Words, words, words

Dennis Prager is a moron

2010-08-17T22:41:00.002-05:00

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2010/08/17/same-sex_marriage_and_the_insignificance_of_men_and_women/page/full

“The left passionately supports the most remarkable and radical change in modern social history -- the redefinition of marriage from male-female to include male-male and female-female.”

*GASP* [dies of shock]

“Marriage is the building block of society. “

Defend this assertion, please.

“Changing its nature will therefore change society. Among other things, same-sex marriage means that because sex (now called "gender") no longer matters for society's most important institution, it no longer matters in general.”

The underlying claim here being that changing society is always a bad thing? Please also defend that assertion. Additionally, you do not understand the definitions of “sex” and “gender.” Sex is not now called gender; sex is biological sex and gender is the complex system of markers associated with what gets labeled “feminine” or “masculine.” Try to keep up with the basic terminology.

“Men and women as distinct entities no longer have significance. Which is exactly what the cultural left and the gay rights movement advocate -- even though the vast majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage do not realize that this is what they are supporting. Most Americans who support same-sex marriage feel (and "feel" is the crucial verb here, as the change to same-sex marriage is much more felt than thought through) that gays should have the right to marry a member of their own sex. It is perceived as unfair to gays that they cannot do so. And that is true. It is unfair to gays. But the price paid for eliminating this unfairness is enormous: It is the end of marriage as every society has known it. And it is more than that. It is the end of any significance to gender. Men and women are now declared interchangeable.”

Are you high right now? I don’t even know where to start with this steaming pile of crazy. What “significance” are you so desperate to preserve with regard to the difference between men and women? I literally do not understand what you are trying to describe. Also, “every society” has defined marriage exactly as America defines it in 2010? Are you really ignorant enough to believe this or are you merely hoping your readers are? It’s so far from true I can’t even get to a place where I can start telling you how untrue it is. Besides which, who gives a shit? “It’s always been this way,” even when accurate, is not an argument for maintaining anything. Oh, and, by “unfair” do you perhaps mean “unconstitutional?” I give up trying to parse the last bit about men and women being interchangeable. It sounds like you’re all worked up because girls are walking around in pants instead of skirts or something?

“That is why, as I noted in a recent column -- the "T" has been added to "GLB:" "Transgendered" has been added to "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual." "T" does not represent transsexuals -- people who choose to change their sex. No one is arguing against such people.”

Really? Golly, that’s a relief!

“Transgendered" refers to people who are members of one sex and who wish to publicly act as if they are members of the other sex, e.g., men wearing women's clothing in public. The transgendered who publicly act out are living the cultural Left's primary agenda: rendering gender insignificant. Your sex is what you feel it is; and if you feel both, you are both.”

I love your use of “act out” here, as if these people are children who need discipline. I guess you would classify me as part of this devious cultural Left (?) so I’ll tip you a wink: That’s not our primary agenda. In fact, we’re the ones who have pissed you guys off all this time by MAKING GENDER SIGNIFICANT. Jesus Christ, what do you WANT? You don’t like women’s studies or feminism or gender studies or queer theory or anything that pays attention to gender as an actual force in culture and society, and now you’re accusing us of what…DENYING the influence of gender? SPEAK SENSE, MAN.

“Gender doesn't matter.”

It really does. More than it should, in point of fact. Look how wadded up your utterly masculine shorts are about it right now, if you need an example.

“That is why Judge Walker and his supporters dismiss the argument that, all things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by a married man and woman than by two men or two women. If Walker or GLBT activists and their supporters admitted that children need a mother and father, they would be affirming that there is great significance to the differences between men and women.”

What do you mean by “need?” It’s demonstrable that children do not “need” a mother and a father to survive, or to grow up well-adjusted and happy. Why do you keep saying things that you do not make any effort to back up with evidence, as if everyone should simply take your word for it? You don’t even know what “sex” means; forgive me if I mistrust your research skillz.

“They reject that. Instead, they and Walker offer studies that purport to prove that it makes no difference whether or not a child has parents of both sexes. These academic studies are as unserious as all those academic studies of a generation ago that "proved" that boys do not prefer to play with trucks and soldiers but would be just as happy to play with dolls and tea sets, and that girls do not prefer dolls and tea sets but would be just as happy to play with trucks and soldiers.”

OK? By unserious do you mean to charge the researchers with playing a joke?

“These newer "studies" of same-sex parents are as valid as the earlier propaganda in the guise of scientific studies. Like the boy-girl studies, these were conducted by academics with agendas: the denial of male-female differences and the promotion of same-sex marriage.”

“Studies.” I see what you did there with the scare quotes. When did “academics” become a pejorative, by the way? I’m still trying to figure out what you’re frothing to protect. “Male-female differences?” Meaning what, exactly? I do make a habit of denying essentialism, I confess, because I think it’s bollocks, not because I have an “agenda” to think it’s bollocks. I also do indeed promote same-sex marriage. Guilty!

“That many Americans believe these studies -- studies that are in any case based on a small number of same-sex couples raising a small number of children, during a short amount of time (a couple of decades), based on the researchers' own notions of what a healthy and successful young person is -- only proves how effectively colleges and graduate schools have succeeded in teaching a generation of Americans not to think critically but to accept "studies" in place of common sense.”

A tangled web of wtf that I don’t want to read again, except to point out the insidious anti-intellectual rhetorical strategy of pitting science (“studies”) against personal “common sense” or “gut feelings.” AKA prejudice and bigotry and superstition. Someone has to stand up to the experts! With their data and their “studies” and their “notions!” They think they’re so smart!

“Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?”

No.

“One has to assume that most people -- including supporters of same-sex marriage -- would respond in the affirmative.”

Shit. Did I fail? Can I take the test again?

“How, then, can they support same-sex marriage? The left's trinity -- compassion, fairness and equality -- is one reason. And "studies" and "facts" are another.”

Oh noes, not FACTS!!1111!eleventy!! OK, look, Prager, you ridiculous ass, I will only say this once: I support gay marriage because it’s right. No one has to like it. No one has to declare gender (or sex) over and go home and lop his parts off. We just have to look at our constitution, do what’s right, and go on with our goddamn lives. No, I am not the same as a man. I’m not the same as anyone, actually; your whole premise smells so foul my cats would scrape litter over it if they weren’t too smart to read this shite.

“That is exactly how so many college graduates came to believe that boys would be happy with tea sets, and girls would be happy with trucks -- compassion, fairness, equality and "studies."

Ah, the evils of college. Keep your kids away from education and facts, parents. Nothing good can come of them!

“That is also how many Americans, including a judge who overturned a state's constitutional amendment, have come to believe that never having a mother or never having a father makes absolutely no difference to a child.”

Did anyone ever say such a stupid thing? I call straw man.

“And if mothers and fathers are interchangeable, men as men and women as women lose their significance.”

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

My thoughts on Easter

2010-04-02T10:24:00.002-05:00

Up front, please understand that I'm not trying to take away anyone's happiness in their Easter holiday, whatever that means for you. I'm not saying you're a terrible person if you like Easter or if you have a Christian easter celebration, or you find bunnies soft and adorable, so please save your cries of "intolerant!" for the next time I display intolerance. You probably won't have to wait long.

But...Easter bothers me. Troubles me, like, viscerally.

Human sacrifice as a magical expiation of community guilt is a concept much older than Christianity, and it's immoral and gross. The story of Christ's martyrdom is no different from throwing a virgin into a volcano, which we all now find immoral and gross and, like, soprimitive and uneducated. Seeing normal otherwise reasonable people so happy about it and so accepting of allowing another to suffer and die for their benefits makes me cringe, every year, in a way that other religious messages and attitudes do not. It creeps me out, this Easter story.

Here's what I always end up thinking about on Easter: Sidney Carton from Tale of Two Cities.

Stay with me; it's a very simple comparison. Carton makes a sacrifice [SPOILER ALERT!] in going to the block for his cousin Charles Darnay. Some people would read this act as "Christ-like," but that would be an egregious misreading. Carton's choice presents a crucial contrast to the Christ story in that it does NOT involve an "innocent" who is tortured and murdered for the benefit of sin-ridden others; Sidney is not redeeming anyone but himself, because Sidney is not the innocent here, Charles is, and that's a major reason why Sidney makes his choice.

Sidney's epiphany is that Sidney kind of sucks, while Charles is a good guy who is about to be martyred in the French revolution's narrative of community redemption that involves purging itself of the aristocracy. The book rejects communal expiation of sin utterly, focusing instead on personal responsibility and actual moral and immoral actions by individuals, as opposed to magical effects that cannot be measured or observed and that apply to people who didn't even do anything. The effects of Sidney Carton's sacrifice are obvious and objectively real: Charles will live and he and Lucie will escape France. Carton also imagines that someday they will have a child named for him, representing his awareness that his personal choice to go to the block for Charles, this "far, far better thing," is an attempt to repair his legacy, to give the people he cares about reason to remember him fondly.

In addition--and perhaps most appealing to me in this context--Sidney has to DRUG Charles to make this happen. Because Charles is a "good" moral character, there is no way he would ever agree to let Sidney do this, and Sidney knows it, and the reader has to know it or the character of Charles Darnay doesn't work anymore. How would we feel about him if Sidney managed to convince him to escape with his pretty little wife and let Sidney die horribly in his place? We would lose respect for him as a character, and rightfully so. He has to be tricked, they all do, or they're complicit in Sidney's death, which the book codes as immoral, as it should.

My point is, the novel correctly identifies zealotry and dogma as elements of a corrupt system under which people end up sacrificed and martyred, and though characters like Sidney can achieve dignity through suffering, it would still be better if the suffering didn't happen at all, and the culprit is the corrupt system, and that system is the real Bad Guy. Why should we not look at the "system" that necessitates Christ's suffering in his story and conclude the same? Because that story ends up somehow affirming the horrific idea that violently shed innocent blood can wash away the sins of other people and is thus necessary, which is so morally disgusting I am honestly astonished every time I have to think about it, just stunned and grieved that people find this okay, that they perceive it as moral.

Which is why I dislike Easter so much, I guess.

The moral compass of Tale of Two Cities is more moral by far than that of the gospels, and this has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with why the core narrative of Christianity, in particular, is so repellent to me. Ugh. Why couldn't we have stuck with the fertility celebrations? We could've kept the eggs and bunnies and grass and gotten excited about the return of spring and left blood and death out of it.

I get annoyed about a book I haven't read

2009-09-26T10:15:00.002-05:00

I have not read Karen Armstrong’s new book, but this Newsweek review seriously got on my nerves.

From the September 29, 2009, issue of Newsweek: The latest salvo in the war between the atheists and the believers comes from the doyenne of religious intellectual history, Karen Armstrong. Her tone is one of high-minded irritation. Her argument is compelling. To oversimplify: "faith" and "reason" are not like political parties. You don't join one after having been convinced via argument of its validity.

Well, no, you don’t; the vast majority of people “join” a religion because it’s the one in which they are raised from birth, the one they get from their parents. Political party affiliation often works the same way, of course; we tend to take on the beliefs of our immediate community. But more importantly, there is a category error here: “reason” is a process, not a conclusion, while “faith” implies a belief in something one has already decided to be true. It’s an extremely common false analogy, but an important one. Think of it this way: What people want to compare when they set up this dichotomy are two ways of arriving at an answer. The comparison is false because beliefs based on faith begin with the answer and work backwards to justify that answer; to have faith in something you have to know what that thing is FIRST. Reason, however, is merely the process one goes through to work toward an as yet undetermined answer. Thus, the application of, say, the scientific method, is not something one “joins,” but it is very much a way of arriving at answers that can be taught and demonstrated as valid, and it can be applied to many more situations, while belief-without-evidence is a position we celebrate in no other circumstance that I can think of outside of religion. Sam Harris often uses the example of someone asking, “Don’t you have faith that your partner loves you? You can’t determine that scientifically, right, smartypants?” No, you can’t, but you can certainly view the evidence in the way your partner treats you, for example. It seems to me that if you have to believe in your partner’s love based only on faith, your partner may not in fact love you.

What the Greeks called logos and what they called mythos define two different aspects of the world and our experience in it: the knowable and the unknowable. You can believe in both. The bridge between them, Armstrong submits, is not the snarky badinage or righteous browbeating that has so defined faith-versus-reason debates of late, but practice. By practice she means not the occasional yoga class but genuine, difficult, repetitive practice, which over time gives the practitioner—even the reasonable practitioner—glimpses of the transcendent or the divine. Call it God.

WHY? No, really: why? Why shouldn’t I call it neurochemistry? Or black magic? Or Jim? This is a bizarre claim that I hear all the time and I can never figure out how the person making it can be serious. Just because you might point to things that feel funky in your head or that science hasn’t provided answers for yet or that seem transcendent to you, how on earth do you make the spectacular leap from there to ergo X=The God in Which I Already Conveniently Believe? So, again, I would love to know if Armstrong has stories to tell about people who discover Jesus Christ through “practice” without ever having heard of him before.

The Case for God, which comes out this month, is Armstrong's 19th book, and it rides the crest of a wave of books meant to dismantle the arguments of the atheists Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. Armstrong is uniquely qualified to write on this subject, for having been a Roman Catholic nun, she then rejected faith. "For many years, I myself wanted nothing whatsoever to do with religion," she writes. "But my study of world religion during the last twenty years has compelled me to revise my earlier opinions…One of the things I have learned is that quarreling about religion is counterproductive and not conducive to enlightenment."

OK, ugh, I hate this so much. Questioning religious beliefs or dogma and/or their function in our society does not constitute “quarreling” or “snarky badinage” or “righteous browbeating” or meanness, and these charges, again very common, merely allow one to shift the focus and avoid addressing the actual criticisms being raised. And of course quarreling can be productive and can lead to intellectual enlightenment, if we approach it correctly and use it to hone our own beliefs in an honest way. That’s why debate has held a respected position in the exercise of intellect for so many hundreds of years.

Armstrong shows that for most of human history, "faith" and "reason" were not mutually exclusive and that even today all kinds people believe in a God that in no way resembles the God the atheists despise.

GAH. I do not “despise” anyone’s god; I do not believe such beings exist, so I could not possibly despise them.

"Jews, Christians, and Muslims all knew that revealed truth was symbolic, that
scripture could not be interpreted literally, and that sacred texts had multiple meanings, and could lead to entirely fresh insights," she writes. "Revelation was not an event that had happened once in the distant past, but was an ongoing, creative process." This critique has not been articulated often or clearly enough: the new atheists are, in effect, buying into one particular modern, Western fundamentalist notion of God in order to make God look ridiculous and knock him (or her or it) down. For them to fail to concede that what William James called "religious experience" is far more complex than what certain contemporary believers preach is extremely disingenuous.

Really? The Crusades and the Inquisition and the Holocaust and Proposition 8 were carried out by people who saw scripture as symbolic? I know that’s such a cheap shot, but come on. Yes, some religious people have seen scripture this way, but the ones with the most power and the loudest voices do not, so let’s not be “disingenuous” here. Here’s a question: If atheists are “buying into” a “notion of God,” who is selling it? What strikes me about this screed is that it should be directed at fundamentalists, not atheists, if Armstrong is being, dare I say, ingenuous in her complaints. When atheists (or theists, for that matter) complain about religious dogma interfering with medical research and civil rights and reproductive health and science education and sex ed and any number of other areas that affect all of us, we are not reacting to something that we’ve made up because we don’t like god. I understand Armstrong’s wish to disclaim her embarrassing relatives, but sorry, you can’t, not if you want to defend this plurality in scripture you’re positing, because that means their reading of “practice” is as valid as yours. But more importantly, if scripture is an ever-changing facilitator of subjective experience as opposed to an actual signifier of determinable meaning, what bloody good is it? This is all so goofy, I’m sorry, but believers do not read “sacred” texts the way they read John Grisham novels; they think there’s something magical about them. Otherwise, how are they special? How are they worthy of existing outside the frame of rationality that we place over everything else? What makes them worthy of faith?

