A Small Digression on "Politics?"

.

You know what really grinds my cogs?
When people call the circumlocutions politicians do, "politics".
"They never answered the question! They just talked around it!"
"Oh, well that's politics"
This kind of complacency is pathetic.

Sure, we attempt to rectify these prevarications by picking/concatenating to one short gem out of hours of speeches and superimpose them in impact font on an innocuous, high quality picture, but this does nothing; it may appear to have an effect, since they're capitalizing on it, but again, it does nothing. "Politicians" don't browse Memebase, DamnLoL, Funnyjunk, or any websites like that all day, or possibly ever. (What the fuck do they do all day?)
No.

"Vanus", am I right?

No.
NO.
NO.
This is not politics! This is being afraid!
Being afraid, to tell the truth.

As much as I'd love to say politicians should simply resort to one-worded answers, politics and things beyond politics are not that simple. You know this, I know this, the aliens hiding on the obverse side of Venus know this.
Now, as an upstanding member of society, subscribed to a rather steadfast oath of veracity for multiple reasons, I can assure you that I am an expert on tergiversation and prevarication, and also public gesticulation. But come on, this has just gotten ridiculous. Asking any legitimate question now automatically warrants a lugubrious and arduously scripted response filled with irrelevant trivialities and impertinent superficialities. Am I saying that politicians should simply cut down their answers into soundbites as to save that guy at CNN's workload every other day? No. Fuck that guy, he owes me 20 bucks.

What are we to do?

Fuck if I know. I get multitudes of emails and Facebook posts daily claiming signing something will procure some result desired of some asshole in Washington. Of these updates, I'm typically only told of one or two successes. I don't know, I'm rather pessimistic about the whole thing, I feel like the protagonist of The Great Gatsby sometimes when it comes to the issue of (at least) American politics. I don't know how well your countries can handle it, I've not all the time in the world to read the few resources I'm capable of accessing (Le Monde, Sveriges Radio, Dradio, NRK, СИТИ-FM), but I'm sure you've your share of somnambulist-engendering "speeches" for simple questions that any average person can answer in one word. I ate a booger thinking it was a chip once. Politicians now, in America, simply aren't what they used to be. The multitude of them are anachronisms from an era they weren't even born in. And now the political spectrum has become so discombobulated and stratified, that if there is a crossover in ideology, members of these sides will intentionally sabotage and capitulate their ideologies simply in order to remain whatever political affiliation they ascribe to. People have become so polarized in general that it's quite nearly impossible to forge a common ground, let alone meet on it.

Now, believe me (DO IT) when I say, I've heard some stupid ideological principles and ideas, but the real stupidity regarding holding these ideals is holding them with some sort of iron vice likable to a jealous anaconda's date. People change, societies evolve, dogs shit on your carpet, cats sit on your keyboard, and ideas are fluid waiting to be molded into something. I know there are things I believed when I was 14 that I no longer believe, and promulgate (I wrote a decree) it embarrassing to even be associated with ever believing such nonsense. (I used to believe the light in the refrigerator turned off after you closed the door, I've recently discovered that there was no light, it's all in your head.) There are things we look back on that are simply cringe-worthy. Most atheist's/atheists' coming-of-age is typically rife with "righteous" indignation and "imposed" angst. I know mine was. God never answered my prayers for snow-days. Fuck You. And there are some ideas I held throughout my middle and high school (Primary and Secondary) years that are simply repugnant to me now. (One of them is more of a lexical discrepancy.)
Most conservatives claim that being liberal is only a phase, that erodes away after more (extensive) experience(s) with the "lower classes" (actual quote I've seen). Albeit this is true for some people, it holds not for all. I wouldn't say I've become more conservative in my ideologies, I don't prefer to interpose myself in the spectrums we've now for such affairs, but I can attest to my disillusionments being more aimed to (not at) the "liberal" side of things.

My Major "Gripe" with Contemporary Political Commentary and Discourse

We can't agree on jack shit.

The news networks, the "talking heads", the inferior-to-mine blogs, your parents, your friends, even your pet salamander, no one is safe from our indelible arrogances and belief systems. Especially with religion, but that's for another digression. So why should I care about another's beliefs? "To each their own, right?" No, fuck you, you imbecilic apologist. "To each their own" is just a euphemistic way of saying, "I think your likes are shit/beliefs are stupid and am not willing to argue further on the matter in case I secretly agree with you or vice versa. Dick." You see, they're isn't any "moderation" or "middle-ground" anymore. You're either a "Socialist Commie Muslim" or a "White Christian Upstanding Citizen" now. You can't agree with a point a conservative makes without being an "idiot" or agree with one point a liberal makes without being called a "socialist". There are points raised by both sides that are legitimate and worth considering (and we all know which side has more), but it's impossible to hold onto these points without having someone completely disregard your opinion for having some slice of one ideology's pie and having another. Fatass.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go masturbate to pictures of shemales and convincing crossdressers.

120 out of 535 arbitrary old fucks.

Witty Catchphrase

Book Review: "Derren Brown: Tricks of the Mind"

Genre: "Religion and Philosophy... and Magic? Fuck it, I don't have a damned clue."
     Non-fiction... and Fiction? Shit.

Imported from England only
took two days!

Good news everyone!
I'm back, with an enthralling review of the ever-affable chicanery-connoisseur Derren Brown's book, "Tricks of the Mind"!
"Certainly", you say, "a book by a magician! How could you stoop so low!", but since so many of you are from Eurasia and other neighboring/slightly distant states, I'm sure you know exactly what Brown revels in.

