Thursday, May 19, 2011

T3's "Draw Mohammed Day/Rapture Weekend 2011" EP is here!

It's here, and even better: it's free!

You can download the new EP, which is being released unofficially, here. It contains the following tracks:

1. Autumn {2:32}
2. Jesus Is A Friend of Mine (Sonseed cover) {3:36}
3. So You Say (The Religion of Peace) {1:36}

Enjoy (or don't)!

Monday, May 16, 2011

Some Older T3 Songs

These are some of the singles from earlier T3 albums that were released before 2011:

Song: Alabamatheist
Album: Alabamatheist (Nov. 2010)

Song: The Noble Lie
Album: Alabamatheist (Nov. 2010)

Song: Christie Ann
Album: Cognitive Dissonance (Oct. 2009)

I'll be uploading more here as time goes by....these lyric videos only take like 10 minutes to make :)

If anybody out there actually reads this, and likes any of this stuff, or has a particular album you want to hear more of, leave a comment and I'll try to upload some more specific material :D

Sunday, May 8, 2011

White People Problems RELEASED, and a Funny Story About "Mandy"

Alright, folks --- the new EP is out and about and ready to go; you can download it here right now :D

Here are the details again:

White People Problems {28:31}

Track listing:

1. Sociohypochondriac {1:31}
2. Mandy {2:09}
3. I'm Too Sexy (Right Said Fred cover) {2:34}
4. Unforgivable/Interlude {3:28}
5. Proximity Love {3:47}
6. White People Problems {3:50}
7. Miss McIntyre {3:04}
8. The White People Convention {4:04}
*bonus track just for lols*
9. Dry Ice - acoustic - (Green Day cover) {4:04}

Lyrics and cover art are in the rar file. If there are any problems with the download, let me know and I'll re-upload it somewhere else (I tried megaupload this time, but it kept telling me "an error occurred, try again later," so I went with sendspace again). It'll be up for free on sendspace for 30 days; after that, you can contact me personally and I'll send it to you, still free :D

For those concerned, the operative genre here is "folk/party rock."

If you're still concerned about whether or not you want to waste the time to download it, you can check out my earlier post, where I have a link to the song "Mandy" on youtube, so you can get a short preview of what kind of material we're dealing with. Or, you could check out this song, "The White People Convention," with drums played by a REAL white guy!

Oh, and that reminds me; I passed out some demo copies before the EP was finished (just had the first 5 or 6 songs on it) to some of my "real life" friends, just to get some opinions (I was kinda uncertain about it while I was working on it), and so several of the people I work with asked me for one. So I passed out a couple at work.

So in the song "Mandy," there's a line where I say, "Those killer tats/I want her bad," as a reference to this girl's back tattoo. Well, I gave a copy of the unfinished EP (with "Mandy" on it) to this other girl I work with in the evenings (she usually comes in right as I'm leaving), and she happened to be friends with my manager who was on shift that day, so they both listened to it that night. The next day they came in and told me they really liked the song "Mandy" (which was cool, cuz I originally wasn't gonna put it on there, it was more of an afterthought; I just liked it too much to throw it out so I threw it on there). I was all confident and happy about that; even though nobody seemed to care for the rest of it (I got some mixed reviews, to say the least), there was at least one song that everybody seemed to like, and that was good enough for me~

I even sent a copy to the lady about whom I'd originally written the song --- not for the obvious reasons, but rather because I felt like it was sort of unfair to write a song about her and not give her a copy of it, ya know? That's the kind of thing I'd want to know, if someone wrote a song about me. We used to work together, anyway, so I figured if I didn't send it to her, then she'd eventually find out from someone else through the grapevine eventually, anyway.

So just the other day (this all happened like a week ago), as I'm finishing up my duties and getting ready to leave, this girl I work with says to me, "yeah, do I know this 'Mandy?'" And I was kind of a little embarrassed so I jokingly said, "Um, shut up!" But it was really obvious that it was the same Mandy. So she says, "I like the lyrics, though." And I'm like, "aw sweet! That's cool, thanks!" At about this time my GM is coming around the corner, followed by like three other people I work with, all of whom personally know the Mandy in question. So then this girl says, "Like where you're singing about'assets?'" And all of a sudden, everyone in the room turns to look at me. And I'm just like, "Whaaaa?!"

I mean, it's not that far-out or anything, but I know for a fact that I didn't write anything about her "assets," so I'm kind of confused. And also, everyone else is looking at me like, "Oh, so THAT's why he always liked her so much," etc. etc. Because frankly, this chick has fairly huge boobs.....huge, delicious boobs....but um, anyway, yeah, it fit with the assumption.

But I said, "Huh? There's nothing like that in there...." And she sang me back the line, "Those killer tits I wanna bang?" And it immediately hit me: She'd misheard my line, "Those killer tats, I want her bad." But it was too late; everyone in the room had already heard what she'd said, and there was no time to correct it.

Long story short, I had to go around to everyone one at a time, explaining (wherever so prompted) that, while I cannot confirm the truth or falsehood of the notion that I would be content to bang Mandy's titties, that was *not* the intention behind the lyrics I wrote.

