GroverBeachBum

FEMA Announces New Climate Change Policy: Publish Our Propaganda In Your State Disaster Plans, Or Else!

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 01:23:00 +0000

I found this slightly interesting. FEMA is going to start withholding disaster preparedness funds from states that don't "address climate change" in their disaster preparedness plans.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20150322_FEMA_to_deny_funds_to_warming_deniers.html

Right off the top, it's political propaganda bullshit. Climate change simply does not belong in a "disaster preparedness plan". We need a government safety and action plan for EMERGENCIES, not slow climate transitions. Even the most alarmist climate change worryers generally know better than to claim that sea levels are going to jump ten feet overnight, or that the plot of The Day After Tomorrow is going to come true, say, the day after tomorrow. It's an intentional political approproation of a needed and legitimate life-saving government service to promote a belief, nothing more, whether the belief is correct or not.

As far as this B.S. goes, it really doesn't matter what you think about climate change/global warming/ whatever- whether you totally accept the theory, totally deny it, accept some of it, or just remain open but skeptical.

It doesn't matter, because even FEMA and the biggest promoters of the theory admit that even if it IS a looming disaster, there is no real way to tell what will happen, or where and when. Sea levels MAY rise, but nobody knows how much or how fast. Storm activity MAY increase and MAY get more severe (or less severe), but nobody knows how much or where or if it will happen at all. Drought MAY increase, but nobody knows how much or where. All or none or some of this or something else entirely MAY happen, sometime between now and when Jesus gets back from vacation. That's about what we really know.

Now, to a certain degree, all disaster planning is like this...if disasters were neatly scheduled, we could all just leave town for the weekend and have a few beers while camping and fishing somewhere safe. However, we do have the knowledge of past experience. In California and Hawaii we know to look out for earthquakes and tsunamis. People in southern and eastern states know to look out for hurricanes and tropical storms. All western states expect drought and wildfires. Low lying areas with lots of rain or runoff expect periodic floods. People in colder places know to plan for blizzards. And everyone knows the toxic emission risks of a good Chili Cook-Off.

But how exactly are you supposed to "assess the risk" of something that even the most studied researchers can't begin to describe accurately or definitively? The descriptions offered are so vague and uncertain as to be useless in planning for anything. Pretty much anything you could add about "climate change" is either useless or redundant. What are they supposed to do, mention a whole laundry list of vague maybes and call it "disaster preparedness"?

FEMA spokesperson explains Climate Change "Disaster Preparedness"

So, now our state governments have to essentially incorporate "Climate Change Sci-Fi/Fantasy fan-fiction" into their REAL disaster plans, or they will have less money to prepare for anticipated disasters that we already know are threats to particular areas.

As disaster planning, this is beyond stupid. You might as well make them prepare for a Godzilla attack, or the imminent Martian Invasion. But- as a way to get official "climate change" propaganda into every single state's disaster preparedness documents and policies? What a great move, if the goal is to force "legitimacy" and spread the "OMG THREAT!!!" narrative anywhere possible. And they only have to threaten the lives of citizens in places with real, known, and at least somewhat predictable disasters to do it. And guess what....if the state agencies have trouble coming up with anything (because it's bullshit), FEMA will gladly assist them in writing the plan, to make sure they get everything sounding just right....how sweet of them! Always there to help!

My favorite bit from the linked article is a quote from an interviewee:

"If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn't want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics", said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council's water program. "The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state because of his climate beliefs."

Don't you just love the completely dishonest reversal of responsibility here? If a governor doesn't want to be forced to put useless propaganda into the state's disaster preparedness plans, he's the one "increasing risk to citizens". Uh, no, you dishonest twit...FEMA is the one playing politics and risking lives, not the governors. If you're going to blackmail state governments and play god with the lives of the people you are supposed to be protecting(rather than indoctrinating), at least have the decency to own it, OK?

Incredible Human Achievement VS. Poo-Flinging Monkeys: Reason #(one million and) 1 that I Simply Cannot Take Modern Feminists Seriously

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:30:00 +0000

I realized years ago that I enjoy observing internet media trends more closely than most of my friends and acquaintances, especially the two very large fields of science and popular politics. If you are not familiar with the current state of astrophysics and space exploration, or the supposedly "progressive" and "tolerant" ideologies behind popular progressivism and feminism online, here is a quick update with some of my own commentary.....
....proper and polite, totally not sexist, and 100% feminist approved....as always, of course!

First, the REAL news:

Today, there was incredible achievement tempered with some stinging disappointment in the world of space exploration and solar system research. The European Space Agency completed the traveling and landing portions of the Rosetta mission, and landed the research craft Philae on a comet 300 million miles from Earth.

The articles linked below give a more thorough review of the science and the mission.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/opinion/barstow-comet-space-agency/index.html

The 10-year Rosetta mission was truly amazing, for a variety of reasons, even if those reasons only have mass appeal to astronomy buffs, science enthusiasts, and Sci-Fi fans like myself. The simple fact that we are now capable of sending an unmanned research station hundreds of millions of miles and hitting such a small target could barely have been imagined even in the forward-thinking Sci-Fi of 100 years ago, and that's just the beginning.

Unfortunately, the landing was not perfect, and has probably severely compromised some of the research goals. But because of incredibly detailed planning including multiple research goals, and along with backup plans and ingenuity in the face of setbacks, there is still great scientific value in the mission. More than most people will ever bother to know.
I realize that to many people this is, sadly, no big deal, succeed or fail. Humans have been doing space missions off and on for 40+ years now, and the mass public as a group is easily bored. But people will be reading a million pages of bullshit on the internet just like every day, so this is also a symptom of mass public and media ignorance of, and/or apathy toward, mankind's space exploration. The achievement today is a far bigger deal than 90% of what the media will likely focus on.

Even if almost all of the planned mission fails, this first-of-a-kind attempt will still return valuable results, show a viable proof of concept, and give advice for perfecting future missions.

That is the real power of science, new research, experiment, and exploration: even a near-total failure may still be a huge success, with real, tangible rewards that simply cannot be realized in any other way.

These linked articles detail the problems, and what can possibly be done about them.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30034060

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/11/13/comet-probe-rosetta-philae/18956763/

This mission represents incredible achievements of humankind, makes evident the inherent difficulty and risk involved in such enterprises, and helps us outline how we can carry on in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds and achieve some success even when conditions aren't perfect. It is a true lesson and inspiration for anyone looking toward the continued advancement of the human race.

That's the real news.

And then......

....there's these assholes!  This is the "progressive, feminist" science news! Who are they, you ask?
Well, who they are, is a bunch of whiny, shit-dropping chihuahua-type creatures who claim to be righting horrible wrongs, defending oppressed women, and pretty much posing as the guiding moral light of the Next Generation. And for a touch of extra hubris, many of them have the nerve to claim to be supporting actual science by doing so!

So, what have they and their ever-present "progressive" media supporters contributed to actual human progress? The same thing they always contribute: Unbelievable smugness, self-righteousness, dishonesty, exaggeration, shitty shaming techniques, and nasty bitching at real human beings who dare to display actual personalities and attain real achievements. In short, they totally media-blasted a harmless, innocent scientist, and made him out to be a horrible sexist who hates women in the sciences, over a fucking SHIRT. I am not even kidding.

And they did it in the name of Science.

The basic claim, the essential brouhaha, is that a scientist, working in a closed environment with a few co-workers, is demeaning women by wearing a club-style button-down art shirt that shows a pin-up style woman in fantasy gear. By the genius explanations of feminists, this is literally supposed to be demeaning to all women in sciences, and such things also explain why more women don't go into the field.

Fucking seriously, that is the line of bullshit these worthless shit-balls(excuse me, I meant totally valuable and important feminist activists) are selling. Women wanting to enter the sciences are totally demeaned and made uncomfortable.....by a fucking SHIRT.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-mission-scientist-Dr-Matt-Taylor-cries-during-apology-over-offensive-shirt.html

They've bitched and bitched and bitched about a man wearing a slightly risque shirt during a single interview. A fucking SHIRT. They've used such ridiculous shaming techniques and such smug, condescending superiority that they drove him to a tearful apology for showing such horrible "sexism".

Over a fucking SHIRT.    The scientist lambasted in the fake-ass media event, Dr. Matt Taylor, has a reputation as a playful and fun figure, sporting many tattoos and wearing bright clothes around the workplace instead of being another boring, grey-suited drone(like the smug asshole I'll show you below). And of course, it was never a problem until a "feminist" found out. Of course.

Then the word spread to other "activists". They wrote blog posts, started a twitter "storm" of fake-ass outrage over such egregious "sexism" in the scientific community, got their fellow parasites in the media to write major public news articles (about a fucking SHIRT) in order to defend women (from a fucking SHIRT).   But really, all they truly accomplished was to get their own faces in the news, like the entirely worthless, hate-filled, narcissistic, parasitic frauds that they are, unapologetically shitting on science, women, and a harmless man to get their righteous fervor on.

    And then, a couple of wonderful, enlightened, progressive saints from within the scientific community itself stepped up on twitter to give us lowly, disgusting, sexist peasants some uninvited moral lessons, while heaping overblown, bullshit shame on their incredibly accomplished and innocent colleague. I have to wonder, is it purely pathetic envy speaking through these shitbags, or just the usual extreme and intolerant, sex-shaming self-righteousness of modern feminists and progressives?

So... let's have some good old fashioned, prudish, supposedly progressive shaming of totally harmless playful semi-sexuality! (That only ever applies to men, of course!)

Day 6571 as a scientist. STILL not wearing shirt demeaning to women. How long can I keep this up?! #shirtstorm pic.twitter.com/6s9fVSJ3Dc
— Steven Theiss (@Theiss9030) November 14, 2014

Hey, little Stevie boy: Demeaning to women? Seriously? You pretending to be supporting "women" as a group is far more demeaning than any kind of semi-sexy shirt. Shut the fuck up, you slimy bastard. You're just another nutless jack-off who gets off on pretending to be a "real man" who "respects women" by treating them as pathetic children while smugly shaming totally harmless behavior in other men. Fuck you up your smug ass, you piece of shit.

