Help me USPS...

Lady, if you're counting on the United States Postal Service to save your rebellion, you are officially screwed. Should have gone with Fed Ex.

Mail Bag

Today's Mail comes from our reader C.K. who sends us this scan of a newspaper clipping about immigration and a boycott of Caucasian businesses.

Unfortunately, C.K., as much as that font looks just like the USA Today, this appears to have been created to make it look funny, and/or to support a political agenda.

In my search to verify the pulled-out-of-someone's-ass-statistics, I came across the following article at Snopes.com. Unfortunately for the gag writer, it seems that it's false.

But, as promised - I post everything I get. Thanks for the mail, C.K.!

Ooops!

Our reader, Jerry, sent this in.

His e-mail, mostly in all caps, is as follows:

"MAXINE WATERS (D-Calif) AND THE PRESIDENT OF SHELL OIL COMPANY.
OOOOOOOOooooooops - she let it slip !! This clip is showing Congresswoman Maxine Waters discussing drilling for new oil reserves. She explains, in a slip of the tongue, what this whole thing is all about. Whoops! She let it all slip out! . . . NOW . . . What can you say? (notice the reaction of the people around her)

This clip is about as blatant as a Liberal can get. What she said was The Truth, accidentally, and notice that when she realized what she revealed to the public and the news media, it stopped her dead in her own tracks for a l-o-n-g moment. BUT it was too late. Just hope the country wakes up in the 2010 elections!!!"

Slip of the tongue, or exposure to the grand Ayn Rand conspiracy being hatched by Congress?

Oil Spill Slow Response... on purpose?

From the Mail Bag... and you know I'll post anything you nice readers throw at me...

On April 29th, Ron Gouget, who once managed Gulf spill response teams, publicly pilloried the administration's response to the tragic oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. Gouget is an expert when it comes to these matters: he helped create the 1994 plan that allowed expedited burning of oil as soon as a major spill had occurred -- without having to wait for permission or approvals.

Federal officials should have started burning oil off the surface of the Gulf last week, almost as soon as the spill happened, said the former oil spill response coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Ron Gouget, who also managed Louisiana's oil response team for a time, said federal officials missed a narrow window of opportunity to gain control of the spill by burning last week, before the spill spread hundreds of miles across the Gulf, and before winds began blowing toward shore.

He also said the heavy use of dispersants instead of burning the oil has likely knocked so much oil into the water column that portions of the Gulf may be on the threshold of becoming toxic to marine life. Add in the oil spreading into the water as it rises from the seafloor, and Gouget said he expected officials would have to begin limiting the use of the dispersants.

..."They had pre-approval. The whole reason the plan was created was so we could pull the trigger right away instead of waiting ten days to get permission," Gouget said. "If you read the pre-approval plan, it speaks about Grand Isle, where the spill is. When the wind is blowing offshore out of the north, you have preapproval to burn in that region. If the wind is coming onshore, like it is now, you can't burn at Grand Isle. They waited to do the test burn until the wind started coming onshore."

Asked why officials waited for a week before conducting even a test burn, Gouget said, "Good question. Maybe complacency was the biggest issue. They probably didn't have the materials on hand to conduct the burn, which is unconscionable."

He said the NOAA officials involved at the Unified Command Center in Louisiana know how to respond to spills, and know burning should have started as soon as possible after the initial release was detected. Gouget said they may have been overruled... "This whole thing has been a daily strip tease. At first they thought it was just the diesel, then they said the well wasn't leaking. It's unfortunate they didn't get the burning going right away. They could have gotten 90 percent of the oil before it spread."

Why didn't NOAA execute the pre-approved plan to contain the leak? Why hasn't the media picked up Gouget's locally reported comments and started digging into this issue.

The White House response has consisted of dispatching lawyers to New Orleans and shutting down other rigs that have nothing to do with the BP disaster. On April 30th -- ten days after the catastrophic explosion -- the oil and gas news site RigZone reported that the White House had forbidden new drilling.

Yesterday, the administration escalated its response to the oil spill in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico following the rig's collapse in approximately 5,000 ft. of water on April 22... On Friday, top advisor David Axelrod said, "No additional drilling has been authorized and none will until we find out what has happened here." He also defended the White House's response to the April 20 blowout incident, saying "we had the Coast Guard in almost immediately..."

