Call For Writers!

writers-block

The Rationality Unleashed! Project is expanding rapidly, so we’re currently looking for more writers for our various project. Please see the project and topics below.

Rationality Unleashed!

Racial inequality

Feminism

Israel/Palestine

Economics

Third Parties (New political parties in America)

International Correspondence

Environmentalism (science based, please)

We’ll accept pitches for any other topic. These are simply the primary ones we’re looking for right now.

 

The Foodentists

Diet

Nutrition

Food Fads

Countering Food Babe, Dr. Oz, Natural News, Et Al

 

The Fish Tomato

This site is pure satire. We’re looking for writers to write about topics in science and skepticism in a hilariously satirical way.

 

If you’re interested, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net

We’ll need an email address, wordpress account name, a bio and photo/avatar you want used on your bio and posts, and a writing sample if you have one. If you haven’t written before, that’s fine, just let us know. We welcome new writers.

 

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Bioethics and Ethical Philosophy student at Cleveland State University, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes. He writes about science, technology, politics, human rights, feminism, religion, and any other topic that catches his eye.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.

Sexism and Gum In Your Hair

gum_web

I had a very strange conversation tonight, that was hilariously nonsensical given the topic and the fervor of the argument. Thinking about it, and chatting with the OP who was sitting back and watching with amusement, I’m looking at it a bit differently now. This is a fantastic illustration of the subconscious, more subtle sexism that permeates our culture due to societal gender norms. Here’s the conversation….

OP: If you get gum stuck in your hair, melt some chocolate and rub it on the gum – it will come right out. Mayonnaise also works.

Interlocutor: If you get Gum stuck in your hair, you have to be a little girl.

OP: O.M.doG. (tilting head to the side and smacking it)… did I just read right? <Interlocutor> made a SEXIST remark?????

Interlocutor:  Only a girl could get gum stuck in their hair. It is not sexist.

This is where I enter, because….who could resist?

Me: It kinda is….

Interlocutor: I have NEVER seen a guy getting gum stuck in his hair.

Me: That must represent everyone, then….

Interlocutor: Lol, you could use the exact same thing to say the opposite. Just because you have seen many men with gum in their hair it must represent everyone then….

Me: And the logical conclusion from that is….it could be males or females. It IS usually children, however, of both sexes, due to less developed dexterity.

Interlocutor: Who has longer hair? it is generally girls. Thus who is more likely to get gum stuck in their hair…

Me: You’ve stated that it must be a little girl. Even one boy getting gum stuck in their hair disproves that, making it a silly statement in and of itself. Also it’s common enough for a guy to get it stuck in their beard or mustache…..

Interlocutor: Have you seen a boy get gum stuck in their hair and i mean themselves not someone else putting it in…

Me: Yep.

Interlocutor: Well when you say hair, unless you specifically state beard or mustache it is generally considered the hair on your head….

Me: Hair is hair, isn’t it? Really, your initial statement made a lot of assumptions, and stuck a gender on it.

Interlocutor: Hair on your head isn’t the same as a beard though is it, 2 different locations for a start…

MeIt’s still hair. The OP didn’t specify. It didn’t specify what hair, or even how it got stuck there. Someone else may put it in. You assumed it was long hair, done by the person with the hair, and that it was on their head. That’s 3 assumptions not specified in the OP to get to your conclusion that it must be a little girl.

Interlocutor: and arent you making assumptions that it isn’t. Have you considered that maybe just maybe it has the part about it being head hair left out…You would be just as bad if as a man you cant keep food in your mouth…

Me: Nope, I didn’t make assumptions. I just denied your assumptions and said it could apply pretty equally depending on the circumstance.

Interlocutor: The biggest circumstance being how long the hair is….

Me: Nope, that’s assuming it’s referring to hair on the top of the head and not on the face. The solution to getting it out of hair works for either.

Interlocutor: If it was hair on face, wouldn’t it just mention men, seeing as how woman (well most) dont have facial hair…

Me: It just mentions hair, meaning it can apply to all types.

Interlocutor: Then it would still mean it was a guy, what girl has more hair (other than on head) than a guy….

Me: The point is that it could be hair on the face OR on the head, making the probability pretty gender neutral.

Interlocutor: But still, a girl will have MORE hair on head (including facial hair) than a guy. So who is more likely to get gum stuck in hair?

Me: Considering facial hair is closer to the mouth, even if less have it, it’d still be a draw.

