Get your facts first, then you can distort them later

Get your facts first, then you can distort them later, by Mark Twain.  Ah, Mark Twain, the man is full of witty and funny wisdoms.  In this case his quote here is about politicians, charlatans, or even an author or two.  The idea is simple, get all the information you can.  Educate yourself as much as possible so that you know more than others or at least more than you knew about a subject yesterday.  Now you can use this information to advance yourself, or, more importantly, know when others are trying to distort the facts.  That is the essence of the quote.  You should know and learn anything and everything you can, for otherwise people can take what you do not know and manipulate you.  No one likes to manipulated, and sure, by knowing your own facts you can potentially manipulate others, but you have morals.  You have the character to not do something so foul (right?).  

Final Thought:  Twain gave us a simple quote on knowledge and manipulation of knowledge, and then we think.  At that point we truly understand that knowledge is power and we can have knowledge over ourselves and others.  It is up to us to prevent power over ourselves from being stolen through the manipulation of the facts, a lesson I re-iterate multiple times in multiple issues in my little blog here.  In fact I purposely make sure everyone knows when they read my blog that this is all opinion based on information.  Opinion is not fact and thus should be questioned and discussed.  I do not want my blog to become a source for information other than the fact that it is my opinion.  Instead I like it to be used as a window to say, is he right?  Let me look this up.  I never want you my readers to be used by anyone, and especially not even myself, so I will always invite questions, debate and discussion, for through those we can eventually find the truth.

Trump Boycotts last GOP debate.

Donald Trump is boycotting the last Republican debate because Megyn Kelly is one of the moderators.  He apparently really does not like her.   This is sadly disappointing for a prospective Presidential candidate for it reflects poorly on how he would deal with people while as a President.  You cannot just say to President Putin of Russia that he will not get on the phone because he does not like him.  You can't do that with any world leader, and yet he is doing it with one News Reporter/Commentator.  This to me just blows my mind.  Sure, I am not a fan of Trump, but any candidate doing something like this is a terrible reflection of leadership ability and makes Trump look childish.  If I didn't like Trump before, I certainly don't like him now.

Final Thought:  A President serves at the behest of the people.  You cannot be childish and refuse to do something or see someone simply because you do not like them.  Presidents have to deal with the best of the best and the lowest of the low.  If you can't deal with people and learn to grin and bear it when doing something or associating with people that you don't want to be around, then you're not ready or able to serve as President.  This is a game ender.  Game over Donald Trump.  That is just my two cents.

Non-Aggression Principle

Libertarians are somewhat in disagreement as to what is the founding principle of the libertarian movement.  In this case the Non-aggression Principle (NAP) is one idea where aggression should not exist at all as an absolute for libertarianism to work.  But Austin Peterson (a person running for President of the United States on Facebook) and an article by Matt Zwolinski "Six Reasons Libertarians should Reject the Non-aggression Principle" says no to the NAP.  Let us discuss.

What is the NAP and why it does not work:  Basically, the NAP advocates doing no harm.  You cannot hit a person or do anything that resembles harm.  However this idea does not work based on what the NAP means by harm.  For instance, with pollution, there is none allowed.  So you cannot have factories or power plants that emit smoke.  No dust due to construction.  Basically, anything that is construed as pollution is not allowed, and thus things that potentially could pollute are also not allowed.  Then there is potential harm.  Under the NAP, potential harm is not allowed.  So nothing that risks another person's wellbeing.  As such, no fake threats like "I'll punch you" or "I'll kick your butt" or pointing a knife at someone on accident while talking is a big no no. Fraud is allowed under the NAP as it is not an aggressive act.  So someone can trick you out of your money and get away with it.  Then there is trespassing.  If you trespass onto someone else's property, then the owner can beat you up as trespassing is considered an aggressive act.  So here the NAP is hypocritical as it supports property rights as opposed to non-violence.   And finally we have children.  Willful neglect is allowed under the NAP.  Basically, as long as you do not hinder your own child from obtaining their own food, then allowing them to starve to death is ok.  On top of that, if someone gives your child food while coming onto your property, you can beat the person for feeding your child.  These are the flaws of the NAP and why I do not believe in the NAP as the foundation for my libertarianism.