Why did NOAA not execute its pre-approved plan to contain the spill?

What explains the failure to execute a pre-planned incident response process?

Cap'n: Incompetence, or just exploiting a crisis?


Sent in from Doug Ross @ Journal

A challenge

A challenge has been issued by one of our readers to prove you've gone out in public in this shirt:
Double bonus points if you're eating something with 2000 calories in it.

Mail Bag: Congress has to eat it

Cap'n's Mail Bag:

Got this, and it was ALL CAPS! SO IT IS SERIOUS!

"On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan..

It took me less than a minute to sign up to require our congressmen and senators to drink at the same trough!

Three cheers for Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana! Congressman John Fleming (Louisiana physician) has proposed an amendment that would require congressmen and senators to take the same healthcare plan they force on us (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt).

Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on his Website and Sign his petition (very simple - just email).

I have just done just that at: http://fleming.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=55
[CAP'N'S NOTE: I checked the link, it does go to John Fleming's site and McAfee says it's green.]

Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!

If Congress forces this on the American people, the Congress should have to accept the same level of health care for themselves and their families.

To do otherwise is the height of hypocrisy! Please pass this on !!!"

My half cent is that I punched it in, and I'm real hopeful that Congress has to eat what they're shoveling -- but I'm also so pessimistic that I'm nearly in a fetal position. I wonder and hope that something, anything can make a difference.

But I'm crossing my fingers, not holding my breath.

New York Man Stabs "Racist" Dog

Just got this one in the mail bag... I'm [almost] at a loss for words.

Here's the cutn'paste:

New York man stabs "racist" dog

"Upset over the incessant barking of a German Shepherd toward African Americans, Latinos and other non-Whites, a New York man stabbed a "racist" dog. As a result, the canine lost his eye and the attacker was charged in court. Consequently, in this crime, both parties appear to be victims "partially" of a difficult work environment.

58-year-old Andrew Owens and 4-year-old Jenna both worked at Valley Oil in Yonkers. Owens was a handyman and Jenna a guard dog. From the beginning, the two had a precarious relationship.

According to Jenna's owner, she has a negative to reaction to minorities. As a result, she automatically didn't like Andrew Owens. Allegedly, in the past, her distaste for him led to a dog bite and lots of aggressive barking. Apparently, Owens was able to tolerate the situation until finding out the true reason behind Jenna's behavior. Afterward, he snapped cutting her, unprovoked, with a knife.

Fortunately, Jenna did not lose her life. Yet, this story is a sad one that is causing many people to look at her owner. They question whether she was trained to hate minorities and as a consequence, acted out against them. If so, he would hold some responsibility for creating a volatile environment.

Of course, Jenna's owner denies all allegations of training his dog to be "racist". Instead, he is focusing on an injured animal that regardless of her mentality didn't deserve a vicious attack. In the end, this is probably where most interested parties will end up.

-end of the cutn'paste from the Cap'n's mail bag.

My two cents: first penny, if the dog wasn't trained to be a racist, she is NOW.
Second penny, aren't dogs COLOR BLIND?!

Schools

Got this one in an email from "Judy." First, I'm impressed we really do have women reading Blasphemes, second, I'm impressed by your sense of humor.

Let me offer my call and response to Judy. Here's Larry's Math homework, with a big fat F on it. His teacher also stapled a McDonald's application to the homework. Ouch. Harsh. However, Mr. Math teacher, if you can't teach Larry to count, he'll never ever be able to work the counter.

What would it take for a third party to win an election in the US?

Dear Cap:

What would it take for a third party to win an election in the US?

I think there is obvious scope for a part that is socially liberal and very free-markety (economically 'conservative', though I hate that phrase). So pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-censorship, anti-affirmative action, anti-corporatocracy, low taxes, etc. Sorta like libertarianism with the wilder edges trimmed off.

If they can run on a credible 'clean up government, anti-lobbying, not business as usual' platform I think they would appeal to a lot of voters.

Yet I think it is almost impossible for them to have a real shot. What would it take for this to happen?

Another way to phrase this: Let's say the US exists another 700 years. Surely at some point another party will gain power. What do you think that party will be, and how will this happen?

snuki

Hey Snuki,

There's a misconception that a third party would/could/can't win.

But that's not how it works.

