French court finds Scientology: GUILTY

Today rationality won a small battle over the cult known as The Church of Scientology. A French court found that the cult's use of it's "e-meter" to justify "prescribing" vitamins and supplements to it's members was fraudulent and fined several members of the church somehwere around 400,000 euros each. The original cnn article can be found here: http://m.cnn.com/#___2__

Specifics are not given, but presumably the court found that the e-meter is a very rudimentary polygraph machine, a fact that has long been known, which is why the device is not FDA approved for medical use in the states. The court probably found that since the device has no diagnostic abilities, the cult was being fraudulent by using "results" obtained through use of the device to justify any kind of treatment regimen.

Are Atheists Arrogant?

A common "argument" leveled at Atheists is that they are arrogant, whether it's for simply not believing in God or simply for having the audacity to be so confident in that belief. But is it arrogance? Is it more arrogant to believe in something for which there is no evidence, or to not believe in something for which there is no evidence? Am I arrogant for openly and unabashedly denying the existence of unicorns?

The truth is that while many atheists, and theists, may very well be arrogant, there is certainly nothing intrinsically arrogant about requiring there be evidence to back up one's beliefs, it is simply rational; and many atheists, and non-theists, would contend that it is precisely our rationality that sets us apart from animals-what makes us human. It would be truly tragic if the very thing that made us human... made us arrogant.

In the end, however, does it really even matter whether Atheists are arrogant? Does arrogant = wrong? I've always loved rhetoric (the art of argumentation), and one thing I've always noticed is that when people can't attack and argument, they attack the argue-er. This is what's referred to as an ad hominem attack and in reality it should be taken as a compliment to the strength of the argument it opposes. The proponent of the ad hominem attack might as well be admitting that the argument they are opposing is without flaw, and so naturally they must instead attack the undoubtedly flawed person extolling said argument. So in a sense, the very fact that the Atheist's opponent calls them arrogant, is a validation of the veracity of their argument.

Liberals blaim Obama for their own faulty expectations

Phil Graham famously said that this nation has become a nation of whiners, and as much as I hate to say it, on this point (and this point alone) I happen to agree with him. Of course, he was blaming the recession on our whining, whereas I am merely claiming that it is responsible for the continued indecision, infirmity, and impotence of the democratic party.

Believe me when I say that this is the last thing I thought I'd ever be writing about. Although I supported Obama during the primaries as well as the general (obviously) I never felt that overwhelming zeal so many liberals seemed to have for him. I'm not saying the Hillary supporters weren't equally as zealous, they were (remember how many of them claimed that if she lost the primary they would vote for McCain, how did that go?). But I simply didn't have the fervor so many people seemed stricken with when it came to Barack Obama. Which makes it doubly odd for me to see so many of the same people completely ABANDONING him not only when he needs them most, but also after doing a completely respectable job so far. In fact I would contend that these same liberals gave more deference to George W. Bush during his first year after allowing the single largest terrorist attack to occur on his watch, than they are to President Obama who has gotten the ball running on revoking don't ask don't tell, reforming healthcare, saved the domestic car industry, and brought back the stock market from the brink, all the while keeping this nation safe.

And they wonder why the democratic congress hasn't been able to pass a public option yet? Because they, and not the Congress, have no concept of loyalty and trust nor any idea of political practicality. Has our time with Bush left us so jaded that we can't even trust in our own candidate? They've already turned on him after less than a year, despite the fact that they elected him for FOUR years, not one. I don't know a single liberal who thinks that Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Why? Because what has he done for them? They certainly didn't ask who his competition was. That's something no one mentions. Which is odd because if you found out that Barack Obama won the gold medal in the men's five hundred, the first question you'd probably ask is, "who the hell was he running against?" They forget that Al Gore won the same prize for making a movie. And while his movie was quite influential, it didn't really have anything to do with peace, but I don't remember any of them mentioning that. But liberals don't really care right now. They've already turned. He failed to meet their wildest expectations. He failed to wave his magic wand and make all our troubles go away. And for failing to be the messiah, something he never claimed to be (but maybe looked the other way when others claimed it for him), they're punishing him. Punishing him even though he's already being punished by every republican for every move he makes. So how could Congress-people take as big a leap as the public-option when they know that their base is fickle even with their Golden Boy?

All you hippies in the democratic party should realize that Obama needs to get re-elected in four years, which is what you want. It's either him or a republican, I promise, and then you can kiss the very idea of healthcare reform goodbye. Please remember the average American has the attention span and memory of a gnat (as evidenced by the fact that you already seem to forget that we were going backwards for the previous eight years), and it might be better for everyone involved if he healed some of the lepers in his other three years. Would it really be the end of the world if he reformed healthcare this year, and repealed don't ask don't tell next year? If there is such a rush where was your rancor in the Clinton-Bush years? What's that? Healthcare reform without a public option is worthless? Who says? What the hell do you know. That's like saying no sex is better than a little sex. I'll take a little sex thank you very much. I'll take what I can get. Maybe instead of assuming that if something doesn't immediately pass the way you want it to it's Obama's fault, you should assume that it couldn't pass. Why shouldn't we assume he's doing everything humanly possible to live up to his word?

Finally, how is it that succeeding in keeping America protected from terrorist attacks (a commendable enough feat to convince many liberals that a President who stole his first term deserved a second) has now become par for the course. Barely worth mentioning. What has he does for us lately? STFU.

For more Obama/Nobel related cartoons, go here.