Final Thought:  I write this because there is a fundamental disagreement about libertarianism that has caused misconceptions.  My libertarian principles is basically, do not tread on the rights of others, respect people's right to property and do not perform any of the obviously wrongful acts.  With these basics you get in my opinion a purer libertarianism without controversy.  Libertarianism is all about respecting others and their personal rights.  Sure there are some disagreements on things like welfare, how much government and abortion, but who doesn't have those kinds of issues within their political and religious ideologies.  Remember it is about personal responsibility and freedom together, not just not doing harm or even being an ideology.

New Hampshire Primary

So I was able to watch a little bit of the New Hampshire primaries Saturday where a number of the Republican candidates were able to participate in a town hall set up.  Here is my reaction.

I will have to say that the Republican field is very decent with respect to personal and economic freedoms (though they do not go as far as I'd like).  However I heard good things like regulation reforms, tax reforms and more.  However, none have really impressed me (from the ones I got to listen too) overall.  Though I can say that Jeb Bush probably did the best in the town halls (from those I got to listen too) and showed why he is a really decent candidate for President.  If it weren't for the fact that his last name was Bush and people are sick of dynasty Presidencies, he would probably be a frontrunner right now.  I was also impressed with Carly Fiorina where she willing answered every tough question and seemed to want them so that she could show that she could take it and also to be honest about her views including the legalization of drugs.  I also heard from a speaker from Pennsylvania I believe, but as far as I know he is not running despite having a lot to say on trade reform and fixing the Bureaucracy.  My dad was able to see Rubio and Christie and he liked them both and what they had to say, but I cannot comment beyond that for I did not see them.

Trump and Cruz were both absent from the Primary instead doing their own thing.   In this case Cruz accepted an endorsement from Glenn Beck, the spiritual leader of the Tea Party and the Owner of the Blaze network.  I was able to watch that live and needless to say Glenn Beck's intro was strong.  Cruz followed up with his acceptance of the endorsement by discussing how he was going to be a true conservative even on the campaign trail if he gets the nomination.  His reasoning was that everyone is conservative during the nomination process, but goes moderate in the general election.  Cruz promised not to do that and be real all the way through to the end.

Sadly I was not able to hear a literal peep out of Trump.  He did not receive coverage or I potentially missed him from the point I turned on the TV.  

Now we wait to see if anything these Candidates said will impact the upcoming debate on Fox News this Thursday.

Hope you enjoyed the snow storm (well I sure did cause it kept me in the house long enough to watch the primaries, something I did so yall don't have to lol).  See you all tomorrow.

A quote by David Bowie

In honor of David Bowie (actor, singer and more) I present a quote by him.

The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time.

What does this mean?  Simply put, David Bowie did not see life as a bunch of small journeys or even a big one.  Instead he saw life from a day to day perspective (at least this is the case if I am interpreting this correctly).  Basically, we all come and go and change ourselves all at the same time.  There is no real end goal or any treasure at the end, but instead it is what we take from life and leave behind in each waking moment of every day.  It is our choices that influence what happens to us and our potential.

Final Thought:  This means that Bowie saw life as something that is constantly changing and altering.  It is essentially chaos, and we simply try to make sense of it.  I disagree on the part of there being no journey, but I do agree that life is about hellos and goodbyes, and what comes of those hellos and goodbyes.

The Republican Debate: Reaction

So last Thursday there was another Republican Debate (another will be held in the coming weeks).  Here is my reaction to it.

Ben Carson:  While a very nice man, and most certainly smart, he does not come off as tough enough to handle Washington or ISIS.  He struggled to get his words out, which demonstrates that he is no politician, but he looked too soft.

Governor Christie: As usual he comes off as a member of the Sopranos cast.  He got the voice and the guile to crush his opposition.  However, he is out shown by Trump and he also seems abrasive.  To make matters worse he believes in global warming and a few other democratic ideals which makes him less liked to the conservatives who actually will be choosing the Republican Presidential Candidate.

Governor Jeb Bush:  Another good candidate who like Christie has some liberal views.  He is also too soft spoken like Carson.  However, he did speak clearly and showed his smarts, but he needs to put some more passion into his speeches otherwise he is out.