It would be more accurate to look at the American Soda Pop Isle in the supermarket to understand American politics. Almost half the isle is Coke, the other almost half is Pepsi. They each have a lemon-lime, there's a root beer and ginger ale... they both have diet versions, non-caffeine versions... a little something to appeal to the different tastes, but all sold by either Coke or Pepsi. Sure there's RC and a couple regional options, but they never sell well enough to have National advertising or exclusive selling rights in say, a school district.

Then, occasionally tastes and trends change, and the two majors are caught without an offering. Bottled water - orange juice - energy drink - and sugar cane products. [Evian, Red Bull, Jones Cola]

Moments later, Coke will have their version, or simply purchase the hole in the sector, and absorb the competitor sector of sugared drink/water product. Once on board, it's offered under their label, bottles and [the most important here] their distributors. It's difficult for a small independent bottler to have reliable and mass distribution that Coke or Pepsi offer. The ideas and platforms brought by an outsider are quickly absorbed into the larger company.

Immediately following, Pepsi will counter with their offering.

Then the trend changes, and suddenly it's vitamin-lemon water... HFCS free cola... and Coke and Pepsi quickly court the new product, or simply make their own version as quickly as they can.

And just remember, these are fizzy water products that will kill you.

Interesting, but I don't think the analogy works all the way. Pepsi can add a product without losing the original product. The Reps cannot go pro-choice but also keep their 'anti-abortion' product.

There is a limit to what a party can adopt that you don't have with commercial products.

To answer your original idea though, it has to start on the ground floor with the school districts and local elections. County and State, Reps and Senators - Then the big prizes of Federal Congress and President. That doesn't happen overnight, and has been made VERY difficult by the two ruling parties.

It's gerrymandering that keeps the same people in power. You take that away, and maybe you'll have real debate and challenges at the local level.

And if you only want to change one thing - like your stance on a war or abortion, it can be done in an election cycle -- which is plenty of time for either Pepsi or Coke to take that away.

You might be Taliban if...

This one just came in the mail bag. I post (almost) anything you people send me.

The following should be read in your best Jeff Foxworthy 'redneck' voice:

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.

10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

11. Your cousin is president of the United States

I like jokes.

Got a better one? Mail it in.

Oakland Police Department Making A List of Gun Owners

Oakland Police Department Now Trying To Create Secret List of Gun Owners?

And here I was sitting around thinking, wow, I haven't done a gun story in a while.... I got a link to a story where the Oakland Police Department is reating a list of Oakland gun owners. The best part is how sneaky they're going about it. Oakland recently passed an ordinance that REQUIRES anyone with a burglar alarm to register that alarm with the Oakland Police Department. Okay, I'm sure - but wait - there's more!

That would not be a problem, except that they REQUIRE you to tell them if you have any "weapons" (i.e., guns). Here is a screen shot from the actual form.

This is the same "police department" that was behind the recent Oakland gun control laws, and this is the same department this is bragging that they want to take guns off the street.

When asked during the peace conference if the city’s ammunition ordinance could create a significant crime reduction, Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts said that the Oakland Police Department is supportive of anything that takes guns off the street.

But my question would be, if you're a law abiding gun owner in any state, you're supposed to have your gun registered anyway. So what's the problem? My guess it's not so secret?

Mail Bag: Book Burnin'

Mail Bag: All spelling is the submitter's fault. See you there!

"Cap: A local preacher is holding a bible burning on Halloween. They are going to be burning all non-king James versions of the Bible as well as works by "heretics" like Billy Graham and Mother Theresa. The burning was initially canceled when the local fire marshall pointed out that in North Carolina book burnings are illegal. However, the preacher called the burning back on.

A group of twenty some protestors announced they would be attending. This makes the number of protestors greater then the actual number of members of the church: 14.

Now they are announcing that this bible burning is an exclusive event meant only for members.

Jacob...K, Waynesville, NC"

One more time

I've been getting a lot of ironic church signs in the email - keep 'em coming gang!

PS - I especially like this one, Rex King is the Pastor. That's just super awesome.

This is what Civil War in America means

This is what Civil War in America means

Recently many individuals and groups have started talking about another civil war in America. These people are not just from one ideology nor are they from obscure fringe groups. State Governors and elected representatives are some of the people calling for open warfare in America. As a soldier I was sent to combat zones in Iraq and Kosovo where open civil war was happening. I am writing this because American civilians have no idea what open warfare is. Before someone makes the first move and starts something that cannot be undone I think we all need to know what life would be like in our hometowns in the event of war.

