JimStaple's Xanga

I'm Not Dead!

Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:23:49 GMT

About a month and a half ago I realized that life and work were ganging up on me and I was going to have to take a short break. Well....
Almost 6 weeks later I am just now able to get back to Xanga and do some blogging.
There will be new entries soon. It's nice to see that even though I wasn't posting for some time,
people were still responding to each other and debating in the Comments section of my last blog.
There is some really good writing, reasoning and debating in there.
(And then there's Bokanovskopia's comments. Ah me, some things will never change.)

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Wed, 23 May 2007 18:15:42 GMT

The Truth About Al Gore

Since my last post was about Al Gore, I've gotten a few responses, publicly and privately, that have the same tone to them. They basically have the tenor of Oh, you know that Al Gore, you can't trust anything he says, he's a well-known liar. And there stands an interesting fact about 21st Century life in America and it's relation to the Media. Everyone knows that the Mainstream Media (or MSM, as some bloggers like to acronymize it) is overwhelmingly Liberal. Everyone knows this. If something even a little bit Conservative makes it to the MSM, well, it's a miracle and/or it's a mistake and it doesn't happen very often. Or does it? If you go to mediamatters.org, you can see on a daily basis how the MSM skew news to the Conservative side. And they don't just state it, they back it up with citations and proof. I would submit this to you: Any large corporation is going to be Conservative, generally. A large corporation has to follow government regulations, they have to work with the Congress and the Executive Branch, and they need to have good public relations and not offend any significant portion of the general population (read: current or potential customers). News organizations in America, and world-wide, are large corporations. They are generally Conservative. I know, this all comes as quite a shock because we've all been told countless times how the MSM is Liberal. People will always trot out polls that show how a majority of news reporters are Liberal to prove their point. Well, I've got news for you folks: the reporters don't get to pick the stories that they want to cover, they don't have control over how they're edited and they don't decide which stories make it to the paper/air or if they are instead buried or totally quashed altogether. Those decisions are made by editors, publishers and owners. And those people tend to be on the Conservative side.
It's like this: Let's say there's a wealthy Evangelical Christian who has just constructed a Bible factory in a small town in America. For whatever reason, this town has had a recent influx of Middle Eastern Muslim refugees to it.
(What could they possibly need refuge from? Never mind, back to the point.)
He hires these people to work at his factory, printing the Bibles, binding the Bibles, boxing and shipping the Bibles. It's obvious that his Bibles aren't going to be legitimate Bibles. Why? Well, he's got Muslims doing all the production of these Bibles, and they don't believe in Christ, therefore, they aren't legitimate Bibles.
But how is that? This owner is a Conservative Christian, the foremen and supervisors are all Conservative Christian, and the product is the Holy Book of Christianity. So how are they not legitimate Bibles?
Well, they are, of course. It really doesn't matter that the people at the lowest end of the production are Muslim. It has absolutely no effect on the end product at all. Someone who accuses these Bibles of not being legitimate doesn't understand the product and the process and really doesn't know what he or she is talking about.
And so it is with the media, it doesn't matter how Liberal reporters are, it's the Conservatism of the organization that really decides what will go out or not and how it will go out or not.
For a good primer on news and whether it's really Liberal or Conservative, or for that matter, generally trustworthy, you should read "The Press vs. Al Gore: How lazy reporting, pack journalism and GOP spin cost him the election" from November 26, 2001 in Rolling Stone magazine. It's an eye-opening piece of journalism that shows what really drives stories, and it's not necessarily Liberalism or Conservatism.
Here's the address for the article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore
Enjoy!

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Thu, 17 May 2007 17:24:22 GMT

The War On Reality

(Or, How Al Gore Wrote A Book Dealing With A Great Concern Of Mine)

Al Gore has a new book coming out entitled "The Assault on Reason". It deals with what I've been referring to for several years as the Right-Wing "War On Reality". His book and my thinking seem to go hand-in-hand from what I've read so far. It's worth checking out an excerpt.
BTW, he doesn't spare too many people or groups in the bit I read; there's enough blame and shirking of responsibility to go around, he feels, and I agree.
Here's the link to the excerpt:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1622015,00.html
I will be getting around to writing the blog regarding homosexuality and the Bible, as promised, as soon as possible.
It's just been an incredibly busy week.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Mon, 14 May 2007 16:40:55 GMT

Homosexuality

Phase 1

The following article is for both public and private responders of my last several blogs.
I initially read it in the syndicated column "News of the Weird" many years ago. The study seems to validate both my claims and the very old idea that what some people violently hate in the world is really just a manifestation what they really hate and fear in themselves.

