Dutch Parliament defends net neutrality

Congress, please take note that the Dutch Parliament is fighting back against the phone companies on the issue of net neutrality:

A few weeks ago, we talked about Dutch mobile phone carriers planning to charge for the use of different kinds of application, such as Skype, WhatsApp, and so on. They would check people's data traffic using deep packet inspection, and charge accordingly. This led to a massive outrage here in this glorified swamp - and this outrage has had its effect. Our parliament stood up to defend the concept of net neutrality, and as such, motioned the government to have it added to our telecommunications act. Not only will this prohibit carriers from forcing customers to pay additional fees for specific types of data, it also prohibits them from blocking certain types of traffic - something the Dutch branch of Vodafone is already doing by blocking VoIP services. This applies to regular internet service providers as well.

Continue ReadingDutch Parliament defends net neutrality

Accommodationist defined

Over at Daylight Atheist, Ebonmuse carefully sets out the meaning of a word that is sometimes hurled by one non-theist at another: accommodationist.

It seems there are some people who don't know what the word "accommodationist" means. In its original sense, that word was used to describe those who believe that religion and science occupy strictly non-overlapping spheres of thought, and that we must never argue that science disproves any religious belief. It's since widened somewhat to include those who urge atheists to stop criticizing religious belief or publicly expressing our atheism. But it's never referred to those who merely express the opinion that mockery and ridicule sometimes aren't the best strategy. If that's the definition of accommodationism, then I'm an accommodationist. (But it isn't, and I'm not.)
Excellent discussion follows the post, focusing on the extent to which ridicule aimed at theists could/should be used by non-theists.

Continue ReadingAccommodationist defined

Weiner episode raises questions about online flirting with strangers.

Over at Slate.com, William Saletan uses the recent scandal involving Anthony Weiner to explore the propriety of online flirtation with people one has never met.   Does this sort of activity constitute cheating on one's significant other?   Saletan offers a thoughtful and serious discussion that meshes well with another recurring question these days:  to what extent are those Facebook "Friends" I've never met my friends?  If not much, then it would seem that our time with them amounts to social masturbation, and not any meaningful expression of friendship. In the case of Weiner, I do think it's telling that that he claims that he was not cheating, and he was not engaged in "relationships," yet he was willing to lie to cover up what he was doing.   But maybe that raises another provocative question:  Just because one would rather not be exposed for doing an activity, is that any evidence at all that the activity is morally wrong?   Is social condemnation always an indicia of moral lapse.  After all, quite often the crowd is simply judgmental.   Or maybe the onlookers are simply permeated with schadenfreude. I know people who have been married for decades who don't talk to each other, and who don't really know each other, yet they officially have a marriage.  Why is this situation not condemned?  Isn't it a farce?  On the other hand, I know many people who are married, who sincerely admit that they can't and shouldn't expect that they could have all of their diverse needs and interests met by only one other human being.   Hence, in the face of a strong relationship at home, they have a wide variety of outside friends (often friends of both sexes) that they spend time with regarding those things their significant other isn't passionate about, whether it be photography, history, raising dogs or whatever.  Sometimes that interest is flirtation; sometimes even sex.  I'm not suggesting any sort of lesson here, but what gives the crowd the right to judge a particular marriage that, in its own crazy-seeming way, seems to work? And how could anyone concerned about this country not be dismayed, once again, when a sexually-tinged side show takes 90% of the media's attention, such that real issues are not given proper coverage.  Could this be solved by requiring members of Congress to stand up naked while they give speeches on important topics?   How could we focus media attention on Wall Street corruption or the massive amount of money we spend of discretionary warmongering and, instead, encourage viewers to talk about these things intensely, to the same extent that we are all now jabbering about a horny man who has otherwise done an admirable job of being a thoughtful representative?   I have no answer to this question.

Continue ReadingWeiner episode raises questions about online flirting with strangers.

