policies. Barack Obama said he wouldn't attack her for having an unwed teenage daughter who is pregnant. It would be below me to talk about the fact that her unwed teenage daugher is pregnant. So I won't talk about it.
I don't have time to talk about all things Palin. If you're up for some Googling, try "Palin CNN interview" and learn how McCain can get offended by newsanchors talking about real issues (and for a hilarious video of Palin's spokesperson making an ass of himself). Of course, there's also the arrests that are being made outside St. Paul because protestors have the gall to speak their minds.
But I'll focus on something else. My other blogger friends have already pointed out her "under god" faux pas. In short, when asked if she was offended by the phrase "under god" appearing in the Pledge of Allegiance, she replied "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me." Dennis already blasted her for this historical inaccuracy. I won't talk about why this is so offensive or why "under god" shouldn't be in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm sure I've talked about it before. What really worries me about this is that we have to explain why she's wrong. There's a significant portion of this country who actually think the founding fathers put "under god" in the pledge, or put "in god we trust" on our money, or that they were Christians. This begs the question: if enough people believe it, is it really lying?
I'm sure most of the people reading this blog have also read George Orwell's 1984. I know what you're thinking, I'm a crazy revolutionary who finds Orwell everywhere. Bear with me. For those who haven't read it, one of the central ideas is that the government can change facts. They can make you believe 2+2=5. Most importantly, they can change history. Not in the sense of the old adage "history is written by the winner;" the government can change historical facts just by saying "this is what we now believe." Reading the book, I had thought this was impossible. But it's actually happening. If enough people say the founding fathers were Christians, people start to believe it. People stop asking "is this really true?" We don't need history books anymore. We've changed history. We have new facts. The founding fathers were Christians. The Pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution. We didn't slaughter millions of Native Americans. Christmas was always a national holiday. The United States did not escalate the Cold War, it was always the Soviet Union. Iraq has always had WMDs and there has always been a link between Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. These were always true. No one has ever disputed that these were always true. These are facts, and we have always believed them.
And that really scares me.
I don't have time to talk about all things Palin. If you're up for some Googling, try "Palin CNN interview" and learn how McCain can get offended by newsanchors talking about real issues (and for a hilarious video of Palin's spokesperson making an ass of himself). Of course, there's also the arrests that are being made outside St. Paul because protestors have the gall to speak their minds.
But I'll focus on something else. My other blogger friends have already pointed out her "under god" faux pas. In short, when asked if she was offended by the phrase "under god" appearing in the Pledge of Allegiance, she replied "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me." Dennis already blasted her for this historical inaccuracy. I won't talk about why this is so offensive or why "under god" shouldn't be in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm sure I've talked about it before. What really worries me about this is that we have to explain why she's wrong. There's a significant portion of this country who actually think the founding fathers put "under god" in the pledge, or put "in god we trust" on our money, or that they were Christians. This begs the question: if enough people believe it, is it really lying?
I'm sure most of the people reading this blog have also read George Orwell's 1984. I know what you're thinking, I'm a crazy revolutionary who finds Orwell everywhere. Bear with me. For those who haven't read it, one of the central ideas is that the government can change facts. They can make you believe 2+2=5. Most importantly, they can change history. Not in the sense of the old adage "history is written by the winner;" the government can change historical facts just by saying "this is what we now believe." Reading the book, I had thought this was impossible. But it's actually happening. If enough people say the founding fathers were Christians, people start to believe it. People stop asking "is this really true?" We don't need history books anymore. We've changed history. We have new facts. The founding fathers were Christians. The Pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution. We didn't slaughter millions of Native Americans. Christmas was always a national holiday. The United States did not escalate the Cold War, it was always the Soviet Union. Iraq has always had WMDs and there has always been a link between Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. These were always true. No one has ever disputed that these were always true. These are facts, and we have always believed them.
And that really scares me.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