To start with civil war would not be between two well defined groups. There would be no less than three groups in any one area and dozens in some areas. The federal government would be the third party in any armed conflict. At the beginning of civil war there would be martial law. The federal government would actively kill and imprison all persons not a member of the armed forces that participated in combat. Because of the degradation of our constitution the federal government no longer has any legal restraints. The President, whomever that person may be, has dictatorial powers because of such things as directive 51.

For those who think they would join any side in a civil war know this: When your enemies find out who you are everyone you know and care about would be in danger. All non combatants would also be in danger of death. Your enemies will kill everyone connected to you. This means your mom working at the local grocery store, your sons and daughters at grade school, or your grandparents at their home would all be targets for assassination. Before picking up arms to solve our problems remember that you will be putting all the people you know at risk of death.

Do not think that civil war would be limited to rifles. The only thing America actually produces is weapons of mass destruction. This includes mortars, grenades, rockets, land mines and the deadliest chemical weapons on the planet. We also have the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. This means when your mom goes to work your enemies will bomb and mortar the building she works in. Your child’s school will have the same fate. Know that if you survive any length of time you will see everyone you know die if there is civil war.

Some State Governors think they can simply secede from the union without bloodshed. This is a ridiculous delusion. If a state legislation does this there would be instant civil war. On every military installation across the globe American soldiers would kill each other overnight. Post commanders would have to detainee and execute all those not aligned with their own ideology. This means if your post commander is a republican all those soldiers known to be liberals would be executed. Liberal commanders would do the same to republicans.

The next thing to think about is the duration of the conflict. Simply put you will never see the end of it. If you live out your normal life and die of old age you will still not see the end of civil war. In the event of civil war America would never recover. There would never again be a union of 50 states. Instead our descendants would have several different nations just like Western Europe does.

Let us not forget our large stockpile of nuclear weapons. How long would it take for a conservative faction to nuke San Francisco or Seattle? How long would it take a mentally disturbed liberal to nuke parts of Texas and Alaska? Scarred and war weary soldiers will use whatever weapons they have at hand. So if you still want civil war in America remember that we have several hundred nuclear weapons to play with.

My whole point of this is that if you want to fix America then start restoring the things that made America in the first place. These things are the Constitution and the rule of law. There is no such thing as a unified people. We are all different from one another. The only thing that makes any nation is a constitution. The only civil society is the one that recognizes universal human rights. The only free nation is the one that obeys the rule of law. If you really want to fix America restore these things. This means voting.

The Foxholeatheist

Dear Foxholeatheist,

Let me start by thanking you for your service. Also, thank you for sending your blogpost to Blasphemes. Your descriptions of a second civil war in America are chilling and I'm sure with your experience, are also spot on accurate.

To add to your point, I would say that in the final days of the actual Civil War in America, just before his surrender at Appomattox, General Lee resisted please by his officers to reject surrender and allow small units to melt away into the mountains, changing the war from regiments to guerrilla war. Luckily for all Americans, Lee's gentleman's honor would not allow it. If not for this one decision by Lee, I am convinced that America would still be fighting the Civil War - in a Northern Ireland sort of fashion.

I agree with you, that voting and restoring the rule of law and the Constitution are the ways to start fixing America. Uphold, protect, defend the Constitution. But to do this, we should also keep all our options on the table.

Why is America so Complacent?

Dear Cappy,

Why is America so complacent?

America doesn't really riot any more. It doesn't get up in arms about important things any more. It doesn't make its elected people work for it. It doesn't seem to know what it wants for itself. Why is this? Initially I thought "Happy-TV" was what controlled people and made them forget about their problems, but other countries have similar television programming and yet they get shit done for the people (France). Then it suddenly occurred to me. "Divided we fall." "Divide and Conquer." How easy it would be to put a population to work for the benefit of a few... Give the people instant gratification while setting the stage with a grandiose bloodless fight of opposing ideas and heaps of skewed truths constantly pumped into the culture and minds of America. It becomes a civil war of identity.

by miloir

Dear Miloir,

Thanks for the question and subject matter for Blasphemes today. Here's my immediate cynical take on it.