Governor Kasich:  All I heard was Ohio this and Ohio that from him.   Yes, he did a good job as Ohio governor and is a capable leader, but people do not want to hear about Ohio, they want what Trump is dishing out.

Senator Marco Rubio:  Another great contender, and he knows his way around washington.  However as a main contender next to Cruz and Trump, all I heard was attacks and no substance.  He performed better in the other debates when he talked about what he wants to try and accomplish.

Senator Ted Cruz: Cruz being the current front man was attacked from all sides.  He successfully fended off Trump with his accusations of not being able to run due to issues of him being born in Canada to American Parents, but fumbled in his comment on New York values (socially liberal values).  Also, Rubio attacked Cruzes voting record, to which Cruz used his time wisely to address some of the criticisms leaving the rest for the post debate interviews.  He proved why he is a debate champion and a Constitutional litigator.  At the moment, Cruz, for being the smartest when it comes to law and his understanding of Constitution is my main guy.

Donald Trump:  Still the biggest mouth in the room, he surprised us in the debate.  He went into some details on taxes which showed off that he's smarter than his hairdo and even said openly that Cruz was on his short list to be his Vice President,  Cruz responded that if he wins the nomination Trump is on his short list, to which Trump agreed to be his VP, which is assuming Trump was being honest.  Overall Trump pulled a good performance despite my distaste for his anger harnessing voting machine.

Final Thought:  Fox went the way of the other networks and asked questions based on popularity, but they allowed each candidate to say their peace.  As such, the debate went an extra 20 minutes which I liked.  However, I am sad to say my ideal candidate (Rand Paul) is relegated with Carly Fiorina to the pre-debate debate with candidates who are least likely to get the nomination.  I think overall this debate was one of the better ones and that the front runners are Trump, Cruz and Rubio.  Who the republicans end up choosing remains to be seen however.

M.I.C.E.

M.I.C.E is an acronym used by the intelligence community for the terms Money, Ideology, Coercion, and Ego.  It is usually used to describe how spies are recruited, but it can also describe how terrorists, gang members, and even businesses recruit people.  I may have talked about this M.I.C.E. before, but I will talk about it again due to its importance and application.

It is important to know why people are joining things like ISIS/ISIL.  In this instance most people will hear from politicians that it is due to the M in M.I.C.E., Money.  Sure, it is an excellent recruiting tool as many in the Middle East, Africa, and central Asia are generally impoverished compared to us Americans and Europeans.  However, they are not primarily joining for that.  People do not just die for money, especially young men and women who are willing to blow themselves up (this includes educated doctors in England, Military psychologists in Texas and college Students in Boston).  Instead it is the I in M.I.C.E., the ideology.  This Islam fascism existing within Islam, especially ISIS/ISIL, wants to cause as much havoc as possible to usher in the end of days.  They want world war three because they believe that it will summon the great Imam, and Jesus, who will force all to convert to Islam or they will die.  ISIS/ISIL wants an Islamic State that obeys Islamic law, or at least their own version of it that enslaves women, and makes all none Muslims lives worth nothing.  Additionally, they will try to use the C in M.I.C.E. to convert Christians to Islam, and Muslims who do not believe in the cause.  The C stands for Coercion, and in the case of converting peaceful Muslims and Christians they take everything they own to pressure them and then threaten their lives to either convert or die.  E for ego is also used, but this is used to reinforce the ideology of the ISIS members to say how great they are and flatter them into thinking that they are divine soldiers.  In doing this, it prevents people questioning the ideology and the leadership as they are basically receiving positive reinforcement for murdering others.

Final Thought:  I keep wondering why we are not doing more to counter the ideology, by presenting the ideology of other Muslims who preach peace and cooperation.  It makes no sense to me save that the ISIS/ISIL being politically and militarily useful.  The United States does not like Assad, and the current government of Syria, they do not like Hezbollah in Lebanon, and they need a proxy war with Russia who is allied with Syria.  It makes too much sense and is a repeat of the cold war (assuming that it actually ended, and we haven't just changed enemies instead).  Any case it is important to know and understand what is going on and I hope this helped.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Today we remember America's 20th century martyr Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  He is the one that lead the successful movement that enshrined the idea that despite your skin color we are all equal with respect to our natural God given rights.   This man preached love and succeeded with a message of nonviolence.  Let us remember this American hero and what he died for.