New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

August 1996 Press Release

WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'

Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'

Article: 'Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?' by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.

The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington,DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 142,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 49 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.

Friday, May 11, 2007

Fri, 11 May 2007 17:21:40 GMT

Smelting Down "SwordAndSacrifice"

(Part 3 Of A Series That Will Be Longer Than Should Be Necessary)

So, what is all this leading up to? Well, if you've been following along so far you can't be surprised by what I'm going to write next. I believe SwordAndSacrifice is a closet homosexual. That's right. It's all there:
His hatred and fear of gays and his citing of Biblical references to support his positions, his belief that homosexuality is a disease that you can catch, his rejection of the genetic/heredity/biological evidence regarding homosexuality. Because, he has members of his family that are gay, and if he admits to the scientific evidence relating to gayness, he might have to admit some things that he's kept bottled up inside of him for his most of his life. His extreme Right-Wing, homophobic views presumably help him to drown out the voice in his head that keeps urging him on to come out and stop living a lie. He probably hoped his religious beliefs, along with his marriage and children, would finally stop the nagging feeling in his soul that the heterosexual life isn't right for him. More than anything, he wants that feeling to go away. But the attraction can't be denied for him, so it erupts out in religiously righteous rants about homosexuals and "their ways", "their recruitment agenda", "their secret plans", "their disgusting behavior", and the like.
It's all sooo transparent.
And all it has resulted in is a man who is almost constantly, furiously angry and unhappy; and he may not even realize why he's so angry and unhappy. He sees it all as a conspiracy theory because he feels trapped by his gay feelings and deep down he wants to believe that he's simply being adversely affected by this great evil gay juggernaut.
As Bill Maher once said, after the umpteenth gay scandal involving a Right-Wing preacher and/or politician,
"I don't mean to say that all these Religious Right folks that vigorously condemn homosexuality are all gay, but, all these Religious Right folks that vigorously condemn homosexuality are all gay."
So let it out SAS. I know, it will require a radical reorganization of your thinking, but, come on, it's been a long time coming and you know it. And besides, you'll have finally released your burden and biggest fear.
Because, someone definitely "Protesteth Too Much", and it surely isn't me.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Thu, 10 May 2007 16:13:06 GMT

Smelting Down "SwordAndSacrifice"

(Part 2 Of A Series That Will Be Longer Than Should Be Necessary)

Following are some quotes from a blog that SwordAndSacrifice wrote earlier this year about a young family friend who had realized she was gay. That blog, BTW, was titled "In Mourning".
Here they are:
"I am not bogged down in how this impacts me personally, although it again heightens my awareness of the recruitment agenda of the homosexual community."
"While the occasional lip service would be paid to its status as a sin, no parental figure in Lynette's family clearly and repeatedly stated that homosexuality was a sin in the eyes of God."
"I weep because the Church has lost another one to the enemy."
"But, how much more of Christ's blood is left to cover sins which we convince ourselves are no longer sins?"
Another Xanga blogger (not me, BTW) read SAS's blog and quoted some of what SAS wrote, some of which I reprinted above, but he also cited some different quotes, such as:
["Lynette's parents.....were typically very reluctant to make outward condemnations of homosexuality." "...no parental figure in Lynette's family clearly and repeatedly stated that homosexuality was a sin in the eyes of God." "One of the members of Lynette's extended family came out to everyone when Lynette was in early/mid adolescence." "Lynette's parents allowed an openly homosexual young man who was a high school classmate of hers to live with the family for several months..."]
This blogger then asked:
"Are you implying that this contributed to her being homosexual? Just clarifying."
He posted some more quotes:
["...it again heightens my awareness of the recruitment agenda of the homosexual community." "I also have family members that have succumb to the recruiting."]
He then asked:
"You guys are kidding, right?"
SAS's response:
"To clarify: yes, it contributed.
And, no, I'm not kidding."