First off, America has been bought and paid for many years before we got here. "The 60's are over, Mr. Lebowski. Your revolution is over. The bums lost." Anyone who stood up to take on the establishment has been assassinated or labeled as a kook on the fringe - left and right. So who in their right mind wants to take a stand?

Besides, Americans are fat - meaning they're full. Hungry people riot. People who have nothing left to lose riot. Opportunists also riot. And yes, American Idol is on... The American Karaoke Contest, I like to call it.

Americans that do take to the streets can't even unite under one banner or one single protest - they're a mishmash of differing opinions and hipsters looking to get laid. Protests are ineffectual, we still went into Iraq, and we're escalating the war in Afghanistan.

The most Americans do anymore is bitch on the internet or cutn'paste something about Healthcare on their Facebook status and think that creates a meaningful change.

When Americans do discuss real politics, most of the discourse is so uninformed, you mostly get a bunch of people complaining or screaming at each other about some ridiculous made up talking point that is being propagated by a political activist group. Again, left and right are equally to blame.

However, the real American - the average American, is a guy in a blue shirt and khaki pants. He still believes in the opportunity that his country offers. The average guy has a chance to work in a field that he wants to work in, and one where that work CAN be rewarded. They believe in Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll - but still have a set of religious influenced morals and don't mind their job at the Big Evil Corporation, Inc. Well, enough not to rock the boat to get fired. That's the middle ground kind of guy. Kind of a libertarian more than a liberal or conservative. But he'd never agree that he's a libertarian. Just a guy trying to get by.

That's my half cent. I can't afford the other 1 and a half.

Cap'n

A Doctor Drops Question

Dear Cap'n and Blasphemes,

Let's get to the bottom of something. I'm a doctor. How much do you think I should make?

To the folks in favor of a single-payer option should realize this would create a monopsony on health care, essentially leading to the government dictating what physician salaries would be. Now...this isn't necessarily a bad thing for physicians. For example, in the Dutch single-payer system physicians are compensated very well, resulting in salaries which are actually higher than their American counterparts.

My pertinent professional details: Education and Training: 4 years college, 4 years medical school, 5 years post-graduate training. The 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school represent, together, a total of ~$180k of tuition and another 8 years x whatever you want to allot of room and board. Salary during residency is dictated essentially by the US government (socialism!) and averaged ~$45k a year or so. I went "straight through" the system and got my first real job at age 31.

I average 50 to 55 hours of work a week and am available 24 hours a day M-F by phone for my patients currently on treatment*. I share weekend call with 5 other physicians in town.

*On treatment? What does that mean? I am a radiation oncologist, meaning I use x-rays to treat cancer. I am trained in brachytherapy implants for gynecologic cancers, breast, head and neck, and prostate cancer, as well as the use of external beam radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of both intra- and extra-cranial malignancies. (Got a bit technical there, I know, but I naturally always assume you guys to be intelligent and well-versed in the ways of The Google. I could have said "I'm a cancer doctor" and been done with it.

So... if the US were to move to a "single-payer" system, as dictated by the economics of the situation, the governement's reimbursement rates would essentially dictate my yearly salary.

What do you think that should be? Just curious.

(To note, please do not take the chance to assume I'm one of those doctor pricks who only focus on the dollars- they do exist. Just today I told a patient I would treat her absolutely for free because she couldn't pay.)

OTN

Dear OTN,
Thanks for taking the time to write. Just wondering, you know, why? I can't speak for the other folks who contribute to Blasphemes.blogspot.com, but I am in support of you earning whatever you are worth.

However, I think you have brought up some valid questions, and I am interested what our readers think. Come on gang. Let's hear from you.

Sunday Mail Bag

Got this in the mail bag:

Dear Capn and Blasphemes,

Atheism vs Theism may seem like a battle of wits involving only science, and debate. The real truth is far deeper and darker than this, and anyone who considers discussing atheism with a "person of faith" should consider this:

It is generally common for atheists to consider that the arguments against religion boil down to science, the facts, debate, etc. It puzzles many why someone when faced with all the evidence for evolution for example would still choose to ignore it. I think that many atheists are ignoring the REAL issue, the true reason why it is hard for someone to reject their religion.

I was raised Christian all my life, in a VERY fundamentalist home. I was taught the earth was 6,000 years old created out of nothing, heaven, hell - the whole thing. I was taught how important it was to witness and attempt to "convert" others. I was taught that even bad things, really bad things, had some sort of divine reason and plan attached to them. I believed this into my early twenties.