Interlocutor: Well, we will have to wait for the official study to see who is right.

Me: Right. Either way, it doesn’t HAVE to be a little girl is the point of this whole, strange exercise.

The conversation went on some tangents from here, with my interlocutor gnashing teeth and digging in heels a bit more, but I think this is a great representation of the problem. Our society puts genders in specific roles. Many people fall into that trap, tossing aside logic and making assumptive leaps in order to keep hold of those norms, even to the point of arguing hard for an illogical stance in order to maintain them.

This is really where our battleground is. This is the pervasive problem underlying so many of the problems with misogyny in our society today.

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Philosophy of Science and Bioethics student, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.

 

 

Deconstructing Men’s Rights Activism

mens-rights-activists

I think that Cracked said it best, on their report on Men’s Rights Activism, when they said “Men’s Rights Activism began as the natural response of American males to the growing threat of feminism, in much the same way that burning your house down is the natural response to the threat of ghosts. In both cases, a better solution would be to walk away and let a less emotionally fragile man deal with the situation.”

The Men’s Rights Movements is actually quite a few fractured groups of men fighting against that horrible act of women asking to be treated as equals, or as MRAs actually put it “Those uppity bitches wanting to take what’s mine!” Yes, I’ve actually had someone use that line, sad though it may be.

On their face, they appear to be addressing real world problems such as….wait…hold one….nevermind. None of their issues are issues, and many are just horrible soapboxes to be on. Let’s take a look.

Child Custody

They are often on about how custody battles are always in the favor of the mother, and men never get the chance. They even use lack of custody to justify not paying child support.

In reality, men far less often even ask for custody. When they do, and push for it, they very often get it.

Divorce

They claim that men are discriminated against in divorce hearings, for being male. Given the realities of custody, that men far less often ask for it, and our societal standards of women as caregivers for children, when you figure in time and expense of caring for children, women tend to end up far worse off, financially, in divorce results.

Education

They actually believe that men are oppressed in education, thanks to feminism. I’m not even sure what to say about this. It’s so not based in reality that it’s not even wrong. It’s just bizarre. How often do we hear that males are far better for STEM fields than females? How many athletic scholarships are there for males as opposed to females? Such a silly assertion.

The Criminalization of Marital Rape

This one’s great. They’re angry because feminists want to make marital rape illegal. Rape has to do with consent. If there is no consent, then it is rape. It doesn’t matter if the person is your spouse. Marriage does not give you universal rights over someone’s body. Even the thought of that blows my mind. If this is really a sticking point for you, if you are angry because you should have the right to do what you want to your wife at any time, you need to check yourself in for a mental health evaluation. You aren’t well.

Farrell 1

There’s a pretty large list of other topics, but they are so silly they aren’t even worth mentioning. Let’s look, now, at the leaders of the movement. It seems that, at least according to Wikipedia, a whole lot of their “causes” come from Warren Farrell. He’s a big name in the movement, and a very loud anti-feminism voice. So, we’ll start with him.

Warren Farrell

Wikipedia says that “He is now recognized as one of the most important figures in the modern men’s movement.” In fact, he used to be a feminist, and on the board of NoW.

According to Farrell, “Everything went well until the mid-seventies when NOW came out against the presumption of joint custody [of children following divorces]. I couldn’t believe the people I thought were pioneers in equality were saying that women should have the first option to have children or not to have children—that children should not have equal rights to their dad.”

So wait…his problem, his big overriding issue, that drove him from feminist to rampant misogynist, and building a movement against feminism, was…..joint custody.

Wow.

Since then, he’s written books and campaigned against feminism, and build the men’s rights movement quite a bit.

Oh, but he gets better.

In 1977, he was interviewed in Penthouse Magazine about…incest. It seems he fully supports the idea. Here’s what he had to say.

“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200, the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.”

And…

“First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.”

Oh, and also…

“Second, I’m finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. My book should help therapists put incest in perspective.”

And even…

“Incest is like a magnifying glass, in some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship…”

And finally…

“Since the father otherwise extends very little attention to his daughter, his sexual advances may be one of the few pleasant experiences she has with him.”

Let’s not forget, this man is one of the founders and a well regarded icon of the Men’s Rights Movement. This is the foundation of the movement itself. That speaks volumes.