@lievenscheire You think a shirt like this makes women feel welcome? I don't. pic.twitter.com/ecoW7mLQMs
— Katie Mack (@AstroKatie) November 12, 2014

And Katie-girl, you precious, delicate flower who must be made totally comfortable at all times by men bending to your personal tastes: if this shirt makes you so "unwelcome", you barely qualify as an adult human being, much less someone to be listened to. Why not try growing up and shutting your flappy idiot-hole , OK?

They're welcome to their opinions...but it's the dripping, shitty, runny self-righteous SMUGNESS of these two assholes that really gets me. I can't even IMAGINE what it would be like to be such a fucked-up wannabe school-marm talking about a fucking shirt "demeaning women".

When I read these tweets, all I can hear is the pathetic control-freak bleating behind their bullshit:

"Look at us, not that horrible sexist!"

" We are the GOOD PEOPLE, totally not just some smug, asshole, buttinsky control freaks and pseudo-victorian prudes!"

"We are all about tolerance and inclusiveness as long as we get to smugly and dishonestly shame men at will, while pretending to be "supporting" women!"

In short, what a giant crock of pompous, blindingly smug, "feminist", "progressive" bullshit, the single biggest overblown non-event fem-turd I've seen all month...and in today's media, that's really saying something, since they have about a thousand per day.

But now, I have to drop the rant and get serious again:

There is a sad coincidence- a huge and disgusting tragedy, an actual ongoing happening of incredible sexism and ultimate progressive folly in dealing with it- that really puts things in perspective. It also further exposes the hypocrisy and utter contemptibility of these complaints about a fucking SHIRT. Of course, I'm assuming that it is in fact a coincidence, and not a sign of an entire culture failing and falling.

Right now, in England and across much of Europe, the values of Western society are under both cultural attack, and all too often, violent physical attack by hostile Muslim immigrants who literally treat women's rights as a sick joke. There are immigrant women walking the streets of London, forced lifelong into burkas, and forced into anti-woman "sharia courts" instead of the western legal system that recognizes women's rights.
Even more appallingly, there are real-life rape gangs and prostitution rings, run by Muslim immigrants, with multiple THOUSANDS, maybe tens of thousands of English, European and Muslim sex-trafficking victims, which have even been intentionally ignored for decades by the government, progressives, and feminists alike. The basis of Western society that makes both scientific genius and real freedom for women possible, is eating itself and committing suicide while madmen demand the rights to run the asylum.

And who do the fucking feminists and progressives attack? Not real sexists, rapists, science-deniers and literal slavers...that would be RACIST! They focus on totally trivial, white-male-shaming bullshit like shaming a man over a shirt. This is the best we get from these lying cowards and smug school-marms who dishonestly claim to be pro-women and open to human sexuality. All they can do is busily and publicly tear a harmless man apart over A FUCKING SHIRT, on the 100% feminist, 100% retarded assumption that one man wearing a non-feminist-approved shirt is demeaning to women, and keeping women out of the sciences!

Fuck me with a cheese grater, these people are the biggest fucking hypocrites I've ever seen. 100% Organic Self-Righteous Control Freak and Pure All-Natural Asshole, no additives or preservatives, and always more than ready to publicly shame the mildest sexuality of a harmless man over literally nothing. They really just need to be THAT superior, and it is beyond pathetic. If they weren't such contemptible shitbags, I'd actually feel sorry for them.

As far as modern feminism and progressive media, it's always the same old story. You have a creator and the achievement, a Michaelangelo and his David. The creator may not be perfect, but surely his sins are minimal. And then, you have a bunch of yapping chihuahuas, pretending to be the loyal guardians of Right and Proper, doing nothing but shitting on the feet of Michaelangelo and his David, talking stupid shit about Michaelangelo's shirt, and calling their shit-droppings the REAL achievement. But any fool can see that even this cracked, possibly broken David is still infinitely more valuable than the droppings, except those who hide behind smug righteousness, but really wish to police and control others, and promote themselves as saving non-existent victims.

I suppose if you top their pile of crap with a cardboard sign that says: "Modern Feminism", it would at least qualify as commentary. I guess that part is my job.

So, the Defenders of Women have performed their Holy Office. Mildly sexual shirts have been purged from the Sciences! Huzzah!!!!! The Imaginary Sexist Dragon is slain!!!!

What a victory for women in the sciences.

Oh ,yeah, and we totally landed a research vehicle on a comet 300 million miles away. It's nothing to get excited about, though. There was a sexist shirt involved!!!!

One last note:

Dear Reader, If you really truly disagree with me, if you really truly agree with these jerk-offs, and think that intelligent, self-empowered women need defending from the demeaning effects of dangerous shirts in the sciences(lol), please feel free to comment and tell me why.

Enlighten me as to why you hate both women and men, and the mildest forms of male sexuality so much, while pretending to respect them, OK? And maybe answer a question for me while you're at it...if the roles were reversed, and it was a woman wearing a shirt with maybe, topless Brad Pitt in his underwear, would you still be supporting the anti-sex crusade? Would it be threatening and sexist to men and a sexist problem to be corrected, or are you just anti-male hypocrites?

Thanks in advance!

A Year in Jail for a Completely Harmless Prank. We Must Protect Muslims from Ever Being Offended, No Matter the Cost!

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 00:57:00 +0000

So apparently, in Scotland, causing mild offense to Muslims is now a serious crime, a potential hate crime, that must be dealt with especially harshly. Even if it's mild, joking, sort-of, almost, kind of, "vandalism" that only took five minutes and a wet-nap to clean up.

A 39-year old man and 18-year old woman were sentenced this week to nine months in custody, and one year in custody, respectively, for the heinous crime of exposing Muslims to bacon.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-27941589

It's amazing to me, the deference people give to anything "religious". Personally, I think public libraries are far more worthy of respect and public protection than any church. Hospitals, fire stations, even private homes are all far more valuable and important to me than some community edifice that gullible or emotionally needy people are trained to see as "holy". But some people feel that their religious beliefs MUST be respected, to a higher degree than any other thing in life, and not by just themselves but everyone else as well.

The normal highest penalty for vandalism in Scotland would be a fine and three months imprisonment. But hey, Muslims were offended, so what does the law really mean to a court? Nothing, apparently. Saving some very easily offended people from offense, and making an example of those who dare show disrespect, is apparently more important than equal treatment or fair application of the law.

Extremist Insanity: 234 Nigerian Girls Kidnapped from School.

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:21:00 +0000

I don't usually bother to write about fresh news or international events with which I'm not familiar. It's way too easy to just be dead wrong about everything.

Sometimes spreading the word of a relatively unknown but heinous crime is more important than being right on every detail. Apparently, ten days ago, 234 girls were abducted from a school in Nigeria by an extremist Muslim religious group called Boko Haram. From what the media and wikipedia say, their name can be translated as "western education is sinful", and their main self-appointed duty is to go around their area of Nigeria intimidating and punishing Muslims and others who aren't quite rabidly Muslimy enough for their taste.

There hasn't been a whole lot of media coverage on this...the first I heard about it was a facebook link to an article on a blog. Please check out the following links.

http://time.com/70213/parents-234-girls-kidnapped-from-nigeria-school/

http://space.io9.com/harsh-reality-break-234-girls-kidnapped-from-physics-t-1568087455/+rtgonzalez

This is a far more important issue, both to the victims and their families, and to the human race as a whole, than any of the idiot crap I've seen in the local and national media in the last few days. Our "news" media is too busy wondering about the exact quantity of racism in things some assholes say and calling that "awareness" and "social justice issues", while young women are being kidnapped by the hundreds for daring to seek a bare minimum of the rights we all share in the West. Fuck that shit. Some issues are great for fodder for lazy bloggers like myself to mull over, not for news organizations to pass of as serious issues and real news, while ignoring huge events just because they are far away.

This is a real social justice issue. This is a real political issue. This is a real issue for the religious and the non-religious, male and female, liberal and conservative or whatever else. All of us.

There is of course an online petition to raise awareness of the issue. It won't bring any victims home, but it can help get the word out and increase public pressure for the Nigerian government to do something other than pretend it isn't happening. If there's something you can do, even if just spread the word, please consider doing it.

This Post Will Not Be Popular. Media Bullshit Outrage 101

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 02:37:00 +0000

I certainly hope I don't lose my few readers and web friends by writing this. If you are an intellectually honest and open-minded bunch, I don't think I will. But those are the risks, I guess. Maybe I should have titled this piece "Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as Liberal Bias".

So, you're sitting there asking yourself what the new media outrage of the day is, and then here comes anti-federal government, free-grazing, armed stand-off performance artist and loudmouth Cliven Bundy to liven up your weekend!

While addressing his supporters about general standoff news, he took a segue into other general topics that small government advocates sometimes talk about. Here's the relevant quote, the longest quote I could find:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said in comments quoted by the New York Times. He recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.”

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

OK....I am not going to defend racism or Bundy's lack of tact, his behind-the-times lingo,or his bizarre need to take the conversation in that direction. He may well be racist scum, like everyone thinks. But the point is, none of us really know...but we're all ready to believe the worst the media can swill out for us. Let's take a more skeptical look, hmmmm?

I can't help but notice that some of the reports I've seen on the web have been edited down to just the two sentences containing "abort" and "slavery", sometimes with the "negro" sentence tacked on. Or blog posts will mention the words but won't do a full quote. In that context, and with the normal "good liberal" assumptions properly made, it looks very much like he is just an old racist fool a full century or more behind the rest of us. But if you look at the actual content of his words, instead of the buzzwords, you might notice that he is not actually blaming black people for anything, and not defending slavery at all. He's using slavery as a "bad thing" to compare to modern welfare dependence, and blaming the poverty of blacks on welfare dependence brought on by failed policies.

In fact, he's pretty much doing a clumsy paraphrase of the same arguments made by conservative journalist and activist Star Parker, and PhD economist Thomas Sowell, who also believe that welfare dependence and bad government programs have done more damage to the black community and all poor Americans than most anything else in the last century. Of course, since they are both black, educated, and successful, they will never be called out for their horrible terrible "racism", even though they make a living studying and publishing books and giving talks about those very issues and often saying essentially the same things. And if they are criticized, it certainly won't be just so it can be used as a tool paint them as barbaric throwbacks and silence them on a totally unrelated matter.