Most provocative is Armstrong's focus on practice—on the activities that help a person engage with God: reading, singing, chanting, meditating, praying, and so on. She has a special affinity for the mystics. The yogi, the Christian mystic, the Kabbalist, the Sufi, the poet—all these, she argues, access transcendence through disciplined work, through failure, anxiety, and the redoubling of effort. By submitting to the unknown, mystics are supposed to become more wise and more loving. At its best, then, mythos has a positive, pragmatic effect on logos.

I may have to read this book, I guess, because I would love to know what it looks like when someone “submit[s] to the unknown.” Wtf does that mean, and why should I attempt it or value it? I want the unknown to become the known. That’s why I like education! And science. And the quest to cure cancer. And the space program. MRI. Pregnancy tests. (I could go on…) She talks about “enlightenment” but then describes its pursuit as “submitting to the unknown”? Sounds like a load of pseudo-intellectual baloney to me. When Socrates acknowledged that the wisest person understands that he knows nothing, he didn’t mean to suggest that we should celebrate ignorance as a virtue. Perhaps this is the main reason that what others call “spirituality” has never worked for me; I am never, ever happy about not knowing.

"The point of religion was to live intensely and richly here and now," she writes. "Religious people are ambitious…They tried to honor the ineffable mystery they sensed in each human being and create societies that honored the stranger, the alien, the poor, and the oppressed." It doesn't always work, she adds, but it's worth a try. (Critics will charge that Armstrong's affinity for mysticism leads her naively to overlook the destructive differences among religions. Like Robert Wright, whose recent book, The Evolution of God, argues for a kind of divine morality among humans, Armstrong is more of an optimistic about religion than a pessimist.)

Again: “ineffable mystery in each human being.” Don’t know what that means. Also, though, I flat do not believe this claim. A minute ago religion was individual and personal and all about each believer’s needs. Now it’s about honoring strangers and aliens? Again, what does that look like? The Christian Bible is unapologetically tribal. Oh, wait, those words in the book don’t actually mean what they say because they’re mutable and symbolic and all. So on what does she base these statements about the purpose of religion, if we can’t even take what the religious texts say at face value? I am getting so confused.

Armstrong's argument is prescient, for it reflects the most important shifts occurring in the religious landscape. In the West, believers are refocusing their attention away from creeds and on practice—on making the activity of faith meaningful in daily life.

I don’t care what people do with their own time, obviously, but when “practice” or “activity” includes attempting to inject your religion into the public schools or into the laws of the state, I will fight you every step. It doesn’t matter too much, though, because I do not believe this is true at all, that believers are moving away from creeds. It certainly is not true where I live.

Examples of this are legion: in the Bay Area, a new school called the Gamliel Institute teaches Jews in every denomination about chevra kadisha, the ancient mitzvah of washing and shrouding a dead body. In evangelical circles, Christians are turning away from salvation talk and toward helping the sick and the poor.

Bullshit. They are not. Churches have always involved themselves in ministering to the disadvantaged, which is lovely, but there is not some big movement going on—at least not in the US—toward doing so instead of talking about salvation. Sorry, no.

Pentecostalism, the fastest--growing brand of religion in the world, stresses the gifts of the spirit: healing, and speaking in tongues. In his new book, The Future of Faith, Harvard professor Harvey Cox calls this new era "the age of the spirit": "Faith, rather than beliefs, is once again becoming [Christianity's] defining quality," he writes.

WHAT? With no beliefs, what do you have faith in? That makes no sense!

For me, the most refreshing change of all is the possibility, clearly articulated in Armstrong's book, that belief in God requires uncertainty as much as certainty. Sixteen percent of Americans recently called themselves "unaffiliated," a figure that sent religious professionals scurrying for fixes and explanations. But these Americans may just be signaling to pollsters an unwillingness to choose sides.
Miller Is Newsweek’s Religion Editor.
©
2009

If a belief requires uncertainty, I’m not sure you can even call it a belief without playing very loose with that word, but what matters here is that once again she asks me to rejoice in ignorance, now called “uncertainty,” and I reject that recommendation with everything I am; the thinker, the educator, the parent all recoil from such mealy-mouthed, self-effacing resignation.

California's Proposition 8; or, Die Haters

2008-11-11T14:54:00.002-06:00

The Obama glow was completely ruined for me by the gay hating. I am so furious I can hardly sit here without screaming and throwing things.

You stupid, stupid assholes.

I guess it's going to take a gay Malcolm X to deal with this crap once and for all. Not that morons aren't afraid of gays as it is--we know they are--but they may need to get really afraid, physically threatened, before they back down and let the civil rights on which our country ostensibly prides itself govern all its citizens. Horribly sad, but perhaps also true.

Because aside from a wholesale abandonment of ancient bullshit superstitions by the general population, I don't see what else can fix this hideous injustice. And let's not kid ourselves: No secular groups are attempting to legislate against gay rights. This is all about the stupid Bible. So we have two elements of these "defense of marriage" propositions that are transparently unconstitutional: They involve legislating from a position of religious doctrine and they seek to write discrimination into law, which, hi, America, are SUPPOSED to be illegal and anti-American and contrary to all that stuff we claim to believe in.

Oh, but, something else we all know but don't so much talk about is that no politician has the stones to confront religious beliefs and call them misguided or discriminatory or batshit crazy wrong. We're all expected to respect religion and any dumb ideas it barfs up, so when something like this gay hating travesty appears, everyone is too mired in respect to call it what it is and stand in opposition.

I think anyone--and this includes our new president-elect, though I did vote for him--who calls him/herself "liberal" but does not stand for gay marriage is a craven hypocrite. I really do. In fact, I think anyone who claims to believe in equality and civil rights but draws the line at the Biblically-villified queers is a craven hypocrite as well. Screw you. I do not "respect" your idiotic bigoted beliefs, and I hope I never do.

To all you protesters in California and the group attempting to have the Mormon church's tax exempt status revoked, you go, sisters and brothers. Go get 'em. Even Dr. King finally said enough is enough, quit asking us to wait for equality because we're dead tired of waiting. I'm not gay but I am officially tired of waiting to live in a country that meets its own hype. This is ridiculous, that we're still debating this while the ecomony implodes and our soldiers die. Ridiculous. This is a slam dunk, people. Equality under the law. Look it up.

Two Open Letters

2008-08-31T15:57:00.002-05:00

Dear iTunes:

I DO NOT WANT SAFARI. Really. I don't.

love,
Shell

Dear McAfee:

You suck.

No love,
Shell

This just in: U of California demands actual college coursework for transfer credit

2008-08-12T20:40:00.004-05:00

Finally some sense in the news! Nice one, University of California.

MURRIETA: Judge throws out religious discrimination suit
Calvary Chapel attorney to appeal ruling

By RANI GUPTA - Staff Writer Friday, August 8, 2008 10:50 PM PDT

A federal judge in Los Angeles has thrown out the remaining claims of Calvary Chapel Christian School, which sued the University of California alleging university officials rejected some courses for credit because of their Christian viewpoint.

U.S. District Judge James Otero said in a summary judgment ruling released Friday that the school had failed to show evidence that UC officials had violated the First Amendment rights of the five Calvary students who sued along with the school and the Association of Christian Schools International.

Robert Tyler, an attorney who represented Calvary, said Friday night that the decision will be appealed.

"We always believed we were going to have to get up in the higher courts before we would get a ruling that would be favorable to us," said Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a religious liberty law firm in Murrieta.

In March, Otero threw out the Christian school's broader claims that UC policies were unconstitutional on their face. Friday's ruling concerned Calvary's claims that the policies were also unconstitutional as they were applied in the review of several classes.

Otero wrote that Calvary "provided no evidence of animus" on the part of university officials, whom he said had a "rational basis" for determining that the proposed Calvary courses would not meet the UC college preparatory requirements.

For instance, a UC professor who reviewed Calvary's proposed Christianity's Influence on America class said the course used a textbook that "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events," "attributes historical events to divine providence rather than analyzing human action," and "contains inadequate treatment of several major ethnic groups, women and non-Christian religious groups."

Another university professor agreed that the textbook from Bob Jones University shouldn't be used for a college-preparatory history class because it didn't encourage critical thinking skills and failed to cover "major topics, themes and components" of U.S. history, Otero wrote.

The judge said Calvary provided little admissible evidence to the contrary.

The court also ruled that UC officials had a rational reason to reject a course called World Religions for elective credit.

University reviewers had asked Calvary to accurately identify the book because they could not verify its existence and asked the school to show how the class "treats the study of religion from the standpoint of scholarly inquiry," Otero's ruling said. He said Calvary provided no evidence they had tried to clarify the content.

"[T]he course rejection feedback makes clear that the course may have been approved with minimal clarification," the judge wrote.

University officials have said they approved 43 courses from Calvary Chapel, which Tyler said Calvary students have used to gain admission to UC schools. There are other ways to be admitted, such as high test scores. However, Tyler said he fears schools will become afraid to teach from a Christian perspective.

"We're worried in the long term, Christian education is going to be continually watered down in order to satisfy the UC school system," he said.

A university spokesman could not be reached for comment late Friday.

2008-08-01T19:54:00.003-05:00

This story out of Tulsa shows just how entitled the religious have become:

Islamic group files suit against Tulsa store
The Oklahoman

A religious discrimination complaint has been filed on behalf of a Muslim teen who said she was denied employment at a Tulsa store because of her headscarf, the Council on American Islamic Relations Oklahoma chapter announced today.

Razi Hashmi, the council's Oklahoma chapter executive director, said the young woman applied for a job at the Abercrombie children's clothing store in Woodland Hills Mall and was told her Islamic headscarf, or hijab, "does not fit the company's image."

Hashmi said the council filed a complaint on the teen's behalf with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in mid-July, citing religious discrimination.

He said the council is asking the store to offer the applicant a formal apology. Hashmi said the organization also wants the store's policy on religious accommodation clarified. The group also is asking for Abercrombie employees to receive workplace sensitivity and diversity training.

OK, we need to clarify something here. Religious freedom does not mean that you can have any job you want. It simply means that you can practice whatever religion you want without being hindered by the government. You are not entitled to a job at a trendy clothing store that routinely incorporates nekkidness in its advertising (for clothes, no less) if you don't look convincing in that role. They don't generally hire wrinkled people to work at Abercrombie either. Or, for that matter, ugly people. There is a certain amount of discrimination inherent to hiring practices, which is why we have these things called "applications" and "interviews." Whether you like it or not, A&F is about appearing over-priced and high energy, and there's no room for overt demonstrations of modesty in their idiom. The last thing they want is to make customers feel guilty about their vanity.

Besides, they didn't tell her she couldn't wear the stupid thing (and, yes, I meant that--I think it's stupid) just that they weren't going to hire her to wear it in their store. That's not illegal.

You're right--I am kind of dumb. Thanks, god!

2008-08-01T15:09:00.003-05:00

I couldn't pull over to snap a photo, but I just passed a church sign that said "Trust Yourself Less and God More."

Wow, I really have a problem with that sentiment. What would that even look like? How does one accomplish it? Let Jesus take the wheel?

People are so odd

2008-07-27T20:34:00.001-05:00

Flying home from Chicago this morning I sat in a row with a woman in possession of at least 50 years who--I shit you not--clutched a stuffed animal the entire flight.

Come on. Have some dignity. Either you'll make it home or you won't, but remember what your mother used to say about always wearing crisp underwear in case you find yourself offending some poor paramedic with your sagging elastic and skid marks? I'm going to suggest that you think about how you'll be remembered if the plane does go down and your mangled corpse is discovered clinging to Boo Boo Kitty.

I was sitting by the window and Kitty Klinger was on the aisle; between us was a college girl on her way back to school. The moment KK sat down she started babbling at this poor kid. Her rather alarming introductory declaration: "I've got to take my Dramamine now. The older I get I just get worse and worse. The last time I flew I got so sick!"

Um. Not so much what your fellow passengers want to hear while we're buckling ourselves in next to you? Thanks.

Then she went off about her kids and her grandkid and all the jobs she's had since she got divorced because she always put her kids first you know that was the way she approached it so if a job started to interfere with that why she went and found another one.

I hate people like this so, so much. I am not pathologically unfriendly, but I could not be less interested in being trapped by the boring lives of strangers. It's rude to do this, to take advantage of the politeness of others and force them to endure your bullshit. And put down that stupid toy, you weirdo.

Another illuminating post from PZ Myers

2008-07-24T16:50:00.000-05:00

It is finished. Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/scienceblogs/pharyngula/~3/344848952/the_great_desecration.php

--
This article was sent using my Viigo.
For a free download, go to http://getviigo.com

Thoughts while viewing Project Runway tonight

2008-07-16T21:55:00.004-05:00

[Begin DVR replay]

Yay! Project Runway!

Yay! Heidi and Tim! Er...Heidi looks somewhat...emaciated. Maybe I'm just used to seeing her pregnant?

AUSTIN SCARLETT!!11!!!one!

Stella = Cher in Mask.

So many cute bangs on the young women these days. I wish I could wear those bangs. Alas, I am old. I would look like Stella.

Time for judging!

Heidi is too thin for reals.

AUSTIN SCARLETT!!eleven!1!!!1!!!

I like the first lawn chair dress. And the cup dress.

The mop crochet shirt = not something I want to imagine my boobs in at this point in my life cycle, but definitely striking.

Pasta skirt is kind of cool looking.

Like the yellow fly swatter decor.

Everyone who used a tablecloth = go home loser

"Girlicious" = DIE NOW. She looks like a stuffed toy your puppy ripped the guts out of. Or a sufferer of some hideous creeping crotch fungus. With shoulder pads.

Winner: dyed vacuum bag skirt. Gorgeous, innovative. She made her own hook and eye closures for the back from a spiral notebook binding. Suck it, tablecloth wussies.

This season on Project Runway: Tim says something looks like "a pterodactyl in a gay Jurassic Park." Oh, Tim. Call me.

[end DVR replay]

More cracker news

2008-07-16T13:02:00.003-05:00

Remember my earlier post about the Great Wafer Caper of 2008? According to the latest post at Pharyngula, one of the raving morons who emailed a threat to Professor Myers (demonstrating his superior Christian love, of course) used his wife's work email account and got her fired.

I was listening to the Non-Prophets podcast yesterday as they discussed the bizarre story of PZ Myers and the sacred wafer, and I learned something I did not know: Priests have recently begun placing the communion wafer in the recipient's hand instead of directly into the mouth because of health concerns.

Am I to understand that Jesus's body bits are sacred but not guaranteed sanitary? How magical can this cracker possibly be if it can't even eliminate 99.9% of household germs?

Childhood obesity on parade

2008-07-15T15:56:00.003-05:00

I ferried my son and one of his friends to the local water park today. Now I'm sitting here watching a lot of overweight kids in swimsuits. In fact, my son's buddy is one of them; he's enormous. He's eleven and you can feel my car lurch when he gets in it.

He's also really big in general, though, several inches taller than my son. His whole family is huge. Genetics? Nothing to be done? I don't know. I can't decide if it's prejudiced of me to think there's neglect involved in letting a child get so fat. He had knee surgery a few months ago. I don't know that it was related to his weight, but doesn't it seem likely?

I try so hard not to fall into the social and cultural biases against heavy people that I confuse myself sometimes. I found the movie Kung Fu Panda a bit offensive because of all the fat jokes. I was mortified when my son said "At least I'm not fat" after we left the theater. When I tell him to eat grapes instead of another cookie I always focus my explanation on health, never appearance. I don't ever want anyone's feelings hurt, especially not because of how s/he looks.

So how do we negotiate this situation for the good of everyone? I wish I knew.

Test post

2008-07-14T15:52:00.001-05:00

Just checking to see if I really can blog by Blackberry.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Donohue vs. PZ update

2008-07-10T21:04:00.003-05:00

Not that this is exciting to anyone but me, but I just visited Richard Dawkins's site and found a post from him that sounds like mine! He even used "shrieking hysteria!"

I can't believe I had some of the same words in my head as Richard Dawkins for a moment...

PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS.
By Richard Dawkins

Readers of yesterday's thread "It's a Goddamned Cracker" will be aware of somebody called Bill Donohue, whose grasp of reality is so poor that he can't tell the difference between a wafer and Jesus. The shrieking hysteria of Donohue and other Roman Catholics over the temporary removal of a communion wafer from a church service epitomises all that is ridiculous in the religious mind.

Today's development is that Donohue is now inciting a witch-hunt against PZ, and is trying to whip up Roman Catholics to write to the President of the University of Minnesota, urging him to sack PZ. We need a massive counter flood of letters in support of PZ Myers. Please write, bearing in mind PZ's two requests:-

1. Please use your own name, not a pseudonym
2. Please take care to write in a good, literate, adult style, in order to increase the contrast between the letters of support and the incoherent, juvenile flaming that will doubtless characterise the letters from the Catholics.

For details of the address to write to, see Pharyngula, here (or PZ's post below)

Please rally round and show support for PZ, in the face of this hysterical latter-day Grand Inquisitor.

Thank you

Richard

But seriously, of course, please do support PZ.

Shut up, Bill Donohue. Just shut up, please.

2008-07-10T13:46:00.002-05:00

What a bizarre spectacle of a human being Bill Donohue is. He's a poster child for perhaps the most embarrassing aspect of religion, childish devotion to magic and shrieking hysteria when the magic is questioned.

It would just be silly and laughable if it weren't so dangerous, but people who believe in shit like the woo woo power of a name are the people who throw schoolteachers in prison and threaten to execute them for letting children name a stuffed toy Mohammed. That kind of lunacy would not be possible without the accompanying belief in magic.

But let's leave teddies behind and talk about the woo woo power of Catholic baked goods, also known as transubstantiation.

(Heh. I was going to link to the Wikipedia entry on the subject but for the moment it says this:

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio) is utter, utter shite. It is arse gravy to the nth degree, and believed only by delusional fools who actually think that they are devouring the flesh of a man who has been dead for millennia.

Probably not going to last, but it did make me giggle.)

Anyway, a few days ago P.Z. Myers posted this response to the shocking abduction of an innocent communion wafer.

Today I visited Pharyngula, as I am wont to do, and found this follow-up story.

I mean, are they kidding me with this shit? Really? REALLY? You're going to try to get the guy fired over your stupid fucking cracker hysterics? You know why he wrote about how insane and ridiculous you are? Because you ASKED FOR IT.

The wrenching irony of Donohue's attempt to paint the Catholic Church--THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!--as some poor hapless victim of prejudice...I don't even know what to say. It defies comprehension. I see it a lot lately from Christians, this withdrawal into victimhood. Oh, the mean secularists are making fun of us. You know, my son asked me the other day if we "know" there's no gods, and I answered, "We can't 'know' anything of the sort because we can't prove something doesn't exist. However, the advocates have had several thousand years to present their evidence now..." At which point he giggled and nodded. And that's tangentially my point here: You guys have had it so cush for so long--hundreds and hundreds of years of ass kissing and power--and now that more people are raising our hands and saying, "um, yeah, magic cookies? I don't really think so," you're aghast. Well, get used to it.

Oh, David Sedaris, how I love thee

2008-07-10T10:40:00.003-05:00

I'm reading When You Are Engulfed By Flames and it's slaying me. It's making me behave more obnoxiously than normal at home, too, because I keep cornering my husband and son and making them listen to me read passages.

Gosh, how long has it been?

2008-07-09T13:50:00.002-05:00

OK, I suck. It's all my fault. Just...don't even start, OK?

I don't even have an explanation for my defection from blogging. I just didn't have anything to say for awhile. Got bored with myself I guess.

But I'm going to try to do better.

The most interesting thing I did this summer (so far) was deliver a conference paper arguing that Joss Whedon's film Serenity is a new atheist text. It went well, I think, though I was excruciatingly nervous. I took one for the atheist team anyway. I got some odd--though, I guess, not unpredictable--questions from the audience. One young woman tried to claim that the media portray stereotypes about Xianity that aren't true. I didn't say "bitch, please, the media and politicians all kiss religion's collective ass," nor did I ask, "oh, you mean like when CNN trotted all the candidates for president out and made them prattle about their faith on television?" No, like the professional that I am, I steered the conversation back to my actual material and said, "Well, I have to disagree that the ideas I identify in the film rely on stereotypes. At some point you either believe that Mal must accept Christ into his heart or be doomed or...you don't. That's not something imposed on Xianity by others--it's doctrine." (Score, me!)

Then I got some old dude trying to tell me about how there are all these different ways to be religious and even to be Xian! (Golly! For reals?) I replied that this really wasn't much of an endorsement because once you start spreading your base that thin you have a hard time making any truth claims at all. I finally said that the bottom line--and what I see the film criticizing--is that to maintain a religious perspective you always end up at a place where you must believe something without evidence. That got a few nods and a few sneers so...good?

I have to confess again that I was terrified doing this. I'm always nervous when I read at conferences. I know it seems strange, a college professor who imparts wisdom to rooms full of people for a living sweating with stage fright, but students don't know if you're full of shit most of the time. They just don't. Your peers are different. And it doesn't help when you're dealing with provocative subject matter. The real shock, though, was how easy it turned out to be. I could answer every question without straining myself. I credit all the glorious atheist debaters and writers and speakers and podcasters and bloggers who helped me prepare for my first anti-crusade. Thanks!

Here's a brief excerpt from my talk, if you're interested:

The Alliance’s scientific inquiry seeks methods of control, not enrichment, of the public, specifically of people’s natural impulses and drives, including the Freudian libido. Referring to those drives as “sin” establishes an overt religious context that informs further allusions. For example, River’s association with Eve aligns with Miranda’s association with Eden. The use of “Miranda” as a proper name apparently occurs for the first time in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, as the name of Prospero’s naïve, untainted daughter. The word “Miranda” translates from the Latin to mean “worthy of being admired” and shares its root with the words “miracle,” “admire,” and, awesomely, “mirror.” I presume it’s no coincidence that Shakespeare’s Miranda grows up on a beautiful isolated island, ignorant of the outside world and protected in that ignorance by an overbearing magical father who is obsessively invested in her sexual purity. River first encounters her buried memory of Miranda in The Maidenhead, a reference to female sexual innocence, underscoring the repression of River’s natural drives and impulses in favor of the forced ones implanted by the Alliance. Her childish affect and dependence represent the Alliance’s infantilizing influence, further mirroring the arrogant paternalism of the Alliance toward the people on Miranda: “We just wanted to make them safe.” The Edenic situation is one of eternal childhood, ignorant, provided for by daddy-god, naked without sexual tension or embarrassment like the ubiquitous snapshots of our toddlers in the bathtub, free from pesky knowledge and understanding and thus from the responsibility of moral choices.
I once heard Philip Pullman interviewed about The Golden Compass, and he said he saw his protagonist, Lyra, as an Eve character, a girl who obtained information she wasn't meant to have and then acted upon it and bore the consequences. River is like that too. If the Alliance tried to create a new Eden, employing the same ideas as Genesis in the privileging of ignorance over knowledge and passivity over activity, then River is the one whose appropriation of forbidden knowledge dismantles the hierarchy. The story of Eden is a story of who is allowed to possess knowledge, and River knows something she isn’t supposed to and has the courage to pass that knowledge to others, going viral, just as they feared she would. The Operative calls River an albatross. In a sly moment, Whedon uses the reference to the Coleridge poem to show that Mal is a more honest reader than the Operative; he read the poem to understand it not to bend it to his own purposes. The reference also clarifies the intensity of the Operative’s desire to kill River. Like the albatross around the ancient mariner’s neck, River is a physical reminder of a crime against nature motivated by selfishness and superstition, the punishment for which is the mariner’s spending eternity telling the story, like another signal that never stops. At the heart of Christianity is the scapegoat, the belief that sacrificing one person can erase the guilt of others. River is a living embodiment of the Alliance’s crimes; kill River and you kill the Alliance’s guilt.

Goodbye to a Good Dog

2008-04-04T09:37:00.003-05:00

Markie
January(?) 1993-April 3, 2008

Pat Condell takes on Mormon underpants

2007-12-22T09:08:00.000-06:00

I hate animals

2007-12-21T20:57:00.000-06:00

They suck you in with their cuteness and fun and love and then they just die on you and break your heart. Every. Goddamn. Time. I can't take it.

My little Markie dog is in renal failure. This is not a reversible condition, as most people probably know; you can't grow new nephrons. A couple of weeks ago I took her to the vet because I feared the smell of her breath meant her kidneys were failing. (Don't ask me how I know that because I honestly have no idea.) He took blood and ran the lab work and...yeah. Terrible numbers. Like, Tony Romo when there's a blond in the stands kind of terrible.

He gave me two options: Leave her at the vet for 4 days so he can flush her kidneys with IV fluids and try to eliminate some of the built-up toxins or take her home and wait for her to die. But...with her being so old (15 years) and with the Romo numbers and all, the doctor cautioned that the flushing might not even be successful.

What could I do, though? This is my DOG, for chrissake. It's not her fault she got old and sick.

A cool $500 later (Merry Christmas!) I picked her up from the vet, fully flushed and reeking of urine and so weak she could hardly stand. I thought she was dead for sure. And then...she started getting better. Here she is a few days ago:

It's seriously hard for me to even believe; I never thought to see her so steady again. Believe me, I know this is merely a stopgap. She takes so many meds now that I got her one of those plastic days-of-the-week pill cases. She gets nauseous in the mornings and it scares me because I know that when she's so uremic that she can't stop vomiting I'll have to euthanize her. For now, though, I'm going to try to make the most of her feeling better while it lasts. She has to sleep in a cage at night because she's quite blind and if I let her wander at will she gets stuck under furniture and hurts herself, so I get up at 5 am to take her out. Actually, because I am an obsessive neurotic worrier, I wake up many times in the night and check her with a flashlight to make sure she's sleeping comfortably.

I don't begrudge her my crusty eyes and light(er) wallet, though; she's my dog. Right?

Older Markie shots:

1995

2003

2006, after surgery to remove an ingrown nail

Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens

2007-12-15T09:40:00.000-06:00

Awesome.

And now for something completely different...

2007-10-26T16:13:00.000-05:00

Positive aspects of religion!

Fox News Attacks Freethought Radio

2007-10-16T21:04:00.001-05:00

I can't even get angry about this it's so hysterical. It just made me laugh. I had no idea the production values for Fox News were so abysmal, for one thing, but my favorite part is how they act like they've never heard of this wacky idea of not believing in gods. Atheists are the new Bigfoot to Fox correspondents, I guess.

I've been listening to the podcast of Freethought Radio for months, by the way, and it's a fine show. There are better produced and paced podcasts--like The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, which is brilliant--but Annie Laurie Gaylor, in particular, boasts a stellar resume as a rights activist and she and husband Dan Barker continue to commit themselves to protecting Americans from church-state separation encroachment and do an impressive job of it. And they seem like really nice people. This pearl clutching "news" report is silly and embarrassing as well as unprofessional.

Dove Ad

2007-10-04T10:35:00.000-05:00

Wow...

Sometimes they really are out to get you--and your kids

2007-09-27T12:35:00.000-05:00

If anyone thinks I'm unreasonably paranoid about the attack on public education, check out this site, on which appears the (public) middle school my son will attend next year, by the way:

http://everyschool.com/

This one's good too: Scriptures in Schools

Don't wait around for divine intervention!

2007-09-25T13:27:00.000-05:00

How many grilled cheese sandwiches have you examined, hoping for Christ's divine image to appear? Who has that much time or cheese? Now you can create your own Jesus food images with the Jesus Pan!

Pole This

2007-09-25T13:12:00.000-05:00

I wanted to shriek, "I've got your pole right HERE!" except...I don't. Have one. Damn penis envy strikes again!

Yes, I got the yearly "See You at the Pole" email at my school this morning.

You know what my problem really is? It's the aggressive nature of the enterprise. The stated purpose of the pole meeting activity, essentially, is to protest church/state separation. It is also, as a colleague pointed out this morning, exclusionary and ripe for abuse, as one's absence from the event could be noted and used against you. I in no way believe that someone at my institution would do that, but the potential is there, and I hate everything about the entire business anyway. Gah.

Besides, don't they know they're participating in a pagan ritual by hopping around a pole? Don't they realize the phallocentric eroticism they're perpetuating?

Like you need another Britney post...

2007-09-10T20:41:00.000-05:00

Go here to read the Entertainment Weekly review of Britney's VMA "performance."

You can watch the video there as well, if you're brave enough.

Here's my issue: Do I feel sorry for her? Because I kind of do, but then I think, but she's totally rich and fucking it all up and, like, at what point does that become her fault? I watched the video and holy shit what a total phone-in. I mean, she wasn't even trying to look interested, and her hair looked like hammered poo and she was even missing a FINGERNAIL for chrissake and she could barely walk in the stupid boots she was wearing. Who the hell let her go out there like that, seriously? I just want to know. Oh--and then she left the scene of the crime later in a mini-dress and flashed her freakishly stripped bare cootch for the photographers AGAIN some MORE and I just can't even...how sorry for her am I required to feel at this point?

I'm asking seriously.

By the by, if you're wondering where the hell I've been, I started a new job professing the English at a wonderful 4-year liberal arts university, and I love it like I love that the new season of Judge Judy started today, but I'm wicked busy and just haven't had time to do much else.

Now for something completely different...

2007-08-21T21:27:00.000-05:00

A lovely bit from MMO to the Supreme Court:

"YOUR PETITIONERS ARE ATHEISTS and they define their life-style as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellowman instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellowman can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellowman rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god, nor channel action into prayer, nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."

~ Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), preamble to Murray v. Curlett, U.S. Supreme Court, April 27, 1961

Superbad date rape comedy?

2007-08-19T12:44:00.000-05:00

From the Entertainment Weekly review I just read:

"As best friends and graduating seniors Seth [...] and Evan [...] face the prospect of a partnership disrupted by the distractions of college, they envision one last chance to unload their nagging virginity: They'll get a couple of girls drunk at a party and do 'em. Lay 'em, plow 'em...choose the age-old crudity of your choice."

Oh, I get it! Ha ha ha...wait, WHAT?

Come on, amateurs! Go get some Rohypnol like the real players. (I mean, are they serious with this?)

So we have a film marketed to teenagers that includes these charming assertions:

1. Boys should not be virgins by the end of high school.

2. Boys must get laid by any means possible. If girls don't wish to cooperate while sober then boys should investigate chemical options.

3. Boys are partners in this enterprise, meaning they are aligned together against girls, who are merely means to an end. (This aspect of the plot would make Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick chortle, not that our fag bashing populace will recognize the homoeroticism of boys who vow to lose their virginity together, of course.)

I understand from the rest of the review that these boys turn out to be harmless dorks and no one is actually date raped or whatever, but I could not give less of a shit. And please don't tell me I should really see the movie myself because you would have to pin my eyelids back Clockwork Orange-style to make me view this tripe. Shame on everyone involved.

UPDATE: I have since read an amateur review that includes this info:

'The last act is very well done, while being funny and also realistic and dramatic, pointing out some of the harsh realities of teenage drinking, instead of just making everything cool and fun like most movies. I’m unhappy to report that a large portion of the audience didn’t seem to appreciate the dramatic turn. Many of them seemed to be cheering (too loudly) for date rape. Also, when Seth and Evan start expressing their true feelings as best friends there were a lot of homophobic groans and even some asshole shouting out lines from “Brokeback Mountain.”'

I rest my case.

That's what you get, TIME Magazine, you sycophants

2007-08-10T10:54:00.000-05:00

TMZ.com has pointed out the humor in this cover photo of Billy Graham:

Heh. Nice devil horns, Reverend.

That aside, though, "faith, politics, and the meaning of life"? Bitch, please. STOP KISSING THESE PEOPLE'S ASSES. Faith isn't supposed to have one damn thing to do with politics. Why are you legitimizing such a travesty against the Enlightenment principles of Jefferson, et al? Ugh.

It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married)

2007-07-26T08:50:00.001-05:00

This is so fucking brilliant I can't even believe it.