Now, Derren Brown is a master of the countenance, seduction, illusion, and the mind, but one lovable trait he shares with both Penn & Teller is his sense of humor. It's not often one laughs out loud while reading a book, but I have committed the act multiple times whilst reading this tome. (And I'm not completely finished yet, so more out of obligation than for volition I will omit the last set (which is kind of dry anyway), as not to lie to you, my clever and unbelievably magnanimous readers).
One of my favorite bits that he's done was his "Russian Roulette" segment, shown live on British Television, where he influences someone to place a live round into a chamber numbered "One" on a revolver (also because he got away with saying "fuck". That might just be my American FCC experience, though), and then proceeds to fire the chambers at his cranium.


Now, I will provide an entertaining, yet 100% accurate pictoral representation of how this book's readership feels afterwards, based off of AskMen's "article reviews":

The "Furious" and "Sad" people
are obviously fundamentalists.

Now, for the actual book:

I have to admit, this book has one of the funniest/most interesting premier lines I've ever seen, "The Bible is not history." Now, I know what you're thinking, "Well of course not, I know that because I'm not an American", or for the Americans, "Well of course not, I know that because I'm not an imbecile!"; now, I loved this opening since it was such a "draw-in", per se, as a son of a marketer, I appreciate the finer things meant to attract attention, "Angry listeners are good listeners" (Or something like that) as the protagonist in "Pontypool" responds to the executive of the station impugning his jests at the citizens' drunken incidents.
Brown goes on to introduce himself as a former-fundamentalist (The U.K. still has those, apparently), and divulges his deepest secrets of his experiences of the abhorrent lifestyle. Of course, Derren Brown is now an "outed atheist", joining in the New Wave of Atheism and more specifically its newfound hobby of impugning ludicrous practices such as homeopathy (I'm sure you've experience with the absurdity) and "crystal healings", as well being as an illusionist himself. He reveals that it was actually his pursuit of the art of magic that eventually led to his self-condemnation, and hilariously so.
As I'm sure there exists those of you who have participated in the experience of Disillusionment (Title of first part, actually) , and there are those that haven't/have no interest in hearing about it, I will omit the major point of his experience and simply state his involves hobbies growing into professions, hypnotism, illusion, "peripheral seduction", telepathy, telekinesis, (sometimes) prescience, and other feats of human capacity that most people don't know are possible. Now, one thing you will notice whilst reading his book is that my writing is very similar to his, an unnecessary (his is less unnecessary than mine) amount of larger words, coy remarks toward(s) the readership, and hilarious digressions. (Digressions ranging from the "civility" to the "jubility", such as his account of leaving for a filming from his apartment: "A neglectful resetting of my lower garmenture after a last minute wee-wee had left the trouserly copula less than interdigitate, but I was manifestly unaware of my manifest underwear.")

Magic:

As I said before, and you, I am sure, my wonderfully illustriously astute readers have grown tired of me repeating myself, Derren Brown is a "Magician", of course, he refers to himself as an illusionist, and aptly so (of course, the skill-set he possesses extends well beyond the archetypal "illusion" domain, it is egregious of me to limit him to such a simplistic and limited term).

 The Coin Trick, Card Manipulation, Ouija Boards, and "Real Magic" 

Derren begins his literary journey with rather simple, fun tricks, a coin trick, to exemplify; it's simple, simply moving a coin off of a table with your hand, making it appear to still be in your hand, WHEN, REALLY, IT'S IN YOUR LAP. However, Derren Brown knows this trick is simple, and begins expounding on methods to intensify, stupefy, and magnify the reactions of your audience, "where the real magic happens". It eventually got so convoluted I got lost, again. Now then, it is in the first passage that the true intention Brown has for his book is partially revealed, a message can be gleaned then through his explanations and directions for this trick, magic is really in the audience's perspective. Simply dropping a coin into one's lap, whilst acting like it is in one's hand, and casually showing its absence isn't any fun. You have to prevaricate both your intentions and what exactly your attempts are.
And of course, Brown posits hilarity in wit regarding your actions of succeeding in any kind of deception you achieve, of which, I cannot ruin, that would be truly odious of me, I would cry myself to sleep another night, alone, for such a terrible act of double-think.

"The coin is in your kidney!"

The next trick epitomized for deception and mental convolution, is a simple card trick, the typical, "Is this your card, you fat, drunken excuse for a human being?" 'Tis really a simple trick, at least through Brown's explanation, you simply, whilst during a certain exercise of positing the cards for your audience to see, glimpse a card on the bottom of the deck, unbeknown to the simpletons surrounding you. This becomes the card you wait for, whilst revealing cards one by one from the deck, for the card after is the card they chose (because of how you split the deck, the bottom card, once the deck is split into two halves and switched, becomes the card most proximal to the chosen card).

As I'm sure you're all aware, Ouija Boards are bullshit. No, that's not a link, because this is axiomatic, for you, my unbelievably brilliant and talented readers.
It is a result of (some scientific jargon I can't remember, but basically:) unconscious movements of the muscles, of which can be manipulated in other activities. All one has to do, is simply think of something, and the brain will begin to evince activities in the exterior muscles in order to approach the end-goal, e.g. spelling a name or creating a message.

Memory

As a budding, strapping young psychologist, I know everything about the human mind, because I am an adolescent prodigy; however, I can only partially elucidate my knowledge on the subject, for fear of losing meaning and your sanity. Now then, memory, as you all know, is a very finicky thing, at times it amazes us, at other times it inactively prevents you from pulling your pants up or remembering where you put that goddamned remote. The main problem with memory, however, is how inefficiently people use it. We always try to remember phone numbers by repeating them constantly, or writing things while listening to people talk, and eventually getting lost or forgetting half the sentence, the reason for these things, is that both written numbers and words are a rather recent invention, in terms of Homo Sapien's existence. 