But painting Bundy as a crazy racist (while getting a great media attention bump in the process), and by association drowning out other issues he's involved with, is just about the only real reason for Bundy's statements to be considered "news". Thomas Sowell and Star Parker have been singing this tune for decades, and moderate to left-wing media not only do not cover it at all, ever, but do their absolute best to ignore their very existence. Even if click-bait is the only goal, and not silencing him on other issues, it is still a dishonest presentation, not any kind of reasonable journalism.

Now, as a skeptical person, there are other matters of context. The LDS church (of which Bundy is a member) has had a bad history with race relations in the past.

From wikipedia:

From the mid-1800s until 1978, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) had a policy which prevented most men of black African descent from being ordained to the church's lay priesthood. This resulted in these members being unable to participate in some temple ordinances. Though the church had an open membership policy for all races, relatively few black people who joined the church retained active membership, despite reassurance that the ban would one day be lifted when "all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the priesthood and the keys thereof"
Even here, the relationship was complicated by time and circumstance. In the early days of the LDS, at least two black men became Mormon Priests, and the Church was officially anti-slavery. Apparently Brigham Young, the second great leader of the church, was a racists bastard and promoted it in the church, a policy which to some degree stood until 1978. However, now, there are over half a million black Mormons. I can't count how many times I've seen the tropes about LDS and racism on liberal or atheist-oriented websites, but it's not really so simple, is it? And even if most Mormons really are racist, what does that tell us about a specific Mormon? Not much. Bad skepticism and bad thinking could lead one to believe that every Mormon ever might as well be in the KKK.

Mormons and other conservatives, particularly white conservatives, are accused of blatant racism all across the media anytime they open their mouths about anything to do with race, no matter what they say. And if a racial issue comes up and they are silent in order to avoid accusations, then accusations of promoting racism by not speaking out are leveled, and racism is still assumed no matter what they do. The only way conservatives can avoid these accusations in the media is by immediately forgetting their principles and turning into a progressive liberal, or by being black themselves, in which case they will simply be ignored.
The whole media process that we see every day when it comes to race issues, and the assumptions made of whole classes of (white) people, and the ignoring of black conservative voices....well.... all that seems kind of racist to me. But hey, I'm just a guy who pays attention and thinks about things, rather than just reacting to what I want to hear.

Being a fairly liberal guy myself, I can imagine someone thinking...why are you even bothering to write about this crazy asshole? The answer is: Of the many things that get under my skin, one of the worst is other well-meaning, generally honest, open-minded, liberal people making media noise by lying or distorting appearances in order to give the screaming monkey idiots on the internet something else to cry about. There's still racism in the world, we don't need to invent any for political purposes, career advancement, or ambitions of censorship.

But that's just my Buck-oh-five on the matter.

Update, a Bit of Local Atheist News, and my thoughts on it.

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 02:33:00 +0000

As my few readers have probably noticed, I haven't posted anything in two months. I've been quite busy with real life, and I've also been doing a lot of thinking about the direction (or directions) I want to take my online activities. I will have a new post about that soon, but don't worry, I'm still the same honest, godless, slightly lazy curmudgeon I've been for years.
While I've been on a blog sabbatical, a city government in my area has made the news in a situation involving secularism and church/state separation. Of course, the nearly omniscient Hemant Mehta, The Friendly Atheist, beat me to it while I was ~~napping~~ *ahem* ~~fapping~~ *AHEM* ....working a lot, catching up on real life, and seriously considering what I want to do in the future. He did a great basic write-up with all the relevant facts and links.

On both my own blog and the comments I leave elsewhere, I tend to focus more on personal thoughts about culture and religion, or larger national and internet news rather than local stuff. Frankly, not much really exciting stuff happens here, and when something does happen, most of the internet knows about it before I do. The only things I get the scoop on are local earthquakes.

I remember hearing last year that Pismo Beach was being sued by the Freedom From Religion Foundation over sectarian Christian invocations at city council meetings, but instead of sitting down and writing an inflammatory essay, I promptly shrugged my shoulders and had a beer. Although the Pismo Beach city limits are all of about a mile from my apartment, I don't live there, I don't go to their city council meetings, I have a busy day most days, and I just couldn't be bothered to give a shit.

But I am glad that someone cared enough to challenge the policy. Let me explain why.

I understand that city councils are not exactly the height of power and authority, and that residents and council members have every right to expect that local culture will be respected by those in elected positions. And they are right...a large degree of local self-determination is a fundamental feature of American governance, not some crazy right-wing fantasy. This idea of having a large local element of control goes back to the founding of the country. The allowance for self-determination we see on the local stage is mirrored by the relationship between the federal government and the states. Even from the start, America was culturally, religiously, and politically diverse to the point that trusting one national bureaucracy to rule over everything would have been a recipe for constant conflict and disaster, ending only in final tyranny, permanent governmental immobility, or the constant specter of destructive revolution.

In order for this arrangement to work to the good of all, the power of government, even local government, must also be restrained and kept neutral, sometimes in ways that bother some people who would prefer it if their own beliefs had to be respected and shared by everyone else. While government must respect and allow local culture, it cannot itself promote it without risking public strife and oppression. It's popular these days in some more liberal circles to view the founders of the government through a fog of time and judge them by our modern standards, and even recklessly condemn their ideas by association with other standards of the time . They are often depicted as the worst of bigots- white, male, rich, slave-owning hypocrites who only wanted to empower themselves. But such modern smugness falls short of the full picture. Despite their failings and the limits of their times, they also decided to enforce one of the most effective principles for combating bigotry and preventing tyranny. They ensured at least the possibility of true freedom for all by separating government from religion. This was almost unheard of at the time, a truly new and visionary concept, and was, in the deepest sense, a revolutionary act. And sadly, despite how far we have come as a civilization in embracing tolerance for others and personal freedom for all, fighting to keep the religious belief of the majority (or just the most vocal control freaks) from establishing itself in a place of power or privilege is still a revolutionary act.

All too often, many Christians seem to think that as long as the majority of people in a given area are Christians, then the will of the majority is sacrosanct, and "anything goes". They seem to think that their right to be respected and have their beliefs and culture respected by the government extends to the point that the government should be free to support, encourage, or even institutionalize the favored religion. Sometimes out of ignorance and an honest wish for peace and solidarity, sometimes out of the most greedy lust for control and power, there are always those who think that everyone should be expected to respect, show deference to, and even be effectively forced to participate in their favorite beliefs and rituals.

As I said before, I realize that a city council meeting is not exactly the pinnacle of power, and that having to sit through a short ritual is not the worst form of coercion or abuse of privilege. But the principle is the point, not the amount of inconvenience. Even a simple matter of having to sit through a prayer before being allowed access to local government sends a message that the government is favoring one religion over others, or at the very least, promoting religion in general, even if the prayers are non-denominational. It sends a message that the local government, which is supposed to treat all citizens equally, is instead interested in elevating some above others. In the worst cases, in places where a latent bigotry might still exist, it sends the message that instead of government "of the people, by the people, for the people", we have government "of the Christians, by the Christians, for the Christians". Even if only in a minor sense, we become involved in the same petty bigotries and public displays of favor that have caused so many problems in a long and bloody history, and that the founders of the country sought to end for the the common good and our mutual freedom.

So thank you, FFRF, plaintiff Sari Dworkin, and Atheists United SLO for pushing the issue, even though it may seem like nitpicking or culture warring to some. And thank you to the Pismo Beach city council for (eventually) doing the right thing, the constitutional thing, and ending both the invocations and the position of Official City Chaplain. Your citizens are perfectly capable of practicing their religions, or not practicing any at all, without your help and guidance on the matter. If the city council or Christian citizens doubt that we are capable of common decency and good governance without their Deity's blessing, well, they'll just have to trust us on this one, or use their perfectly good freedom to pray as individuals.

A Philosophical Question: What Is One of My Most "Cherished Beliefs", and What Would It Take to Change It?

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 02:36:00 +0000

Justin Vacula asked a question on his Facebookpage today. He does that a lot, and I like that he does,

because he asks good questions. The question today was:

What is one of your most cherished beliefs? Under which circumstances, if any, will you change it?

I've been doing some reading lately on various points of philosophy, especially Free Will(or the lack thereof), so I decided to share one of my cherished beliefs that has to do with that subject.

I'm pretty comfortable with doubt, so I don't have a lot of cherished beliefs for which I cannot find enough evidence to at least tentatively justify the beliefs. However, at the moment I am somewhere close to being a compatibilist on the issue of free will, or at least rejecting the current concept of Hard Determinism as a position on what we can say for certain about various aspects of the question of free will.

I think the current state of determinism suffers flaws similar to those which plague solipsism. They are not necessarily flaws of reasoning, but flaws when trying to apply that reasoning to the reality we experience. Philosophy or reasoning alone cannot determine the truth or falsity of solipsism. Our minds, a bundle of nerves, or a computer program may be all that exists, but it cannot be proved by reasoning one way or the other. In any practical matters, we must use empiricism and our experience as a guide. Our experience shows us evidence that the world, other people, and history of other people and objects exist. If we do not use our experience and some form of empiricism to navigate the possibly non-existent world, then our minds, the only provable thing according to the solipsist, would cease to exist. Empiricism, based on my mind's experience, tells me that if I truly act as if my mind is all that exists, I will soon die of starvation, or get hit by a car, or whatever. It may all be "in my mind", but it's still "game over".

I think arguments for hard determinism, logical determinism, and lack of all free will suffer from similar problems when put in a real-world context. They cannot be proved or disproved by logic or reasoning alone, and they also go against the lived experience of ...well, just about everyone. Despite what some people may believe about free will, I have never, ever met anyone who actually ACTED as if they have no free will(maybe they're not free to? Maybe I'm not free to perceive it as such?) If, like the world and other people are to the solipsist, free will is an illusion, I don't think it is possible to uncover the illusion with reason alone. We do not have a full inventory or understanding of the universe, all causes, or even our own minds, and I think we would have to have such before we could eliminate all possibility of free will.

