Meet Mike, the science nerd atheist.

Mike the atheist writes in his gravatar bio -

Hello,

I am an atheist because of reason and personal experience. I am a father of THREE lovely living kids and two dead embryos, married to a lovely Christian Catholic devoted woman. Yes, black and white can coexist as long as there is respect and love, which is something abstracted from any belief or religion.

I do not claim absolute truth and not 100% sure that a God does not exist somewhere out there. The scientific method is what I use to connect to reality. If there is something I don't understand, then it is because i don't understand, not because god exists.

In case you haven't noticed, I am a native Arab, and English is my third language (yes there is second language).

I like reading the Bible and the Quran and the critics of both of them. I also love watching documentaries especially astronomy, cosmology, Quantum Physics, and new discoveries in science in general, and Physics in particular.

I stumbled over Mike when he wrote this comment on another site.

"Why won’t this God manifest himself to me and the other billions of naked apes like me and reach people in very very very very questionable ways that nobody can check upon because they are personal?"

Respect and love, eh? Mike seems like a typical atheist douchebag. Proud that he's "the father" of "two dead embryos," and refers to humans as apes. Now if that's actually him pictured then he's just a man who gives off the impression that he's educated let alone reasonable.

His bio and his post, as well as his as site, broadcasts that he thinks (too) highly of himself. It's mightily ironic that his site's banner is of starving kids in Africa and the Middle East, telling us he's really torn about such a demographic and their plight given, if we're being generous, humans are basically advanced embryos. All of a sudden that if you can "see" the child that child is a human and therefore important (remember how he spoke of his three children versus his two dead embryos).

"I , too, am a Jew."

Says Obama when reflecting on anti-Semitism and Holocaust Day. He's correct, he's a Jew, sorta, through his mother but he isn't practicing. In fact, I highly doubt he has passed on anything Jewish to his daughters let alone discussed with Michelle Obama on whether or not to raise their children in the faith.

This claiming that you're a Jew is like claiming you're a Catholic when you never went to church let alone been baptized, but even nominal Catholics or fallen away Catholics know a little more knowledge about their faith than secular Jews who aren't practicing. Catholics who fall into the aforementioned categories are "Catholics" if they have been baptized. The identity can be ingrained if one attends Catholic school, though dwindling by the numbers as an institution and in enrollment, which can offer a unique upbringing, especially if the faith is somewhat practiced by the parents and if the curriculum isn't a Mickey Mouse curriculum.

Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, compared to Bernie Sanders - a non-religious Jew and non-practicing - are two worlds apart not only in politics but also in faith and how faith influences their personal and public choices. Despite these things, Sanders can claim the Jewish card more than Obama.

I see Obama stating that he is a Jew in order to foster feelings that "he gets it" is poor taste. It would have more credibility if he were practicing. If we want to get tchnical he's "half Jewish." A (half) black Jew. Now that's an identity card that Obama is trying to take advantage of. I'll admit he has more mileage playing the black card than the Jewish card because any honest brain will just shake their heads at his "I, too, am a Jew." That's like saying one's a Catholic if one of their parent is a non-practicing Catholic and one who is a Lutheran. "Being a Jew" isn't hereditary; it isn't a race per se.

"We're all Jews," Obama solemnly states to commemorate Holocaust Day is stretching it. I'm not Jewish, my parents aren't and I don't identify as one. 

What Obama says isn't false, but it doesn't gain him any credence due to him never identifying as a Jew, but as a Christian (though Jewish is a Christina faith). What he's doing is exactly what he did when he said, "If I a had son he'd look like Trayvon." No. If Obama had a son he wouldn't look like Trayvon at all unless he had sex with Trayvon's mom. What he's doing is exactly the same thing he did when addressing the nation about gun control with the family members of the slain standing behind him, all while shedding a few tears. He's using his black skin, his skill to manipulate emotions in order to swing the vote his way and his mother's non-existence Jewish practices for his own benefit. Just say that you recognize the horror that was the Holocaust and be done with it. Visit the concentration camp memorial if you have to, but don't say, "We're all Jews." That's just weird.

I'd like Ben Shapiro to ask Obama about "being a Jew" in terms of faith practices and the history of Jews (excluding Holocaust questions because mostly everyone knows about that). Obama will probably chuckle, shift in his sit uncomfortably and say something along the lines that "being Jew" is more so of how one feels and if their parent was a Jew than any practice of traditions and religious beliefs. Actually, if I were Shapiro I'd look at Obama wits disgust as well as Sanders if they ever try to use the Jew card to gain sympathy or inclusion.

