The Redneck Lifestyle

The Redneck Lifestyle
Sponsor by the Redneck Coalition of the Deep South

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Technology That Makes Sense

Don't understand why this country can use cheap and efficient technology that works in many development country? I understand that those technology isn't sexy and cool for a superpower like ourselves, but we need to be smart and efficient. If something works and can be done cheaply, we need to implimented in our social-economical system

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Fox News President Roger Ailes Caught Lying

Does this not demonstrate that people don't real care about truth but only on what they see as "truth"? Isn't this the reason why conspiracy theories linger in our psyche a lot longer than any factual truth does? And FOX News knows this and are willing to use this for their advantages because they know that most people will buy into conspiracy theories than factually-checked news. FOX News is right that the America people knows better, which is that the America people wants conspiracy theories rather than factually examined and checked news. That is why FOX News is the most trusted news source in this country because it is exactly what most people want to hear and see. We all love the idea that there is some huge uncovered conspiracy plaguing our government and our lives which needs to be uncovered and FOX News feeds our most basic and primitive need.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Living On $39000

Yes, there is a certain truth that all of us can live on a lot less cash. However, living on less is a great possibility when some form of health and retirement benefits are available. One can't live on such salary when the employee doesn't provide any form of health or retirement benefits. That is essential that some form of public option for health is necessary for those who aren't able to find health and retirement benefits through their party-time or temp or contract position.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Christianity vs Culture

I got a good friend, who is a great person. We differ in our views of life and humanity. And out of love, this person attempts to lead me to a straight path of so-called "truth" which I really call the desire for certitude and not truth. And through attempting this enterprise, my friend forwards sermons from the favorite list preachers. For the most part, I don't really care for it. Yes, some of them are quite humorous. But most of them has this us against them as if there is a conspiracy to destroy all of the so-called Christian. Okay, there are Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins in this world, but for the most part no one really care, as long as they are not blowing up others in the name of some blood seeking God. That must really bother them particularly because such us-against-them Christianity must have enemies, which is quite hard in a country where no one can be “legally” put to death for one's religious beliefs. So, the so-called Christian-right “makes up” cultural war against indecency, vulgarity, and simply what they see as the depraved-culture of our world. And yes, they are enough depravity in this world to warrant such militaristic view of them against us or us against them, which ever side you happen to fall into.

However, to simply divide the world in two worlds are both simplistic and facile. Particularly, by saying that Christianity has a very “high” view of humanity and that the “secular” world has a very “low” view of humanity. Such facile classification is childish and not to mention quite a below the belt punch. Okay, there are enough out there that have a very self-serving and selfish view of humanity so they live for their own self-gratification – and perhaps, you could classified them as someone with a low view of humanity. And that could explain Carl Sagan's low view of humanity. This is exactly what Sagan said:

"Those worlds in space are as countless as all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth. Each of those worlds is as real as ours. In every one of them, there's a succession of incidence, events, occurrences which influence its future. Countless worlds, numberless moments, an immensity of space and time. And our small planet, at this moment, here we face a critical branch-point in the history. What we do with our world, right now, will propagate down through the centuries and powerfully affect the destiny of our descendants. It is well within our power to destroy our civilization, and perhaps our species as well. If we capitulate to superstition, or greed, or stupidity we can plunge our world into a darkness deeper than time between the collapse of classical civilization and the Italian Renaissance. But, we are also capable of using our compassion and our intelligence, our technology and our wealth, to make an abundant and meaningful life for every inhabitant of this planet. To enhance enormously our understanding of the Universe, and to carry us to the stars."

What is the point of saving humanity when at its root humanity is simply a self-seeking pleasure machine with no purpose but to serve the selfish need of fulling the gluttony pleasure in themselves? If humanity is so destructive then Carl Sagan must be crazy to think that there is an inner capacity in ourselves to transform our world for the better. Carl Sagan, an atheist, sees something amazingly beautiful in humanity that is capable of using compassion and intelligence so as to enhance and make life more abundant and meaningful for all humanity. That is truly a low view of humanity, don't you think?

It is easy to make such simplistic classification and to group all the non-Christians as having a low view of humanity. And perhaps, one could have interpreted from reading Freud, Camus, Russell, Gould and many other great mind that they have a low sense of humanity. However, that would be farthest from the truth particularly if we are to see their human epic story in their grand scheme of the universe. Yes, at such light humanity is tiny and quite insignificant. But that is the same way if we are to see humanity in the scheme of God's creation. In the vastness of the universe, in this powerful natural force of earth, in all that resides human beings, a frail but resilient speck of life – i.e., humanity in the grand scheme of all that there is in this universe is just a speck of life. Is it any wonder that even the psalmist said:

"When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers,

the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained;

What is man that thou art mindful of him?

and the son of man that thou visitest him?" (Psalm 8:3-4)

That isn't a low view of humanity but merely a real assertion of what it means to be human in the vastness of the universe. To say that that is a low view of humanity is to not understand and read properly those who are merely appropriating humanity in the greater context of the universe. Furthermore, if we are to further read their text, we discover they have quite a high view, perhaps even higher than most Christians, of humanity. It could argue that they have too high of a view of humanity. Thus, to argue that the “secular” world has a low view of humanity is almost to argue that Christians have a low view of humanity. It is so low that humanity is absolutely and completely depraved since the fall (cf. St. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and others). It is so depraved and faulty that one wonder if there is anything left of “imago Dei” in humanity.