Still laughing with George Carlin

As George Carlin fans all know, the Grammy award-winning comedian died in 2008, shortly after completing his 2008 HBO special, "It's Bad For Ya." I've always enjoyed George Carlin's work, which is intensely funny, yet equally serious. He had a precise grasp on what ails America, exemplified by the following brilliant routine from his 2005 special, "Life Is Worth Losing." While in a bookstore yesterday, I happened to pick up a copy of George Carlin's 890 page tome, 3XCarlin: An Orgy of George (2006). I'm only on page 104, yet I found myself laughing out loud dozens of times. This is about the best $20 I've ever spent on a book. Here are a few of his writings, and there are many more that are equally good, even in the first 100 pages:

No I'm tired of being unable to buy clothing that doesn't have writing and printing all over it. Insipid sayings, pseudo-wisdom, cute slogans, team logos, designer names, brands trademarks, small-business ego trips; the marketing pigs and advertising swine have turned us all into walking billboards. You see some asphalt walking by, and he's got on a fruity dodger hat and a Hard Rock Café T-shirt. Of course you can't see the shirt if he's wearing his hot-shit Chicago Bulls jacket. The one that only 50-million other loser jock-sniffers own. And since this cretinous sports fan/consumer zombie is completely for sale to anyone, he rounds out his ensemble with FedEx sneakers, ValuJet socks, Wall Street Journal sweatpants, a Starbucks jockstrap, and Microsoft condom with Bill Gates head on the end of it. No one in this country owns his personal appearance anymore. America has become a nation of obedient consumers, actively participating in their own degradation. Even some low and [restaurants] are pretentious. The menu can't merely say "cheeseburger." They have to get wordy. So, go along with them. When you order your food use their language. But you must look right at the waiter; no fair reading from the menu. Look him in the eye and say, "I'll have the succulent, fresh ground, government-inspected, choice, all-beef, six-ounce patty on your own award-winning sesame-seed bun, topped with a generous slice of Wisconsin's finest grade-a cheddar cheese made from only premium milk imported from large galvanized steel cans, having originally been extracted from a big, fat, smelly, champion blue-ribbon cow with a brain disease." I've begun worshiping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to "God" are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate. Religion presents an interesting situation. Jerry Falwell; it's simply an absurd name for a clergyman. The last person in the world I'm going to believe has an inside track with God is some guy named Jerry. Can you imagine the supreme being, in the middle of the night, "Jerry! Wake up. I got some revelations." A house is just a pile of stuff with the cover on it. You can see that when you're taking off an airplane. You look down and see all the little piles of stuff. Everybody's got his own little pile of stuff. Here's another one. You've never been to your friend's place of work, but you pictured it. And he changes jobs, but it's a similar job. Do you bother to change your mental picture of where he works? By how much? Or your friend works at one Wendy's and gets transferred to different Wendy's. Do you picture a whole new Wendy's? Or do you get lazy and say, "They're all pretty much the same, so I'll just go with the old one." People say, "I'm going to sleep now," as if it were nothing. But it's really a bizarre activity. "For the next several hours, while the sun is gone, I'm going to become unconscious, temporarily losing command over everything I know and understand. When the son returns, I will resume my life." If you didn't know what sleep was, and you had only seen it in a science fiction movie, you would think it was weird and tell all your friends about the movie you'd seen. They try to blame movies and TV for violence in this country. What a load of shit. Long before there were movies and television, Americans killed millions of Indians, enslaved millions of blacks, slaughtered 700,000 of each other in the family feud, and attained the highest murder rate in history. Don't blame Sylvester Stallone. We brought these horrifying genes with us from Europe, and then we gave them our own special twist. American know-how! The reason for most violence against gays is that heterosexual men are forced to prove that they, themselves, are not gay. It goes like this: men in strong male subcultures like the police, the military, and sports (and a few other cesspools) bond very strongly. Hunting, fishing, and golfing friendships also produce this unnatural bonding. These guys bond and bond and get closer and closer, until finally their just drunk enough to say, "You know, I really love these guys." And that frightens them. So they must quickly add, "but I'm not a queer!" See the dilemma? Now they have to go out of their way to prove to the world, to their buddies, and to themselves that they don't harbor homoerotic feelings. And it's only a short step from "I'm not a queer" to "In fact, I hate queers!" And another short step to, "Let's go kill some queers!" And what they really seek to kill is not a queer outside; it's a queer inside they fear.

Continue ReadingStill laughing with George Carlin