God Bless Dr. King and Thank You.

Quote: Don't Cry because it's over. Smile because it happened

 Don't Cry because it's over. Smile because it happened, by Dr. Seuss.  This quote is fairly simple, but packed full of meaning.  Basically, we are sad when things come to an end.  We fret about it, from simple things like a day with family, to the end of a marriage.  However, we should smile instead of cry.  We smile because the memories formed, the lessons learned and the happiness brought are more important than not experiencing the moment, or the time of your life.  Every moment matters and that makes life worth smiling about.

Final Thought:  I reflect on life a lot.  I want to see if I made mistakes (which I know I have done on occasion).  However, I find that wherever there is a mistake I made, a sorrow I experienced, I cannot find that I regret any of it.  In fact I smile because I avoid making that mistake once again.  I smile for the lessons learned and how ultimately my life is happier by having made those mistakes and experienced those sorrows.  It is then I reflect on all the happy memories I have experienced and know that life no matter how hard, how much we may have terrible luck can and is worth living.  So remember to smile always, for deep inside you there's happiness.

Republican Response to President Obama

It has kind of become tradition where the opposing party puts up someone to do an opposing speech to follow a President's State of the Union address.  In this case it is Republican Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina.  Here is a rundown of what she said.

Starting off, she says basically that President Obama did not do as well as President as he claimed he did.  She cited the 18 trillion dollars in debt, shortages of doctors and that ISIS/ISIL and similar are a major threat implying that Obama is simply playing such threats down.  I tend to agree on these issues because the debt is so high that it can actually cause an economic collapse, and the issues with doctor shortages and other problems in the health industry are due partially as a result of Obama Care (the affordable care act).  Of course if you are a regular reader, you know already what I think of ISIS/ISIL.  Haley also addressed success made in her State and the tragedy and people's reactions to the Charleston Church shootings

In the next part, Governor Haley says Republicans are partially to blame for all the problems the government has caused.  Also she stated that she and fellow republicans know that the people are frustrated with government, its broken promises and the country's direction.

Next she addressed the immigration issue and the refugee issue at the same time.  She said that the country must not shut its doors, but it cannot accept refugees from Syria (due to the security concerns).  She did say that illegal immigration must cease and that legal immigration must take place without discrimination on religion.  Basically, if you want a person from Syria, then they have to become an official U.S. citizen and go through the normal process (at least that is what I got out of it).

Finally she said that with the coming elections Republicans will address a number of issues.  Those issues are lowering taxes, deregulation and tackling the debt all to improve the economy.  There will be education reform that will eschew the government and its interference and instead be built around parents, students and teachers.  Our military will be strengthened, Obama Care will end and the separation of powers as outlined by the Constitution will be respected (i.e. the use of executive orders by the President, potentially overreach by government agencies and possibly the legislating from the bench by the Supreme Court).  Finally, both the second amendment (right to bear arms) and the 10th (State's rights) will also be honored.

Final thought:  That is the speech in a nutshell.  If you are a Republican, or Conservative, then you really liked the speech (especially as Haley is a contender for the Republican vice Presidential spot).  For me as a libertarian though, the good part was the State's rights, 2nd amendment stuff and the part on restoring the separation of powers in government.  Everything else I just thought to myself, ok, how are the Republicans going to do any of this with a guy like Donald Trump if he gets the nomination.  As a matter of fact how will they get any of this accomplished period?  But that is me as a libertarian speaking.  Anyway, it was an ok speech that is suitable for an election year, I just hope that if the Republicans win, they can keep the promises they made here.

State of the Union Reaction

Last night I watched the State of the Union, President Obama's final address to Congress and the nation (at least as far as we know).  Let us break down what Obama wanted to say and do.  

What the President called for was to cure cancer appointing Vice President Biden to the head of that effort.  This is something nice, even if I as a libertarian think the private sector should be the mover and shaker in this effort.  I can't really get made at wanting to cure cancer.   Likewise President Obama wants to put us on track to defeat HIV/Aids and the eradication of Malaria.  On the side, President Obama said it should be the U.S. leading the way on these and also on Energy reform which I agree with (go patriotism).  He also mentioned that Oil and Gas prices should reflect the cost of their impact on society (climate change), thus this may be lingo for cap and trade which I do not agree with.