There you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen, another fine scientific theorem put forward by SAS.
Homosexuality is a disease, spread by exposure and contact. The only vaccine against it is for a family to chant to their children over and over again, "Homosexuality is a sin! Homosexuality is a sin! God hates homosexuality! Don't become a homosexual! Stay away from them or you'll catch it!"
(I guess the next step after that is to join the Westboro Baptist Church.)
Here's what I don't understand, if sexual recruitment actually works, and if all these people really believe that the Devil is leading people astray sexually and if God is certainly more powerful than the Devil; then why aren't all these Christians out there trying to re-recruit these folks back to the right side of sexuality. Or does sexual recruitment only work one way, the bad way? Is the Devil's sexuality stronger than God's sexuality?
When I confronted SAS on the ideas presented in that blog, I brought up other points from an article that he had posted a link to, and he went ballistic when I brought them up. (The article, among other things, had linked homosexuality and pedophilia, a prevalent "theory" among Christofascists that they use to promote their agenda. This link is conclusively disproven in actual, reputable scientific research.) He then quoted Shakespeare, "Methinks thou doth protesteth too much.", in a clear insinuation that I'm gay. I'm not, as I wrote back to him, but it doesn't offend me to be called such as I don't think that there's anything wrong with it. This elementary-school-level taunt shows the state of SAS's maturity and thinking processes. (BTW, you can say that you think I'm Asian too, I'll correct you and state that I am not. I also won't be offended because I don't think that there's anything wrong with being Asian.)
That's enough for now, Part 3 will delve even deeper into the thinking and attitudes of SwordAndSacrifice and explain what he needs to do to feel better.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Wed, 09 May 2007 19:12:32 GMT

Smelting Down "SwordAndSacrifice"

(Part 1 Of A Series That Will Be Longer Than Should Be Necessary)

My new, awe-inspiring Xanga idol (and, hopefully, new best friend) Sk8toRChiq101lol, has written the most amazing, scathing, dead-on-target writings ever authored about many people's Xanga nemesis, SwordAndSacrifice. I don't want to do much more than encourage people to go over to SAS's site to read his incredibly wrong-headed blog entitled "Sin As An Antiquated Concept"; totally for Sk8toRChiq101lol's brilliant responses to him. She wrote another response after her first 2, which he then deleted due to his dishonest and disingenuous blog rules which claim that no one can post on his site if they don't post on their own site, and then, of course, he blocked her. (A marvelously, dictatorially, totalitarian peek into the mind, so to speak, of SAS.) Of course, it doesn't account for why her first 2 posts are still up on his blog or why she posted before and he didn't delete her or block her when she had previously posted on his site. The real truth is, you can post on SAS's site until you piss him off, then he'll delete you and block you and give any number of reasons why. But it's really because he doesn't think or argue very well and he gets so flustered and frustrated when people disagree with him that he acts out like the little boy that he is. He does the blogosphere equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears, alternately humming and shouting, "I'm not listening, I'm not listening, I'm not listening!!!".
Her deleted response from his blog is now posted on her Xanga site, I encourage people to go over there and read that too.
Part 2 of this series (hopefully arriving tomorrow) will involve a closer look at SwordAndSacrifice, his extreme homophobia and it's likely roots.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Wed, 02 May 2007 17:23:20 GMT

What no one has brought up re:
the Virginia Tech shootings, still
(And one thing that was dealt with, at least)

Down in Virginia on Monday, the Governor there issued an executive order requiring that a database of people banned from buying guns include the name of anyone who is found to be dangerous and ordered to get involuntary mental health treatment. This effectively closes the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to get the weapons he bought to perpertrate his deadly shooting spree. The NRA has wisely remained silent on this order, as far as I can see.

But, still no one has brought my point into the national debate on this incident and gun laws, which is: Why are non-citizens allowed to buy guns in this country? Isn't this a national-security and terrorism issue? I think it should be. Let's be smart and close not only the mental health loophole nation-wide, but the citizenship gun-owning issue as well.

Monday, April 30, 2007

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:48:21 GMT

Evolution

(Part 2 of an Infinite Series)

My 2nd post on evolution is short and simple:
For those of you that believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism, please state the facts about what makes your theory true to you. Please be specific and cite facts and research regarding ID and C that makes the point about the validity of them.
Thanks!