Airport Philanthropy

2007-07-25T14:56:00.000-05:00

I don't pretend to be an unusually selfless person. Really. But I tend to think most folks are decent, and I like to pay my dues to the club of reciprocal humanism when I get the chance, and travel presents many such opportunities because any time you're in an airport there's a high concentration of people around you who are fucked somehow.

Thus, allow me to preen and feel good about myself!

1) During a marathon visit to the Ft. Lauderdale airport (don't ask) I overheard a woman inform her companions that she was desperate to find some Dramamine because she was so sick and, being a chronically nauseated gal myself, I called her over and pulled a tube of Dramamine from my bag of tricks.

2) In the security line at Dallas Love Field a young woman in front of me was caught trying to kill us all with two tubes of un-baggied lipgloss. The horror! (What exactly are the magical protective properties of the one quart ziplock baggie, by the way? How does it make me safer? I really want to know.) She dolefully passed them back down the line of waiting passengers to be tossed in the ridiculously overflowing garbage, and when they came to me I just stuck them in my own baggie, rendering them miraculously safe for travel! Not one of the crack security officers noted this, by the way, nor did she. Once through the gauntlet--and with my damn shoes back on--I caught up with her and presented her with her lipglosses--just as she was bitching to someone on her phone about having them taken. Heh. She was delighted and I felt like I stuck one to The Man. Win-win!

3) Finally, in yet another airport (did I get around this summer or what?) I found a cell phone in the women's bathroom, left in a stall. OK, this one's lame, I mean, who doesn't turn in lost property, but still. I turned it in. Actually, I also found a Blackberry on the floor under my feet once we got settled on the plane and located its owner in the row ahead of me, so that was a day of finding other people's electronics for some reason.

I would really, really love to have a Blackberry, too.

Spotlight on a Glasgow Hero

2007-07-04T11:24:00.000-05:00

So we were on a cruise ship when we heard about the flaming SUV attack in Glasgow, and we watched coverage on CNN in our stateroom, during which we saw the most delightful interview ever, with this Glaswegian airport worker named John Smeaton. I remarked at the time, "That dude will never buy his own drink again." And check it:

John Smeaton Website

More than a thousand pint pledges so far. From the ashes of tragedy the human spirit will always rise...

Update: I ganked the link to the original interview for you; it's a bit buried on the fansite. The name they give is "John Smetton," which may be the reason his fans can't locate him?

CNN Interview of Awesome

He had me at "havin a fag."

What to tell children about death when you can't pacify them with heaven?

2007-06-15T09:02:00.000-05:00

On one front I will agree that theists have an edge: When a child asks them about dying they can chirp, "Oh, it'll be awesome! You'll see Granny and Grampy and Rover again and live with them for eternity in the warm glow of Jesus. No worries!"

But we naturalists do our best. I try to emphasize the preciousness of the life we do get when "teachable moments" arise. For example, my son and I were in our pool the other day and he watched quizzically as I spent a good ten minutes trying to help a frantic struggling bug out of the water:

Kid: Why are you doing that?

Me: It's a brave little bug. Look at it trying so hard to survive. It's the most intense drive we have, survival.

**Success! The bug is delivered to the grass, where I will no doubt mow over it later...**

Kid: Some people say there's another life after we die.

Me: Yes, they do.

K: I don't believe them.

M: Well, me either.

**we grin at each other for a moment**

K: But it does suck. You're just gone, you don't know anything or feel anything...how can that be?

M: No one's ever been able to tell us for sure, but I assume it's very much like being asleep. You just don't wake up. Listen, you're right. It sucks. I wish it weren't so, but think about it this way: What would the earth look like right now if nothing died?

K: **thinks** We'd all get pretty old and twisted up.

M: Ha! True. But also, where would we sit?

K: Oh. I...don't know. It would really fill up, huh? *resigned sigh* That's nature's way.

M: Yep, that's nature's way.

A couple of godless interviews

2007-06-14T09:46:00.000-05:00

Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great? on The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos: http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1610

Richard Dawkins on The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos: http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1563

This Canadian interview show, The Hour, is quite good. I love that the dude looks like he just left his afternoon class and rollerbladed onto the set but then comes off all intelligent and articulate.

Sam Harris on secular morality

2007-06-06T09:28:00.000-05:00

The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos
Sam Harris

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One cannot criticize religious dogmatism for long without encountering the following claim, advanced as though it were a self-evident fact of nature: there is no secular basis for morality. Raping and killing children can only really be wrong, the thinking goes, if there is a God who says it is. Otherwise, right and wrong would be mere matters of social construction, and any society would be at liberty to decide that raping and killing children is actually a wholesome form of family fun. In the absence of God, John Wayne Gacy could be a better person than Albert Schweitzer, if only more people agreed with him.

It is simply amazing how widespread this fear of secular moral chaos is, given how many misconceptions about morality and human nature are required to set it whirling in a person’s brain. There is undoubtedly much to be said against the spurious linkage between faith and morality, but the following three points should suffice.

1. If a book like the Bible were the only reliable blueprint for human decency that we had, it would be impossible (both practically and logically) to criticize it in moral terms. But it is extraordinarily easy to criticize the morality one finds in the Bible, as most of it is simply odious and incompatible with a civil society.

The notion that the Bible is a perfect guide to morality is really quite amazing, given the contents of the book. Human sacrifice, genocide, slaveholding, and misogyny are consistently celebrated. Of course, God’s counsel to parents is refreshingly straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13–14). If they are shameless enough to talk back to us, we should kill them (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18–21, Mark 7:9–13, and Matthew 15:4–7). We must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshiping graven images, practicing sorcery, and a wide variety of other imaginary crimes.

Most Christians imagine that Jesus did away with all this barbarism and delivered a doctrine of pure love and toleration. He didn’t. (See Matthew 5:18–19, Luke 16:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 20–21, John 7:19.) Anyone who believes that Jesus only taught the Golden Rule and love of one’s neighbor should go back and read the New Testament. And he or she should pay particular attention to the morality that will be on display if Jesus ever returns to earth trailing clouds of glory (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9, 2:8; Hebrews 10:28–29; 2 Peter 3:7; and all of Revelation).

It is not an accident that St. Thomas Aquinas thought heretics should be killed and that St. Augustine thought they should be tortured. (Ask yourself, what are the chances that these good doctors of the Church hadn’t read the New Testament closely enough to discover the error of their ways?) As a source of objective morality, the Bible is one of the worst books we have. It might be the very worst, in fact—if we didn’t also happen to have the Qur’an.

It is important to point out that we decide what is good in the Good Book. We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses; we read that a woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death, and we (if we are civilized) decide that this is the most vile lunacy imaginable. Our own ethical intuitions are, therefore, primary. So the choice before us is simple: we can either have a twenty-first-century conversation about ethics—availing ourselves of all the arguments and scientific insights that have accumulated in the last two thousand years of human discourse—or we can confine ourselves to a first-century conversation as it is preserved in the Bible.

2. If religion were necessary for morality, there should be some evidence that atheists are less moral than believers.

People of faith regularly allege that atheism is responsible for some of the most appalling crimes of the twentieth century. Are atheists really less moral than believers? While it is true that the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were irreligious to varying degrees, they were not especially rational. In fact, their public pronouncements were little more than litanies of delusion—delusions about race, economics, national identity, the march of history, or the moral dangers of intellectualism. In many respects, religion was directly culpable even here. Consider the Holocaust: the anti-Semitism that built the Nazi crematoria brick by brick was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity. For centuries, Christian Europeans had viewed the Jews as the worst species of heretics and attributed every societal ill to their continued presence among the faithful.

While the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, its roots were undoubtedly religious—and the explicitly religious demonization of the Jews of Europe continued throughout the period. (The Vatican itself perpetuated the blood libel in its newspapers as late as 1914.) Auschwitz, the Gulag, and the killing fields are not examples of what happens when people become too critical of unjustified beliefs; on the contrary, these horrors testify to the dangers of not thinking critically enough about specific secular ideologies. Needless to say, a rational argument against religious faith is not an argument for the blind embrace of atheism as a dogma. The problem that the atheist exposes is none other than the problem of dogma itself—of which every religion has more than its fair share. I know of no society in recorded history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies—countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom—are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality—belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction, societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God, each factor may enable the other, or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society’s health.

3. If religion really provided the only conceivable objective basis for morality, it should be impossible to posit a nontheistic objective basis for morality. But it is not impossible; it is rather easy.

Clearly, we can think of objective sources of moral order that do not require the existence of a law-giving God. In The End of Faith, I argued that questions of morality are really questions about happiness and suffering. If there are objectively better and worse ways to live so as to maximize happiness in this world, these would be objective moral truths worth knowing. Whether we will ever be in a position to discover these truths and agree about them cannot be known in advance (and this is the case for all questions of scientific fact). But if there are psychophysical laws that underwrite human well-being—and why wouldn’t there be?—then these laws are potentially discoverable. Knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality. In the meantime, everything about human experience suggests that love is better than hate for the purposes of living happily in this world. This is an objective claim about the human mind, the dynamics of social relations, and the moral order of our world. While we do not have anything like a final, scientific approach to maximizing human happiness, it seems safe to say that raping and killing children will not be one of its primary constituents.

One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns—about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering—in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith. Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our world into separate moral communities, and these divisions have become a continuous source of human conflict. The idea that there is a necessary link between religious faith and morality is one of the principal myths keeping religion in good standing among otherwise reasonable men and women. And yet, it is a myth that is easily dispelled.

Sam Harris is the author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.

Do I not bleed?

2007-05-26T14:32:00.000-05:00

Check out this excellent post on the new period-killing birth control pill.

It's like the original Pill all over again, with the cries of "unfeminine" and "anti-family" and the hysterical warnings that this will turn us all into shameless whores. Incredible, how backward our culture remains.

Please go read this

2007-05-22T17:02:00.000-05:00

Joss Whedon is a hero of mine, mostly for entertainment reasons but also for posts like this one.

I've copied the text below in case the post disappears someday, but I encourage you to visit the original as well.

May 20 2007
Let's Watch A Girl Get Beaten To Death. This is not my blog, but I don’t have a blog, or a space, and I’d like to be heard for a bit.

Last month seventeen year old Dua Khalil was pulled into a crowd of young men, some of them (the instigators) family, who then kicked and stoned her to death. This is an example of the breath-taking oxymoron “honor killing”, in which a family member (almost always female) is murdered for some religious or ethical transgression. Dua Khalil, who was of the Yazidi faith, had been seen in the company of a Sunni Muslim, and possibly suspected of having married him or converted. That she was torturously murdered for this is not, in fact, a particularly uncommon story. But now you can watch the action up close on CNN. Because as the girl was on the ground trying to get up, her face nothing but red, the few in the group of more than twenty men who were not busy kicking her and hurling stones at her were filming the event with their camera-phones.

There were security officers standing outside the area doing nothing, but the footage of the murder was taken – by more than one phone – from the front row. Which means whoever shot it did so not to record the horror of the event, but to commemorate it. To share it. Because it was cool.

I could start a rant about the level to which we have become desensitized to violence, about the evils of the voyeuristic digital world in which everything is shown and everything is game, but honestly, it’s been said. And I certainly have no jingoistic cultural agenda. I like to think that in America this would be considered unbearably appalling, that Kitty Genovese is still remembered, that we are more evolved. But coincidentally, right before I stumbled on this vid I watched the trailer for “Captivity”.

A few of you may know that I took public exception to the billboard campaign for this film, which showed a concise narrative of the kidnapping, torture and murder of a sexy young woman. I wanted to see if the film was perhaps more substantial (especially given the fact that it was directed by “The Killing Fields” Roland Joffe) than the exploitive ad campaign had painted it. The trailer resembles nothing so much as the CNN story on Dua Khalil. Pretty much all you learn is that Elisha Cuthbert is beautiful, then kidnapped, inventively, repeatedly and horrifically tortured, and that the first thing she screams is “I’m sorry”.

“I’m sorry.”

What is wrong with women?

I mean wrong. Physically. Spiritually. Something unnatural, something destructive, something that needs to be corrected.

How did more than half the people in the world come out incorrectly? I have spent a good part of my life trying to do that math, and I’m no closer to a viable equation. And I have yet to find a culture that doesn’t buy into it. Women’s inferiority – in fact, their malevolence -- is as ingrained in American popular culture as it is anywhere they’re sporting burkhas. I find it in movies, I hear it in the jokes of colleagues, I see it plastered on billboards, and not just the ones for horror movies. Women are weak. Women are manipulative. Women are somehow morally unfinished. (Objectification: another tangential rant avoided.) And the logical extension of this line of thinking is that women are, at the very least, expendable.

I try to think how we got here. The theory I developed in college (shared by many I’m sure) is one I have yet to beat: Womb Envy. Biology: women are generally smaller and weaker than men. But they’re also much tougher. Put simply, men are strong enough to overpower a woman and propagate. Women are tough enough to have and nurture children, with or without the aid of a man. Oh, and they’ve also got the equipment to do that, to be part of the life cycle, to create and bond in a way no man ever really will. Somewhere a long time ago a bunch of men got together and said, “If all we do is hunt and gather, let’s make hunting and gathering the awesomest achievement, and let’s make childbirth kinda weak and shameful.” It’s a rather silly simplification, but I believe on a mass, unconscious level, it’s entirely true. How else to explain the fact that cultures who would die to eradicate each other have always agreed on one issue? That every popular religion puts restrictions on women’s behavior that are practically untenable? That the act of being a free, attractive, self-assertive woman is punishable by torture and death? In the case of this upcoming torture-porn, fictional. In the case of Dua Khalil, mundanely, unthinkably real. And both available for your viewing pleasure.

It’s safe to say that I’ve snapped. That something broke, like one of those robots you can conquer with a logical conundrum. All my life I’ve looked at this faulty equation, trying to understand, and I’ve shorted out. I don’t pretend to be a great guy; I know really really well about objectification, trust me. And I’m not for a second going down the “women are saints” route – that just leads to more stone-throwing (and occasional Joan-burning). I just think there is the staggering imbalance in the world that we all just take for granted. If we were all told the sky was evil, or at best a little embarrassing, and we ought not look at it, wouldn’t that tradition eventually fall apart? (I was going to use ‘trees’ as my example, but at the rate we’re getting rid of them I’m pretty sure we really do think they’re evil. See how all rants become one?)

Now those of you who frequent this site are, in my wildly biased opinion, fairly evolved. You may hear nothing new here. You may be way ahead of me. But I can’t contain my despair, for Dua Khalil, for humanity, for the world we’re shaping. Those of you who have followed the link I set up know that it doesn’t bring you to a video of a murder. It brings you to a place of sanity, of people who have never stopped asking the question of what is wrong with this world and have set about trying to change the answer. Because it’s no longer enough to be a decent person. It’s no longer enough to shake our heads and make concerned grimaces at the news. True enlightened activism is the only thing that can save humanity from itself. I’ve always had a bent towards apocalyptic fiction, and I’m beginning to understand why. I look and I see the earth in flames. Her face was nothing but red.

All I ask is this: Do something. Try something. Speaking out, showing up, writing a letter, a check, a strongly worded e-mail. Pick a cause – there are few unworthy ones. And nudge yourself past the brink of tacit support to action. Once a month, once a year, or just once. If you can’t think of what to do, there is this handy link. Even just learning enough about a subject so you can speak against an opponent eloquently makes you an unusual personage. Start with that. Any one of you would have cried out, would have intervened, had you been in that crowd in Bashiqa. Well thanks to digital technology, you’re all in it now.

I have never had any faith in humanity. But I will give us props on this: if we can evolve, invent and theorize our way into the technologically magical, culturally diverse and artistically magnificent race we are and still get people to buy the idiotic idea that half of us are inferior, we’re pretty amazing. Let our next sleight of hand be to make that myth disappear.

The sky isn’t evil. Try looking up.
joss | General | 05:35 CET | 358 comments total | tags: joss post

Where I surrender my dignity once and for all; also, I am old.