My own experience, and my observed experience of others, shows me some evidence that we have at least freedom of action if not freedom of motivation, and I can't even rule out freedom of motivation completely. I am not a dualist. I accept that I am my body and my mind as one being, both dependent on matter. But that still doesn't rule out all possible sources of some useful form of free will. It makes just as much sense to say that maybe we, through no original free will of our own, have evolved the capacity for free will, the ability to partially control our minds from within, in a similar way we have evolved the capacity to control our bodies, our environments, etc. I don't think that logical determinism(the entire future is determined and therefore no form of free will exists) can be shown to be true without complete knowledge of the universe, including any first cause, and a complete knowledge of the nature of life and existence.

But the existence of Free Will is not the "cherished belief" I hold. As with solipsism, I cannot prove or disprove free will, and it is therefore a tentative belief on my part that simply makes sense to me given my experiences.

The "cherished belief" I hold is that people who state with (often disdainful) 100% certainty that the universe and all existence is completely deterministic and that free will can not possibly exist, based only on their philosophical speculations that have no more empirical evidence than anyone else's, are not necessarily honest seekers of truth, but are instead just a bunch of smug cunts trying to look smart.

THAT is the cherished belief I hold, and I am not yet sure what circumstance or evidence would convince me to change that cherished belief.

My Answers to Atheist Revolution's Big Questions, Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:03:00 +0000

In this post I will give my answers to Question 4 of the six Big Questions that Divide Atheists from Atheist Revolution. I have covered Questions 1-3 and Question 5 in previous posts.

4. How tolerant should atheists be of diverse ideas within our own community and those who hold them? Some atheists are interested in purging the community of ideas they find unacceptable (e.g., conservative political views); others believe that there is strength in diversity and that our community is big enough for those holding what may be unpopular views to be included (i.e., "big tent" atheism). I'm inclined to include much of the Atheism+ (and Freethought Blogs/Skepchick) debate here because much of it seems to boil down to whether we must chose a single ideology (i.e., liberal politics married to third wave feminism) and banish those who do not agree with it from our community or accept others who might have some different opinions.

I had already skipped ahead to answer Question 5, "What is the role of skepticism in atheism?" before answering this one, because skepticism for me is foundational to my other views. I can't reliably decide what ideas are good or bad without skepticism. But, while there have already been individuals and groups who have tried to "take over" organized atheism, I am not being asked what ideas should rule, or be allowed to lay claim to "atheism" as a social force, but rather the opposite question- what ideas should we, as a group tolerate? In short, are there any ideas so obviously wrong or vile that they should result in some kind of expulsion or disavowal from all other atheists?

Jack's own answer to his question can be read here:
http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/12/big-question-4-tolerating-diverse-ideas.html

I think he sums up all the issues quite well and reasonably, especially from the point of view of am atheist secular activist. My own answer is a little more personal, and has more to do with attitudes and social expectations among public atheists rather than successful secular activism.

When faced with social issues relating to the politics and ideas of differing groups, my first response is always tolerance. At the very least, I believe people who say that they base their views on reason are obligated to give a fair and open hearing to differing views, instead of simply dismissing them based on one's previous beliefs and prejudices. And for all the talk of "tolerance" I've heard from progressives and liberals in the atheist community, I have to say: Atheists as a group, particularly some of the progressives, are not very good at this, maybe no better than the fundamentalists we all criticize for intolerance and close-mindedness.

In the last three years, I have seen enough online atheist witch-hunts to give a good, long, ironic laugh to the Inquisitors of the Church. And I'm not talking about atheists or skeptics who are going against settled science, or evolution, or falling for Pascal's wager, or other trifles or old-hat cliches, but about people who simply have a non-party-line position on emotional, politicized issues that are far from settled. I do find it entertaining, if also predictable, that the people and groups who do want to install some kind of ideological gatekeeping in the atheist community, mostly "revolutionary" marxists, third-wave feminists, race-trolling activists, etc, are for the most part the people whose social ideas and political goals are based almost entirely on emotion rather than reason, who are notorious cherry-pickers when it comes to science and evidence, who tightly shut their ears to anything they don't want to hear, and censor it if they can. They constantly talk of tolerance while showing none themselves, appeal to science and skepticism while just as often eschewing both, and champion freedom of expression for some, while reserving for themselves the right to say who is too "privileged" to be allowed a voice. It seems that no small number of people want to force all organized atheism and skepticism to be the sole property of self-righteous sociology clown-school messiahs and upper-middle class liberals who are so far out of touch with those they pity that it's ridiculous.

No thanks.

I don't think there is any need among atheists for direct or organized policing of ideas of any kind, other than that which individual organizations do for themselves, and individuals do for themselves. The evidence I've seen shows me that as a group, atheists are more than able to decide what people and what ideas they want to be associated with, and that they will take steps to distance themselves if they deem it necessary. I know I can handle this responsibility just fine on my own, and not only do I think it unnecessary to do as a group, I am automatically suspicious of anyone who claims to be willing or able to do it for me or the group as a whole. If anything, I think many popular bloggers and media personalities take it too far already, constantly and heatedly disavowing people and ideas for purposes of drama and self-aggrandizement, or for political power-plays, instead of for legitimate discussion or debate.

Part of the beauty, possibly even the main point of being public about atheism is the act of breaking free from irrational dogma and unnatural restrictions on knowledge, of reclaiming one's life and one's beliefs as one's own, instead of the group property of a society or a cult, or the possession of an all-powerful tyrant. Now that such acts and attitudes are becoming more popular, some seem to think that we need to start electing Popes and establishing our own dogmas which which we can achieve some nebulous group goals or start building our atheist utopia(with the "right" people and the "right" dogmas in power, naturally). Or at the very least, that we need to prune the trees, to rid our elite group of any who don't pass some kind of basic political purity test. Some people seem to have got this idea into their heads, that the rejection of oppressive religions must automatically lead to whatever they see, through their limited perspective, as the opposite.

Instead, I propose that we remember to value and celebrate our freedom and independence. I propose that we embark on the next stage of this adventure of freedom, which is not establishing Holy rules and hierarchies, or grasping for social power, or following a herd so we can go back to feeling those powerful emotions that group solidarity so readily supplies to us mammals. The next stage of the atheist community is not to re-create the flaws of our previous communities, but to move on and take responsibility for moving on individually, by simply and truthfully thinking for ourselves, in public, out in front of everybody. As in the scientific endeavor, I believe that this process of independent thought and honest debate, performed openly and publicly, will do much more for us, as individuals and as a group, and eventually as a society, than any political policing or pissing contests.

My Answers to Atheist Revolution's Big Questions, Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:41:00 +0000

My last two posts dealt with the first three of six Big Questions that divide atheists as identified at Atheist Revolution.

Before moving on, I need to clarify my answer to Big Question #3 a bit.
I was looking at big, broad political issues that I think are sufficiently covered by secularist activism, and I managed to forget something. I forgot that there are a whole lot of people in the world, some in my own country, that can't openly be an atheist or even publicly question the religion of their family or community without risking some pretty shitty consequences. Consequences that I have never really had to face. Secularism may not currently adequately address all the issues that atheists face, or at least not fast enough to help people now, instead of in a generation or two. And, given the necessary interfaith nature of secular activism, it may always be tempting for secular orgs to downplay vocal atheists, to pretend that such atheists are just the cranky, immature secularists...young rebels and such. As far as promoting awareness that there are atheists in every society all over the world, promoting social acceptance of atheists, and making atheism something other than a dirty word to religious believers, then yes, there is an Atheist Movement distinct from the Secular Movement. If you are an atheist who openly admits your lack of belief, if you debate believers, if you give money to put up pro-atheist billboards, if you write a blog from an openly atheistic perspective, then you are, by default, an Atheist Activist in an Atheist Movement, as small and narrow a role as it may be.

But that's about as far as it goes for a big, publicly noticeable "Atheist Movement" or "Atheist activism", as far as I can tell. There is a difference between who people are, what they believe, and what they might fight for. There can still be "AN atheist movement" for whatever other cause, but it won't really represent anything about atheism or atheists. "Atheists for Feminism", "Atheists for Lower Taxes", whatever. They might revolve around or be united by their identity as atheists while doing whatever "good thing" they do, but it will not be "THE" atheist movement outlined above. These will be subsets of a subset, like "Jews for Jesus" or "Vegan Atheists", or "Jimmy Carter Fans Who Like Billy Beer and Are Not Ashamed", or whatever else. And some of them may accomplish great things in the world...who knows? But they will still be "other" movements, simply composed of atheists, not a movement to promote atheism or protect rights specifically for atheists, and having no kind of "ownership" of atheism as a whole.

Moving on once again....questions #4 and #5.....

4. How tolerant should atheists be of diverse ideas within our own community and those who hold them? Some atheists are interested in purging the community of ideas they find unacceptable (e.g., conservative political views); others believe that there is strength in diversity and that our community is big enough for those holding what may be unpopular views to be included (i.e., "big tent" atheism). I'm inclined to include much of the Atheism+ (and Freethought Blogs/Skepchick) debate here because much of it seems to boil down to whether we must chose a single ideology (i.e., liberal politics married to third wave feminism) and banish those who do not agree with it from our community or accept others who might have some different opinions.

5. What is the role of skepticism in atheism? Is it sufficiently important that we should seek to be skeptical of our own ideas, or is it enough just to be skeptical of others' ideas? Some atheists believe that certain ideas (e.g., components of their preferred ideology) are beyond questioning; other atheists perceive this as hypocritical and argue that we ought to question all ideas to evaluate their merit.

Looking at these two questions, I think it is necessary to answer #5 before #4. If I haven't decided what the role of skepticism in atheism is, then on what grounds will I base a decision about what ideas, ideologies or philosophies the Atheist Movement or community should welcome or discourage(if any)? Maybe #5 should have been the first question of all of them....oh well, too late for that now.

Skepticism is a questioning and incredulous habit of thinking that one can use to winnow down the infinite number of ideas and possibilities we come across in daily life and in our intellectual musings and debates, and see what the available evidence has to say about their basis in fact. I see skepticism as a kind of approximation, a quick layman's version, of the scientific method(though mostly without the experimental aspect of science). It is sieve that we use to separate facts from fiction, useful imagination and creativity from wishful thinking. A habit of critical thought to cut through unjustified claims, superstitions and unnecessary assumptions, and hopefully make visible something approximating reality. (If this explanation seems inadequate, read The Demon-Haunted World, or just about anything else, by Carl Sagan. He was a much better writer than I am.)

