Category Archives: Persons

Aphorism: “On Private-Sector Callousness”

Posted on by
Reply

By Madison S. Hughes (09.03.2011)

Am I the only one that noticed how, the probabilistically nearly impossible, latest jobs report showed that 17,000 private-sector jobs were created, while government payrolls were cut by an exact equal 17,000? Seriously, an EXACT inverse relationship . . .

Is this just irony? It could certainly be interpreted as such, and maybe I just have a warped way of interpretation. Nevertheless, I don’t see it as irony, but instead take it as insult. The “Haves” have been incessantly attempting to privatize the public sector for private profit since government’s genesis. Of course this comes with a blatant disregard for the “Have-nots” that they so easily exploit. However, in the past the “Haves” would at least go through the gyrations of herd concealment so that only the helpless minority of politically astute would realize its happening.

The zero sum of private-sector gain at the total expense of public-sector loss is reprehensible. It is yet another outwardly demonstration of the unfettered callousness of which the “Haves” regularly display.

In Solidarity!

Richard Dawkins, “Children are indoctrinated. I want to open their minds”

Posted on by
Reply

Dawkins continues to argue not just against faith but — as an evolutionary biologist — for inheritance, in terms of the chemical genes we are born with and the cultural “memes” that may be transmitted from generation to generation . . . “I’m very aware that people try to get their hands on children and indoctrinate them and I want to open their eyes, open their minds, show them the thrill of science — of really understanding so much of why we exist, why the universe exists, what life is .” . . . It was from his father, Dawkins says, that he learnt a “scientific attitude”. I ask him to define that. He replies: “Ceaseless questioning, scepticism, wanting to know what the evidence is, understanding what evidence means.” Read more . . . 

Christopher Hitchens, “Rick Perry’s God: Does the Texas governor believe his idiotic religious rhetoric, or is he just pandering for votes?”

Posted on by
Reply

. . . religion in politics is more like an insurance policy than a true act of faith. Professing allegiance to it seldom does you any harm, at least in Republican primary season, and can do you some good. It’s a question of prudence . . .  Perry can be reasonably sure that the voting base of the theocratic right has picked up his intended message . . . The risks of hypocrisy seem forever invisible to the politicized Christians, for whom sufficient proof of faith consists of loud and unambiguous declarations. Read more . . . 

Aphorism: On Religious Criminalization, Part Deux

Posted on by
Reply

By Madison S. Hughes (08.30.2011)

On 08.29.2011 I posted I posted a YouTube video on my blog titled, “Janet Porter Prays for Control of Government,” below which I penned the caption, “WOW! How disturbing is this? Religion should be criminalized before we find ourselves back in the Dark Ages.” As one may imagine, some found my caption as disturbing as the video itself. What follows is my response to a comment left by a fellow blogger. “dannyraysongs”responded to my comment as follows:

“I have to say that I’m also very disturbed by your comment Madison. It’s seems apparent here on your blog that you desire to get your message out. Are you really that naive to think that Christians, Jews and/or Muslims don’t desire to have more of their fellow believers in government positions? It seems quite apparent (or at least inferred) in your blog that you would like less devout believers (or atheists) in positions of government. Should we now police what people pray? Who would qualify to be hired as a Prayer Police Officer? I really do appreciate your talent as a writer, but I’m one of those right-wing Christians you obviously feel are so dangerous and deserving of criminal charges.”

I responded as follows:

Continue reading →

Sam Harris, “Whither Eagleman?”

Posted on by
2

. . . Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and I have never claimed that we can establish the nonexistence of God. We simply observe, as you do, that the God of Abraham has the same empirical status as Poseidon and that the books attesting to His existence bear every sign of having been cobbled together by ignorant mortals. This is all one needs to judge Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to be incorrigible cults peddling ancient mythology . . . In place of genuine ignorance, humility, and wonder—and even in place of real knowledge—religious people erect false idols and false certainties. Read more . . .  

Aphorism: On Religious Criminalization

Posted on by
1

By Madison S. Hughes (08.29.2011)

On 08.29.2011 I posted I posted a YouTube video on my blog titled, “Janet Porter Prays for Control of Government,” below which I penned the caption, “WOW! How disturbing is this? Religion should be criminalized before we find ourselves back in the Dark Ages.” As one may imagine, some found my caption as disturbing as the video itself. What follows is my response to a comment left by a fellow blogger. “jodaph970”responded to my comment as follows:

“Sure, it’s disturbing, but I also find your comment (“Religion should be criminalized before we find ourselves back in the Dark Ages.”) to be just as disturbing. Embracing a tyrannical dictation of what others should and shouldn’t do is the very antithesis of America.”

I responded as follows:

Continue reading →

Essay: “Modern American Poetry” / Madison S. Hughes

Posted on by
Reply

By Madison S. Hughes (12.16.2009)

While enrolled as a student in a graduate Poetry class, I was pleasantly surprised to find many peculiar, and fascinating aspects to modern American poetry. To begin with, I had a huge misconception of American poets as a whole. I was under the impression that American poets would not be anywhere near the caliber of their European counterparts. What I found was that not only were they, dare I say, probably some of the best poets in all of history, but additionally, the historical time frame of which they were part concerning class, race and politics was absolutely fascinating. My goal in this paper is to dispel some of the misconceptions others may have concerning American poets, and share some of the fascinating history of their time. Continue reading →

It’s All Relative

Posted on by
2

I am currently reading Saul D. Alinsky’s, 1971, “Rules For Radicals,” (Conservatives run for cover, be afraid, be very afraid! This book is like a gateway drug; the next thing you know, I will pick up “Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War Activist,” by Bill Ayers. After that it’s “turtles all the way down.” Ask your local atheist what the hell that turtles thing was all about.) Alright, I’m back, it happens okay, son of a . . . Anyhow, three pages into the fifth chapter titled, “Communication,” Mr. Alinsky addresses a fundamental (Conservatives, the word was fundamental, not fundamentalist, don’t worry, the  Islamofascists are not coming to get you, no need to run to Wal-Mart to load up on ammo; just sit back, relax, and sound out the words that follow. I am writing this slowly so you may be able to keep up.) As I was saying, Mr. Alinsky addresses a fundamental principle of effective communication concerning the sharing of certain experiences familiar to all. He shares an interesting story that addresses the unique lenses from which each of us view life. I thought I would share it with you, it reads as follows: [MSH]

Continue reading →