Oh my.

Now, what is it that people remember best?

Smells? Of course, the nose is one of the closest things to the main memory center of the brain, with a direct line to it as well, a trait not common to other parts of the body (most have an "interpreter" through specific parts). 

Tastes? Since taste is primarily smell as well, of course!

Sounds? Of course! This is obviously an evolutionary advantage for survival, especially sensitive ones. We have to remember dangerous sounds, e.g. rattlesnakes, cobras, lions, tigers, and bears.

Sights? Of course! Vision is actually a primary factor in perception, so much so, that it sometimes overrides other ones, e.g. when one sits at a stoplight and sees another move forward, and it feels like you are moving backwards, even though you are not moving at all.

Touch? I would honestly say this is the one that is less memorable, usually, pain is simply registered as "generic pain", of course, there are no exceptions.

To take true advantage and control of your memory, you have to incorporate the most powerful of your senses and use them in creative ways. Such as associating words with pictures, and connecting them, as well as doing the same things with numbers, There is also the Method of Loci, useful for memorizing lists. 

Words

Let's do an experiment: I am going to read off the example list Brown uses as his experiment to show you how powerful and useful these tricks are. Here is a twenty word list that he has engendered, that I will write from memory, I swear to you, on the oath of my veracity, I will not look at the book, the list is as follows:

1. Telephone
2. Sausage
3. Monkey
4. Button
5. Book
6. Cabbage
7. Glass
8. Mouse
9. Stomach
10. Cardboard
11. Ferry
12. Christmas
13. Athlete
14. Key
15. Wigwam
16. Baby
17. Kiwi
18. Bed
19. Paintbrush
20. Walnut

Ha! I still remember nearly a year after reading it.
Now, what is so fantabulous about this trick, is that I can now do it backwards just as easily, that I won't do in text since the list is right there.
The instruction:

• Look at the first word. Create an image of a telephone in your head, the more ludicrous or silly, the better. Brown suggests an old rotary phone. 
• Connect the second word to this word. In this case, sausage, once again, the more ludicrous or silly, the better, so, imagine, for example, trying to dial a number using a sausage as a "finger". Silly, right? EXACTLY.
• Now do this with the rest of the list. I followed Brown's example, and memorized it best from that.

Numbers

This is more difficult, because you've already a set list of numbers, which, unfortunately, changes per language, so Ett, Un, Ein, One, واحد, один obviously don't correlate very well. I'll try to do a universal set.

What Brown does is associates, for some numbers, the similarities in appearance to a letter, others in the sound the numbers make (the one more difficult for me to exemplify for you non-English speakers, unfortunately), and some that are just arbitrary, it looks like, and then associates those letters with generic and memorable words.

1. l: since it looks like an 'L', so "ale". The 'l' sound.
2. n: two downward strokes in a lowercase 'n', so "hen". The 'n' sound.
3. m: this one is explained by turning the '3' sideways, to make an 'm', or three downward strokes in a lowercase 'm', so "ham". The 'm' sound.
4. r: this one explained by the sound it makes, so "whore". The 'r' sound.
5. f/v/: simply the sound related to the word, so "hive". The 'f'' or 'v' sound.
6. b/p: the appearance of the '6', like a 'b', so "bee". The 'b' or 'p' sound.
7. t: the appearance of the '7' if drawn oddly, so "tea". The 't' sound.
8. ch/sh/j: I don't know exactly his reasoning for this one, but I think it is the odd spelling, so "shoe". The 'sh', 'ch' or 'j' sound. (Not the native German "ch" sound, unless you speak Southern German)
9. g: the appearance of the '9', like a 'g', so 'goo'. The 'g' sound.
10. l - z/s: now, since I can't get the formatting to start from zero I'll put it here, the zero correlates to the 'z' or 's' sound, his example is "zoo". Now what occurs here is the concatenation of the two letters/sounds used. When you approach the double digits, you associate them together to make their words, and then images. So here, "lice".

Miscellaneous: Card Decks, Scores, Names, and The Memorization of the Entirety of Shakespeare's Works in Chronological Order.

Brown then goes on to list his methods for memorizing decks, associating the numbers avec the letters of the cards (Hearts: 'H', Clubs: 'C', Spades: 'S', Diamonds: 'D'), and creating "peg words", i.e. creating a word of these, and then using a similar method to the aforementioned "Numbers", how to memorize their place in the deck.

Now, I was rather lost on the next part, since I don't pay attention to sports, specifically team sports, as well as being an American, "Soccer" or "Football" is not an interest to me. Using the amalgamation of the sciences above, Brown extends his example of how he memorizes the scores of the FA cup finals from 2005 to 1984.

I'm terrible with names until the second meeting, as are most people, so Brown uses an association method, associating one person with another well-known person, in some odd way, as to remember the name vicariously.

For some hilarious reason, Brown has the entire works of Shakespeare memorized chronologically, utilizing a "Memory Palace", such as Hannibal's, in "Silence of the Lambs", which is basically a more centralized and labyrinthine Method of Loci application. Brown associates particular events in a pathway through a building he has explored thoroughly, in order to prevent serious memory usage, going through particular events with names attached to the event.

Hypnosis and Suggestibility

I can't talk about this because I have been hypnotized.
But seriously, this section is dedicated to the power of unconscious and conscious manipulation through language, visual imaging, and pacification.

Bane and Joakim would be disappointed.

