stuff i don't believe in

1. religion and the supernatural
   • gods and deities
   • angels, demons and the semi-devine
   • heaven, hell and the afterlife
   • ghosts and poltergeists
   • souls, reincarnation and past lives
   • etc
2. prophecy and fortune-telling
3. witchcraft, magic and talismans
4. monsters and weird creatures
   • vampires
   • zombies
   • werewolves
   • fairies and elves
   • big foot, yetis and sasquatch
   • etc
5. pseudoscience and superstition
   • astrology
   • numerology
   • palmistry
   • dowsing
   • deepak chopra
   • etc
6. the paranormal
   • psychic powers
   • clairvoyance
   • telepathy
   • telekenisis
   • astral projection
   • etc
7. science fantasy
   • ufos and alien visitations
   • time travel
   • faster-than-light travel
   • etc
8. conspiracy theory
   • too numerous to list


9. etc

or in other words, just about anything left on the history channel.

while i enjoy speculation as well as anyone, ultimately i believe only in reason, the power of logic and the empirical method of acquiring facts and knowledge through the gathering and testing of evidence. if you come to me professing a belief in ghosts or ufos, don't expect me to take you seriously and do expect me to be skeptical of everything else you say.

carnival cruz

ain't i just the devilish thang?

CRUZ: Would [Senator Feinstein] deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing to the Second Amendment, in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures, could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the law?

FEINSTEIN: Let me just make a couple of points in response. One, I'm not a sixth grader. Senator, I've been on this committee for twenty years. I was a mayor for nine years, I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot by these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered.

Look, there are other weapons. I've been up close — I'm not a lawyer, but after twenty years, I've been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn't mean that weapons of war, and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I, you know, it's fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here a long time, I've passed on a number of bills. I've studied the Constitution myself, I'm reasonably well educated and I thank you for the lecture.

Incidentally, this does not prohibit. You used the word prohibit. It exempts 2271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so — so I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views.