President Obama wants to make it easier to vote and to make the nation less partisan.  As such he asked for bipartisan committees to be made to draw up congressional districts.  This is currently being done in a couple of States including California as it is realized that the redistricting process can increase the political divide.  Likewise President Obama will be doing a speaking tour to encourage States to alter their rules to increase access and modernize our voting system.  This effort is basically going to be a speaking tour as States handle these issues. (While talking about this issue, President Obama was humble and sincere).

He also talked about modernizing welfare.  In this case he wants unemployment to include job training, to have wage insurance so that even between jobs people can pay their bills, and even if going from job to job to be able to save for retirement.  The President also wishes to "strengthen" Social Security and Medicare.  How all this will be done is not defined.  

Additionally President Obama wants Pre-K to be instituted throughout the country as a means of giving children a head start on their education (also it allows parents to go to work while the kids are away as well).  Obama wants hands on computer science and math classes as well for computers are an integral to the future of business.  Finally with regard to education, Obama wants the two years of community college to be free.

Obama also talked foreign policy.  He said in many words that his methods to fighting ISIS/ISIL were correct and that it was the best way to avoid a quagmire.  Likewise he says that the coalition he formed is working to fight ISIS/ISIL.  Whether you believe him on this or not is up to you especially with nearly a quarter of a million people dead and many more displaced.  Obama also said that ISIS/ISIL are killers and fanatics, but not Muslim (at least not the Muslim he knows) and said that if Congress wants him to do different and send troops then they should vote to declare war.

Finally, President Obama wants to aid the economy by cutting regulations, and ease rules for startups.  He also said that good corporations with good business practices should be rewarded and thus their stock holders in those good companies would be rewarded as well.  What this means exactly is not clear, and it could mean anything from tax breaks to economic rewards and contracts.

Final thought:  The rest of the speech was the President saying how successful he was.  Though by rest I mean maybe 20 out of the 70 or so minutes he spoke.  Overall he said some nice things with respect to aiding small businesses and helping America's job seekers (hopefully it is done in a streamlined and inexpensive way).  I disagree on ISIS/ISIL as we will at this point in time have to send troops and expect that war to expand if we expect it to end.  With respect to the free stuff, I say "with what money" though money did not stop big government before.  I truthfully want details on some of the smaller stuff mentioned as he said he wants to address legal and illegal drug use, immigration, and criminal justice and gun issues. 

 I can never give a speech like this a ten out of ten for ideological reasons, but as basically a farewell speech to the nation on what President Obama wants to address in his last year, I think he made his point that he got a lot of what he wanted to accomplish (he mentioned killing Osama Bin Laden once) and basically said now if you want more of me, then go out and vote this coming election with the possible undertone that if Hillary or Sanders does not win, you'll probably get Trump.  This is what I got out of it and I hope you enjoyed my little summary and opinion points.  Tomorrow we will have the summary of the Republicans reaction to Obama's State of the Union speech.

ISIS Video and its implications

Recently on the news you probably saw a video with ISIS members showing how they made a battery to power missiles that were traditionally used on aircraft.  Additionally, it also showed how they were turning a car into a remote control bomb.  Obviously this shows that ISIS/ISIL is growing in strength and ability, but it also shows something else.  It shows that the poor alone are not the only ones to join ISIS.  Instead, as many have suspected in the intelligence community and military analysts on the news have said, that ISIS/ISIL and other islamic groups that resort to terrorism are made up of ideological individuals and not people driven by money.  These people want to usher in the end times and intelligent and well educated individuals like the doctor in England, and the boston bombers here in the U.S. have been ensnared by a radical ideology existing within Islam.

Final Thought:  This is going to continue.  We have to tackle the issue of radical islam soon or else it will continue to take innocent Muslims and convince them to turn to hatred and darkness like a disease.  All must stand and come together to say enough is enough, and crush the ISIS/ISIL threat before they can corrupt anyone else.