Paul Elam

This is the current big name in Men’s Rights Activism, and runs A Voice for Men. He can be quoted saying “they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though [sic] life with the equivalent of a [sic] I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.”

More recently, he attempted to hold a conference in Detroit, but after lying about death threats to the hotel they were being hosted at, it appears the hotel dropped them and they had to find another venue…which they also lied about.

He’s also quoted here, “feminism, consumer products, psychology, media, advertising, politics and social custom [have] all merged into one Great Big Bitch Machine; [and] the modern female psyche is nothing more than a product of that machine.”

W.F. Price

W.F. Price runs The Good Men Project. The project itself is nowhere near as horrible as the rest, but he can be quote here, commented on the death of a 22 year old.

“Four years of college buys women precious little time in the mating market. … I’d guess … about exactly as much time as it takes for them to complete it, because their pool of future mates tends to go through the same process … That’s to say that she has her best shot to land a good match up to perhaps 25.”

And here…

The problem with young women today is that they internalize this “anything is possible” attitude and don’t lose it until it really is too late for many of them. They think they can do better at 30 than at 22, which, in most cases, is simply wrong. Some might say that family and men are not a priority for these girls, but women for whom this is really true throughout life are an insignificant minority. In fact, most women are holding out precisely because they think they can get a better man later, perhaps when they have a better job and work with more powerful men.

But these girls are not going to change fundamentally, and in their early 20s are at the peak of their beauty while still retaining an innocent charm. Nothing about their looks or personality is going to make them more appealing at 30 than at 22, and the men available to them are not going to get any better, either….

The point is that neither men nor women change fundamentally past a certain point, and the same guys young women have available in their early 20s are generally the same guys that will be available at 30, only they will be older and, due to marriage, there will be far fewer of them.”

And then…

“Time tends to accelerate past a certain age, and the 25-year old woman soon finds herself 30, and then 35, and at that point she’s got precious little of it left. Perhaps at 22 she was laughing about the “comical” notion that it could ever be too late, but after a certain point it is no longer comedy, but tragedy, and her laughter turns to tears.”

And finally…

“[M]en do age better than women. I looked around at the women and they all just looked old to me. I could not imagine myself with any of them. They had lost whatever charm they had and I found attractive the last time I had seen them. Almost all of the men that were there with their spouses were with younger women. …

As for the women specifically, while they all seemed old, I noted that the happiest of the lot talked about their family. Some of them were married, some of them divorced, but in both cases they talked about their kids. They were clearly the most fulfilled. Many of the other women than I knew had pursued consuming careers were not at the reunion. Those that were, and who did not have children, had a whiff of pain on their faces. They seemed to be looking around and suddenly forced to face the consequences of their choices.”

Sadly, these aren’t his only horrible comments. There are so many more.

mensrights

 

Now, let’s look at the actions of the Men’s Rights Activists recently, to see what their intentions look like.

False Rape Reporting

In December of last year, Men’s Rights Activists on Reddit found out that Occidental College has an online form for rape reporting. Making the assumption that this was used to falsely report rape, regardless of actual reality, they started spamming it with false rape reports, in an effort to discredit women who are actually…reporting…rape….

Canada MRA Lectures

The MRA has, a couple of times, held lectures at the University of Toronto, that speak vehemently against Feminism. They spouted righteous indignance against the Feminist protests of these lectures, calling out the militancy of protesting them.

Praise of Marc Lepine

A couple years ago, an MRA blogger came out (with a lot of support) praising Marc Lepine. In 1989, Marc Lepine, at  École Polytechnique in Montreal, killed 28 people in the name of fighting Feminism.

Fake Death Threats

The MRA group planning the Detroit rally lied about death threats to raise an extra $25k for their rally. They claimed to need it for security. They have yet to prove those threats.

 mens-rights-activists-thats-the-joke

Now, I’d say that everything above speaks volumes about the movement. I assure you, however, that the members are worse. Here are some examples, taken from MRA sites, pages, and groups:

8 10 11

10262185_302032443293919_5789902301641465821_n 10414595_302045166625980_1177040833700501766_n 243523452 v34c45f235cf

Many more can be found here, at The Real Face of Men’s Rights Activism

Now, given all of this, it should be pretty clear that the Men’s Rights Movement isn’t designed or run with any noble or moral cause. It’s there to attack women and attack feminists, while glorifying its leaders.

And THAT is worth fighting against.

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Philosophy of Science and Bioethics student, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.