NYers getting mad at Cruz's "New York values" comment.

I knew what he meant. Other people who aren't all up in their city pride knew what he meant. The fact that NYers are committing themselves in explaining how diverse NYC is in terms of a voting bloc is amusing. I know that a parts of Brooklyn vote (D) while others vote (R). I know that The Bronx, Queens as well as Staten Island vote (R). It's Manhattan that dominates the politics. That's what Cruz meant.

This uproar about Cruz's "New York values" comment and the media coverage of the NE blizzard proves what Cruz meant: self-importance, arrogance and hypocritical. You can shit on middle America and the South but you can't shit on the NE, especially NYC. That's the shitty standard put on the rest of the country if you aren't on the West Coast.

Well, here's my message to NYC and DC -

Could Cruz been more accurate in his phrasing? Yea. To calm the living indignant out of the all the New Yorkers. I understood him. I knew exactly what he meant.

TMI over at neo-necocon.

WARNING: Sexual fluids discussed.

It's a little disturbing to see how others treat ABC so nonchalantly, even in a joking manner.

What a strange topic.

I’ll put it this way. I’m a Catholic … but I’m not a good Catholic …LOL

As if that's something to treat as a "Ah, so what?"

Wow! I may be a prude, though I/we for 47 years remain sexually active (yes I can still get it up without viagra). After the 3rd child, 32 years ago, I had a vasectomy. Shooting blanks does not diminish the pleasure of shooting blanks.

So you admit that it's all about the pleasure. Cut away the natural consequence (no pun) and you're free to roam with the buffaloes.

But onto what neo-neocon writes about the NY Times article, that women are too overwhelmed with the choices of artificial birth control (I thought ABC was a right being taken away?) that they simply opt for the "pull out" method. Good for the female if she has her orgasms but bad for the guy because he has to concentrate on actually pulling out when climaxes. Of course, the natural thing is to just have sex without much thought of whether or not pregnancy is wanted, and the male ejaculating into his sex partner. Natural as can be.

"Pulling out", as I was told in Robert Crown Health Center, is ineffective for the most part because of the pre-cum still on the vagina lips. If both parties are fertile and if nature has its way, the chances of the woman becoming pregnant is still high. Just because the man pulls out before he has his orgasm doesn't mean semen hasn't escaped.

What does this tell us? The purpose of sex is reproduction. The orgasm is the high, or the candy, that allures both parties to have sex. That's why sex can be addicting. That's why it's such a strong act that effects on emotionally, physically and even spiritually. Without the orgasm and the pleasure that comes during sex, sex would be a chore. Modernity has very much chopped sex into pieces, deconstructing it in a way that it makes the action trivial when pregnancy gets in the way, never really seeing sex as an entire act with consequences and meaning. As usual, the mentality of "as long as you attach meaning to sex it shouldn't really matter" is, as we've seen, all bullshit..

Artificial birth control (ABC) is unnatural, but since it's a major scientific breakthrough it's lauded. Poster "Sgt. Mom" over at neo-neocon's site said,

My dad, the research biologist, was not enthusiastic about the Pill, when it first came out and in regard to the use of it by my younger sister and I. I do recall that the question did come up. Our family was rather … freewheeling about topics of general interest. Reproductive medicine was not his specialty, but he was adamant that blindly messing about with human hormone levels was just not a good idea. Dad had also been adamant that we not drink commonly available soft drinks when we were kids because he worried about the effects of cyclamate.

Another poster, "CV " comments on the backwardness of the "all natural" movement.

It’s baffling to me that in an era in which so many people, particularly women, are obsessively focused on natural food choices, avoidance of chemicals in makeup and household products, etc. are perfectly willing to alter their body by taking birth control hormones.

It's a rarity, like a seeing a unicorn, to meet a woman who hasn't used some form of birth control in order to not get pregnant (I know there are some who take The Pill for health reasons not concerning unwanted pregnancies), as well as meeting a person who isn't married abstaining from sex due to self-dignity, or because one views sex as a sanctity. But maybe that's me being deluded and holding a bizarre view of sex, and most likely I'd be accused of not viewing women as equals.

Justin Scott, his fellow "millions" of atheists & non-theists, Salon: Not 'bright.'

Hide your kids, hide your wife because "Pastor-in-Chief" Rubio, if elected, will turn this nation into a theocracy! Or that's the mentality with American non-believers and non-theists.