2007-05-15T20:59:00.000-05:00

Every year I adopt an American Idol contestant. I don't know why; I am far too craven to excavate my psyche to a depth that might expose the reasons for these tendencies to the open air. When I peep cautiously at myself with one eye shut I detect a connection to my situation as mother of a son, as my Idols are almost always young men who set my mommy neurons to firing, but I refuse to investigate further. It is what it is.

This year is upsetting however.

See, I adore Blake Lewis. I love his beat boxing skillz. I love his ROCKIN' wardrobe. I love that he sang Keane. That he made me like Bon Jovi even more than I already did. (Shut up.) I think he's the best thing to happen to Idol since Kelly Clarkson, and I am not even kidding.

What's not to love, right?

Sensitive:

Edgy without being too scary:

Argyle + giant tattoo = delicious postmodern dissonance:

Awesome jacket:

And he can sing and make cool electronic noises! Blake is, simply, the shit.

But he's also, like, in his 20s. Oy. Am I that old? Really? I mean, he's adorable, obviously, and if I were younger...and yet the very fact that I just wrote that confirms that I am not. Not younger. Not young. I am in fact so old that I feel MATERNAL toward MEN in their TWENTIES. Do you understand? It's horrible.

Somewhat tangentially, you know what I love even more than Blake Lewis on his own merits? Blake Lewis conflated with Ryan Seacrest:

My god. I want them to marry and adopt children and live next door to me. Is that so wrong?

Atheist Revolution on academic diversity

2007-04-29T13:53:00.000-05:00

Big thank you to The Freelance Cynic for nominating me for a Thinking Blogger Award. You're a peach, and I'm a shameless slacker lately. I'll try to be worthy of the recognition.

Blogs That Make Me Think

1. The Bad Astronomer

2. I Blame the Patriarchy

3. The Panda's Thumb

4. Richard Dawkins

5. Atheist Revolution

Speaking of, here's something that made me think recently:

This post at Atheist Revolution

...the Missouri General Assembly will soon consider a bill calling for "intellectual diversity" in publicly-funded universities. The bill contains the following text:

(e) Include intellectual diversity concerns in the institution's guidelines on teaching and program development and such concerns shall include but not be limited to the protection of religious freedom including the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant;

The intent is quite clear. Christian fundamentalism should be off limits to criticism. Rather, it is to be honored under the same banner of diversity that leads us to respect race, gender, etc. Take a minute to consider two applications of such a policy. First, universities could fall under pressure to hire more Christian fundamentalist faculty. Just like universities are encouraged to hire more women and ethnically diverse persons, I could easily imagine a call to increase the numbers of fundamentalists to better reflect the views of the student body. Second, rational faculty would be prohibited from penalizing students for spouting religious nonsense as a replacement for factual information across the curriculum. Science professors would have to accept "intelligent" design papers as being on the same level as those on evolution.

Of course this is ridiculous. But all it does is codify in writing restrictions that already exist in practice. After all, educational institutions that contort themselves to accommodate religious beliefs in every possible fashion--and force instructors to do so as well--cannot exactly come around the other side of the same fence and admit that religion is a lot of hooey.

Every college for which I've taught has allowed excused absences for religious holidays. Every one. Academic departments accept a certain number of absences for any class, since everyone understands that students get sick, have flat tires, experience family emergencies, etc. This is fair practice. Students (like me, I confess) who make use of every one of those allowed absences must juggle them carefully to guard against going over and suffering the consequences. Why should a personal religious celebration receive special recognition? If I missed class because I wished to travel out of town for a family birthday celebration, for example, I had to use one of my absences. The religious kid got to go to birthday parties AND miss for a family celebration of their personal religious ideas. Why?

Sam Harris's most crucial message, in my opinion, is this: We have to stop giving religion special treatment. We have to stop bowing and scraping and backing away as soon as someone invokes religion as his/her reason for doing or thinking something that we know is crap, just because religion is unassailable.

I KNEW it!

2007-04-10T18:54:00.000-05:00

Of COURSE Larry Birkhead is the father of Anna Nicole's baby. Did anyone really doubt it? We certainly knew that douchebag Stern's pants were on fire sitting on a telephone wire. Ha!

Losah.

Wordless Wednesday: A tricycle = joy

2007-04-04T07:38:00.000-05:00

Has Billy Graham always been crazy?

2007-04-03T20:41:00.000-05:00

From The Oklahoman, April 2, 2007:

Dear Dr. Graham:

I'm concerned about all the reports I read about global warming and us poisoning the environment and things like that. Do you believe we are in danger of destroying the world because of these things?

W. McK.

Dear W. McK.:

The Bible clearly commands us to take care of the world God created, and we ought to do all we can to protect our environment. God put Adam in the Garden of Eden, we are told, "to work it and take care of it" (Genesis 2:15).

At the same time, the final chapter of the world will be written by God, not by us. The future is in His hands, and the world as we know it will be finished only when He brings it to an end. God is sovereign, and the world in its present form will not end until God intervenes.

When that day arrives, Christ will come again to banish all evil and establish His Kingdom. The Bible says, "But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13). This is what the Bible calls "the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). Never forget: Our ultimate hope is in God, not in any scheme of men.

Does this mean we shouldn't be concerned about our environment? No, of course not. God made the world, and it is wrong for us to misuse it or treat it with contempt. But even more important is something else He made: our souls. God loves us, and He sent His only Son into the world to cleanse us from the greatest pollution of all--the pollution of sin. Turn to Christ today and ask Him to cleanse you and remake you from within.

OK. Somehow I had the idea in my head that Graham was a harmless, kindly old man. This marks him as a crazy person in my book, though. It's just so irresponsible, this idea that ultimately we can't destroy the world because God's the only one who can do that. (I won't even touch the bizarre impulse to give the time of day to such a capricious, nasty deity as that.) Don't worry about polluting the oceans; worry about utterly arbitrary notions of shame and guilt and "sin." Gross.

Torture, Misogyny, Joss Whedon

2007-03-28T21:01:00.000-05:00

Read this article about torture films and misogyny.

Joss Whedon weighs in as well, and he is awesome as always.

Sartor Retardus

2007-03-25T10:48:00.000-05:00

Behold, fellow sinners in dress, The Modesty Survey.

Please click on the "open questions" link to peruse such progressive sentiments as:

Answers to the question "If you could say one thing to your sisters in Christ about modesty, what would it be?"

Respondent age 18:

First, don't be legalistic about clothing. Don't say that gauchos are always modest or that PJs should never be worn in public. Modesty isn't a list of dos and don'ts but a matter of the heart. Be sure you are in the right place with God and that you aren't trying to make guys stumble and you'll be fine 99% of the time. Secondly, PLEASE, talk with your parents, especially your fathers, about modest dress. Seek advice from older women in your church, your mother, older sisters who can guide you, or experienced friends. If the two conflict, if the survey disagrees with your father, have NO QUALMS about kicking the survey out entirely and following your parents wishes. Don't let this survey force you into an outward looking person who doesn't see the real value of internal modesty. Use it for its purpose (to aid in assessing current fashion and as a tool for parents) and no more.

Respondent age 24:

Sisters in Christ, you really have no concept of the struggles that guys face on a daily basis. Please, please, please take a higher standard in the ways you dress. True, we men are responsible for our thoughts and actions before the Lord, but it is such a blessing when we know that we can spend time with our sisters in Christ, enjoying their fellowship without having to constantly be on guard against ungodly thoughts brought about by the inappropriate ways they sometimes dress. In 1 Corinthians 12 the apostle Paul presents believers as the members of one body - we have to work together. Every Christian has a special role to play in the body of Christ. That goal is to bring glory to the Savior through an obedient, unified body of believers - please don't hurt that unity by dressing in ways that may tempt your brothers in Christ to stumble.

Did I mention that "modesty" applies only to women? But you knew that already.

In fairness, the site does include a question about men's responsibility in these matters, to which we get answers such as that of this enlightened 26 year old:

A girl has been given something for which she is responsible. That gift is a beautiful body and mystique which has power over a man, and so in being responsible with that gift, a girl must give thought to men. This is just like how men have been given bodies with a different power - physical strength. A man is responsible for that strength and must not abuse it or be careless with it - be that in the context of other men and children, or with women. In relation to one another, we are responsible for the gifts and roles God has given us, the power and ability we have, and the godly attitude is to be diligent in ensuring we are responsible and not negligent. That's how we are to treat others.

On the surface it seems promising that a 19 year old responded thusly:

We need to keep our thoughts pure and stop blaming girls for our impure thoughts. And guys can be modest too. Nobody EVER touches on that. We can be just as distracting to a girl as they are to us. Keep your shirt on. Pull your pants up. Seriously.

But...this whole "modesty" obsession is only a symptom of a more distressing disease. What we need for our children is honest sex education, not shame and disgust for bodies and sexuality. When I lament the sartorial choices of young girls it's not worry about "modesty" but worry about buying into the pornification of femininity, the shallow construction of female identity that is the other side of the coin of patriarchal control. Once we're squeezed into those narrow roles of virgin or whore, we've lost ourselves, our right to define ourselves instead of being crafted by Pygmalion for his own ends.

I don't recall what we were reading, but for some reason this virginity thing came up in one of my high school classes last year. They were stunned to hear the history of the cult of virginity, namely that its roots are not moral but economic. In a system wholly dependant upon first born sons for the transfer of wealth, paternity is crucial, as is producing many, many sons--as well as amassing many, many wives to produce them--since babies and wives had an inconvenient habit of dying a lot. And a man wanted to know that everything he owned was going to his actual son, not the spawn of some other guy. Thus, girls were snapped up as soon as they menstruated and were compelled to wave the bloody sheet out the window the morning after their weddings to prove to the community that any resulting offspring would be legitimate.

Does the current lack of such concerns mean teens should be banging each other like it's 1999 now? Of course not. We need to talk to them openly about sex and the consequences of engaging in sex immaturely. There are plenty of good reasons for a 15 year old not to have sex. Reasons that don't depend on self loathing and guilt.

Just wanted to point out...

2007-03-18T17:23:00.000-05:00

...that my son doesn't ALWAYS look like Haley Joel Osment.

Here he is at Stonehenge looking nothing like him:

So there. It's a trick of the light, is all.

A. E. Housman predicted exactly how Oklahoma was going to suck someday

2007-03-14T17:54:00.000-05:00

I’ve gushed about A. E. Housman here before, and, oh, how he deserves our adoration. How timely is this one?

THE laws of God, the laws of man,
He may keep that will and can;
Not I: let God and man decree
Laws for themselves and not for me;
And if my ways are not as theirs
Let them mind their own affairs.
Their deeds I judge and much condemn,
Yet when did I make laws for them?
Please yourselves, say I , and they
Need only look the other way.
But no, they will not; they must still
Wrest their neighbour to their will,
And make me dance as they desire
With jail and gallows and hell-fire.
And how am I to face the odds
Of man's bedevilment and God's?
I, a stranger and afraid
In a world I never made.
They will be master, right or wrong;
Though both are foolish, both are strong.
And since, my soul, we cannot fly
To Saturn nor to Mercury,
Keep we must, if keep we can,
These foreign laws of God and man.

Guess what I found out this afternoon? The glorious state of Oklahoma, in its medieval wisdom, is throwing its jail and gallows and hell-fire around again. It’s not enough that they’ve amended the state constitution so that it denies rights to citizens instead of granting them. Now the state legislature wants to make it illegal for a state employee to perform an abortion or provide abortion counseling. To anyone with a doctor in the OKC area, this very specifically means the OU Health Sciences Center, a major provider of health services and medical research and—herein lies the rub—funded by public money through its association with the publicly funded state university.

I have no idea what kind of abortions OUHS even performs; I would be very surprised if you could stroll in off the street and receive one there, which means these self-righteous jackasses are probably, in effect, only interfering with abortions recommended and performed by someone’s doctor for a medical reason. God, I hate it here.

Incidentally, the colleague who told me this had just left the capitol, where a legislator had broken their appointment because he had to rush to support this bill and also have, I shit you not, enough time to make the Bible study luncheon down the hall afterward. In the capitol. Catered by fucking Chick-Fil-A.

Housman, take me away.

My Life Lately; or, You Know You Care

2007-03-11T20:23:00.000-05:00

OK, what do you want first, the good news or the bad news? Feel free to scroll.

The Bad: a.k.a. "Work"

I don't usually blog about my job because I have problems with guilt. Freud would be devastated to know that he missed me; I am the most superego-ridden atheist you'll ever encounter. I can feel guilty about anything. So bitching about work, especially because I adore my students, triggers my guilt generators. I feel disloyal and petty.

Thus, I don't usually immortalize my employment-related bitchery in writing. In this particular instance, however, I am disheartened and angry and feel a need to vent here.

I'm the only writing instructor in my school, meaning I'm responsible for, well, a lot, some of which I can't realistically do anything about. One thing I can do is encourage the students to enter high school essay scholarship contests that everyone and her dog offers these days. They don't tend to get many entries, and my kids are talented enough to win them, so I take a few hours each term to compile and distribute a list for them.

This year, the National Council of Teachers of English contest is sponsored by the Queer Foundation. I put it on the list. I always put the NCTE on the list. I'll wait while you gasp and clutch your pearls and collapse from the vapors and loll across your tasteful Victorian fainting couch and allow a servant to revive you with salts....

Better? Here's the link to the contest page: Queer Foundation Essay Contest.

Ghastly, isn't it? All that stuff about rim jobs and blow jobs and Caligula screenshots and hot girl on girl....what's that? You didn't see those bits? Huh. Come to think of it, NEITHER DID I. Because the SHIT'S NOT THERE. It's about writing, of all things, this essay contest.

Guess who got called in and reprimanded for her "lack of judgment"? Yeah, that would be me.

The Good (though I had to wade through some bad to get there)

My new mattress rulez. I bought it last weekend and got it delivered on Monday, which I thought was an impressive turn around. Unfortunately, when the cheery delivery dudes finished setting it up the only thing I could say was, "Um, it's very...high?" Because sleeping in that bed, under my ceiling fan, was a bit too Pit and the Pendulum for my tastes. That thing was up there. Turns out the friendly salesguy neglected to specify the "low profile" box springs for my giant mattress, and giant mattress + giant box springs = Vincent Price.

Then they were supposed to come and switch them out on Thursday, but they gave me a time of 12:45-2:45 and I had class until 1:50. Called the delivery department and offered to reschedule. Stoned guy on the phone assured me, "No problem, I'll just note on here that they should come at the end of that window." I was all, "Are you sure? Because I cannot get there before 2:00. It will not happen." "Don't worry, be happy!" OK.

Guess what time they came? 1:00. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCKKKKKKK.

But all is well now. I called and railed at someone who most likely had nothing to do with any of it, poor thing, and finally got the right box springs yesterday. And I love the new bed. Happy ending.

Bonus Good

I found this picture, which may be the most awesome picture in the world:

How great is that movie, seriously?

The Mildly Disconcerting

For years strangers have stared at my son and stammered excitedly, "Oh, he looks just like that kid! What's his name? From that movie?" They think he looks like Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense. Which, fine, it's not like it's an insult or anything, but isn't it odd how, when we know people well, they really don't look like anyone but themselves to us? You can notice resemblances to famous people in strangers but it's much harder to see them in familiar faces? (Is it just me?)

Here's H.J.O.. then and now:

Basketball season just ended for my son and when we got the team pictures back, I saw this:

And my first thought was, "Huh, he looks like that kid....shit."

Woo hoo!

2007-03-09T19:20:00.000-06:00

Two brand new Mr. Deity videos!

Stick around after the credits for number 7.

Ann Coulter = all class

2007-03-04T17:06:00.000-06:00

Ann Coulter refers to John Edwards as a "faggot," endorses Mitt Romney (who must be thrilled).

A funny thing happened to me on the way home from work today...

2007-03-01T22:19:00.000-06:00

I found myself driving behind this van:

My cell phone camera can't handle action photography, so allow me to point out some particulars. First of all, the reddish rectangular object you see on the van's back window is, in fact, this bumper sticker:

In the interest of full disclosure I should say that I did NOT notice the 700 Club part, but the rest of the sticker is exactly the same. It is that precise sticker.