I have identified as an atheist for a couple of decades now, at least personally if not always publicly. But I was a skeptical person long before that. If I was not a skeptic, if I had never used skepticism in evaluating claims, I would most likely not be an atheist in the first place. My beliefs would probably more closely reflect the society in which I was raised than they currently do. There were several influences that led me to a skeptical state of mind fairly early in life. I had a big interest in both science and science fiction, and I think the tension and conflict between the two generate an appreciation of both imagination and skepticism. My parents and family, while not cynical, quietly promoted the idea that thinking for one's self was a virtue- not a vice, as some more insular societies seem to hold. My earliest skeptical influences, in all seriousness, were probably Scooby-Doo, Encyclopedia Brown, and The Three Investigators mystery novels. So I was introduced to the virtues and benefits of skepticism early, and found that it was a habit of thinking that could be beneficial in every aspect of life. Due to social pressures and politeness, I rarely saw skepticism applied to faith, religion, or god as a child. But the habit was such a part of me that I think it was inevitable that I would tackle those issues myself sooner or later.

My adherence to critical thinking goes way beyond just the God question or bizarre religious claims. If the evidence showed me a god, I would no longer be an atheist. Skepticism is how I became an atheist in the first place. It is foundational to my beliefs and my way of thinking about the world. While I think there is cultural validity in "movement" atheism, and I am glad to be a small part of such a community, the promotion of clear and skeptical thinking is much more important to me. While a person's religious beliefs may tell us something about that person, overall rationality is much more important than the answer to any single question. Skepticism is part of the foundation of any intellectual enterprise. I would not willingly be part of any group, community, movement, or political party that was knowingly hostile to skepticism.

Atheists often hear people say things like "atheism is just like a religion", or "those militant atheists are just as narrow-minded as fundamentalists", or similar comparisons. Those statements imply that not believing in god is just as irrational, or just as arbitrary, as the most fervent belief in the unknowable. For many of us non-believers, who grew up at least influenced by superstition, who had to learn our way out of the bullshit, these statements sound irrational or even bigoted, and applied in such a way, they are.

But consider this....in a society where atheism is a given, and everyone is raised an atheist, and few have ever bothered to think it out for themselves, those statements could be quite accurate. There have been officially non-religious, atheistic societies that swallowed other state-approved myths that rival the fantasies of religious mythology. Being right about one issue, even one so culturally laden as the existence of god, is no guarantee against all kinds of other rank bullshittery being accepted at the same time.

For those who arrive at the conclusion of atheism on completely non-rational grounds, without having used skepticism, atheism still isn't a religion....

....but it might as well be.

Back to Big Question #4 in the next post!

My Answers to Atheist Revolution's Big Questions, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 02:09:00 +0000

My previous post dealt with the first two of six Big Questions that divide the atheist community, as put forth by vjack at Atheist Revolution. Moving on....

3. Is there an atheist movement that exists independently of the secular movement, and if not, should there be one? Some atheists insist that there can be no such thing as an atheist movement because atheism is not the sort of thing that can bring people together; others believe that it is meaningful to think of an atheist movement that is distinct from the secular movement even though the two have much overlap.

I think this question goes back to the first question.....what are the goals and concerns of atheists? If you want to eradicate all religion, I think you will find yourself in a somewhat different camp than most people who make up the secular movement. The secular movement is broad and diverse in makeup, and is concerned with keeping religious beliefs from overpowering public debate and reason and becoming laws of the land that affect people who are not part of the religion themselves. From the wikipedia entry on secularism, discussing the views of the one who coined the term:

Holyoake invented the term "secularism" to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. An agnostic himself, Holyoake argued that "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."

The basic thrust of the secular movement can be summed up by the common American expression "separation of church and state". It's not a new idea, really. One could even interpret the words of Jesus as having invented an early form of secularism: "Render unto Caesar the thing's that are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's."

I think that most of the important political goals of any realistic "Atheist Movement" are dealt with pretty well in the Secular movement. I think that most of the pressing issues facing atheists (at least in America and most of the West) can be dealt with through promoting secularism. Laws on the books saying atheists can't be elected, atheists being forced to pray before public events, open discrimination against non-believers in government or the military or in schools...I think "secularism" covers these quite nicely. Only the more zealous anti-theist atheists will want to go too much further as an organized political movement. And while I admitted in my answer to question #1 that I personally would like to go further, I don't see any reason why others will necessarily agree with me. I think religion is oppressive and promotes a lot of bad ideas....but many people, including some atheists, seem to think that many people need the comfort that such beliefs and social structures offer, and that as long as we can achieve secularism as a broad public policy, the rest can be safely left alone with the individual. For the most part, I think that view is correct, if a little...unambitious, and maybe too willing to take the bad with the good. But society will never be aligned completely without force, and there can even be strength in a diversity of views...at the very least, with a diversity of views, dissent will always be tolerated to some degree, even if it's not popular. Secularism could still exist without atheists. But where would atheists be without secularism? In hiding, most likely.

However, there is still a further distinction to be made. While I think that the secular movement is a worthy home for the atheism-related political goals of most atheists, it is NOT quite enough for every atheist and every purpose atheists might have. Atheists may be tolerated or even valued by the secular movement at large. It may adequately protect us from the ills and biases of a religious society. It may be enough of a movement for most of our political needs, but it is not a community.

I think a vibrant and diverse atheist community is far more important, useful, and valid than any kind of directed atheist movement. Because of the narrowness of the goals and the diversity of beliefs of those who comprise it, the secular movement will never be for atheists what other causes sometimes are for other groups...a place, an interaction, a zeitgeist, where atheists can truly let our hair down and say what they really think as atheists.

While most of my political needs are met by secularism, I still very much value the company, the talking, the sharing of ideas and perspectives that comes from other atheists who also speak out...who comprise the community. Other than a very few friends, I get most of this interaction from the online atheist community, such as it is. Debates, discussions, new ideas and perspectives, or sharing jokes about religion, or just complaining about all the dumbass shit I deal with at times from believers- you should see my fucking facebook feed sometimes, God Galore- without having to worry about offending the believers or making waves or experiencing too much in the way of social consequences. All of those human interactions that don't fit comfortably within the "secular movement"....that's what the more loose-knit Atheist Community is for. It may act as a "movement' here and there, for one activist or charitable reason or another from time to time, but I think atheists are simply too intellectually diverse to pick a full political platform of any kind outside secularism.

Where to find this community? Start with the blogrolls of atheist blogs you read, or search for facebook pages, or do some searching in your own local community...we're everywhere these days, in all shapes, sizes, races, and political views, and there's always room for more!

My Answers to Atheist Revolution's Big Questions, Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Sat, 07 Dec 2013 05:58:00 +0000

Recently, vJack at Atheist Revolution wrote a post on what he sees as the Big Questions dividing the atheist community. I thought he pretty much nailed the main issues, so I have no reason to not give my answers. Here goes.

1. Should atheists work toward the total eradication of religious belief, or is it sufficient to stop those who would impose their religiously-based morality on the rest of us? Some anti-theistic atheists argue that we should stop at nothing short of ending religion and that it is a mistake to seek religious allies who may share our goal of secularism; other atheists believe that secularism should be our primary goal and are perfectly content to work alongside religious secularists when it may be beneficial to do so.

Already, there is a division in my answer. I argue against ideas that I think are factually wrong, particularly if I think they are harmful to people. Everyone does this, from their own point of view of what is true or false, beneficial or harmful, some more vocally than others. In my world, that means I often find myself arguing against some form of religious belief, or specific claim within a set of religious beliefs. If such beliefs did not affect me at all, I would have little motivation to argue. But in America, there are plenty of instances when another person's belief, or widespread beliefs in society, conflict with my freedom. My own personal opinion is that society would be better off with fewer widespread false and damaging beliefs, and that religion is a big source of them,or at least heavily involved in spreading them. But I see no evidence that all false beliefs, particularly where deep emotions and connections to one's identity are involved, can be eradicated by a political movement, at least not on the timescale of a human generation or two. History has shown that using direct force or even the ballot box to enforce belief can end up a bloody mess. I have no desire to force anyone to believe anything, we can only argue with equals and hope to convince them. So even though I do sometimes wish, when I focus on all the bullshit and damage done by religious belief, that I could take a hammer to every fucking crucifix, church, temple and mosque in the world, I can not and will not. As an individual, I have my axes to grind, but as any kind of movement, we should focus on secularism, on removing the unwanted political force of other peoples' religious beliefs from ourselves and others who do not agree with the religious beliefs being put into political power. I am perfectly happy to work alongside Christians, Muslims, Satanists, Buddhists, or anyone else for the cause of secularism, though some of them may not like to work with me.

2. Do ridicule and mockery have any place in how atheists respond to religious belief? Some atheists say we should avoid such tactics (e.g., "don't be a dick") because they are counterproductive or make us look bad; others say they have their place in our repertoire.

Do ridicule and mockery have a place in how atheists respond to religious belief?

Hells fucking yeah they do. I'm not saying it's for everybody. I've nearly lost friends over it....shit, maybe I have lost friends and just didn't notice. You don't even have to be an atheist to do it and enjoy it. I cannot, as a normal human being, be expected to hear obvious bullshit put forth as deep wisdom(or political policy) and have to just pretend to respect it.
In the workplace? At a friend's social gathering? At family functions? Maybe, if the situation warrants the "manners", but not always even then. But to fully abstain from mocking religious bullshit? On my time? On the internet? In public discourse? When confronted face to face with willful insanity?

Not a fucking chance. If reincarnation turns out to be true, maybe I'll give that a shot next time.

Now, as far as "organized atheism" goes......as acts of "the movement" done by public organizations instead of individuals....perhaps they should exercise a bit more restraint, but I think ridicule is still a very effective tool for legitimate activism. To wholly abandon it, even for serious public orgs, is to collectively lose both our sense of humor and a vital connection with humanity. As far as Phil Plait(or Wil Wheaton, or any of the random bloggers who've run with it) telling me and all other skeptics or atheists or nerds "don't be a dick", that's good general advice for daily life and cosplay conventions....but incredibly shitty advice for effecting change, busting open the public consciousness, expressing frustration, getting attention to your cause, or claiming one's independence from groupthink and irrational belief- as well as stuffy, prissy, petty moralist high-minded bullshit. Phil may look like a new-age white Buddhist monk, but he ain't the fucking Pope of Skepticism. Frankly, telling other adults how to behave and respond to a society full of bullshit is about the most dickish thing I've ever heard from a skeptic.