As there's an outright attack on the 2nd Amendment (Obama, anti-gun) and 1st Amendment (college campuses) secularists think that an ancient book *cough* The Bible *shifts in chair (because who in their right mind would follow such a thing? I mean it's 2016! C'mon now!) * think their "rights" are being taken away. My ears must've missed the part of which particular rights where being eroded from dear Justin and his fellow secularists.

You just gotta cherish the tone that Justin gives out when he talks about God and heaven. Then he switches to his upset mode when it comes to his "rights."

Salon hones in on Rubio's declaration of faith on twitter and was met with decent comebacks.

In a tweet by "MaureenFudger," she proclaims she's a Catholic, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice (lists abortions to be allowed up to 5 weeks, supports various ABC) and is a Democrat thinks the Salon article went too far.

 

@Salon I'm Catholic, Democrat,pro-gay marriage, pro-choice conservatively (5weeks,MorningAfterPill,BC)&this is most foul attack on Catholics

— MaureenFudger (@maureenfudger57) January 17, 2016

JV winter team

When people in DC freak out about the upcoming winter vortex that's going to hit them and they think they got "winter cred" ... Psshhh. Try to survive Chiberia.

EDIT: In the DC metro, some did not mind the snow.

A small group of soldiers will brave this weekend's historic snowstorm to stand guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery. 

"These guys will be out in the snow, no matter what," said Major Russell Fox, a spokesman for the Army's Old Guard, according to ABC News. 

Tomb Sentinels from the Army's 3rd Infantry Regiment's Old Guard have guarded the memorial — regardless of the weather — for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year since April 6, 1948, ABC reported. 

"A lot of the guys are looking forward to this [storm] and kind of excited about it," Fox added.

Fox said the soldiers will be shoveling snow from the plaza so it will not impede their duty.

Too. Many. White. People.

The Oscar nominations were announced today and besides the usual disagreements on who and what should've nominated, some are very upset that the acting nominations were dominated by white people. As one concerned poster on IMDB entitled his thread "can we have a serious talk about diveristy in hollywood/awards."

The President of AMPAS also had something to with the lack of diversity in the nominations. In fact, she thinks AMPAS needs to "speed it up." 

Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs was diplomatic but clearly disappointed when I spoke to her at this morning’s Oscar nominations about the omission of African American-driven films like Straight Outta Compton, Concussion, and Beasts Of No Nation. “Of course I am disappointed, but this is not to take away the greatness (of the films nominated). This has been a great year in film, it really has across the board. You are never going to know what is going to appear on the sheet of paper until you see it,” she told me, while acknowledging the Academy’s very public efforts at diversity are moving too slowly. “We have got to speed it up.”

Gosh, it must be frustrating leading an organization so behind the times. I can't wait for trade magazines advocating for sensitivity training for all new members. The need to see darker pigmented human beings nominated has created its own twitter hashtag in the from of #OscarsSoWhite. At least that's a start, right? Because awareness and all.

As usual, though it hasn't been said already, people will blame the voting membership of AMPAS being filled with old, white men.

EDIT: Deadspin writer, Albert Burneko, lost his shit when the nominations were announced. As he writes -

For 363 days a year, nobody gives a fuck about the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Today is one of the two remaining days, when suckers care—and other suckers pretend to care—about who gets nominated for the Oscars, which are worthless trash and always have been.

Did Burneko just call himself a sucker? Yep. He goes on about the injustice of Carol not being nominated for BP because it's so progressive aka features characters of the same sex who "love" each other. I mean, how can you not nominate it!

If you loved Carol, which didn’t get nominated for Best Picture, congratulations: As of today, it officially is not the same kind of movie as Forrest Gump. The milquetoast taste, bigotry, and self-regard the nominations reveal has been on abundant display every single day for more than 80 years, in your local cineplex, in the form of the movies these industry clowns crank out every week. How can you act surprised by this, let alone offended? Placing value on those same clowns’ choice of movies to award is precisely like rending your shirt because your favorite restaurant didn’t make Guy Fieri’s list of top places to eat.

 Hey now, Forrest Gump was a great film.

To add onto the "too white" nominations, LA Times, Hollywood Reporter and other prominent rags are building the narrative of racial injustice. As always.

EDIT: Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti agrees that the Oscars lack diversity. 

About The Force in Star Wars

SPOILERS

There are theories on Rey's background in the newest installment of Star Wars -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Some say she's a Solo, some say she's a Skywalker, some say she's a clone, some say she's Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader reincarnated.