Enough to make my lip curl in and of itself, as it identifies Mr. Van as a narrow-minded self-righteous prig. Right?

Ah, but our Mr. Van defies such simplistic labels! He is a complex individual indeed. For the white splotch in the corner of the rear window is, I kid you not, one of these:

And he's got another to match on the opposite window.

What does it all mean? A narrow-minded self-righteous prig who makes exceptions in his self-righteous priggishness for nekkid chicks?

The saddest part is, I want there to be a contradiction, an irony, but there really isn't, is there? It makes perfect sense. This guy's context, his ethical system, has a place for objectified soft-core tits and ass AND anti-gay moralizing.

Oscar Note

2007-02-28T09:23:00.000-06:00

Sweet Jeebus, Cate Blanchett looked like a goddess at the Academy Awards.

Video of Mitt Romney and a Mormon H8er

2007-02-20T15:32:00.000-06:00

In the short video clip linked in the title, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is attacked by some complete cretin who calls him out--in the exact voice of the Dean of Students where I teach, by the way, though I can assure you he is not, in fact, this guy, just an eerie sound-a-like--for, of all things not knowing Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior well enough because he's Mormon.

You wouldn't think things could take a turn for the creepier from there, but Romney himself grabs the wheel and careens into Creepy Canyon with his answer, that he believes the country needs people of all faiths (okay) but the most crucial thing is that it must "be lead by a person of faith."

So, the President must be religious, says Romney. Doesn't matter what flavor of religion, as long as he (and I would say "he or she" but you know he wouldn't so fuck it) claims some higher power bollocks.

There are so many things wrong with that assertion, and Judge Judy comes on in like 15 minutes so I'm not dedicating any more time to it than that, but I'll toss out my immediate visceral response of: I guess atheistic Americans need not apply? So much for that pesky "no religious test" clause, and the Treaty of Tripoli is right out, clearly.

Think of the assumptions here, the ignorant, baseless assumptions:

1) He asserts that anyone who ascribes to any religion--even one in fundamental conflict with his own--must by default be a better person and a better leader than a non-religious person, no matter other factors.

2) He claims that our political system not only supports the application of a president's personal religion in office but demands such. I find this idea terrifying, I truly do. Just terrifying.

Him fired she.

2007-02-19T09:50:00.000-06:00

This week on The Apprentice:

You know, Donald fucking Trump is not someone I expect to be unfamiliar with first person pronouns, so why is it that he can't use them correctly? Why, in the midst of loathing him for many, many other reasons, must I be tormented further by his saying "You'll join Don and I..."?

Hey, dumbass? Would you say "You'll join *I* for dinner"? No, right? Because it's ME. Me, me, MEEEEEEEEEE.

When I think that I spend my days educating our future for peanuts and that stupid bastard made more money by appearing for ten minutes on television and mangling the English language than I'll make in my whole life...it makes me want to get myself a Guy Fawkes mask.

This is what it's all about, fellow citizens

2007-02-18T15:38:00.000-06:00

Oh, yes. Behold The Apostrophe Protection Society.

My 15 fake minutes!

2007-02-16T19:59:00.000-06:00

So I participated in a survey for Entertainment Weekly last year. One aspect of our compensation was a keepsake page of yourself responding to the EW Pop Culture Personality Test just like the famous people do. I had forgotten all about it until I received mine in the mail yesterday. It's actually pretty amusing if you read EW; otherwise it probably doesn't mean much to you. It tickled me anyway. (I removed my last name to protect...me.)

Atheists and gay ballers

2007-02-13T17:23:00.000-06:00

Not being a big NBA follower I had never heard of John Amaechi, but I saw him interviewed by some complete tool on CNN last night, and he should be the ambassador for the NBA and professional sports in general, not because of his dating habits but because he is one of the most articulate, sharp, intelligent-sounding human beings I've ever heard on tv, period. I could not have been more impressed by him, seriously. Wow.

Check him out HERE.

The interview I saw was on Paula Zhan's show, which I only watched because Richard Dawkins was on (for like 2 minutes), and I have to say that I was stunned by the utter tabloid shittiness of the show in general. Her first question to Dawkins: "Why are you an atheist?" He answered, of course, "Why are you an atheist with regard to Thor and Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?" I mean, the segment was supposed to be about discrimination against atheistic Americans, and she leads with this question that in and of itself suggests there's something incomprehensible and bizarre about being an atheist? The only reason they had him on (which they admitted, by the way) was that they got all kinds of flak after they ran a piece a week or so ago that discussed atheism in America and included...not one atheist on the panel. Nice journalism there. So this week they actually had one atheist family on, a woman from the Atheist Moms group that I belong to, actually, and they did a fine job, but it was pretty obvious that CNN was phoning it in and didn't much care. The panel "discussion" afterward was shameful.

The tool who talked to Amaechi was named John Roberts, I think--never seen him before--and he just looked like a bumbling fool. He actually asked the guy if he was ever attracted to a teammate. That's what he wants to know, in his two minute interview. Come on, admit that gays really do think of nothing but humping every male in their field of vision. Legitimize my prejudices, please. Incredible.

RichardDawkins.net is getting more traffic than it can handle these days, but if you can get on they have the video of the show posted there. I don't know if it's the whole thing or only his segment but they also have the transcript linked, in case anyone cares about any of this.

Happy Darwin Day!

2007-02-12T16:06:00.000-06:00

Elie Wiesel Attacked

2007-02-10T21:11:00.000-06:00

People are just fucking crazy.

San Francisco Chronicle

Nobel prizewinner, author attacked at S.F. hotel
Matthai Chakko Kuruvila, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, February 9, 2007

Elie Wiesel, the renowned Holocaust author and Nobel Peace Prize winner, was attacked and dragged out of a San Francisco hotel elevator last week, possibly by a Holocaust denier who claims to have stalked Wiesel for weeks, police said Friday.

Wiesel, 78, was at the Argent Hotel on Feb. 1 for an interfaith conference when he was confronted around 6:30 p.m. in an elevator by a man insisting that he wanted to interview the author, said police spokesman Sgt. Neville Gittens.

Wiesel said he would do the interview in the lobby of the Third Street hotel, but the man insisted on going to Wiesel's room. The man then stopped the elevator at the sixth floor, dragged Wiesel out and tried to force him into a room on that floor.

"That's when (Wiesel) started yelling," Gittens said. The man fled, and Wiesel went down to the lobby and called police.

Wiesel was not injured. He decided to leave the conference on "Facing Violence: Justice, Religion and Conflict Resolution," and police escorted him to the airport.

On Tuesday, a man identifying himself Eric Hunt and claiming to be the attacker posted an account of the incident on a virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Web site. The account matches the description of the attack that police later released.

"After ensuring no women would be traumatized by what I had to do (I had been trailing Wiesel for weeks), I stopped the elevator at the sixth floor," Hunt wrote. "I said I wanted to interview him. He protested, grabbed at his chest as if he was having a heart attack. He then screamed HELP! HELP! at the top of his lungs.

"I told him, 'Why, you don't want people to know the truth?' " Hunt wrote. "After pulling him about fifteen feet out of the elevator ... I decided that it was time for me to go."

Gittens said that police were aware of the Web site and that they had a suspect in mind, but would not confirm that they were looking for the person who posted the account online.

"We're not commenting on statements made on the Web site," Gittens said.

The site has articles on a number of topics, some of which repeat centuries-old slurs against Jews. It is registered to Andrew Winkler of Sydney, who also writes on the site. Phone calls and an e-mail to Winkler were not returned Friday.

Wiesel did not return calls made to his offices in New York and at Boston University, where he is a professor in the religion and philosophy departments.

Wiesel, a native of Romania, was sent by the Nazis in 1944 to Auschwitz, where his mother and three sisters were killed. His father died on a forced march to Buchenwald, another concentration camp, three months before the camp was liberated in 1945.

Wiesel has written more than 40 books based on his Holocaust experiences. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter named him to lead the effort to build the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. In 1986, Wiesel won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Hunt said in his posting that he had intended to corner Wiesel and force him to admit that the Holocaust never happened.

"I had planned to bring Wiesel to my hotel room, where he would truthfully answer my questions regarding the fact that his non-fiction Holocaust memoir, 'Night,' is almost entirely fictitious," Hunt wrote on the site.

E-mail Matthai Chakko Kuruvila at mkuruvila@sfchronicle.com.

Mr. Deity gets better and better

2007-02-07T22:22:00.000-06:00

Two awesome new Mr. Deity videos.

Oh, lord, it's hard to be humble

2007-02-06T15:11:00.000-06:00

Remember that song? Heh.

Just a quick note to point out that I was staggeringly right this week about:

1) Heroes, specifically the crucial nature of Peter's empathy and his need to reconcile his admirable feelings of connection to others with his budding autonomy of self;

2) That goddamn Snickers commercial that aired during the Super Bowl. Check out the complete timeline of the gay bashing Snickers commercial, which has now been pulled, as the Snickers wankers have come to fear that it might, possibly, when viewed in certain light, give the impression of being homophobic.

No! You THINK? Jackasses.

The Super Bowl commercials embody everything that sucks about our culture

2007-02-04T19:44:00.000-06:00

A bold statement, perhaps, but one I'm willing to stand behind.

Last year I said this. This year I'm even surlier, and it's only the 3rd quarter.

Take, for example, the hideous GM commercial with the poor little factory machine that "lives" in fear of losing its job because of GM's incredibly high standards.

The whole ghastly narrative dramatizes the desperation and suicide of a laid off auto worker. Remember back in 2005 when GM laid off 30,000 workers? Good times, huh? So good that they're JOKING ABOUT IT now. My god, it's utterly unconscionable.

Not only do they make a joke out of layoffs, they add insult to injury by implying that if you get laid off it's your own damn fault. Their standards are such that no worker error will be tolerated; drop a rivet and you face the sack. And car buyers are encouraged to celebrate this, to side with the corporation against the workers and laugh at the spectacle of the suffering of the unemployed. I am aghast, truly.

Other commercials featured objectified, caricatured, fake women, as per the status quo. (I specifically recall a GoDaddy.com spot in this category.)

I also recoiled at the candy bar commercial that made fun not only of gays but of homophobia. Because it's really nothing but a harmless giggle, right, for men to fear gays? It's not like people ever get bullied or murdered or anything. It's cute!

Ugh. Depressing.

Added: Link to the GM commercial.

The Hero's Journey in Heroes

2007-02-02T17:24:00.000-06:00

Heroes continues to captivate me.

This week’s episode deals with parent/child relationships and the child’s struggle for autonomy in some intriguing ways. My favorite take involves the heroic quest archetype as played out through the characters of Hiro and Peter.

All we know so far about Hiro’s relationship with his daddy is that his father is:

1) Sulu, which rules;
2) Powerful, the kind of powerful that employs stoic kidnapper henchmen;
3) Fiercely intimidating to Hiro, like, Freud would love this shit.

In the context of Hiro’s search for his phallic power, his Excalibur, if you will, it’s clear that Hiro’s masculine potency is at stake. (It’s also significant, of course, that he lost his power when he lost his love object.) Since the boy-to-man archetype demands the boy’s breaking away from the father-rule, I’m guessing that Hiro will have to defy his larger than life superfather to claim his own power/manhood, which should be symbolized by his acquiring the sword. We’ll see….

As much as I agree with Megatrouble that the chicks really need more agency in this narrative, I’ll give the show credit for highlighting the heroic journey of a man who is sensitive and kind and intellectual, as well as plenty vulnerable, as opposed to some caricatured shoot-em-up Diehard type who stomps around waving his dick. Hiro and Ando remind me of hobbits, in that way. They may not be actual women, but they evince enough traditionally feminine markers to challenge the stereotype of masculine heroism.

I have similar impressions of Peter. He’s a second son with an enormously overpowering older brother who, as Peter admits this week, plays the father to him, and “fixes everything” for him. And Peter works as a caregiver, a nurturer, as far away from being a cutthroat politician as he could possibly get, and we’ve seen him wistfully vulnerable to his love for Simone and his desire for approval from his family. He’s very mama’s-boyish, underscored by his cutie-pie appearance, while Nathan and his power suits and severe hairstyle are, again, utterly opposite.

It’s obvious, too, that Nathan views Peter’s determination to save the world as simply another childish scrape he needs to bail him out of before he shames the family. Up until now it seems that Peter has gone along with his infantilizing, for whatever reason, perhaps because it felt safe, but seeing himself as responsible for so many lives has changed Peter in some fundamental way. He can still only fly by borrowing power from Nathan, but since he has no ego to protect he doesn’t care; he’s willing to do whatever it takes to stop the explosion.

Notice the focus of Peter’s visions is always close-ups of people’s faces, frightened, endangered. Peter’s power relies on a kind of empathy, both in his ability to borrow their powers and his ability to care if they’re scared or hurt, really care, enough to die for Claire—a stranger—without hesitation.

So now Peter continues along the traditional hero’s path: He has left the influence of his family and father figure and placed himself in the hands of a wise mentor (Christopher Eccleston, whose glory shines brighter than the sun in my universe) in an effort to learn more about himself and his destiny and develop into his own man in control of his abilities.

Peter has his Merlin, his Obi-Wan. I can’t wait to see what he learns from him.

Since I have a few more minutes I may as well comment on the Niki Question. I would like to believe that the writers know what they’re doing in creating a woman who has the gift of super strength but suffers too much from guilt and self-effacement to use it unless she’s protecting someone else, namely her child. This works for me in part because I see her superpower as the strength, not the dual personality; my understanding is that the personality disorder is an actual mental illness resulting from childhood abuse and the trauma of her sister’s death. (Please understand that my knowledge of such things comes solely from having read Sybil.)

Feminist thinkers talk about how anger is a forbidden emotion for women, while it’s the only acceptable one for men (unless you include sexual lust), and how women are much more likely to deny angry feelings and suppress them. If Jessica is the repository of all of the impulses that Niki refuses to face in herself (rage, desire, etc.) then it makes sense that Niki would also deny her power, meaning Jessica gets that too. While men are allowed by the culture to punch walls and throw things in anger, women are supposed to maintain more decorous control over ourselves, and Niki is nothing if not mired in guilt and self-hatred. I can believe that a woman who had suffered as she has would be ashamed to exhibit strength.

Through the abusive father, the ultimate symbol of patriarchy, Niki/Jessica became a literal virgin/whore dichotomy. If they’re careful, the writers can do something important with that idea.

Again, we’ll see.

As for Claire, she seems about ready to embark on her own journey of selfhood, tossing out the childish stuffed animals and breaking away from her father’s authority, keeping her thoughts for herself instead of letting him rewrite them as he sees fit. I’m not sure how I feel about her needing help from (yet another) male to do it, but I’m willing to see how that plays out.

Are Ninja Turtles that cool?

2007-02-01T06:48:00.000-06:00

Oh, my...

Heh. Busted?

2007-01-21T14:16:00.000-06:00

You scored as Friedrich Nietzsche. Well you're an egotistical maniac, and you are so very iconoclastic that you probably are currently lost in a post-modern Jupiter, I mean jungle of self-definition.

Don't let it get you down though, someday, through a willful onslaught of reinterpretation of dated forms and ideas, you will strike on something that passes as remotely new, and people WILL be into it on the basis of how hip it is alone. Also, the average espresso drinker looks up to you.

Friedrich Nietzsche

83%

Stephen Hawking

58%

C.G. Jung

50%

Steven Morrissey

50%

Sigmund Freud

42%

Dante Alighieri

42%

O.J. Simpson

33%

Miyamoto Musashi

33%

Mother Teresa

25%

Jesus Christ

25%

Adolf Hitler

17%

Elvis Presley

Charles Manson

Hugh Hefner

What Pseudo Historical Figure Best Suits You?
created with QuizFarm.com

Meet Mr Deity!

2007-01-20T11:50:00.000-06:00

These video clips are hysterical.

Sex and the Single Minded

2007-01-20T11:32:00.000-06:00

Scary stuff.