Have you ever been watching a movie, such as... the recent "Dark Knight" trilogy, and just suddenly had to masturbate to the sounds of Bane's voice? Well that's the power of suggestibility. Suggestibility is basically the non-obnoxious way of nagging somebody until they do something, most likely a way they or thing they never intended or wanted to do.
Hypnosis is almost entirely psychological. I say almost because I don't want you to think I know everything (even though I do). It is basically pacification with suggestibility woven into it. It is the process of making someone do something, with little to no resistance to the suggestions or "orders".
However, many people hold the misconception that they've a large penis. A common misconception about hypnosis is that it is extremely powerful, it is instigated by droning on with an annoyingly smug voice, or conducted by simply waving a watch as a pendulum. The process is really just gradually wearing down one's mental bulwarks of common thoughts and conscious processes.
The major focus and power of suggestibility lies in superficially innocuous repetition, and using key words. I mean, that's pretty much all I can give you.
Because I've been hypnotized to say no more.
There is, however, a portion of this section dedicated to motivational and self-help methods, such as confidence, phobias, fears, and anxiety. Focusing on how to present yourself, to yourself, who better to make you a better person than yourself? The answer is me. But unfortunately, teleportation and mass-telepathic RSS feeds don't exist yet. Yet.

Unconscious Communication

Now, I'm sure you all know, body language is a very revealing and sometimes annoying beast. Sometimes, simple gesticulations can lead to eventual capitulations, evinced countenances can lead to completely unethical workplace behavior, and sometimes body language can help you seduce that pelican you've been watching ever so closely at the zoo every Friday. The real "annoying" part of body language is the unequivocally convoluted and specific gesticulations for each person (and sometimes universal ones, I'm quite certain a fist placed on one's face forcefully is usually a bad happenstance), and the fact that a majority of it is completely unconscious.
"Does that girl like me? She keeps making eye contact..."
"Why the hell does that guy have a pelican on his shoulder?"
"SCREE SCREE"

"Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not an Alpaca!"

See how complicated body language can make things?
I believe this to be a very important note, one that is actually applicable, and serious:
I'm sure you men can sympathize with others who believe women are confusing.
And I'm sure you women can sympathize with who believe women are confusing.
Well, I, Dr. Albino Psychomantis, am here to help.
You see, in situations where "communication is key", what multitudes of people omit, is how the communication is conducted, through what medium? This is the key. I will present Brown's example.
In a land across the pond, a man is growing frustrated with his wife, whom says she doesn't hear him say "I love you" enough. The man, of course, is frustrated by the fact that he believes himself to be a very dedicated and giving husband, he brings home gifts of affection much more than any man in a serious relationship he knows, e.g. flowers, chocolates, etc. So what is he doing wrong?
Well, what he is doing wrong is communicating in the wrong way, to show his affection. He is showing her his dedication, but she wants to hear his dedication. Savvy? I didn't know this beforehand. That was before I was a doctor. Which, in chronological accordance, would be about a week ago.
But you can trust me, I'm a doctor.

Anti-Science, Pseudo-Science, and Bad Thinking

Goddammit, he even looks
like a stupid fuck.

This section of the book, of which I'm almost through reading (but I've read enough books with this as a dedicated section, so I know all the examples already) is expounding on how humans think, but in irrational, and non-holistic ways. It is primarily focused on percentages and math, fortes most people don't have. Unlike myself of course, for some reason I've memorized all the squares up until 25, I wait for the day that someone asks, probably won't happen in Psychology courses, where math-illiteracy seems to be a requirement.
That digression aside, a major portion of this section is lionizing and demonizing common human rationality.
Like the MMR vaccination insanity, a result of "fright sensationalism" (papers writing shock essays for more subscribers and other nefarious, short-sighted purposes).
So, how about that homeopathy? Yeah. You spray water and suddenly, your convalescence is either accelerated or spontaneously appears! My god, no wonder Africa is in such terrible shape! They've no water to spray into the air!
Crystal Healings, the fuck is that about? If crystals really had the chance to heal, then coal miners wouldn't need to wear masks, and would practically be invincible.
"Alternative Medicine". There's medicine, and there's not medicine. If something is an "alternative medicine", and it works, it becomes medicine. "Alternative Medicine" is the universal moniker for palliatives. (HOLY SHIT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO REMEMBER THAT WORD FOR OVER THREE WEEKS.)
Then, "anti-science", people claiming atheism, science itself and other secular institutions "religions" themselves.
Atheism: The lack of belief in gods.
Science: The rigorous testing and analyzing of phenomena. There's no 'belief' directly involved. Objectivity is pretty much its reason for existing.
Secular Institutions: The end goal is to completely separate religion from the political sphere, it's the "politically correct" "anti-religion".

Finally,
My Bit:
I have to say, I honestly didn't know what to expect when I ordered a book from Derren Brown, I vaguely remembered him from some illusionist show he did on the tele in America (as to deceive people with the aid of anonymity), as well as seeing some interviews with Dawkins. But I was very pleasantly surprised immediately when I started reading it. Derren Brown's writing is the epitome of a British Bill Cosby, but yet, instead of family-oriented humor, we've humor meant for intellectuals, meant for skeptics, meant for the iconoclastic contrarians who spend their spare time improving their affability and ability to interest and seduce people with coin tricks. 


6 788 arbitrary things out of 6 788 arbitrary things.


Witty Catchphrase

Unrelated Shit: "A 'Real' Math Problem?"

How about... no?

A tidbit of math for those insomniacs who, for some ungodly reason, still read stuff I post on here.

Now, the "hilarious" example typically posited of "How math is taught vs. How math is tested", is meant to infuriate, and to exemplify (a hyperbole, of course) the "typical" course of mathematics.

A hilariously simple problem, typically instantiated for the example on a math test:

"Mary has three apples, and John has two, calculate the mass of the sun."

This is laughably simple.

Mary has four letters. John has four as well.

Now, if we take the numerical values (of 26) of the letters and multiply them by four, we have passed the first threshold.