More answers in the next post!

Miss America and the Media: RACISM EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:59:00 +0000

So today I checked for fresh news on the internet, to see what today's bullshit outrage might be. Of course, I was not disappointed.

What the hell is this white person doing crowning a non-white person???? Cue racist trolling and then lots of fake outrage!!!!

On my facebook page, I saw an article from Buzzfeed about all the racist tweets and responses concerning the newly-crowned Miss America Nina Davuluri, an American whose parents are immigrants from India. If you're looking for the daily bullshit outrage, you can never go wrong with Buzzfeed, so I checked it out.

Usually, the Miss America pageant is that magical event each year when feminists raise a loud wail of lamentation over this horrible institution, and universally blame the sexist standards of beauty that men hold and support(or so I am assured by feminists), for the existence of an entirely voluntary competition that for some reason women flock to be a part of, and that no man I know watches or would pay a dime to keep going. But this year, the progressive focus has shifted...there's no time to care about women or sexism or anorexia, they have a minority to exploit! Time to forget about imaginary sexism and invent a deluge of racism instead!

Apparently, the whole main kerfuffle is this: A handful of dumbfucks, some of whom absolutely HAD to be trolls, tweeted some stupid racist shit like "Miss America or Miss Al-Queda?" and other gems of idiocy.The Buzzfeed article has a nice list of maybe twenty tweets from assorted morons. Some of them are even from Twitter accounts made special for the event: one account was named "notmissamerica" and stated "More like Miss Terrorist". Now, call me a skeptic, but that's got to be a troll. Or if not a conscious troll, then the saddest and loneliest person in the long, sad history of sad, lonely people. In these days of 24/7 internet outrage, I wouldn't even be surprised if it was an intentional fake. Of course, Buzzfeed was not the only media site to break this amazing story of America's horrible racism....if you google "miss america racist tweets", at least a couple dozen more media outlets and blogs have almost identical pieces, all crowing about the horrible floods of racism, all showing the same parade of tweets and trolls, none of them saying anything at all original or useful. Just a shitload of race-baiting, and occasional assumptions about American culture, all on the account of a handful of morons and trolls.

And the comments.....oh, the beautiful idiot comments....hundreds upon hundreds of smug assholes falling all over themselves to say how ashamed they are of America's racism, how they should move to some European paradise where there is no racism(lols), how it's so horrible that in this day and age there is still so much horrible racism in " 'Murica".....you know, horrible, terrible racism... like a couple dozen tweets out of 300 million people. I couldn't count how many of these noble anti-racists were quick to whip out such wonderful, tolerant words like "inbred toothless rednecks", "white trash trailer park denizens", etc ad nauseum. Ah, the smell of hypocritical, self-righteous, over-inflated gas-bagging in the morning.....almost as precious as a cute puppy's farts, and twice as useless.

There was another publicized incident in the Miss America Racism Saga as well. Todd Starnes of Fox News apparently made a few tweets as well which had to do with another contestant, Miss Kansas, who he was rooting for. After she lost out of the semi-finals he let loose with a few predictable butthurt tweets, like:

"Miss Kansas, a gun-toting, deer-hunting, military veteran was America's choice - but not the liberal Miss America judges' choice."

Ok, so she's only toting a hunting bow, so what?

CNN and some of the more liberal media outlets and blogs apparently tried to make his tweets out to be a racist attack on the winner, but Starnes wrote a rebuttal piece showing that he was talking only about Miss Kansas losing at the time, and tweeted them before the winner was chosen. I put this whole event down to Starnes and CNN trolling each other with lightly-covered race-baiting to increase views on their sites. In other words, the business of bullshit as usual.

And the latest is a bit of smug fluff from The Guardian (do they do anything except smug fluff?) congratulating Miss America for overcoming a racist social media "attack". You know, not an attack, an "attack"....a handful of tweets by random idiots and trolls. At least in the comments at The Guardian, there were a few commenters who called this whole thing for what it is....bullshit and clickbait, and making an "attack" of racism from troll droppings so they can be the smug, diversity-loving, progressive heroes supporting this brave, heroic woman. Who was so brave and heroic, she won a beauty pageant. My eyes are tearing up here, people.....either I'm genuinely touched, or the reek of bullshit has finally gotten to me.

It's funny to me...if they hadn't been able to whip up some racism outrage, no doubt it would have been the usual groups of feminists and progressives whining about how beauty pageants oppress women and promote harmful and sexist standards of beauty even though they're entirely voluntary and almost nobody really gives a shit about them. Today, they have imaginary floods of American racism with which to collectively shame us all, and content-free "diversity" in which to smugly wallow as if something meaningful was actually accomplished. As soon as another white woman wins, it'll be right back to sexism and all those horrible men who promote these horrible sexist competitions, and who must of course represent all of American culture.

All I've earned from this is that progressive media has finally crossed the threshold....they are now officially just as full of bullshit and fake outrage as conservative media.

I suppose congratulations are in order:

Thank you for your great dedication to social justice!

Here is a token of my appreciation!

A Tale of Two Neighbors: A Buddhist monk and a Christian preacher

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 05:19:00 +0000

I live in the end unit of a small, modest, and slightly run-down apartment complex on the main drag of
a small beach town. A few feet west of my bedroom window is a separate building that has a car rental business out front, two small office spaces, and one or two living units on top and in the back, with a small back yard. The car rental place can be counted on to disturb my early morning sleep at least a couple times a week, but after a few years, you really don't notice car alarms and slamming doors so much. For the most part over the years, the living units there have been rented to youngish couples or small families. They live, come and go, and sometimes have some friends over and/or barbecue. If once in a while the barbecue smoke gets all in my window, or the music is a little loud, or the kids start loudly playing outside at 8:00 in the morning, I ignore it or shut the window, although shutting the window is not a very nice option in August, or for most of the year here in fact. Truth is, I just can't bring myself to complain about good, happy people having a good time doing fun, happy things, even if it slightly inconveniences me at times. I don't want to live in a world where a few beers and a tri-tip grill-up or kids playing tag needs neighborhood approval, even in a fairly tightly-packed neighborhood.

For a few months back in 2009, I had a comparatively interesting neighbor living there. I say he was interesting, yet I never even met him. He was a white Canadian man and a buddhist monk(the orange flowing robes, the grace...bald,...striking), and for a short while he made the upstairs room his meditation space. I saw him several times on the street from a distance, but we never spoke as far as I can recall. I vaguely remember a friendly nod or two at best. What I do remember most is that it took me weeks to realize he lived 20 feet away from me. You could almost say it was a time blessed by silence, although I'm sure part of that was due to the fact that few if any people knew that he was there at all. While he was living there, I eventually found out more or less who he is, as he does have a slight online presence even though he avoids social attachments. Apparently, while he lived here, he was pretty badly harassed by the park rangers at the beach, which definitely bums me out, although it seems the judge in the matter saw through the state park cops' bullshit. See for yourself:

http://yuttadhammo.sirimangalo.org/2009/07/just-another-monk-week.html#more

I'm not a buddhist, but he was a decent neighbor. From reading his blog, he does sometimes come across to me as both entirely useless and a bit of a smug cunt, for one so enlightened, (like many Canadian liberals and progressives online, I've noticed) but....whatever. I can't really be bothered to care, and apparently, neither can he. And that's just fine with me and mine. That's just California.

But now, after another small family has come and gone, I have a new neighbor. A fire and brimstone Christian preacher. Six days a week this is no problem. He is quieter than I am, six days out of seven. As with the buddhist monk, I'm not even sure if he actually lives there or not, or is there by someone else's permission. I'm not sure, but I think he may be affiliated with the church that used to be a block up and across the street, that also used to do the free lunch for the needy and homeless. Although I really don't like that church or most of what they teach, I did not mind at all living right down the street from the daily bum-fest. They had a big lot with the space needed to pull it off, many yards away from the nearest local residents. Even though I'm not a believer, seeing Christians actually live up to their bullshit and help people with some reasonably decent food is nice sometimes.

But here's the thing......for the last few Sundays, my next door preacher has been holding church service and handing out free BBQ in the tiny back yard. The back yard that is within spitting distance of my living room window. On my ONE fucking day I get to really sleep in, relax, and not work, his dozen or so congregants start showing up by 9:30am or so and wait by the yard gate, which is maybe 12' from my bedroom window. His only congregants, as far as I can see and hear, are the loudest, drunkest, and most assholish bunch of the free lunch crowd, all young to middle-aged people who for the most part are perfectly capable of getting a job, finding food, signing up for government assistance, or at the very fucking least, staying the fuck out of my carport and stairwell. They are not there for spiritual enlightenment. They don't even seem to much enjoy the community interaction that is provided. They all have access to food, though not quite as tasty as free chicken or tri-tip BBQ. They just drink and yell and sit on my stairs and in my carport right underneath my bedroom window and try to bum smokes off any rent-paying tenants that walk by, until it's time for "church" and then free BBQ. The preacher himself is damn near as annoying. I have yet to hear a full sermon. He screams too loud and too frothily to really make out what he is saying, though the neighborhood dogs seem to enjoy responding in kind. A far as I can tell, he's just teaching potentially useful, potentially self-actualized homeless people how to act like entitled, self-righteous assholes, much like himself.

I think that the buddhist monk staying there was a quiet, smug, self-righteous, freeloading ass with good intentions, trying to help people find peace. I think that the christian preacher there now is a loud, self-righteous, ignorant blowhard ass with good intentions, trying to help people find peace. I don't actually know anything about their inner characters other than what they have given me to go on. I will say...at least the buddhist respected MY peace, and to be honest, the couples and families that have lived there were better than either, all things considered.