Yellow snow is the LEAST of my problems

2007-01-17T17:50:00.000-06:00

In fact, it's not on my list of problems at all, because my little diva bitch dog won't go in the snow. Or, in this case, the ice.

Now, she is 14 years old. That's really old for a dog, like...however many human years. A lot. If she were human she'd be hidden away politely someplace where the rest of us wouldn't have to see her and be reminded of how we'll be all geezed and dying someday ourselves. She's really fucking old.

And she can't exactly see all that well. Or, in the strictest sense, hear. But she still steps lightly when Beggin' Strips are involved, OK? She's not crippled or even particularly stove up. She goes up the stairs to bed every night. Besides, I'm not asking her to accompany me in the Mommy-Doggie Iron Man. I just want her to crap in the damn yard instead of on the patio or, her actual favorite, the cozy warm carpet of my living room.

Exhibit A

See how she shits on the patio? Oh, she makes it LOOK like she's trying to hit that little strip of grass alongside the concrete, like maybe her poor, poor ancient doggie eyes just made an honest mistake. Bitch, please. I'm still older than you. I've been around the block WITHOUT you on the leash.

Exhibit B: The Defendant

This photo is from November, right after she had an ingrown nail removed. You might be thinking to yourself: "My GOD. That is the most pathetic possible animal in existence." Don't fall for it. That's all I'm saying. Her foot is completely healed now, and she can perfectly well walk two feet into the yard to do her business.

She should be ashamed of herself for getting so old in the first place. Do you know that I get freaked out now every goddamn time I take her for her stupid SHOTS because I'm sure the vet will tell me he's very sorry but she has [insert terminal doggie ailment here] and won't be going back home with me? Every. Damn. Time. And she's fine! Always!

SO WHY CAN'T SHE CRAP IN THE YARD??

Heeeeeeeere's Shell!

2007-01-16T10:57:00.000-06:00

I am about to lose my everloving mind. Here's the view from my driveway:

You're probably thinking, "Eh, what's a couple inches of snow? It's nice! Pretty, even. Sack up, Shell."

Yeah, but the thing is? It's not snow. It's 100% ice. It started sleeting here Friday morning and didn't stop until Saturday afternoon, and we haven't even gotten anywhere near 32F since then, meaning I've been here like bloody Jack Torrence since FRIDAY.

Article from the Philadelphia Inquirer

2007-01-14T16:31:00.000-06:00

January 14, 2007

by Chris Hedges

Extremism: Radical preachers offer a magical world for battered believers.

The engine that drives the radical Christian right in the United States - the most dangerous mass movement in American history - is not religiosity, but despair. It is a movement built on the growing personal and economic despair of tens of millions of Americans, who watched helplessly as their communities were plunged into poverty by the flight of manufacturing jobs, their families and neighborhoods torn apart by neglect and indifference, and who eventually lost hope that America was a place where they had a future.

This despair crosses economic boundaries, of course, enveloping many in the middle class who live trapped in huge, soulless exurbs where, lacking any form of community rituals or centers, they also feel deeply isolated, vulnerable and lonely. Those in despair are the most easily manipulated by demagogues, who promise a fantastic utopia, whether it is a worker's paradise, fraternité-egalité-liberté, or the second coming of Jesus Christ. Those in despair search desperately for a solution, the warm embrace of a community to replace the one they lost, a sense of purpose and meaning in life, the assurance they are protected, loved and worthwhile.

During the last two years of work on the book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, I kept encountering this deadly despair. Driving down a highway lined with gas stations, fast-food restaurants, and dollar stores I often got vertigo, forgetting for a moment whether I was in Detroit or Kansas City or Cleveland. There are parts of the United States, including whole sections of former manufacturing centers such as Ohio, that resemble the developing world, with boarded-up storefronts, dilapidated houses, potholed streets and crumbling schools. The end of the world is no longer an abstraction to many Americans.

We as a nation have turned our backs on the working class, with much of the worst assaults, such as NAFTA and welfare reform, pushed through during President Clinton's Democratic administration. We stand passively and watch an equally pernicious assault on the middle class. Anything that can be put on software, from architecture to engineering to finance, will soon be handed to workers overseas, who will be paid a third what their American counterparts receive and who will, like 45 million Americans, have no access to health insurance or benefits. There has been, along with the creation of an American oligarchy, a steady Weimarization of the American working class. And such distortions, as Plutarch reminded us, have grave political consequences for democracies. The top 1 percent of American households have more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined. This figure alone should terrify all who care about our democracy.

The stories believers told me of their lives before they found Christ were heartbreaking. These chronicles were about terrible pain, severe financial difficulties, struggles with addictions or childhood sexual or physical abuse, profound alienation and often thoughts about suicide. They were chronicles without hope. The real world - the world of facts and dispassionate intellectual inquiry, the world in which news and information were not filtered through the comforting ideological prism of radical religion, the world where they were left out to dry, abandoned by a government hostage to corporations and willing to tolerate obscene corporate profits - betrayed them. They hated this world.

And they willingly walked out on this world for the mythical world offered by radical preachers - a world of magic, a world where God had a divine plan for them and intervened daily to protect them and perform miracles in their lives. The rage many expressed to me toward those who challenge this belief system - to those of us who do not accept that everything in the world came into being during a single week 6,000 years ago because it says so in the Bible - was a rage born of fear, the fear of being plunged back into a reality-based world where these magical props would no longer exist, where they would once again be adrift, abandoned and alone.

The danger of this theology of despair is that it says that nothing in the world is worth saving. It rejoices in cataclysmic destruction. It welcomes the frightening advance of global warming, the spiraling wars and violence in the Middle East, and the poverty and neglect that have blighted American urban and rural landscapes, as encouraging signs that the end of the world is close at hand.

Believers, of course, clinging to this magical belief, which is a bizarre form of spiritual Darwinism, will be "raptured" upward, while the rest of us will be tormented with horrors by a warrior Christ and finally extinguished. This obsession with apocalyptic violence is an obsession with revenge. It is what the world, and we who still believe it is worth saving, deserve.

Those who lead the movement give their followers a moral license to direct this rage and yearning for violence against all those who refuse to submit to the movement, from liberals, to "secular humanists," to "nominal Christians," to intellectuals, to gays and lesbians, to Muslims. These radicals, from James Dobson to Pat Robertson, call for a theocratic state that will, if it comes to pass, bear within it many of the traits of classical fascism.

All radical movements need a crisis or a prolonged period of instability to achieve power. And we are not in a period of crisis now. But another catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil, a series of huge environmental disasters, or an economic meltdown will hand to these radicals the opening they seek. Manipulating our fear and anxiety, promising to make us safe and secure, giving us the assurance that they can vanquish the forces that mean to do us harm, these radicals, many of whom have achieved powerful positions in the executive and legislative branches of government, as well as the military, will ask us only to surrender our rights, to give them the unlimited power they need to battle the forces of darkness.

They will have behind them tens of millions of angry, disenfranchised Americans longing for revenge and yearning for a mythical utopia, Americans who embraced a theology of despair because we offered them nothing else.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hedges' new book is "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."

Petition against religious schools in the UK

2007-01-02T18:52:00.000-06:00

This petition of the Prime Minister reads as follows:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abolish all faith schools and prohibit the teaching of creationism and other religious mythology in all UK schools.

Faith schools remove the rights of children to choose their own religious, philosophical and ethical beliefs. They also sanction ethnic segregation and create tension and divisiveness within society. Schools should be places where children are given a free education, not centres for indoctrination. Creationism and other religious myths should not be taught as fact regardless of the funding status of a school. Abolishing faith schools will provide children with more freedom of choice and help to promote a fully multi-cultural, peaceful society.

Good on them. I've often wondered how people get away with denying children accurate science education. If my kid misses science class for too many days he can be deemed truant and I can be charged with a crime, but if I keep him out altogether because I prefer to teach him fairy tales that's...OK? Because religious nonsense is better protected in our culture than other forms of nonsense? What if I decide that the proper education for my son involves a curriculum that teaches, for example, that spring replaces winter when Persephone returns from the underworld to visit her mother? How is that any crazier than teaching Christian creationism as fact?

Who cares about science education? That's for heathens.

2007-01-02T10:48:00.000-06:00

I'm so childish that I'm still snickering over "Nostrils of Satan," but the topic here is, of course, not at all funny. Terrifying, in fact.

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

Did you know Donald Trump was insane?

2006-12-21T13:03:00.000-06:00

Apparently Rosie O'Donnell called Trump a "snake oil salesman" on The View. Something to do with this insipid Miss USA business about which no one with any sense gives two shits. Anyway, the bizarre results:

A glimpse into corporate email

2006-12-20T12:08:00.000-06:00

My sister works as an administrative assistant for the legal department of a large corporation. She sent me the delightful email string below this morning. (She appears as "C.K."--I deleted or changed all names and references to the company so she wouldn't get fired.)

Poor J.C. probably still has no idea what a firestorm he sparked.

Enjoy!

________________________________

From: J.C.
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:33 AM
To: G.A.; T.L.
Subject: VACATION PERIOD

G and T

I will be out of the office (period of vacation), from December 26th to January 5th, 2007 (included), coming back to the office on Jan 8th.

The total amount of days to be taken as vacation are days 76.

Best regards,

J.C.
________________________________

From: T. L.
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:46 AM
To: K.S.
Subject: FW: VACATION PERIOD

K.

J.C. seems to have a large number (76) of vacation days accrued. Does this seem right? Do we limit roll-over of days in Venezuela?

Not a big deal, but seems like a potential problem if this is widespread in Venezuela.

T.

________________________________

From: K.S.
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:54 AM
To: Rob L.
Cc: Al M.; Mary B.
Subject: FW: VACATION PERIOD

Could we check this? I would prefer not to ask the HR Manager in Venezuela, as it will go back to the Managing Director that we are checking up on him. Thank you.

_______________________________

From: Rob L.
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:31 AM
To: Al M.
Subject: FW: VACATION PERIOD

Al -- The email below raises a number of questions about vacation requirements in Venezuela. Could you facilitate a call with our local counsel there? To get the discussion going, here are the questions I like him to consider:

* Does VZ law require employers provide paid vacation to employees? If so, how much?
* Do VZ vacation requirements vary by type/level of employee?
* Can employers put limits on the amount of unused vacation that employees can carry over from one year to the next or on the maximum amount that can be accumulated?
* What other legal requirements does VZ have with regard to vacation?

Thanks,

Rob
________________________________

De: Al M
Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de diciembre de 2006 10:16
Para: L.C.
CC: Rob L; K.S.; C.K.
Asunto: FW: VACATION PERIOD

L.C.,

We need some help understanding how Venezuelan employment law deals with vacation benefits. We want to emphasize the need to direct all communications related to this issue to me or the people copied on this email. Please do not discuss this matter with our local team in Venezuela until further notice.

Rob L. is a lawyer in [company name deleted] Employment Law group. He has summarized the key questions that we need to address with our Human Resources Department in his email below. I would like to set up a meeting with him and our Human Resources Manager, K.S., so we can discuss this issue. Please let me know who from your firm can participate on the call and I will have my administrative assistant, C.K., set up the telephone conference.

Thanks for your help with this matter.

Regards,

Al M.
Legal Counsel

_______________________________

From: L.C.
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:10 AM
To: Al M;
Cc: Rob L; K.S.; C.K.
Subject: RE: VACATION PERIOD

Dear Al:

We will be pleased to assist you in this matter. Our partner Juan D., a labor attorney, will be available to answer your labor-related inquiries. Please advise him directly when you schedule the conference call. We are forwarding this email to Juan to bring him up to speed with your requirements.

Regards,

L

________________________________

From: Al M
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:04 AM
To: 'L.C.'
Cc: Rob L; K.S.; C.K.
Subject: RE: VACATION PERIOD

L,

Thanks for the quick reply. I will have C.K. set up the meeting with Juan and our team.

Regards,
Al M
Legal Counsel

_______________________________

From: C.K.
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:58 AM
To: Al M
Subject: RE: VACATION PERIOD

Al,
It is totally none of my business, but in scanning the correspondence in search of the location of [deleted] (to discover their time zone), I saw J.C.'s note. If you take into consideration corporate holidays of Dec. 25, 26 and Jan. 1, the number of days of vacation that J. would be using is 7. Could his note simply be a typo?
Obviously, you do not have to respond. It was just a thought.

C.K.

______________________________

From: Al M
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:59 AM
To: C.K.
Subject: RE: VACATION PERIOD

Thanks for pointing this out. W. noticed the same thing. I am calling HR about this now.

God is love! Unless you're different from me, and then you're toast.

2006-12-20T10:08:00.000-06:00

This teacher is nuts.

Don't neglect to follow the link to Lippard's post and read the blog comments there. People terrify me. They really, really do. But what truly stuns me about this whole controversy is that I would never have heard of it if I hadn't read a skeptics' newsgroup. I heard NOTHING about this from any other source--and I'm an educator. We should all be outraged by this wretched teacher, yet he won't even be fired.

Public school teacher tells class: "You belong in hell"

The following is from Paul L. LaClair, a NYC attorney who lives in Kearny, New Jersey, and is posted with his permission. David Paszkiewicz, the teacher described here engaging in incompetent teaching and dishonesty, is apparently a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church in addition to being a public school teacher. LaClair's son Matthew has previously garnered attention for protesting Bush administration activities by refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. He seems to be a principled and courageous young man who has caught a really bad teacher:

Kearny, New Jersey
November 10, 2006

A history teacher at the local public high school here may have bitten off more than he cares to chew this fall. Self-described conservative Baptist David Paszkiewicz used his history class to proselytize biblical fundamentalism over the course of several days at the beginning of this school year.

Among his remarks in open class were statements that a being must have created the universe, that the Christian Bible is the word of God, and that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark. If you do not accept Jesus, he flatly proclaimed to his class, "you belong in hell." Referring to a Muslim student who had been mentioned by name, he lamented what he saw as her inevitable fate should she not convert. In an attempt to promote biblical creationism, he also dismissed evolution and the Big Bang as non-scientific, arguing by contrast that the Bible is supported by what he calls confirmed biblical prophecies.

After taking the matter to the school administration, one of Paszkiewicz's students, junior Matthew LaClair, requested a meeting with the teacher and the school principal. LaClair, a non-Christian, was requesting an apology and correction of false and anti-scientific statements. After two weeks, a meeting took place in the principal's office, wherein Paszkiewicz denied making many of these comments, claiming that LaClair had taken his remarks out of context. Paszkiewicz specifically denied using the phrase, "you belong in hell." He also asserted that he did nothing different in this class than he has been doing in fifteen years of teaching.

At the end of the meeting, LaClair revealed that he had recorded the remarks, and presented the principal with two compact discs. The teacher then declined to comment further without his union representative. However, he fired one last shot at the student, saying, "You got the big fish ... you got the big Christian guy who is a teacher...!"

Commenting on the situation, LaClair's father, attorney Paul LaClair said, "In a few short weeks, this teacher has displayed bigotry, hypocrisy, arrogance and an appalling ignorance of science. The school's administrators seem not to appreciate the damage this man is doing to young minds. He has some real abilities as a teacher, but this conduct is the intellectual equivalent of the school cafeteria serving sawdust."

The student and his parents have requested that the teacher's anti-scientific remarks be corrected in open class, and that the school develop quality control procedures to ensure that future classes are not proselytized and misinformed. They have also referred the matter for disciplinary action. No apology has been forthcoming from the teacher or from the school. The parents state that because of the administration's inaction, they have taken the matter to the school board this week, from whom they are awaiting a response.
Some local press from this story is expected this week; the blogosphere may generate more attention.

(This came to my attention from a post on the SKEPTIC list by Paul Harrison--thanks, Paul.)

UPDATE (November 15, 2006): This story has now been reported in the Newark Star-Ledger.

UPDATE: The Jersey Journal has picked up the story and
put some of the audio online. The story is also being picked up by NYC-area radio and television--the LaClairs have been interviewed by or have scheduled interviews with WCBS radio, 1010 WINS radio, Fox 5 News, and NBC 4 News.