Bernie Sanders, Global Warming and ISIS

Ok, my opinion and mine alone, but Mr. Sanders is not thinking straight.  He believes that global warming is causing terrorism.  His reasoning is simple.  Global warming cause’s depletion of crops and other natural resources, and that leads to poverty.  That poverty makes for a prime recruiting tool for the members of terror groups to recruit from.  Problem, it is not about the money.  Radical ideological Muslims are the issue, not money.  Sure money helps, but it does not make anyone want to blow themselves up and become a mass murderer.  You need an ideology to back it up.  Also, even if Bernie was right and that issues with farming and natural resources were the problem, global warming only affects crops and food, not mining and factories.  Mining for oil does not suffer from global warming, and thus continues to profit off of.  Trading goods and construction is also unaffected as well.  So it clearly does not make sense when there are other jobs to be had.  We could argue a lack of jobs, but the Middle East is sorely lacking in many ways with respect to livable spaces due to desert and water access.  Their living conditions basically limit their livelihoods.  So even without the global warming attachment, the Middle East will still have problems with job access.  Oh wait, there are jobs, as we are paying millions in taxpayer dollars to teach them to be veterinarians, doctors, mechanical engineers and so on.  Also, they are rebuilding from war and thus there is numerous construction jobs, and even jobs in a depleted military and police force.  Long story short, Mr. Sanders has no clue about the region.

Final Thought:  Bernie Sanders is not meant to win the upcoming election.  He is simply a fall guy to make Hillary Clinton look good.  Sure he talks all nice about equality and getting back at the wealthy, but they are not the issues at hand.  It is job access, and getting the government off our backs.  Poll after poll that I have heard on the news says that the number two problem America faces is the government itself, and this is right after the economy and/or terrorism.  While Sanders means well, and will tax us up to our eyeballs to accomplish his promises (he did say that everyone's taxes would go up), he is not capable of being America's President in my opinion.

Issue 737 Church of atheism: Deities January 8, 2016

Yes, deities (aka gods) are also affected by atheism.  So what do atheists have to do with them anyway?  Read on to find out.

Deities and atheism:  There is apparently few ways to look at deities of the past through the lens of atheism.  The first is simply as tall tales/fairy tales.  In this instance, the stories become just that, stories that may impart lessons and morality, or simply act as entertainment.  Another was that these deities were once simply real people with real accomplishments whose successes were elevated overtime and elevated to a god like status.  The best example is in Buddhism with the Buddha who was a man that was elevated to a god.  And finally, the other method of view is that these deities were either super humans or aliens and that the primitive peoples of earth worshipped them as gods.  No, I am not kidding as Adolf Hitler and his staff believed the ancient pagan gods were supermen and that the Aryans were their descendants whose abilities and powers were corrupted over time by impure blood.  Needless to say, Hitler took this to the extreme and also believed in the occult.  If there are other views on who and what these deities are I do not know.  If you believe in God, then you could even say that they were fallen angels that tried to rebel and become gods of their own.  In the end we all end up believing in whatever we want and atheists can qualify whether any of them existed or not in any way they wish.  

Conclusion:  The first and second seem like the most likely scenario with respect to these deities and why they exist (my opinion if I was thinking from an atheist's perspective).  Reason being is that the ancient us made people and their accomplishments into legends and then added fake characters and made them just as great or greater for their heroes/gods to overcome.  In the end we have the gods of Japan, Olympus and the north and more.  Of course it would be really crazy if there really were super beings/aliens, but we leave all these possibilities to theory.

Issue 736 Church of Atheism: Worship January 7, 2016

Do atheists worship anything?  That is the question I attempt to answer in today's issue.

