This is a shocking film to watch. Yes, I understand the concern that kids should beware of strangers. But check out the characterization of "homosexuals." According to this film, they are all sick pedophiles and murderers. This video serves as a time capsule, or at least it should, except that many people still harbor these attitudes.
I've previously written about the works of Paul Kurtz. I've long admired his Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Principles. I also agree with his concerns about "fundamentalist atheists." In fact, it was his position on "fundamentalist atheism" that likely gave rose to his contentious departure from the Center for Inquiry. More recently, Kurtz has made the argument that atheists, agnostics and other disbelievers would be best served characterizing themselves as "skeptics" rather than as atheists, agnostics or non-believers.
I would like to introduce another term into the equation, a description of the religious “unbeliever” that is more appropriate. One may simply say, “I am a skeptic.” This is a classical philosophical position, yet I submit that it is still relevant today, for many people are deeply skeptical about religious claims. Skepticism is widely employed in the sciences. Skeptics doubt theories or hypotheses unless they are able to verify them on adequate evidential grounds. The same is true among skeptical inquirers into religion. The skeptic in religion is not dogmatic, nor does he or she reject religious claims a priori; here or she is simply unable to accept the case for God unless it is supported by adequate evidence.Kurtz lists additional reasons for the use of the term "skeptic."
[S]kepticism based on scientific inquiry leaves room for a naturalistic account of the universe. It can also recommend alternative secular and humanist forms of moral conduct. Accordingly, one can simply affirm, when asked if he or she believes in God, “No, I do not; I am a skeptic,” and one may add, “I believe in doing good!”
Here are the amazing photos of the reunion of gorilla brothers. Here is the story. And here's more about the reunion.
A summary of California's Proposition 37:
"Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."Essentially, it requires a label on foods that are genetically modified. That's it. A label indicating whether or not the food one is considering buying has been tampered with at the genetic level. It doesn't ban or tax such products, it just offers you, the consumer, the chance to know what is in the food you are purchasing. Here is a list of the companies opposed to this Proposition, and the amount they have spent just this week to defeat it:
Tonight I was at OfficeMax, buying some back to school supplies with my daughters. I was surprised to see that there is still a typewriter section at the store. There are actually two models to choose from.
This is going to sound like an "old man" story, but when I started practicing law 30 years ago, the firm of 45 lawyers had no computers. Every secretary worked 0n an electric typewriter. Even in 1990, when I brought my own computer to my law firm, people were wondering why an attorney would have a computer. Now I work at a firm with 14 attorneys, and every attorney has a computer--there is one typewriter (for forms and labels). It makes you wonder, at this rate of change, whether anyone has the ability to predict how the world will look in ten more years.