After thinking it through, if I had my wish, I'd have her as person who is neither a Solo nor a Skywalker. For a galaxy that's so spread out that warp speed is needed to travel between planets, The Force is awfully limited to the Skywalkers in terms of it being so strong. Besides Yoda, the Skywalkers have a monopoly on The Force being their ace. I'd like that talent to expand to others. Genetically, Anakin was "the chosen one" to restore balance to The Force. That talent was carried onto his son, Luke, as well as Leia, Luke's twin sister (it is implied that The Force lies within her, too) since her son, Kylo Ren, was trained as a Jedi, following his uncle's and grandfather's steps.

Given what J.J. Abrams has given us in the The Force Awakens evidence points that Rey has blood-connections to the Skywalkers. I don't mind this, but if so I'd like her to be a Skywalker, not a Solo. Making Rey and Ren sibling, copying of off the Skywalker twins, would tell me that creativity in a galaxy far, far away is as limited as green, livable planets. If Ren is the Darth Vadar of this Saga's newest trilogy and Rey as the Luke Skywalker, that says there's little effort put into the story. If it must be a family feud make them cousins; the fight between the two - if one of them dies - would cause a rift between Luke and Leia, which makes the story all the more interesting.

Rey being the female version Anakin Skywalker reincarnated would "complete the circle of life" but it would be extraordinarily anti-climatic. Don't even get me started on Rey being a clone.

I can go on how keeping the The Force, how strong it is, within the Skywalker clan - with all the comments on genetics and gender when discussing these theories - is both ironic and elitist given how advanced the galaxy presented in Star Wars is.

Michael Jordan had two sons. Neither of them are as athletically talented as their father. Neither of them are as tall. Then there was Kobe Bryant. Enter Lebron James. Say hello to Derrick Rose. Stephen Curry just waved at you. In my galaxy, talent is dispersed. In the Star Wars galaxy, where different life forms walk like humans and when human limbs can be replaced by robotics, having The Force genetically stay within one clan would be quite regressive (not to mention the inconsistencies if we talk about it being hereditary), after all Leia was once a princess who then turned into a general. Let the The Force be home to another person. Let the scavenger be her own person, with her own family history. Now that's something truly independent and "strong."

How The Left Abuses "Equal Opportunity."

2015 was a very interesting year for Leftists and their lackeys. It was filled with victories and incidences where The Left's juvenile and pathetic emotionally and psychological instability was on full display. Their argumentation was greatly to be desired. Given the subject head I will brief two main milestones of The Left.

(1) June 16, 2015. Obergefell vs Hodges.

People of the same sex can now be issued a civil marriage license.

(2) December 3, 2015. Women are allowed to enter combat/infantry MOS's.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter issues policy that forces all branches to allow women to serve in direct combat roles.

Both of these milestones were under the reasoning of "equal opportunity." (1) is pure bullshit because people with same-sex attraction could already get married, that is to the opposite sex which was the original sex requirement. (2) is where I think discrimination should be allowed to prevail. Men and women are innately different - different brains, difference in strength and agility, difference in subject aptitude. There is no animosity towards women who want to join the military in the US; there is animosity towards the once tried & true tradition of allowing only men to serve in direct combat roles.

What bothers me greatly is the attitude towards those who disagree with both decisions.

"It's the same thing with blacks when they weren't allowed to serve!"
"Brown v. Education!"
"In ten years from now it'll be normal for a female to walk into recruiter's station and sign for an infantry role. It'll be no big deal."
"Change always happen. In order for us to survive we must embrace change and there's nothing you can do about it."
"Deal with it."

These are the usual suspects in terms of comebacks when met with opposition. How is it fair that non-"progressive" policies and traditions can be changed and yet somehow "progressive" policy cannot? If all things are treated equal, that there are no grand differences, then what's the point if even caring?

"Meh. So what? I don't see a big deal."

This is the mentality of smug "progressives." Of course many will deny such a label, as they do, and in the ironic fashion embrace "I am nothing."

When so-called progressives get their way, those that disagree do have to deal with it. In the leftists mindset, as years past and as their policies are set in stone due to time, the future that they want becomes to the norm. I say why should it be the norm? If they worked tirelessly to change the laws they disagree with, why can't those that oppose with the changes work tirelessly as well to reset what has been changed? I say strike down Obergefell v. Hodges. I say strike down Ashton Carter's decision. The remaining same-sex licenses shall expire when either party divorces or perishes. The women in combat roles should either be assigned a different MOS or they should be the last of their kind, allowing no further participation of females.

I think so-called progressives have a narrow view of change. "Change" is their way replacing the old. But change can also be the old replacing the new. People will complain that it's going back to the "old days." I say so what. Yes and no. Yes because it is resetting the clock and no because it changes the current policy and norm.