Personally, I am a big fan of free speech and I do not morally judge any of the people I've written about, despite my personal feelings about their actions. I'm sure the preacher and the monk are both decent people. They clearly think they are helping people, and I'm sure in some ways they are. But if you're going to "help" people by promoting your worldview and growing a flock, you need to own it. You need to take some responsibility for it and not expect endless patience and respect and deference from the dozen tenants who are sick of the loud mess, just because you "believe something", or even because of the help you are giving.

If tomorrow's sermon is much like the last few, it may be time for calm, friendly words and helpful suggestions for my neighbor, like: "Hey, do you think you could arrange your church so that you shout toward the empty street, rather than right into my window?" and "Maybe you could put something in your sermon about not arguing, pissing, or puking in a stranger's stairwell?"

Ah, California problems...all kinds of silly fun....

We will see what we see, and hear what we hear.

A poll on gun restrictions

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 05:01:00 +0000

I've put a simple poll about gun ownership and restrictions in America at the top of the sidebar, giving six rough categories as possible answers. Let me know how you feel, or more importantly, what you think about the issue! Any suggestions or criticisms regarding the poll, or specific points that aren't addressed in the rough categories offered are welcome in the comments of this post.

The Zimmerman Jury Did the Right Thing

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Sun, 21 Jul 2013 04:36:00 +0000

  I didn't really want to write about this, but I was inspired by Greta Christina's righteous whinefest, and a conversation I had with another blogger in`the comments at The Uncredible Hallq.


Over the last few days, I have seen no shortage of outraged news articles, opinion pieces, and blog posts about the Zimmerman acquittal. The standard narrative in much of the more liberal media and blogs has been that George Zimmerman unquestionably "racially profiled", "stalked", and "murdered" an innocent person, and some even agree with the random protester that made it on the news, that the Florida legislature and courts have decided that it's now "open season on black people".

A far as "open season on black people"....

ಠ_ಠ

I'm not even going to touch that shit-heap of race-baiting bullshit. Fuck that guy and fuck anyone who thinks they're doing good when they say it. (Note: I have tried, and googled, and tried to find the original clip that I saw, which was some white, middle aged protester coining the phrase which has become so popular. I can't find it, though I hear the phrase repeated constantly in the media.)

"Racially profiled", "stalked", and "murdered". There may be room for discussion here, but there's one problem. NOBODY KNOWS except George Zimmerman. And here are some other uncomfortable facts: It is not a crime in most places, or considered universally morally wrong, to be suspicious of someone, or to follow them as long as you are not threatening them. It is not even a crime to confront them or try to ask them questions. The media that has made so much of this case lives on those very principles.

Was George Zimmerman being a racist douchebag? It's possible, but I don't know and neither does anyone else. Did he start the fight? It's possible, but I don't know and neither does anyone else. Did he even touch Trayvon first, possibly opening himself to assault charges and possibly damaging his self-defense claim? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. The only eye-witness testimony was from the end of the incident and favorable for a claim of self-defense. The only physical evidence I am aware of is consistent with Zimmerman's story. And that's all I really know.

The acquittal was the right thing to do.

The only valid criticisms I have heard are about the fact that juries, through conscious and often unconscious racism, regularly convict blacks and other minorities on the slightest of evidence. In general, whites seem to get a "pass" , an extra helping of benefit of the doubt that other minorities, and especially black people, do not get. My own experience and research agrees: However, I have to add that in my experience, money and not race is by far the biggest factor, at least where I live and in highly publicized trials. I can only speak for myself, but I would not have convicted Trayvon Martin if he had killed George Zimmerman, on such evidence. I agree that racial bias often plays a part in trials. I do not agree that the solution is to start convicting people on shitty evidence, or ignoring the law involved, in order to get even. I do not believe that media-driven public opinion based on speculation has a place in deciding courtroom outcomes, or that the courts have a duty to dispense social justice in individual criminal trials unless it is factually relevant to the case and can be produced as evidence. For those tender hearts who prefer unpleasant ideas to be delivered in verse:

I would not convict him, Sam I Am.
I would not convict George Zimmerman.
I would not convict him if he were black,
I would not convict him and that's...

just a fact.

Thoughts on Meat and Morality: Contradictory Feelings, No Easy Resolution

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:30:00 +0000

I've been in a bit of a dry spell lately, blog-wise. There are plenty of subjects I want to write about, yet so many of them, especially issues relating to religion and politics, have already been covered to death by other bloggers, and I often feel I have little to add. So I've decided to spend a little time writing about various aspects of food, both as it's own subject, and the areas where food intersects with my morality or intellectual life. I have thought a lot about these issues, but have never reached any strong conclusions the way I have with other subjects. I can tell you my political position on abortion, gay marriage, drugs, or any of a hundred contentious issues, and explain my reasoning pretty fully. Yet many various issues related to food, especially the ethics of meat, remain unsettled questions in my mind. Maybe exploring them openly will help clarify my thinking.

I am very tender-hearted when it comes to pets. I have to be careful about owning them, as I can become quite attached. I have shed tears over the death of a dog that wasn't even mine. Laddie was an awesome fucking dog. I still think about him sometimes, long since his death at a ripe old age. While I try not to anthropomorphise too much, I have no skeptical problem with believing that many animals have a fairly robust emotional life and maybe slightly higher intelligence than many people seem to think, and that emotional bonds between humans and at least some other mammals are real, mutual, and common. I've always been a bit of an "animal person" at heart, even beyond the cute and cuddly. I have a full respect for all species, even the ones that don't much like me. The natural world fascinates and inspires me. I love watching nature documentaries and observing animals in the wild- even the hawks that silently ride the winds above the outskirts of town capture my attention with the simple grace of their movement. As a child I could spend an hour or more watching bees hover and buzz as they collected pollen from the plants in the yard. When I observe life, I can feel a kinship, a love, for even the worms crawling through the soil, without any special effort on my part.

All that sounds very nice and peaceful and earth-conscious, but I have a confession to make. Despite these deep and real emotional and intellectual bonds, I am the carnivoriest Carnivore that ever gnawed the meat from a bone or licked the delicious dripping fat from his own lips. (Keep the jokes to yourselves, pervs!) As graceful and beautiful as a bird can be, I have no problem eating the ones that taste good. If it was to turn out that there is a Heaven, it would have to include fried chicken, or be no Heaven at all. I can empathize with an insect, even admire the lowly worm, yet more than a few worms have been gruesomely impaled on a hook by me, just so that I could catch and kill another, more delicious, and more sentient, life form. Some of the more ardent animal rights advocates might say that I have tortured and enslaved a helpless and harmless animal, and made it an accomplice in the murder of another helpless, harmless animal, just to gorge myself on the once-living flesh. If someone actually said that to me, the only response I would feel justified giving would be: "Well, that's just terrible. Could you pass me the pepper, and that lemon there, please?" Since I'm a get-along kind of guy, I would try not to smirk while I said it.

Simple fact is, I have killed for food, and not out of strict necessity. Like so many other life-forms on this planet, I'm a killer. And I'll do it again, with a deep respect for the source of my food, but without a moral qualm or a trace of regret. By PETA standards, I might be considered a dangerous psychopath who can turn off deep emotions like a light switch. But to In & Out Burger, I am a polite and pleasant customer who knows the difference between fresh and frozen hamburger, and appreciates the fact that they do, too. Who's right?

There seem to be deep contradictions within me. Or, do I simply have different, yet justifiable standards for separate situations? Looking around at nature, eating meat seems perfectly natural. But are there reasons, perhaps important moral reasons, or more practical economic or environmental reasons, to suppress what seems so natural to me and so many others? I have thought about these issues, off and on, for over twenty years, but have yet to find any solid answers. While I have plenty of good reasons for eating meat, I still have no rational arguments built around those reasons. I know I could do without it if I had to, and I have heard all manner of arguments against it...moral concerns, religious concerns, environmental concerns, health concerns, economic concerns...some of them even seemed to make sense. Yet none so far has overcome my natural desire and my willingness to satisfy it.

There are no other issues in my life quite like this one, in which my emotions, intellect, usual character, and actions are so seemingly disconnected and compartmentalized...and I'm curious as to why that is.

I have no overarching goal in discussing this, except to explore issues. I have no plan of posts leading to a definite conclusion, no agenda to push. It will likely be a hodgepodge of posts from a variety of perspectives on issues of food and meat consumption, on living and killing to live. I've had at least a slight interest in food-related subjects since I was a kid....from farming to the restaurant biz to home cooking to food history and world cuisine, and the practices and ethics of all of these, it's a huge and fascinating set of subjects that I have read about and thought about for years, without ever developing any kind of coherent philosophy beyond a somewhat contradictory set of personal opinions. If I write it all out instead of just think about it, maybe I'll even learn something. Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

Looking for "Middle Ground" in the Atheist community?

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 06:07:00 +0000

The last two years has seen a whole lot of debate in the online atheist, skeptic, and secular activist communities. No surprise there, right? But instead of atheists debating theists, skeptics debating the claims of the credulous, or secularists working against excess influence of religion in politics, much of the recent debates have centered on the current popular forms of social progressivism and particularly feminism. There is not a thing at all wrong with this- it is, in my opinion, at least a part of what should be happening. If you identify as a skeptic, a person who uses reason to decide their beliefs and actions, with recourse to evidence and a scientific perspective to inform you rather than commandments from wherever, then you should already know that for this mode of thought and action to really work, NO subject can be off limits. Subgroups in the community can have their "safe spaces", of course, where concepts can be refined, but those "safe spaces" cannot then easily function as a platform for the inevitable, needed discussions involving the whole community.

Sadly, much of the debate has been highly polarized, irrational, and ugly. I believe one of the main reasons for this is that the fundamental reality of the debate and discussion has been largely ignored and misunderstood. It is often portrayed as an Us vs Them: a pro-social justice and feminism side, and a side which is often conveniently and dishonestly labelled as "anti-social justice", or "anti-equality", or "woman-hating rape apologists" or "old sexist racist white d00ds defending their privilege", or other slurs, shaming labels, and bullshit.