Thusly: Mary = 1311825

John = 1015814

Multiply both by 4: 1311825 x 4 = 5247300

1015814 x 4 = 4063256

Now, respectively, they've three and two apples: 5247300 x 3 = 15741900

4063256 x 2 = 8126512

Now, in a typical situation of apple-holding, one or two are exchanged.

So we can safely assume, at some point, the apples were exchanged, probably for sex, and we must also factor this into our calculations. Now, the value of a stock exchange is almost entirely arbitrary and unpredictable.So, going off of the figures of the NY Stock Exchange values of stock price per metric ton of apples of the year the question is asked, we can determine the exact values that the stockholders have assignated to the trade between the two.

At this point, the numerical values determined by the previous calculations shall now be considered to be in metric tons, the value of stock exchanged (which way the apples are traded does not matter), so, the stockholdings that Mary has is: 24.7 x 15741900 = 388824930

and for John: 24.7 x 8126512 = 200724846

Multiplied, these equal to 7.804682e16.

Now, since these were multiplied, it can then be assumed the previously insinuated sex act traded has resulted in a pregnancy, so we then must add 100% of the value to compensate for the added child.

This is now equal to: 1.560936e17.

The child, whose attributed value, is actually a negative amount, since children cost approximately 300 thousand, we must subtract this.

We are now at an unchanged: 1.560936e17.

John and Mary, two extremely generic names, have now given birth to a child, since we can expect the math teacher to be extremely uncreative, we can assume the child's name will be Chris.

We must now do the nomenclature math again.

Chris = 3818919, as per usual, in a will the entirety of one's stock is given to the inheriting/living individual, once the two, Mary and John, expire, Chris will inherit all of their investments, thusly, we must then multiply his estimated value against their stock's value: 3818919 x 1.560936e17 = 5.961088e23

However, since Chris was born into such a troubled family, he will have almost no sentimentality, and will sell these stockholdings for something else, with an inflated value, the apple stock of an estimated then 35.7 must be used to calculate how much his trade is worth. 35.7 x 5.961088e23 = 2.128108e25

But lo and behold! We've not added in the Apple nomenclature:

Apple = 11616125

Multiply this times the previous value: 11616125 x 2.128108e25 = 2.472037e32.

However, these values are all used in the metric ton, we must now convert from a metric ton to a kilogram, the standard measurement for mass: 2.472037e32 / 1000 = 2.472037e29.

And finally, we do the final steps.

1.  We multiply by 3 to account for the three ending members of this problem: 2.472037e29 x 3 = 7.416111e29.
2. We double this number for the weight of the test grade: 7.416111e29 x 2 = 1.483222e30.
3. And finally, We multiply by major notifications we've taken.
4. Each with decreasing value.

• 1.00 for the actual problem.
• 0.3 for the amount of people in the end.
• 0.04 for the letters in the names
• 0.001 for the amount of apples left if John's are subtracted from Mary's.
•  1.341 x 1.483222e30 = 1.989001e30

Also written as 1.989e30 kg.

The mass of the sun.

You can look that shit up.

Fortunately, I did it for you.

So next time you share those "funny pictures",

get a real problem. 

This is your math teacher
after accepting defeat.

Witty. Fucking. Catchphrase.

Book Review: "The God Delusion", by Richard Dawkins

Genre: "Religion and Philosophy"
   Non-fiction

This book, that I actually only just read last fall, is also a product of one of the four Horsemen, this time, Dawkins, and as I've said before, Dawkins is the fiery proponent of Science over Religion, compared to anti-theism itself (Eventually I'll get around to reading Daniel Dennet's book, so I'll finish a quadrology), another major focal point of Dawkins is his opinions about the effects of religion on children, which I will get to momentarily. If you wish, you can look up multiple experiments he conducts that show his cunning and mockery of silly things such as "psychic mediums" and so forth. So, going off of that premise:

Let the review begin!

The Premise: "Religion is bad", but rather, as the title suggests, religion's "faith centroid", i.e. the deities put forth inward of the religion, basically the entire foundation, is a "delusion", it is something that is a noumenon, it is almost certainly not physical, nor will it ever be. Of course, as us being atheists, we are required, (reluctantly, at times), to talk mainly about the "Desert Trinity", (since they're the ubiquitious assholes (no exceptions, it's all of them (all generalizations I make are false))), however, as is with the "New Wave of Atheism", a discussion also turns its head and focuses on certain aspects, typically considered "innocuous" by the mainstream trinity (except the fact that they're "wrong"), are just as egregious (specifically certain actions of particular sects of Buddhism and other related religions, as well as animistic religions), as any atrocities they've committed since the advent of their reigns. 

Part 1: "Why there is almost certainly no God"

Dawkins is what you could call... "Old". Regardless, Dawkins explicitly states the definitions of Agnosticism and Gnosticism, that I think is an excellent point to use on a scale, shown below:

My Real problem is more about how "obnoxious" or "pretentious" they are about it, follow any discussion of [X religion] vs. Atheism, and it's ineluctable, people claiming to be "Agnostics", or "I don't give a fuck about religion"-ists, and think that absolving themselves of an inexorable "ultimatum" makes them better.

Moving past my indelible hatred of "agnostics", I believe it important to actually talk about the book; Dawkins is a man fond of math, fond of science, and very fond of Darwin. So, Dawkins elucidates why he believes there is certainly no God, going off of mathematical probability, as well as the effects on them resulting from monumental leaps and bounds made in the last few decades of (rather) unbridled scientific inquiry (the 80's was a good age, since everyone was doing cocaine. Everyone.).