UPDATE (November 22, 2006): The Observer (the weekly newspaper for Kearny, NJ) has published some quotes from the recordings and a few letters to the editor.

This story also appears on Richard Dawkins's website.

I love Chitty

2006-12-19T20:27:00.000-06:00

I know I've been MIA forever! Please enjoy the lovely Sally Ann Howes in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang while you're trying to decide whether to forgive me...

(And, yes, that is Benny Hill playing the toymaker, bless him.)

John Safran vs. The Mormons

2006-11-30T07:53:00.000-06:00

John Safran vs. The Mormons

Hilarious. (Thanks, Tom!)

Guy who played Kramer loses his everloving mind

2006-11-20T08:10:00.000-06:00

Um, WTF is up with THIS?

Ah, sweet schadenfreude...

2006-11-08T19:17:00.000-06:00

Damn, this is some funny shit.

HERE are some details of the pre-nup.

And, of course we should all check out Trent's take on the situation.

You may be wondering why I care. I don't think I even know any of Britney's songs; I was already too old to hear pop tunes by the time she got famous. But for some reason her marriage to this utter, irredeemable douchebag caught my attention. It was so perverse and bizarre. What can I say? I'm a rubbernecker.

Everyone calling him "Fed-EX" today has been cracking me up as well.

How I love you, Fug Girls

2006-11-07T18:14:00.000-06:00

HA! Awesome.

The God Delusion Part Two

2006-11-04T10:18:00.000-06:00

This is part two--back up one post for part one.

Richard Dawkins from The Root of All Evil

2006-11-04T10:14:00.000-06:00

One of the best things about this video right now (aside from its general awesomeness) is that Dawkins interviews Rev. Haggard from Colorado Springs. You know, the guy in the news? Yeah, him.

I'll post part two next...

The one where Shell loses it a bit

2006-11-02T20:52:00.000-06:00

I hope everyone had a nice Halloween. We had a fabulous time right up until the moment when my son reached into his plastic jack-o-lantern bucket and pulled out...

THIS SHIT

It's a good thing he didn't see who did it, or his father and I would probably still be in jail. We were that furious.

So yesterday I fired off an outraged letter to the local paper. I balked when it came time to send it, though. I hate to admit this, and I hate to be such a coward, but I'm simply not a bomb thrower. Never have been, don't see the appeal, just want to be left alone. Here it is anyway; I'll take suggestions. (The name of my town has been changed.)

Dear My Town Christians:

October 31st, 2006, goes down in my personal history as the night I officially Had Enough. That night, as my husband and I squired our 9-year-old son through the charmingly communal tradition of neighborhood trick-or-treating, basking in the lovely autumn weather and the glowing excitement of the intrepid candy-hunter, one of my fine Christian neighbors snuck a Chick tract into my child's plastic pumpkin.

You remember when we used to panic about the Bad Strangers who might slip poison into our children's treat buckets? A cheap moronic pamphlet about burning in everlasting fire isn't physically poisonous, admittedly, but only a maniacal zealot would give such vile trash to a child, and only the lowest, meanest maniacal zealot would make a point of doing so during a children's holiday.

I was not a religious person when I moved here three years ago, but my life without gods was not something I spent much time pondering. I certainly had nothing against believers. I co-existed effortlessly with people of various perspectives on life, the universe, and everything. It never occurred to me to do otherwise, and not merely because my dedicated avoidance of conflict borders on the craven, but because I have a visceral aversion to causing other people discomfort. I can't even bring myself to hang up on telemarketers.

Also, I like people and I respect the fact that they aren't all like me.

Unfortunately, that naïve attitude did not prepare me for what I found here. The tract incident is only the most recent indignity. For example, a couple of months after we relocated to My Town, my son was invited by a soccer teammate to attend Guest Night at the local mega-church. I was happy to let him go, eager for him to make friends. I spoke to the boy's mother and told her frankly, like the fool that I was, that my son had not attended a church service before; she laughed and told me this event more closely resembled a carnival than a church service.

Imagine my shock when my son, then 6 years old, came home and explained that they had played carnival games and eaten snacks and then been instructed to stand and close their eyes and "ask Jesus to come in our hearts so we can go see him after we die." They took a 1st grader, not a member of the church, unaccompanied by his parents, and "saved" him? Talked to him about his own death? I was appalled.

Then, of course, there's his 3rd grade teacher who encouraged her students to compose their Thanksgiving declarations of gratitude using her suggestions, written on the board for their copying convenience, resulting in my son's arriving home with a paper about being thankful for "God's blessings" and for how "God is always there for me." My Town "Public" Schools, they call them. Yeah, right. (The nativity scene in that year's "holiday play" was precious as well.)

I swear I never felt this anger toward Christians before. I never had a reason; where I grew up being "Christian" mostly just meant being kind and participating in a lot of bake sales. And I spent my entire childhood in small-town Texas. I lived under blue laws, where the toy and tool aisles of the local Safeway were chained off on Sundays! But I truly have never seen anything like this aggressive hustling of children. Never. And I'm done. I'm not naïve anymore.

You want to terrorize your own kids with comic strip portrayals of eternal torture and gruesome stories about fathers who sacrifice their children? I'll pity them but I won't interfere with you. You stay away from my child, though. I mean it.

Sincerely,

Shell

Quick shot--my niece and I last weekend

2006-10-26T21:47:00.000-05:00

Isn't she precious?

I can never spell "niece." Why is that?

Only mostly dead

2006-10-24T23:46:00.000-05:00

So. I'm not, as has been rumored, dead.

What I am is buried in grading. Buried, smothered, consumed by grading. In addition to the usual byproducts of my own teaching, I'm also scoring essays for College Board.

Good news: I get paid for it, and I think the experience will help me give better advice to my kids.

Not as good news: It's very time consuming and very tiring.

Speaking of--off to bed.

Not dead. I'll be back.

The Universe Hates You, Bitch

2006-10-13T17:06:00.000-05:00

I snapped this picture with my cell phone this morning. The asshole in the red sweater is--I am not making this up--parked next to a gas pump and drying her freshly washed Saturn with handfuls of paper towels from the courtesy towel dispenser.

Punkass went through the car wash and then bogarted a gas pumping space while she dried every inch of her car with handful after handful of community paper towels.

I don't even know if she bought gas at all! She certainly didn't use the pump while I was there.

It's a very busy station, too--the only one in that crowded intersection. The pump next to her was the only one open when I pulled in, and because of her rudeness I had to drive past and turn around to get myself in position. I watched other drivers pull in searching for an open pump while I was filling my tank and goggling at this jerk's selfishness.

How does someone get that way, seriously?

Judge Judy Amuses Herself with the Stupid

2006-10-11T07:28:00.000-05:00


More Judge Judy. Some glorious stupidity here.

A glimmer of reason

2006-10-10T20:17:00.000-05:00

Michigan Schools OKs Teaching Evolution in Science Class, Not Intelligent Design

It's OK to teach science in Science class. What a concept!

Could you please speak up? It's the genital warts.

2006-10-03T20:46:00.000-05:00

One time back in grad school I had an ear infection.

If you've ever had one, you know an ear infection feels like some sadistic torturous clown inflated a balloon inside your ear canal. A balloon with spikes. Perhaps more like a spiny blowfish.

Anyway, another disconcerting symptom of the infection is near deafness. I don't know why; I can only assume the blowfish blocks the sound waves.

As all fair-sized campuses do, my university boasted a bustling Student Health Center, affectionately known as the Quack Shack, where a student ID was your hot ticket to free examinations and cheap birth control prescriptions.

I carried my throbbing ear to Student Health, somehow managing to avoid being run down in the crosswalks on the way even though I couldn't hear the screeching tires and didn't much care. Life was pain.

I signed in with a description of my complaint, waited the requisite half hour, and was called by a nurse who ushered me into an elevator with another younger woman. When we arrived at our floor the nurse ordered me to one examination room and the other woman to another.

A few minutes later a doctor arrived and spoke to me, but since she clearly had not bothered to read my chart and thus did not recognize that I was experiencing Bose-level noise-cancelling effects, I couldn't understand a goddamn word she was saying.

Trying not to expose all of my annoyance--I needed drugs from this person after all--I asked, "I beg your pardon?"

Again: "Oo Inca ha Vegeta horks?"

The fuck? "I'm sorry, what?"

Finally, looking utterly perturbed, she yelled, "SO YOU THINK YOU HAVE GENITAL WARTS?"

Um.

"Sorry, no." I gestured lamely toward my blowed up ear. "Ear infection."

Confuzzled, the poor doctor flipped past my chart to the other one in her hand and then switched them. "Oh. Right. Excuse me a moment." And she bailed. I actually felt worse for her--and my be-warted elevator companion--than for myself. At least briefly.

Of course I told this story to all my friends back at the English Department, and for weeks afterward our offices rang with, "I'M SORRY BUT I CAN'T HEAR YOU. I HAVE GENITAL WARTS."

Hysterical as it was at the time, I had totally forgotten about this incident until yesterday, when I again found myself facing a doctor who had no idea why I was there. The details are honestly too boring to waste time on, but suffice to say I had a section of pre-cancerous material removed from my cervix several months ago. In August I had to go for another dramatic exam (I think this was my fourth such) where my cervix appears on a TV screen (I knew I'd get my 15 minutes someday!) and several doctors and nurses stand around and make comments about it that a more secure person than I might find uncomfortably personal.

Everything looked fine at first, and I was thinking I might be well out of this mess, when suddenly the talk turned to some "squamo-something-junction" that refused to show itself. I'm not even going to describe what they did next, but it involved some very nasty implements and felt more than anything else like early labor. Not fun. Not nice. And they never found this stupid thing that NO ONE HAD EVER, EVER MENTIONED BEFORE.

So I got referred to a specialist, someone who could hurt me with more precision.

I went to this specialist yesterday--nervous, I admit. When I was called in, it was like genital warts lady all over again, because she started asking me very direct and technical questions...about my bladder functions. Now, my bladder ain't what she used to be since the whole childbirth thing, gods know, but was she suggesting I tinkle when I sneeze because of my squamo-whateverthefuck? So confused.

And she was clearly just as puzzled, as she gamely continued the survey.

"How many times a day do you urinate?"

I, er, never thought about it? It depends on how many times my husband jumps out from behind a door and startles me? I wasn't prepared for this test! I never got the study guide!

She finally asked me what the hell I was there for and I told her: I really have no fucking idea. OK, I didn't say that, but I was sure thinking it by then.

She popped out in a fluster, popped back in a few moments later and beamed hopefully, "Do you think you could urinate for me?" I felt guilty, like I was giving her a terrible time, but I had to admit, shamefacedly, that I had gone right before I came in. I made an attempt to cheer her: "Maybe in a bit?" Off she went again.

Ultimately, she gave up and sent the doctor in, who read my chart and said, "They did a LEEP right?" Ah ha! Now I was on firmer ground! YES. Yes, they did. "Hmm. Well, if they can't find the [thing] it's probably because they removed it." Oh. I suppose that does have a certain logic...

Then he told me he couldn't imagine why I got sent to him since he had nothing to do with such business--"but if you were born with two uteruses I'd be the guy to see!"--so he didn't charge me for the time I took up being asked questions about peeing. Which was kind of him since this cluster fuck wasn't his fault, surely.

So, yeah, that's me: Chick who never seems to have the right ailment. At least I could hear this time.

Dude, that's freakin' MARS

2006-10-03T19:50:00.000-05:00

I'm a huge space geek. Check out Space.com sometime to see glorious photos like this shot from the Mars Rover.

Please let humans walk on Mars before I die. Is that so much to ask?

Is it hot in here?

2006-10-01T20:59:00.000-05:00

I had a weirdly atheistic weekend.

Friday night I attended my first ever Oklahoma Atheists meetup. If you've spent any time in this Wind Tunnel for Jesus you know that atheists are not just a minority here; we're more like boogeymen used to frighten children. So it was rather more disconcerting than I had anticipated to enter an unfamiliar restaurant and find myself asking a waitress, "Um, hi, sorry, but...do you know where the atheists are?"

Of course I couldn't identify them by sight because they merely looked like people having dinner, like everyone else in the place. (Though I could tell they were different once I got close because of all the flyers and newsletters being handed about.)

Energized by the communal spirit of non-spirituality, I spent a good portion of Saturday reading Sam Harris's new book Letter to a Christian Nation, which was fantastic, as well as some publications of the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

In addition, I watched Richard Dawkins's thrilling two-hour BBC piece called The Root of All Evil courtesy of Google Video. I highly recommend this production--Dawkins is riveting.

If nothing else it feels good to know I'm not alone.

Well, shit, I'm crying again.

2006-09-28T20:06:00.000-05:00

Video of Terri Irwin talking to Barbara Walters.

How about some GOOD television

2006-09-22T19:30:00.000-05:00

Judge Judy case from Thursday

Ah, it's so beautiful when those scales of justice balance...

The funniest thing about this case for me is how she utilizes the gallery, because normally she HATES them. All she usually does with the gallery is yell at them to be quiet or have Byrd eject them. Maybe this marks the beginning of a new understanding.

Top Model Hits Bottom

2006-09-21T16:44:00.000-05:00

I've confessed myself a viewer of America's Next Top Model in the past. I have never tried to hide this particular stain on my character.

So last night I showed up for the premiere of the new season, ready to sacrifice a few more brain cells to the insipid cause. And what do I find?

This:

And this:

And this:

The photo shoot, you see, involved dramatizing "common model stereotypes." Some of them were somewhat amusing, like the one who played the "dumb blonde" by holding a book upside down. Others were nonsensical in that special Top Model way, such as the "black girl trying to look white" shot, which confused me because a) I did not know that was a "common model stereotype" and b) the photo looked like nothing but a black model with blonde streaks in her hair.

The three shots above represent, respectively, the "druggie model," the "anorexic model," and, for good measure, the "bulimic model."

That foolish orange little Jay Manuel, grinning like the fucking Cheshire cat, pronounced the shoot "the most controversial in Top Model history." No, Jay, this is not controversial; this is reprehensible. Controversial challenges status quo. It does not simultaneously glorify and trivialize suffering and death.

At judging, Crazy Tyra lectured the models on the concept of "ugly/pretty"--presenting a beautiful face even in an ugly shot. I get that as a model/fashion idea. I do NOT, however, understand the desire to align beauty with DYING.

Most of the time this show is essentially harmless. Goofy and juvenile, certainly, but no worse. I don't see it as sexist. It's probably the least sexy show on television, and there's nothing inherently wrong with being a model. It's a perfectly legitimate career. But this? Is irresponsible and repulsive. Very, very disappointing.

Best wishes, Terri

2006-09-20T17:48:00.000-05:00

Sigh. Poor Terri Irwin. Steve's public memorial today appropriately included video of his television appearances as well as outtakes of Steve falling from boats, being bitten by critters, forgetting lines, etc. No doubt he would've encouraged laughter over tears. Terri just looks devastated though, and who can blame her.

Girl power! Or, you know, not.

2006-09-19T18:56:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry, but this just strikes me as horribly inappropriate.

How old is this child? Ten, eleven, tops? When I first saw the picture I thought she really was sporting the criss-cross leather, which is the purpose of the "flesh"-toned backdrop, no? Could we maybe agree, as a people, that sexualizing children is, like, bad? I know, different strokes and all, but it just...doesn't seem like that much to ask.

Oh, please, can I be fashionable too?

2006-09-17T10:47:00.000-05:00

Think sexism and glorified violence against women are part of the Past? Check out this fashion slideshow from Italian Vogue that I brought over from Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy.

On a cheerier note, the new season of our favorite family show, The Amazing Race, premieres tonight. Take us away, Phil!

Mad Mel Game

2006-09-16T09:35:00.000-05:00

Now THIS is funny.

Play the new GSN game "So You Think You Can Drive, Mel?" You have to maneuver Mel's Lexus around highway patrol officers while avoiding rabbi-flung stars of David and picking up extra tequila bottles. The more tequila you win, the harder it becomes to steer the car.