Friday, April 27, 2007

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:21:25 GMT

Evolution

(Part 1 of an Infinite Series)

Here it is, one day late, my foray into a topic I know everyone can agree on.
(Cue tremendous laughter.)
I believe in evolution. It makes sense to me and I've examined a lot of the evidence for it to seem logical and sensible to me. And my God, above all else, is a logical God. Now, one of the first things you get from an anti-evolutionist after stating that, is something like this, "See, he believes in evolution, it's like a religion to him and the other people who believe in it! They don't have any proof! It's just a belief!"
Now, I assume most people out there reading this believe that our sun is a mass of hydrogen, helium and some other gases, and that it's basically a gigantic, self-sustaining nuclear reactive furnace in space.
Here's my reaction to your belief in that, "See, you believe in the science of solar mechanics! It's like a religion to you! You worship the sun!" Clearly, that's ridiculous. Believing in what science has investigated and shown to be true about the workings of the sun no more makes you a worshipper of the sun any more than someone's similar belief in evolution (for the same scientific reasons) makes them a worshipper of evolution.
I have two main viewpoints that I want to share here in my initial jaunt into this "controversial" subject matter.
One has been mentioned in this debate many times, and the other may be unique to my thinking.
Here they are:
#1) Theory, in science, does not mean scientists are not sure about something.
From the National Academy of Science website:

Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity (E=MC2) is called a theory, as you may know. There are no scientists that I'm aware of who disagree with this and are positing an alternate idea behind the relationship between matter and energy or the relationship of time relativity in relation to the speed of light. There are many aspects of Einstein's theory that have never, and perhaps never can be, tested. They're not observable; that doesn't mean his theory is wrong, it means that there is enough evidence that can be tested to accept it. Likewise with evolution, it has enough elements to it that can and have been tested. So this assertion from Intelligent Design and Creation Science folks that it isn't true because it's only a "theory", is fallacious and shows a basic and underlying misunderstanding of science and it's terms in general.

#2) God can do anything, right? As I said, my God is a logical God. Why didn't he just zap Jesus down to Earth? Mary had a full pregnancy and delivered Jesus. To me, this shows a logical God who works by natural, observable processes. And if God can do anything, then why couldn't God have caused the Big Bang? Scientists still don't have an explanation for what caused the Big Bang and where the stuff to cause the Big Bang came from. So why couldn't God cause the Big Bang over 12 billion years ago, knowing that the processes of this celestial event would eventually result in the universe we have today, including us?
The universe and humans were created through the logical processes of cosmology, physics and evolution over the course of billions of years. Just as God imagined it when he started the whole mechanism way back when.
Now, of course, the Biblical literalists will squawk at this. After all, the Bible says 6 days, Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, etc. But a wise theologian once said to me, "You're God, you want to make your existence known. Do you try to explain physics, cosmology and evolution to a bunch of hunter-gatherers? Or do you give a nice symbolic story full of metaphorical truths to these simple folk for them to have a grasp of you and your will?"
To me, the Bible is full of many truths. They don't have to be literal to be true. Did Jesus actually know the father and sons in the prodigal son story? Was that a real story or a metaphorical one? Is the truth Christ was trying to impart more or less true if it was real or not?
And that's where I stand.
I'm sure everyone will see the logic of my point of view and feel no need to post any responses.
(Cue more tremendous laughter than before.)

JimStaple's Xanga

I'm Not Dead!

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The Truth About Al Gore

Thursday, May 17, 2007

The War On Reality

(Or, How Al Gore Wrote A Book Dealing With A Great Concern Of Mine)

Monday, May 14, 2007

Homosexuality

Phase 1

New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

Friday, May 11, 2007

Smelting Down "SwordAndSacrifice"

(Part 3 Of A Series That Will Be Longer Than Should Be Necessary)

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Smelting Down "SwordAndSacrifice"

(Part 2 Of A Series That Will Be Longer Than Should Be Necessary)

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Smelting Down "SwordAndSacrifice"

(Part 1 Of A Series That Will Be Longer Than Should Be Necessary)

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

What no one has brought up re:the Virginia Tech shootings, still(And one thing that was dealt with, at least)

What no one has brought up re:

the Virginia Tech shootings, still

Monday, April 30, 2007

Evolution

(Part 2 of an Infinite Series)

Friday, April 27, 2007

Evolution

(Part 1 of an Infinite Series)

Is evolution a fact or a theory?

What no one has brought up re:
the Virginia Tech shootings, still
(And one thing that was dealt with, at least)