"The God Hypothesis": Dawkins begins with his analysis of the "God Delusion" by basically creating an "abstract", like that of academia, summarizing his points and elaborating briefly on what exactly he will describe and analyze. Thusly, Dawkins differentiates between the common "Deist"/"Pantheist" Gods (Such as Einstein's), and that of an anthropomorphic, personal God, one multitudes of "flocks" (diction chosen) arrogantly arrogate their entire adult (and sometimes young) lives. As a devoted scientist, Dawkins, reluctantly and temporarily, performs the ascription of "Hypothesis" to the God claims, giving it momentary credibility (and thusly, falsibility), simply for the sake of adjucating, like any valid hypothesis must be put under, and to (hopefully) persuade people to remove the shackles of their credulity (I commit this, unfortunately, but with people instead, I'm a very trusting individual; I don't prevaricate, as much as people impugn that. Mendacious individuals are obdurate reprobates (any redundancy intended), linguistically meretricious mountebanks, and deserve any aspersions they receive), an unfortunate predecessor toward(s) extreme penury of critical and perspicacious thought.
As any sagacious and intelligent individual knows, learning as much as one can about a subject is never detrimental (unless it's porn), unfortunately, the non-detrimentality does not extend to indemnifying its infallibility, quite often it does the opposite.

Dawkins accuses the actual theism side of the "ultimatum" (if you so choose) as being the obverse side of the argument on any form of personified God. 

Multiple times, he instantiates practices that religion has... basically fucked over both believers and "infidels" of that religion, such as the re-emergence of Polio in India, because of Islamic fundamentalists propagating the beliefs that vaccinations were actually chemicals implanted to sterilize their population (a stronger strain, too, similar to the phenomenon of excessive uses of anti-bacterial materials leading to super-strains of viruses as well), and, of course, the Bosnian-Serbian conflicts.
Dawkins is (as are Harris and Hitchens) persistently hounded on the "natural selection" topic, since a majority of the public (America, I'm looking at you) believes it to be synonymous with "chance". This is obviously not the case, because "Natural Selection" has the fucking word selection in it. Anyway, since they must constantly answer these questions, I will posit it, for you, the people, as to prevent from making fools of yourselves. Because I love you.
Natural Selection is "defined as the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers", i.e. it is not so much, "Survival of the Fittest", as it is "Survival of the Most Adaptable".
Now that your knowledge has increased in size exponentially, I return to a major point in this part of the book, the favorite of scientist's, "Occam's Razor", in such, he suggests that a universe with an omniscient and omnipotent god is much more complex than a universe without one, in that this God would be so much more unnecessary from a scientifically explaining standpoint. It's just too mentally labyrinthine, or convoluted, (so to speak), to be worth considering.

Part 2: "Religion and Morality"

"What is morality?", you, my astute reader is obviously asking yourself after reading the preceding heading, "It's a religious phenomenon, right?", you, my (temporarily) naïve reader, then asks, of course not! This is an atheist book review, you should be ashamed of yourself for asking such a ludicrous question! Anyway, morality has long existed before any bigots came along to ruin everyone's fun (specifically referencing the dominant religions, who claim morality comes directly from their holy texts), and it is only recently that non-religious can openly challenge both that fact, and the other holistically trivial (yet still important!) fact that they're not fucking assholes.

Religious Morality is illogical

Dawkins, ever the evolutionary biologist, continues onward toward(s) his specialty, the direct effects of evolution itself, he contributes to the genetic discussion that altruistic genes, and other respectful gregarious genes are passed down lines, since these traits usually aid in survival, as a larger group has better chances at hunting and protection. And of course, the laughably ridiculous accusation "If you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from raping, stealing, and murdering?", and of course, my ever witty self, retorts, "Well other than the fact that I've never done those, not really having any desire to do those things, of which, you obviously wish to do, since those are the first things to come to mind once you imagine life without God" (Although, I don't believe I've ever heard that question either directed at me or in person, I wait for the day, eagerly).

"Toward(s) Religion": Dawkins has an obvious contempt for religion, more so in specific categories, such as their indefatigable attempts to subvert science, manipulate and subjugate people's lives, indoctrinate, and vitiate any progress humanity can make that disagrees with their anachronistic worldviews. But even more so, Dawkins is an avid proponent/activist toward(s) autonomy for the children of religious parents and communities. Ever the Briton, Dawkins strongly opposes the assignation of "[Religion] Child", such as "Catholic Child", or "Muslim Child", since these attributes are:

1. Inappropriately authoritarian
2. Disrespectful
3. Inciting, and 
4. Foolish.

He likens this to saying one is a "Marxist Child", or "Republican Child", which is simply something people don't do. 

And finally:

My Bit:

I have absolutely no complaints to say about this book, (not that I can remember, of course), but I didn't have any to give about the last ones, did I? And of course, I enjoyed it thoroughly, because the more "intellectual" a book is, the more likely the book is euphuismistic. Of course, the book can be dry at times, since Dawkins is a dedicated proponent of science, and science can be dry sometimes, but it is still definitely worth a read.

I give it a .87 out of .88 arbitrary things.

About the author:

Did you know he was born in Kenya?
He can't be president!

Dawkins is an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement. He is well known for his criticism of creationism andintelligent design. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argues against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he describes evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—"a fixed false belief".

Witty Catchphrase

I'M OUT OF OLD GEMS!

Bad news everyone!
I've run out of Old Gems (that I've completed), so I'll have to expedite the completion of the few I'm currently in the process of finishing.
I'm also enthralled and consumed by Demon's Souls and Dark Souls at the moment, because they really are as hard as their reputation leads one to believe (I spent 3 hours on one save game without even getting to the first boss).
To clarify, it is NOT because I was watching the olympics. Or glued to my television for the Mars landing. It was definitely because of the PissTree.