More Sexism and Anti-Feminism in the Atheist Community

4320304_sexism_full2

I was on JT Eberhard‘s page today. He posted a nice shout out to Seth Andrews and Matt Dillahunty, and got a few pleasant and fun responses from there. Then entered Drakulian Rathburn, who has a lot of mutual friends as myself in the atheist community, with a strangely combative comment for the thread.

1

So, I asked the obvious question. How, exactly, was A+ designed to cause division? That led to quote a bit foot stomping and refusing to support his claims, while of course making more and more claims without basis.

It didn’t take long, however, for him to bring feminism into the mix.

2

He bounced away from the topic for a minute, but after being pushed further for evidence, he went straight into feminism with a fury. The level of ignorance was amazing to watch.

4

5

Then he must have finally gotten really upset with being asked to actually prove his assertions, so he just went for it, damn the consequences.

6

7

It was at this point that he blocked me. But it didn’t end there! He has a friend!

8

So, where should I start? The problems here are too many to count.

First, if you claim to be a rational, thinking person, and you refuse to uphold the burden of proof, and make more claims instead of providing evidence for claims you’ve made, then you’re lying; you are NOT a rational, thinking person. You’re an ideologue.

Second, Feminism does not promote the superiority of anyone. It promotes equality. If you don’t know at least that about Feminism, then you haven’t studied enough to even talk about the subject.

Third, something like a “safe space” created for women to not feel subjugated or harassed isn’t created for the benefit of men. It shouldn’t be created for the benefit of men. If you’re biggest argument against a safe space for women is that it doesn’t benefit men…you are the problem.

Fourth, if you’re arguing about Feminism and you start calling women “twats” or other derogatory terms, you lose any credibility in the discussion. You’re a misogynist who has nothing to add to any meaningful discourse.

Finally, if you want to debate someone, and you open the conversation by insulting them, you’re a spiteful toddler who shouldn’t be allowed in public unsupervised.

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Philosophy of Science and Bioethics student, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.

Amidst The Vitriol, Some Words of Kindness for Suey Park

images (1)

 

 

In the aftermath of #cancelcolbert the response against Suey Park was pretty massive. I decided to check out her feeds and see what people were saying…..

What I read there makes me ashamed to call myself American, let alone left wing aligned. The commentary is disgusting. It makes me physically ill to read. These people are the reason we need activists just like Suey Park in this world. These people should be ashamed to look at themselves in the mirror each day, or to face their own families. These people are a disgrace to humanity.

Even if you disagree with someone, or even outright hate them, this behavior makes you many times worse. I wouldn’t wish this on the most vile of human beings, nor would I wish to see any person lower themselves to the actions I’ve seen directed towards Suey.

In light of this, I decided to read all of it, and find some words of kindness from Suey’s supporters. I would imagine, like any human being who is facing harassment and threats around the clock, that she could use it about now.

Suey, keep doing what you do. It makes a difference, whether it’s visible or not.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Philosophy of Science and Bioethics student, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.

#CancelColbert and America’s System of Racism

Colbertjoke1

 

Suey Park’s recent hashtag activism was #CancelColbert after a tweet quoting a sketch on his show that said “The Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.” The hashtag was kept trending for a long period of time and has incited mass outrage…by liberals. There’s an irony there. Liberals will happily claim that they stand up for the poor, the minorities, the underdogs, anything except the rich white males who hold privilege in America…that is, until the focus is on a rich white male that they LIKE.

Now, Suey has had to deal with racial slurs and rape threats from liberals for being the same activist she was before the focus went towards Colbert. People are freaking out over her interview with Salon.com where she used the term “whiteness” and agreed that the white male is the enemy. Well, before the focus was on the poor judgement of a liberal white male, no one on the left took issue with that. It makes sense. In America, the straight cis white male has always held privilege. It is because of that privilege that the system of racism in this country exists and is so detrimental.

Let me first explain the system of racism, for those who don’t really understand it. You see, in America today, aside from the yahoos, the overt racism that once was prevalent is really more of background noise. It’s not the powerful force it once was. Today, however, there is still just as widespread racism as there always was. It just takes a different form, and this form is, in many ways, more insidious and harder to defeat. It’s a system of racism designed to discriminate.

On the right, within the political spectrum, you still see a bit of the overt racism, however. The difference is that they couch it in “I’m not racist, but…” which is usually followed by cliche’s like “black people are more often criminals” or “asians can’t drive.” The racism on the right stems from more of a xenophobic worldview.