When I was finally faced with the irrefutable facts, and raw science behind them, I let go - very reluctantly - of my cherished beliefs. It was not easy, It was like wrestling a priceless gem from someone who would just not let go of it.

When you reject religion, its not like - rejecting the earth is not flat for example. With something like this you can say "Oh ok, now I know" - but religion has a much darker and deep rooted hold on a person, and a much more profound effect.

There were times I was actually in tears thinking about the fact that there was no "afterlife" - and that those I had loved who had died - were really dead. They weren't watching me, or having some hand in guiding me. They didn't still "love me". That was pretty depressing.

It is strange how religion gives you a way to reject the reality of death - which I guess does help to 'ease your suffering', that you "know they went to a better place" - but it also prevents proper mourning. When someone you love dies, and they tell you on their death bed that they will see you one day in heaven, you are more prepared for them to "die" because you know they aren't really "dead".

To reject heaven and accept atheism - is not merely about science, facts, beliefs, etc - it is about accepting the reality of all those who have died - being really dead. It is accepting the same reality about everyone you love NOW one day being - really dead. It is accepting the same reality about YOU one day.

The older you are, the more dear loved ones have passed away, the harder it will be to reject the notions of religion. To reject religion requires the re-mourning of everyone who you love who has died.

Death is just one piece of a very complex puzzle. If you have spent your whole life "living by faith" - and you have made decisions "by faith" that have resulted in really bad situations in your life, you now have to own up to the fact that these situations came about because of YOUR choices. You do not have God to take the burden of this. You can no longer say "This happened because God has some plan for my life"

By rejecting religion, you must also reject the notion that you can avoid responsibility for poor life situations. That too is a hard pill to swallow.

Next, you must reject the idea that your path is somehow guided, that God is walking with you, that you are not truly alone as you walk through life. Imagine a man walking through a room on planks of wood suspended over spikes with large holes to fall in if you take a wrong step. He always manages to take the right next step, but he is never afraid because he "knows" that this is a solid wood floor he is walking on. Now turn on the lights.

To reject religion means to accept the idea that you CAN fall - and fall HARD. It means you have to recognize that up until now you have been fortunate - but now you have to force yourself to think about your next steps.

If you have been spending your life "following Christ", or witnessing to people, to the extent of even studying this in college, or spending hundreds and hundreds of hours reading and studying the Bible, praying, etc - only to find out that ALL of it was utterly and totally useless, then you have another hard pill to swallow. Imagine swallowing that pill as an older person.

To accept this means to accept that you have lived a large part of your life in vain, while thinking it was purposeful. Talking to such a person about atheism is similar to telling them that their whole life is without purpose, misguided, and that they have missed out on the only opportunity they will ever have to live life.

Surely one can then see why the concept of atheism is offensive and infuriating to so many people.

Then there is the concept of a personal relationship with God. The idea that God and you are "friends". That you are somehow "above the world". That you are living in a bubble safe and protected by God himself.

To reject religion, means accepting that you are just like everyone else - and in fact, worse off than most and behind the race because of your past religious belief. To someone who has spent a lifetime believing they are special in this regard, a piece of them is gone, never to return.

Worse than this, such a person values their imaginary relationship with God more than any aspect of their REAL personality. Who you really are takes second stage to your supposed relationship with the almighty.

Rejecting this is surely very difficult, as it entails rejecting a large part of the perceived value someone has in themselves.

I know I have not covered it all, but I hope I have helped to show that there is more to the picture of "religion vs atheism" than merely science, and facts.

The emotional side of religion is by far a larger and darker obstacle than any other that would stand in the way between someone's freedom from delusion and accepting reality.

Submitted 2 hours ago by Ancient09.

_______________________________________________________

Dear Ancient09,

Thank you for your heartfelt letter.
We appreciate you applying for the position of (fill in here) at Blasphemes.
Unfortunately we interviewed many applicants in the mail bag and hired another person whose credentials and qualifications were better suited to our needs. This person is made up, but if you believe really hard then he/she might exist.

Thus, you will not be offered the position, but thank you for your interest. If a need arises for us to contact you in the future, we will do so, and you have our continued good wishes.

Capn.

PS. In the future add more pop culture references.
PPS. Was this supposed to be a question or a request for me to stop making fun of fundies?