Worship in atheism:  From what I have seen/heard, despite atheists not having a God or religion, they seem to be divided in my observation in beliefs on spirits, otherworldly beings and even ghosts.  Some simply just worship nature itself and can be considered spiritual and they try to attune themselves to the worlds and universes natural order.  However, this group may go further and believe in spirits and even sometimes demons and ghosts.   Now if you abide by creation myths, spirits and potentially demons are all created by God or a set of gods.  So it seems counter intuitive.  However, I think some simply want to believe in something more.  They wish to see beyond as atheists generally believe that aliens can exist, so why not creatures that we generally cannot see.  How does this help them in any way however?  Does it reinforce values or morals?  Depending on what is worshipped and how, it can.  For instance, Chinese atheism which seems to have eaten Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism believes in ancestor worship.  In this, they believe the dead watch over them, and that if they fail in life then they will be forgotten by the family due to their failures.  Basically, if you are not worth remembering, you will be ignored as you did not leave the family anything of note to remember you by. This concept has the individuals trying to improve themselves and be successful while asking their ancestors for guidance, hence maintaining a productive society and a moralistic one at that (families do not want to be stained with the disgrace of a thief or murderer in their families).  Likewise, some atheists believe in karma (with good deeds giving positive energy and bad negative), and additionally reincarnation.  In this, the individuals do not want to be reincarnated as something like a slug.  Of course there are other atheists who I have met that simply believe in nothing.  They do not have spiritualism, or worship nature, and thus go along with society and its whims.  This last category of atheist I perceive as potentially dangerous as they may be in my opinion more prone to groupthink and thus mob mentality. 

Conclusion:  I will not say that atheists are more dangerous than people with religious beliefs.  In fact, I would say in general that believers and non-believers alike are equally dangerous due to ideology, beliefs and mob mentality.  However, believing in nothing or not having a bedrock of ground rules to support morality and strong character poses dangers for future generations.  I have a few atheists say that simply feeling bad (a consciousness) is enough, but a conscience is developed and fostered through life experiences and the people around you.  So if the people around you teach you it is ok to kill, then you would not feel bad about it (extreme example, but you get the point).  To me, atheists need to organize to create a set of bedrock principles, a foundation if you will so as to prevent total non-believers and similar from losing the basic morals and character lessons needed to maintain a society.

Issue 735 Church Of Atheism: Sexuality January 6, 2016

So under Atheism, rules about normal sexuality begin to fall apart.  As such, what would the sexual culture look like without religion?  Let us discuss.

Sex and Atheism:  In atheism (or at least true atheism where judgments and societal stigmas have disappeared as atheists believe that without religion discrimination of peoples would not exist) a person can be any gender, sex, or gender identity.  Issues of people of different races and ages (age of consent would probably be pushed to the lowest possible), having sexual relations would potentially disappear.  So a 40 year old can get it on with a 19 year old or even a 17 year old and there would not be a problem.  Sexual relations between people of the same sex or genders would not be frowned upon.  Even fetishes would be accepted to a degree based on agreed upon societal norms if any with respect to sex.  Truth be told, sex under atheism would resemble that of ancient Greece and Rome where you can pretty much have sex with anyone you want. Even sex for money or some other form of gain would be allowed if society is willing to accept it.  As such, society would be the decider of what is an acceptable sex practice assuming that society even cares about what you do in the bedroom.

Gender roles will also disappear, with men and women's clothes becoming interchangeable.  As such a man can wear a skirt, a woman can bare their chest, or you can be dressed in a diaper for all people care.  In true atheism, there is no gender either. So there is complete sexual freedom and with that gender identity freedom and the way you express that gender and sexuality as well (yes you can even go nude too).  The idea here is that love becomes just that, "LOVE" and nothing else.  No religion (which set the rules of marriage) or even to an extent governmental rules (derived from religious rules) deciding who can love who.  In this instance, there is no marriage either as marriage is a religious institution.  As such couplings (I do not have a better word for it) become the norm.  A coupling is when two people come together who are in love and then agree to be mutually exclusive with one another or this can even be between multiple people as well with respect to people who love more than one single person.  These couplings can also be formed so as to raise children (adopted or naturally born).  Essentially it is a completely new dynamic with respect to relationships, whereas divorce no longer exists and people can simply say they do not love each other anymore and just up and leave their now former significant other behind.  

Conclusion:  With complete and total sexual freedom and also gender and personal identity, people can love people any way they want.  From paternal, and platonic to full on sex addicts and fetishes, all become acceptable (potentially even relations between blood relatives if no rules are set).  Well this is my view on it if we get pure atheism and lose the values imparted to us through religion (I am and will always be Catholic).  I am not really complaining either, as I believe in pure love myself, I just think we need some rules here with respect to blood relatives and children under a certain age (these rules were originally established via religion).  Overall, this sexual freedom fits with libertarianism, but people just need to be ready for it.