On the left, it’s a level of hypocrisy that is cringe worthy. The left claims to be against racism in all forms. Your typical white liberal, however, is still afraid to go to black neighborhoods. The common sentiment is that it’s OK to make jokes about minorities that weren’t once slaves, because that’s not really racism. It’s OK to make racial jokes all around, so long as you don’t use one of the taboo racial slurs.

Now, let’s look at the system itself. Our system is designed to keep minorities poor. There’s no funding for minority dominated schools or neighborhoods. There is serious discrimination in hiring, even today. They’ll hire the minority person who acts the most like a white person, and call themselves diverse. I’ve even seen the executive management of a very large corporation exclaim that they’re promoting diversity, because they have a single female in management.

Our educational system and social structure makes getting a good education hard on minorities, and we’re outsources all of the unskilled labor jobs that could help to change that in a generation or two of people being able to make a good, honest living so their children can afford a good education.

Now, back to #CancelColbert and the liberal outrage. The majority of people that are outraged are white males. They’re so offended at being lumped in with the “bad guy” that they feel the need to make more racial slurs, and start going after Suey Park, claiming she’s being racist. Now, let’s think about this. Suey is an activist. Due to the racism in our society, there is a need for activism. When the activist is doing activism and expressing outrage, the liberals are going after her for the language she uses in her outrage…instead of going after the reason she’s outraged, the reason we need activism to begin with. Why? Well, the white male she’s going after is a liberal celebrity. Americans are good are throwing away their values, or at least showing their true colors, when it comes to famous people on TV.

So, I truly hope that Suey Park and others like her keep pushing the envelope and keep being the vocal activists that they are. In showing the true colors of those who claim to be allies under most other circumstances, they force us to take a good look at ourselves. I hope I’m not the only one who, when looking back at what the left looks like right now, doesn’t like what I see. THAT is more of a potential catalyst for change than any outside force could possibly be.

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Philosophy of Science and Bioethics student, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.

Trendy Activism

10251232954_bd335c5390_b

 

There are a lot of activists for a lot of causes. The problem is that many of them don’t actually believe what they’re advocating. Let’s look at a few activist causes that really illustrate this problem well.

Pro Life

The pro life stance is that a fetus or zygote is just as human as a baby.

I promise you, most of them don’t truly believe that. You see, if you believe that the guy down the street is killing children in his basement and the police won’t do anything about it, you don’t picket his house. You do everything in your power to save those children. If you believe a fetus is the same as a child, then you don’t picket a clinic. The ones blowing up abortion clinics and killing the doctors are the only ones who truly believe what they’re advocating. The rest are on the bandwagon of ignorance because it lets them fit in with their “crowd.” Deep down, they know that there is a big difference. They just refuse to either admit it or take the steps someone would take if they truly believed that.

Anti-GMO

The contention of the anti-GMO crowd is that genetically modified foods, or genetically modified anything for that matter, is inherently harmful and is killing us all.

I guarantee that most of them don’t believe that. If you believed that the food supply was killing people, you wouldn’t protest one of the many biotech companies. You wouldn’t sit around complaining about it and ranting on the internet. You’d be taking real action. The Greenpeace eco-terrorists who are burning golden rice fields believe what they’re advocating. The rest most certainly do not. They’re advocating it because it’s trendy. It makes them hip with the “green” crowd.

Chemtrails

This is a personal favorite due to the sheer absurdity of it. The government is using aircraft to dust the population with poisonous and/or mind controlling “chemicals.”

Aside from how incredibly ignorant it is to begin with (with the other two, I can at least see where their fear and ignorance is coming from. This has to be drug induced.), they don’t really believe that. The ones hiding in bunkers in the woods surrounded by firearms believe it. The rest do not. They talk about their conspiracy theory with everyone they can find who will listen. If they really though the government was doing such a thing to them, then they’d be running like hell or revolting.

And so…

People join these “causes” because they are trendy. They’re like the Kony campaign. They don’t care about facts. They don’t care about being intellectually honest. They only care about the bandwagon ideology that they’ve jumped on and makes them sound “real” in front of their friends. This is the sort of thought process that those of us in the rational community are up against every day.

As Sam Harris said…

“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence.

If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument would you invoke to prove they should value logic?”

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Philosophy of Science and Bioethics student, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.