Nobody really cared except for me, but I was kinda trying to go with the "good, clean love song" vibe, so you may understand why it struck me as odd. I explained that I wouldn't write that about someone and then pass it around publicly --- if I was gonna write something explicit like that, I'd keep the names off of it and make it more vague and poetic, so that only the person I wrote it for would recognize it.

All in all it was pretty funny; I got a free chance to pimp my music (most people I work with didn't even know that I wrote music until this little mishap got around), and I also got a free chance (that I would not normally have gotten) to openly profess my feelings for this lady :D

Now, if only she hadn't already rejected me like six months ago, shortly after the song was originally written....:o But yeah. It all worked out great after all, cuz now I have a funny story to include on the next album jacket (or something)!


Friday, May 6, 2011

White People Problems

Alright, guys, this blog is about to get 2000 percent more awesome.

Among my efforts towards counter-religious-apologetics, science, and that sort of thing, I will also now be advertising for my rock/folk band, tentatively titled "The Tim Tations" (officially T3, but the inside joke is that T3 stands for "The Tim Tations"). Our new EP (called "White People Problems") is coming out very, very soon, and in preparation for it, we've released the first single, "Mandy," which you can view for free right here!

Enjoy (or don't)!

We actually have over 200 songs written and recorded (slightly less, not counting covers), but I'll mostly be uploading new material here (for promotion's sake). Most of our EPs are priced very low or free (this one will be free), so you don't have to worry about your wallet, you can just dig the tunes~

With this new material to cover, I will also be updating much more frequently. Check back every week or so and keep your eye out for new material!

--Tim D.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011


It really bugs me when people use the term "Darwinism" to attack the theory of natural selection --- and let's be straight, when people attack "Darwinism," they're specifically attacking the idea of human artificial selection. Not evolution as a whole, and not natural selection, just human artificial selection --- like what we do with cats and dogs, but with people. These people may think they're attacking evolution as a whole, that just goes to show that they don't understand what "Darwinism" means.

"Darwinism" is generally used as a stand-in for "evolution." But there's a reason that it is referred to as "Darwinian evolution;" it is "evolution via natural selection." But when people attack "social darwinism," for example, they're attacking some Hitleresque utopian ideal where we artificially select who will live and who will die based on some genetic criteria or other. They're not attacking the idea that such a process would actually cause a change in the allele frequency of the human population at large (even though that actually would constitute an attack on evolution, which is the idea that the allele frequency of a population changes over time due to a combination of genetic drift and natural or artificial selection) --- which is to say, they're not attacking the idea that selection actually works to cause change in genetic frequency. Rather, they're attacking the idea that we should artificially select for such change, and specifically, against the idea that we should do so at the cost of human life or happiness. The idea is that even if natural selection does cause a change in genetic frequency, then it's still wrong to select for such change artificially in a way that forcibly hinders people's lives or rights. Which is of course true, even though natural selection does happen, and evolution does occur (and would occur in some Hitleresque utopian society where only the blonde-haired and blue-eyes were allowed to breed).

So keep this in mind: when someone attacks "Darwinism," or "social Darwinism," a couple of things are likely to be true:

1) They think they're attacking the credibility of evolution (they're not);
2) They think they're attacking the credibility of natural selection (they're not);
3) They think they're attacking the morality of artificial selection among humans (they are, and rightly so).

The important thing to remember here is that the morality of artificially enforcing such a policy in a human society has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the evidence that such a process would actually do what it set out to do; whether evolution and natural selection happen or do not happen, this has no effect on the moral aspect of doing so artificially, because the moral argument is against hindering people's lives or rights, regardless of the reason.

I can sum up the entire point of this post as follows:

1) Hitlerian artificial selection is morally reprehensible for reasons that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether or not such selection would actually produce genetic change. It has to do with the value placed on human life, which can be argued regardless of the truth or falsehood of evolution.

2) To put it in context; saying that evolution doesn't happen because enforced human artificial selection is wrong is like saying, "shotguns aren't real and don't actually work because shooting innocent people in the face is bad."

If you still don't understand (or would just like further, more elegant extrapolation on the subject), I would recommend this segment of an interview with Richard Dawkins, from Penn Jillette's radio show, in which Dawkins explains this relationship in a straightforward and interesting fashion (starting at about the 3:00 mark):

"That whole thing became very, very unfashionable, I think, partly because of Hitler. Because Hitler, of course, was the arch-eugenecist, and Hitler was completely, as we know, screwy...I mean, Hitler has given all kinds of eugenics a bad name. I agree with you, I think it would be a very unpleasant thing if there were to be a sort of government-organized breeding program, to say, 'let's encourage the smart people to breed and encourage the dull people not to,' I think that would be a horrible thing. That's different, however, from saying that it wouldn't work. And I hear a lot of people who just go around saying, 'it just wouldn't work,' and I fear that they're just saying that because, for ideological reasons, they don't want it to work."

And that is exactly what is going on here, when people attack the credibility of "Darwinism" for moral reasons.