Blowing Smoke

Mail Bag Time:

"Hey Cap,
wide spread implementation currently underway. get it? wide spread...implementation....."

Road Rage

Dear Cap'n:

I have a bad case of road rage.

It is pretty bad, I probably need help. I get very angered by people driving in front of me. I curse/yell when I drive alone and rant to people who drive with me. I pretty much think that most people on the roads today do not deserve to drive and are clinically retarded. I have actively tried to stop driving as much and I fear that this will be bad for my stress levels / heart in the future.

kgrad5

I have a similar problem - and I have figured out why - and it has helped me....

I realize that some moron who is not paying attention, following the rules, yacking on the phone, applying nail polish, reading a book, all at once - all have more power than I do. That's right. They can take everything I have away from me. Allow me to explain. At any given moment, when they swerve or ram into me they will have - in the best case scenario make me late. Worst case, end my day on a permanent basis. That's not such a good thing. I get upset thinking that this ding dong in curlers can kill me.

I guess what gets me so upset is the carelessness at 45-90 miles an hour. I know how quickly FUBAR happens, and these other idiots who DON'T understand that principle. I've seen death and brains on the concrete. It's not fun. I'd rather not see it again. Especially my loved ones or my own before the lights go out.

Knowing that those other drivers are the idiots, and to be defensive helps. I assume that Murphy (who was a safety engineer) was right - if it's going to go wrong, it will. If you keep yourself busy anticipating bad moves, that you won't have time to be angry. You'll come up with some good ones. You'll be happy when it doesn't go the way you thought, and you'll laugh that you were right. Example: There's no way that lady is going to light that cigarette while on the phone at this speed! Holy spit! She did it. Ah, but she only swerved two lanes instead three... well, there's always this guy passing me on the right. Maybe he'll hit her...

Hope that helped

[Hey, when did I become an advice guy?]

Too Much WoW, What Should I Do?

Dear Cap'n,

My boyfriend is playing at least 40 hours a week of World of Warcraft. What should I do?

I met my current boyfriend in World of Warcraft. We had only known each other for a month, and we started having very strong feelings for each other almost immediately. After a week of talking, I got him plane tickets to see me. He only makes $800 a month at his current non-profit job, whereas I was working full time.

The first meeting in person was a bit awkward, and things were not as great. But we continued to communicate honestly, and I gave it another chance because of our strong feelings. I flew out to see him in his home state, and it was really nice.

So we had this sort of long-distance thing. He was going to graduate school this fall and could not move, so I would have to be the one to move. It was a difficult and monetarily unsound decision in this economy... nonetheless, I quit my job at the end of last month and moved across the country to live with him.

Looking back now, that was probably a mistake. I am still looking for a full-time job, even though I do web design and development and can do a little bit of freelancing from home. I have no friends here, and it's a very different place than the more liberal and easily walkable city I used to live in. We just play World of Warcraft all the time, and we hardly even communicate anymore.

When I brought up these issues to him, he said he would cut back, but he has not really done so. He currently has two maximum level characters decked out in all epics, and now he started to level a third character intending to gear that one, too. I play WoW with him in between doing my freelance work, but I feel like it is getting in the way of something else -- but what?

One time after a verbal fight with me, he deactivated his account and was pouty, and hinted at basically that I was taking away his favorite toy. We are both nerdy people, but I feel like I have more interests than just WoW. He gets a big ego boost out of leading raids and his in-game friendships, whereas I feel like the game is just a game. I do really care about him, even though he seems really addicted, so I don't want to just cut my losses and leave.

I am at a loss as to what to do.

Oh and if anyone's looking for a freelance web designer with XHTML/CSS/WordPress/Drupal/Joomla experience, please PM me. :)

Okay, first off, love getting fan mail. Thanks for the letter.

Second. You moved to be with this douche? You kind of deserve what you paid for. Nothing.

Third, could have done without the spam/advert for your services. I can't imagine, even if we WERE hiring here at Blasphemes I'd hire someone who's a big enough idiot to a) write me for advice b) doesn't understand that she shouldn't have moved, and started 'dating' anyone who only makes 800 bucks a month.... it sure is a non-profit - none for him!

I suggest that you leave at once. Discover who you are. Then, if you're still an idiot, find a UFO religion or drugs to occupy all that goddamn free time you have.