True, it could be argued that those who Christians classified as having a “low anthropology” are not Christians. That is, they don't particularly care for any all powerful, all knowing, all present deity. This stance against such deity isn't because they lavish in their certitude that such God does not exist. To be fair a good number are agnostic and not a militaristic-atheist. So, the so-called "low-humanity" viewers aren't low-viewers of humanity but they are low viewers of an all powerful, all knowing, and all present deity. This low view could be an outcome of God's silence in our midst. In his book, "The Disappearance of God" by Richard E. Friedman, you follow Friedman progression of God publicly talking to God's people to God speaking in the mind or heart of an individual and to an eventual silence. God is no longer a public speaker. Yes, we still have a few claiming to speak on behalf of God and maybe they are but for the most part we simply dismiss them. Thus, it seems, the issue isn't low humanity or high humanity, but low or no God with high or semi God. Yes, one could argue that God is speaking all the time but it is merely us that refuse to listen to God's call to return to God's way. And that could be true, but if God so very much loves us to give ancient civilizations God's direct voice of inspiration to inspire the "Holy" "B"ook, then why stop now particularly in our greatest moment of chaos and need of a deity who leads us to salvation. If you don't believe that humanity is in despair need of a savior, then you must be living in some cave oblivious of all that is going on in our planet. The situation is getting to be alarming that humanity is arriving to a point that it is eating itself to extinction. The world is going at mock and God is whispering to our hearts. Well, if humanity is so very sinful and so very deaf, blind, and hardened-heart, then one cannot but wonder: how is humanity ever to hear God if God is only whispering?

O my soul, hear that whispers of wind.

That is God whispering.

Can your deaf ear hear?

Thus, it isn't really about us against them or them against us, but merely that the world has taken Christianity-of-the-right to task. So in the end, the so-called “low-viewers” of humanity don't have a low view of humanity but a low view of God because the “Christian-right” God “gives man permission to function irrationally, to accept something above and outside the power of their reason and superior to reason.” But why should someone with a low view of humanity care? As Ayn Rand said:

Because this life is wonderful. Because if you look at the universe, it's wonderful and you have to use your life to the best of your understanding.”

Are these words of someone who has a low view of humanity? Quite the contrary, the view is so high that in the end reason can do no wrong. And we are well aware that reason has made its impact on humanity. Yes, the proponents of reason can make all type of excuses which in the end they sound just like those Christian-right talking about God's will in midst of evil. In the end, reason can't save us any more than faith can't because humanity isn't one or the other but a hypostatic union of two natures: faith and reason in humanity.

In the end, the issue that I have with both Christian in either right, middle, or left, is that all side has buy into our “scientific” classification. We no longer look an work of art in its whole but we break it down to its most pure chemical elements. Yes, that is important since through it we can understand the mechanics of life. But mechanics can't give significance because mechanics can only shed light on the way it operates and that can provide important tools to help in our self-discover but it isn't the final and only picture of what life is in this vast universe.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

My Race-Based Valentine

In the most recent issue of Time Magazine (vol. 175, no. 7 | 2010), an article about our current approach to dating reveals an interesting reality concerning race in America. In our apparent postracial era, the issue of race should be much less of an issue, but truth be told, the reality is quite different particularly as we become more socially segregated people. We no longer confront the ugly truth that race still is part of our psyche. This blind reality is most prominently manifested in the youth as they tell themselves with the election of the first Black president that they aren't racist as the past generation. But the truth, if this article is any indication, is that our generation merely replaced racism with "preference." I hear that a lot particularly when the conversation turns to dating. Friends, colleagues, and people who chat during social gathering talk about their experiences of online dating the pros and cons of each site. It is always interesting to note that the pros of each site is the ability to streamline the search of potential mates, which interestingly is what the article in Time Magazine talks as the checking the preference box of race. By the mere fact that the word "preference of race" is not "really" racism seems to indicate that the blunt taboo of racism has been replace with a much softer and acceptable form of individual choice. As if race is really about preferring one taste over another like I like vanilla over chocolate. The reality that this distinction is no longer racism suggests that our society has not dealt with the issue of race at best or at worse our society doesn't see the issue of racism lurking underneath the pretense of personal choice or preference. It seems that we merely placed the issue under the rug as if to pretend, with the election of an African-American president, that race is no longer an issue for the youth. But, it seems that this article is shining a light of truth that the youth, my youth, is no less racist than our parents generation. Yes, we have come along way but at the same time we have stalled by admiring the current reality and by not truly looking ourselves into the mirror. Racism can become an even greater divisive force now than ever before, because we no longer call racism but merely "preference" of taste. And, as I heard some public figure say that our young men and women are dying for our freedom so that we can make individual choices to determine what we like and don't like, that is our right, and if that is what they are dying for, well then, in all honesty, how can one argue that preference of one race over another race is racism particularly when one is merely choosing one's preference of potential partner? Isn't that my choice? So, how can that be racism? That is how the argument moves, which one can't help to wonder whether that argumentation is any different from past form of argumentation like when Europe was attempting to determine whether the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas where human beings -- that is, whether they were equals like the Europeans or subhuman. I guess, it was the European's preference.

Friday, February 12, 2010

A Sequel To "Arguing With Idiots"

You have to love this video. Perhaps, he needs to write another book. "How Not to Argue as an Idiot"

Thursday, February 11, 2010


Yes, NPR this could be quite simply the most ironic of songs for it celebrate sexy by being very unsexy.


However, the song is still a true "classic" minus the true. I don't care what they say, for in an era where superstar can't carry a tune, I find this ridiculous unsexy song very well song by Olivia Newton-John, well, at least she can carry a tune.

Preparation is Half the Fun!