Issue 734 Andrew Garfield and Spider Man January 5, 2016

Welcome to first issue of 2016 (well real issue article).  In this article we will discuss Andrew Garfield and his opinion on the leak from Sony about Spiderman remaining a heterosexual white male.  Let us start.

Spiderman and Garfield:  Firstly for those who do not know, Garfield is the actor who played the role of Spiderman/Peter Parker in the second set of Spiderman movies.  Sure, some of you are saying, why do we care about an actor's opinion on a comic book character?  Well this is because he is right in his opinion (in my opinion).  Garfield did not like the fact that Sony wanted Spider Man to remain a heterosexual white male (Sony wants to keep spider man in this formula because it is seen as a money maker especially as Spider Man is the number one most popular superhero in America).  You see, it is not about money or the fact that Spider man is white that Garfield has a problem with (at least this is how I see it based on what I read).  His problem is that Spider Man is an opportunity.  Spiderman can be pansexual, any gender, sex or gender identity.  Under the mask, Spiderman can be any skin color.  Basically, Garfield wants people to see skin color as just skin, love as love etc.  As such, anyone can then picture themselves as the character.  Andrew Garfield wants Spiderman to be the everyman's/women's hero as they can picture themselves as that hero saving the day.  To a certain extent, Marvel comics has done this with their art, comics and I believe their TV shows at times with their multiverse.  Marvel has a Black/hispanic Spiderman, a few women Spiderman's and a couple of other variations.  In truth, many of Marvel's characters are just like Spiderman, nearly all of them wear a mask so that anyone can take up the mantel of that hero (Did you know there was at least two Black Captain America's and now a female Thor).  DC has done this somewhat with Green Lantern as well.  So at least with books, comics and art, what Garfield hopes for is coming true.

Conclusion:  So we now have to wait a little bit for what Garfield hopes to happen to happen in the movies with respect to a major character (FYI, Nick Fury was originally a white guy with an eyepatch, but was changed to black and this was eventually written into the comics as to how we went from one Nick Fury to the current Nick Fury portrayed by Samuel L Jackson).  We may just have to give it time as companies like Marvel, DC, and even Disney fear losing large chunks of their fan base (or at least losing their money as they are a for profit companies after all).  Time will tell, but I do support Garfield's vision (if I am interpreting it right), and there's no reason we cannot have a movie featuring all the Spiderman's meet (girls and non-white Spiderman's included) which is an already published comic.  What do you think?  Want to see a chick in a Spiderman suit, or a cool punk rocker spider man?  I think I am ready for the potential possibilities and the fun.

Iran and Saudi Arabia

Apparently, Saudi Arabia executed a non-violent Shiite Muslim cleric recently and it has created a serious situation between them and Iran.

Backstory:  The cleric in question, Nimr Al-Nimr, had called for the peaceful dissolution of the Saudi royal family back during the Arab Spring.  Additionally, he was a Shiite cleric in a minority Shiite neighborhood (Shiites are generally repressed by the Sunni Muslim majority). He had influence among the Shiite members of the Saudi Arabia community however and thus in 2012 Al-Nimr was arrested and imprisoned.  Al-Nimrs brother called for peaceful protests to have him set free.  These protests were not all peaceful and then after Al-Nimrs execution tensions heightened including attacks on embassies.   The results is that both countries banished each others dignitaries and they have cut all relations.  What is more serious is the resulting saber rattling going on between the two including Iran promising divine retribution.  If this should erupt in violence there is no doubt that ISIS/ISIL will side with Saudi Arabia.  Additionally, the Shiite communities will likely side with Iran and thus cause the middle east to erupt in greater violence with Iraq potentially crushed between the two warring countries.

Final Thought:  This is a serious situation and needs to be paid attention to.  We already have what amounts to a proxy war between the United States and Russia with respect to ISIS/ISIL and the Syrian conflict.  World War III is well in hand in my view and its escalation bodes ill for the world at large.

Happy New Year

Welcome to 2016.  A year that I hope bodes well as opposed to the mistakes and mishaps of last year.  We got terrorists to rout, a society that needs to stop its groupthink and think independently, and an election at the end of the year that will determine the direction the United States will go in for years to come.  I do not know what will become of us, or my country, the United States, but sue me for I keep wishing for a fairy tale ending.  May your start of the new year be bright and productive.

Happy New Year