The US government is offering compensation packages averaging $1.3 million to families of the victims of the events of September 11 in return for a waiver to the right to sue the airlines. Some people are considering not accepting this package because they want to sue the airlines. While I suppose that's their right to decide what they want to do, I don't quite see why the airlines should be liable for what happened on September 11. These people just want someone to blame since the real culprits are dead and can't do anything for them. One woman was claiming that she doesn't know what happened to her mother--who was on one of the airlines--and so she wants to sue so she can get some answers. My question is: how in the fuck are you going to get answers by suing a fucking airline? EVERYONE IS FUCKING DEAD, AND THEY'RE NOT FUCKING TALKING. She just wants money and she's trying to make it sound like she's doing this for some noble cause or for a deep personal reason. Everyone who knows or can know exactly what happened is dead, and she needs to accept that fact. It would be one thing if she's trying to find out something that the airlines knew and refused to tell her, but what she wants to know is whether her mother was afraid or if she fought back or if she was hurt. There is absolutely no way of knowing this, and suing the airlines really isn't going to accomplish anything. So accept your $1.3 million--because I'm sure that's what the funeral cost...--and go on your merry way.

BTW: This pisses me off, if you didn't notice.

Yesterday on some news show they were talking about a case wherein a South Carolina tattoo artist was arrested for practicing his art. This really just pisses me off. I understand that there may be some health risks related to tattoing in unsanitary conditions. And personally, I'm not fond of most tattoos. I have no problem with tattooing being regulated in terms of sanitation, in the same way that restaurants are regulated. But I think it is absolutely preposterous that it should be illegal. The part that shocked me the most was that this is not some antiquated law that nobody really pays attention to anymore: a professor from some university was defending the law, claiming that if it couldn't be framed and hung in a museum, it wasn't art. What the hell does he think gives him the right to decide for other people what is and what isn't art? I don't give a shit about whether he wants a tattoo or if he lets his children get tattoos, but when he tries to enfore legislation concerning art, well, that's just pushing past the boundaries of sensibility. The USA is becoming an increasingly frightening place to live... I no longer feel any great love for our what our country is, only what it is supposed to be.

This post on Soc.Atheism is quite intriguing. The logic may not be perfect, but it certainly is food for thought:

---
For each type of god there is a way to demonstrate that the concept
is self-annihilating. Time is by far the most suitable means of
disproving the existence of the almighty christian/jewish/ muslim god.

First we need to define the word "universe". If we define universe as
"everything that exists" that would leave us with two alternatives:
either god is not part of the universe and therefore does not exist.
Or he does exist and is therefore part of the universe (remember, the
universe is EVERYTHING that exists).

With the temporary assumption that there is in fact a god, let us now
define "almightiness". Almightiness requires control over every system
in existence including energy, matter, space, and time as well as the
relationships between them. At this point we must distinguish between
temporary and "eternal" almightiness. Temporary almightiness would
either involve a period of limited or no power BEFORE almightiness was
achieved or a voluntary surrender of power by the almighty being since
- the being has control over time as well - it could otherwise prevent
time from reaching the point where almightiness is lost. This
distinction is philosophical anyway since the god we are talking about
is said to have been almighty from the beginning and is also said to
not have any intentions of voluntary relinquishing its superior status.

For the reasons mentioned above the alleged god must have created
the universe and everything in it. Or more correctly, as proven above
the part of the universe that is commonly referred to as "god" created
all other parts of the universe. "All other parts" means you and me and
every other instance of matter, energy, space and - time? Time as well?

Let us take a look at what exactly the four available options for a
relationship between god and time are:

1. God created time

Creation of A by B requires B to have been in existence before A. Since
the relationship "before" is only meaningful within the framework of
time - it requires time to have passed - the whole idea would negate
itself.


2. Time existed before god

Possible, but this would make god relative to and therefore inferior to
at least one other concept which, of course, is time.


3. Time and god have always existed or have begun existing together

Also possible, but this would make god and time rank equally at least
at the point of their appearance, making "eternal" almightiness
impossible.


4. Time is an aspect of god

Again possible but, as dear Dr. Einstein discovered, and as everybody
who has access to a very fast moving device can find out, we can
easily manipulate the flow of time by moving at certain speeds.
Almightiness would rule out the possibility of being manipulated
at will.


Just because we don't know how the universe came into existence, that
doesn't mean we don't know how it didn't.
---


Love how at the end he mentions a point that I made earlier: lack of proof is not sufficient proof. Just because we know something to be false doesn't mean we know its converse to be true. ( (A !=> B) !=> (B => A) )