I've also rediscovered Falconer, man, I thought my Swedish leanings stopped at the Language and Sabaton, nope.

So, for this week, I may review either "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, triple review "Free Will", "The Moral Landscape", "Lying" by Sam Harris, or possibly Bruce Bawer's piece, "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within"; since you all seem to love reading me ramble on about the Four Horsemen and New Atheism. Shit, I should review a Darren Brown book one time, his have information that you can use outside of arguing with religious people.

Unrelated Shit: "Unrelated Shit"

Hello Friends, Freunde, Amis, Друзья, Cairde, Vänner,

I thought I'd take this instance of the "Unrelated Shit" segment to provide informative graphics that elucidate things I could never expound upon from life experiences successfully, since I suck at reading/understanding people's idiosyncrasies and languages (body and diction).

  

From life experiences, particularly the last two relationships, both resulting in the women claiming I am awful at those languages.

(As if I give a fuck)

That's silly, however.

The, "I don't give a fuck about what other people think about me" attitude. 

It's a rather jejune mindset, most people use it in a jocular manner, of course, but almost every jest has eyes of truth behind them.

You should give a damn about what other people think about you.

I'm not going to say the cliché bullshit "In the real world, blah fucking blah", or "Once you get a job, I'm a fucking cunt yadda yadda yadda", I'm going to keep it simple.

Peoples' opinions do matter.

We wouldn't have an entire cultural distortion resulting from it, a culture of freedom of expression versus the counter-culture of apathetic indifference to things that might actually matter, if we really didn't care.

The entirety of our youths are dedicated to receiving other peoples' opinions and instructions. Out of the ineluctable "teenage spirit" of rebellion and clashes of values, we rebel against this norm we've had to endure, sometimes painfully, for the majority of our youth; but what truly, are we committing in this act? Sure, it's a "power trip", we're simply taking advantage of the new liberties we receive in the approach to adulthood. But are we doing it the right way?
Of course not. Nobody immediately assumes power and uses it the right way. You don't pick up a gun for the first time and hit dead-center nine bullets in a row.

(You'll probably end up jacking your shoulder or your wrist like I did.)

So of course, I know you're lying, or sitting there, early in the ungodly hours or late in the night at the mall because your lady-friend decided she wanted some clothes, and you need entertainment as you sit there, waiting "eagerly" to voice your opinion which you know she will ignore, wondering, "Holy shit, how did he know that?", but seriously, you're probably wondering, "Well why should I give a shit about your opinion, random American blogger?" Well, that's your decision. But it's a powerful decision. If you heed my advice (or you're a mature enough person to already be living as such), you'll learn so much more about other people, and yourself, if you just listen, to what they have to say.

Not "hear", "listen".

Sure, you can disregard my opinion entirely, I cannot change that, and you can simply disregard the opinions of everyone else, and live the rest of your life as some teenage girl who tweets about how annoying everyone else is, and how that no one has a "life" but her, or you can live a life that still revolves around you, but in such a way that you wish to improve yourself on what other people say, not to appease them, but to satisfy yourself, and to really understand and dedicate yourself for what you really want to be, and achieve.

Full Size

Amazing how such subtle mannerisms and gesticulations can hint so much, is it not?

There is so much written in one's countenance, their past, their present, and their perceptions of their future. They mean not to evince so much toward(s) anyone else, but it can, and will, always come through. Even I, one of the most stoic individuals, display such subtleties as to betray my emotions or thoughts. Usually they match my face. I.e. nothing. Of course, body language is the department I am "lacking" in, according to my last girlfriend. But that's mainly because I look like I just don't care. But hey, at least I'm honest!

Full Size

Sure wish I had a damned clue about music so I could do something about this. Hopefully you can, however. I just play random notes on a piano sometimes, no sheets or anything, just play around, really. It helps for dexterity, never a hindrance.

Full Size

One of the tougher questions anyone can ask themselves, for this question directly affects their perspectives of their (post) mortality.Given facts to the contrary, of course, usually leads to a dissonance that never ends well. This is a major reason I say, "listen", and not "hear". It never hurts to try and understand someone, unless dey tak liek diz.

So, really, what do you want out of life? 

Book Review: "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything", by Christopher Hitchens (13/4/1949, 15/12/2011)

Genre: "Religion and Philosophy"
   Non-fiction

This book also has the things I love in books: big words, complex sentences (euphuism, basically), and deliberations on relatively unknown and interesting topics.
How can one refuse reading one of the multiple magnum opus's of "One of the most prolific, as well as brilliant journalists of all our time"? -London Observer
This is the man who has been arguing for decades against the crimes committed in the name of religion, arguing for decades for the liberation of women, the "only known cure for poverty, [...] the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction", arguing for decades against the present ingratiation, condescension, and manipulation from those that people put so much trust in and regard for, to be struck down over and over again, but pulled back like an abusive relationship with one with infinite power.
One of the main problems major religions share with abusive relationships is the placement of guilt, a cycle seen here:

I mean really, the "Rhino Position"? Seriously?

The Premise: This book has the same approach and topic(s) that Sam Harris' book, "The End of Faith" has, however, this book focuses more on religion in general, than Harris' "action analyses" (reporting on the actions instigated through faith), specifically the "Desert Trinity" (Abrahamic Religions). Harris is more an Islamic antagonist, as said before, and Hitchens is anti-religion, i.e. anti-theist.
Thusly, Hitchens presents his arguments against religion's influences, how fucked up their history is, and how insulting it is that people ignore the roots of their "favorite" Sunday pastime.
So really, what Hitchens really wants readers to pull from his book, is that organized religion's beneficial usages can no longer merit the atrocities they still commit, for these beneficial acts can be performed completely separate from any religious influence, and that the rest of religion anachronistically pervading is no longer justifiable.

The "cultural differences" bullshit pulled is no longer valid.

Religion: 

The advent of Hitchens' major explosion into the mainstream American public circuit can also be directly correlated with the events of 9/11 (even though he and Dawkins have been in the debating and "Skeptic Circuits" for ages), however, Hitchens differed from the other three Horsemen in his support for the Iraq War, regardless, his book shines in the a(nti)theist respect.

Hitchens chooses a myriad of topics in his book arguing against religion, such as: "Why Heaven Hates Ham", and "There is no 'Eastern Solution'".

The main overarching argument Hitchens posits, both implicitly and explicitly, is that religion just doesn't work, or make sense. And he does not isolate his criticisms to any religion, he even posits instances where sects of Buddhist retreats subject their people to "sadomasochistic rituals" in order to breed fraternity (specifically women). 

Major points of Hitchens' arguments focus on presenting the absurdity and cruelty of a Desert Trinity's God (of which Hitchens is one of the most redoubtable enemies to in our history), and its effects on humanity as a whole, the subjugation of women, the abuse of children, and incapacity of practicing its own philosophies it indefatigably attempts to use to rectify their past and present atrocities.

"Putting it Mildly"

The intro to his book, Hitchens discusses how he believes religion has survived so long, as that it is a crutch (As Madalyn Murray O'Hair would say it), used to alleviate fears of mortality, and interpolate nonsense to explain the unknown.

"Religion Kills"

  This section of the book is dedicated to present affairs of violence committed in the name of religion, namely the fatwa declared on his friend Salman Rushdie, as well as other instances; one of which is in response to a radio host asking him if he were to feel comfortable seeing approaching people retiring from a religious service, Hitchens gives a resounding No. He also brings up his analyses of the Serbian and Croatian "ethnic cleansing" segments, of which he assigns it more a "religious cleansing", for both sides isolated and prejudiced almost entirely on Islam or Christianity.

 "A Short Digression on the Pig; or, Why Heaven Hates Ham."

He talks about "porcophobia" (his word), the fear and avoidance of ham or pork in Judaism and Islam; going so far as to remove "The Three Little Pigs", "Miss Piggy", and "Piglet" from "Winnie the Pooh" in Islamic ruled states, for fear of the images removing the innocence of their children once seen. Of which he hypothesizes is a result of archaic sacrificial rites' fears and the similarities in tastes of pork and human flesh.

"A Note on Health, to Which Religion may be Hazardous"

Hitchens is an anti-theist, there's no arguing about it, but he was also a humanist, thusly, his antagonism extends beyond the violence of religion, an into the retardation of society it commits. 

"Bring me the Children"

It is here that he addresses how Muslim extremists propagated conspiracy theories about the polio vaccine in their countries (as well as India), leading people to believe it would make them immoral and brainwashed to the distributors.  Polio was almost eradicated. Until religion reared its fucking head with a vengeance. Like herpes. It's always there, sometimes it's innocuous and superficially dormant, but sometimes it flares up and it's just hideous to look at and you don't want to touch it. (Unless it's a little boy, apparently)

He continues on towards genital mutilation, i.e. "circumcision" for the western world.  Specifically Jewish and Muslim circumcision rituals performed even now (now banned in Germany), and further onward towards female genital mutilation in multiple parts of Africa.

"The Metaphysical Claims of Religion are False"

One major distinctive factor between Hitchens and the other three, is his pugnacious debating style, and specifically how well he conducts himself in such situations. This chapter is a testament to that fact. In it, he explains that faith has no more material to hold believers anymore, all attempted explanations of the universe via religion can now be explained empirically, and making a "leap of faith" in these matters isn't a single leap, it is multiple leaps, and the length and difficulty of the leaps is inversely proportional to the gaps religion once held now being filled by science. 

This is all up to Chapter 5 of 19 Chapters

This is one book I wish to willingly omit talking about the next 14 chapters because it would simply ruin it for new readers, they're all so beautiful, and I could do no justice by writing four to seven sentences about each.

So I'll just sum it all up the best I can the next few chapters without going into so much detail you'd have nothing to read!

So you can call this the "My Bit:" section:

If you've read any other "major" atheist book, you've probably seen a lot of the arguments left to be posited in the rest of this book, religion only has so many arguments, and so then does atheism.
Topics range from how Islam is basically a bastardized version of Judaism, and thusly so are its books; arguing that religion itself added to a person has no real effect on morality that could implemented without it, that one can be "Good without God"; that the entire power of religion comes from the indoctrination of children and forced moral absolutes used against them and their parents; and how the annals of religions predict an apocalypse, to a point that believers may aim to make it happen themselves.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, unfortunately, I got "into" the Hitch just a few months before he died, so I didn't really get to appreciate his work as much as I could have, without feeling regret about missing so much of him in my youth. Really would have helped me in the younger years of school.
Regardless, this book is great, it's well written, Hitchens was a journalist for decades, and his writing displays that as bright as a bonfire.
He will be missed.

I give it a literal goddamned 10 out of 10 arbitrary things.

About the Author:

The Man in his Natural Element

Christopher Eric Hitchens was an English American author and journalist whose career spanned more than four decades. Hitchens, often referred to colloquially as "Hitch" was a columnist and literary critic for New Statesman, The Atlantic, The Nation, The Daily Mirror, The Times Literary Supplement, Free Inquiry, and Vanity Fair. He was an author of twelve books and five collections of essays. As a staple of talk shows and lecture circuits, he was a prominent public intellectual, and his confrontational style of debate made him both a lauded and controversial figure.

Witty Catchphrase