In the context of the greater atheist/skeptic/secular communities, I don't see an Us vs Them. I see something very much like political Entryism , combined with elements of a "putsch" where one group that is similar to or already a part of a larger group, tries to pull the larger group along to a more specific or radical alignment, as is not afraid to also try to replace existing leadership on whatever pretext available. The current popular propaganda is that if you do not openly support a given social justice or feminist cause or perspective, and agree with their theories, then you are actively against the group professing it, and must therefore also be against equality, women, minorities, etc, even if you don't know it. Even if you're just "blinded by your privilege." Thus, the majority, well meaning and ready to discuss and debate, is painted as a sick and misanthropic group of cretins. It's both funny and sad to see fairly well-educated middle-class liberals and their younger energetic followers act as if they are the first people to read and understand feminist literature or a sociology text. These are groups with a very low number of conservatives and traditionalists, compared to the wider population. These are astoundingly liberal groups, and even the conservative and libertarian members tend toward a big-tent policy as far as concerns the larger communities. The "other side" in this discussion, the "woman-hating rape apologists" side, does not exist. What that "side" is, is the majority, a generally liberal and open-minded majority, who are simply not all currently aligned with the furthest-left end of the progressive sub-group.

So, if you are looking for that "middle ground"...
.
1. It's all around you already!

The atheist, skeptical, and secularist communities are quite diverse, even though there is overlap and shared goals, and many tend toward generally liberal to progressive in politics. There is no shortage of perspectives. I encourage everyone to read as many blogs as they can, to see where they fit in, to get comfortable, and still try to understand others. Not only that, but maybe even further investigate the ideas presented outside the politics of the community. One positive result I have seen from the ongoing debates is that many new bloggers, who had only read and commented before, are throwing their hats into the ring, willing to stand up and take responsibility for their ideas. Even though the market is bigger than in the past and more watered-down, some bloggers who have written for smaller audiences are finding their readership growing.

2. If you want even more middle ground, you need to MAKE MORE!
Write. Blog. At least comment in good faith at blogs or forums you like. Express your ideas, and be willing to take responsibility for them. Be willing to listen, be willing to think, be willing to interact, and be willing to talk back when you have something to say. After almost ten years of reading and exploring the issues, these recent debates played a role in getting me to be more active. You want to talk to the community? DO IT! The worst anyone can do is ignore you. Or call you a hateful scumbag misogynist. Or make unflattering photoshop parodies of you, although you generally have to be a pretentious ass to get much of that.

I don't see any deep community rift here...I see a potential second flowering of a wonderful and valuable internet and real-life community. Call me an optimist.

So...what do you see?

My email to CFI in support of Ron Lindsay

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Fri, 31 May 2013 04:45:00 +0000

To put it bluntly: A small number of extremely vocal bloggers and speakers have decided that the core mission of all skeptical, secularist, and atheist organizations and communities must be to support a number of "progressive" liberal political ideals, and that any individuals who do not comply immediately, without discussion or debate, must be silenced, ousted, shamed and shunned. They have zero interest in skepticism, and their only interest in secularism extends no further than how it can help their political agenda. Included in this group are bloggers and speakers PZ Myers, Ophela Benson, Stephanie Svan, and Jason Thibault of Freethought Blogs, Rebecca Watson of Skepchick, and Amanda Marcotte.

I only name a few of the most vocal, and the only reason I name them is so that you can take the time to see what these people actually say and do. PZ Myers recently posted a blog offering the opinion that anyone who identifies as a "Men's Right's Activist" is simply a mass-murderer of women without the guts to pull the trigger. Amanda Marcotte recently penned a hit piece on atheist/secular activist Justin Vacula, claiming that he believes "women exist to serve men", simply because Justin does not agree with her that atheism logically leads directly to feminism. Some of these people have been directly involved in "outing" or "doxxing" people who disagree with them, so that their followers can call employers, harass, and intimidate. Some of them have been seeking to get people fired from their jobs, ousted from organizations, and attempting to establish blacklists of people not welcome to speak at or even attend events, all for the crime of disagreeing with their politics or their morally bankrupt tactics. Obviously false threat narratives, claiming harassment and fear of violence, have been built up around many individuals who dare to disagree with these ideologues.

You now have a case of this treatment in your own organization. For simply noting what is obvious to any casual reader of these individual's blogs, that limited sociological terms are often used to silence dissent and vilify people who disagree with their views, Ron Lindsay has been called a sexist, a misogynist, a "thug in a cheap suit" (PZ Myers), and the hounds are now baying for blood. These individuals and their supporters have little or nothing to do with secularism or ending religious discrimination, and are almost the polar opposite of "skeptics". They respect no science that does not validate their worldview, and they cannot tolerate even a hint of debate or open discussion. They openly mock the principle of free speech as being only a cover for hatred and bigotry and oppression. In their minds, anyone being allowed to talk back, instead of permanently "shutting up and listening", is oppression. How people so privileged became such experts on oppression is anyone's guess, but they certainly have no intention of "checking their own privilege" or "shutting up and listening" to anyone.

I hope that you will take the time to see the full picture here. I hope that you will support Ron Lindsay, and keep a careful watch on those who seem to think their voices are the only ones that matter. Irrational ideologues like this are poisonous to any movement, but especially to one based on skepticism, freethought, and open discussion. I and many others will be watching the outcome of this particular "putsch", and I for one will not support any organization that gives these individuals any more influence than they already have. Again, please support Ron Lindsay in this matter. He has done nothing wrong and simply said out loud what so many reasonable people in our community, men and women, liberal and conservative alike, have been thinking lately. He couldn't have been nicer about it, yet witness what such consideration gets one in return...ridiculous accusations and outright dishonesty and hatred. Do not pander to these poisonous ideologues, it will benefit nobody.

I thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Neil Terry

In the interests of full disclosure, I made some small changes to my original email, which was written hastily. I removed a three-word redundancy, I added Ron Lindsay's name earlier in the text, since some now might read this and not know to whom I was referring, and I corrected a misspelling.

If you are familiar with the internal political on-goings in the relatively small atheist/skeptical/secular communities, you might have a clue as to what this is all about.

If not, hello and welcome! At this point, all I can say for online Atheism is...we're not all liars and ideologues, so sorry if you got a bad impression.

A Word to the Wise; or, How Many Privilege Checks Does It Take To Chafe My Bunghole?

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Sun, 19 May 2013 14:06:00 +0000

This is my favorite piece of sketch comedy ever.

Sadly, the reason I am posting it is because I couldn't find a shorter clip. The part I want is at 50 seconds in.

To PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson, Melody Hensley, and more than a few other bloggers and assorted professional victims:

Shut your festering gob, you tit!

Really though...don't. Keep speaking your mind. Just quit pretending that you are oppressed, or speak for oppressed people in any meaningful way.

It's getting a bit pathetic.

Your type really does make me puke, though. That's just a fact.

My Favorite Conservatives #1

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Thu, 16 May 2013 05:12:00 +0000

I assure you I am quite serious with my first pick for My Favorite Conservatives. I am not one for hero worship or personality cults, but I have long respected the outspoken, freethinking, and skeptical views of self-identified conservative, entrepreneur, and fellow freethinker and religious skeptic, Frank Zappa.

Yes, he was primarily a musician and family man, and not a politician, statesman, philosopher, or scientist. Yet I find his views, as much as he made public, are as well thought out and principled as those of any politician in office today or in recent memory, or any slacktivist blogger for that matter. He preferred minimal government, low taxes, and was as much an absolutist as myself on issues of free speech and expression. But he was also....a thinker, plain and simple.

A quote on private property and individual rights:

"In every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say is "Mine!" A system that doesn't allow ownership, that doesn't allow you to say "Mine!" when you grow up, has -- to put it mildly -- a fatal design flaw.
From the time Mr. Developing Nation was forced to read The Little Red Book in exchange for a blob of rice, till the time he figured out that waiting in line for a loaf of pumpernickel was boring as fuck, took about three generations.... Decades of indoctrination, manipulation, censorship and KGB excursions haven't altered this fact: People want a piece of their own little Something-or-Other, and, if they don't get it, have a tendency to initiate counterrevolution."-- Frank Zappa

Well, there's the basic socio-economic nut of " Liberalism", aka modern American conservatism, right there. While I am more liberal than many, and support several modern social programs, the basic idea of his quote is as real today as ever.

On "harmful language":

"There is no such thing as a dirty word. Nor is there a word so powerful, that it's going to send the listener to the lake of fire upon hearing it."
-- Frank Zappa

In relation to a lot of the current debates in the atheist/skeptic/secularist blogosphere, I would add that there is no word that can rape you, either. If the word "cunt" makes you feel like you've been raped, counseling will likely provide better results than availing yourself of censorship or promoting laws against "sexist speech".

On Christian mythology and its intended effects:

"So, when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, if you go for all these fairy tales, that "evil" woman convinced the man to eat the apple, but the apple came from the Tree of Knowledge. And the punishment that was then handed down, the woman gets to bleed and the guy's got to go to work, is the result of a man desiring, because his woman suggested that it would be a good idea, that he get all the knowledge that was supposedly the property and domain of God. So, that right away sets up Christianity as an anti-intellectual religion. You never want to be that smart. If you're a woman, it's going to be running down your leg, and if you're a guy, you're going to be in the salt mines for the rest of your life. So, just be a dumb fuck and you'll all go to heaven. That's the subtext of Christianity."
-- Frank Zappa

Nobody else noticed that? C'mon, people, I caught onto that before high school.

On afterlife states of being:

There is no hell. There is only France.
-- Frank Zappa

I've never been to either, but I've met otherwise trustworthy people who've been to France, and I've seen pictures. I feel confident tentatively accepting the existence of France.

On life in general:

"If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you how to do your shit, then YOU DESERVE IT"
-- Frank Zappa

Couldn't agree more, though it's not much to do with politics.

I urge you to check out at least these selections of Zappa's musical social commentary, what I call the "Holy Trinity"....three consecutive songs from the album You Are What You Is that spell out the straight dope on American religion: "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing", "Dumb All Over", and "Heavenly Bank Account".

some youtube links:

The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJVLFa-MnB0

Dumb All Over:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li7FZ6E8HOo

Heavenly Bank Account:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCcgthWmE60

Also fun and instructive is this 3-song medley of Beatles tunes, re-written to be about Jimmy Swaggart's love of prostitutes and "Moral Majority" horseshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y59k7AX9AKM

I didn't go too deep in commentary or political analysis on this one, because I think the man speaks for himself just fine and I agree with pretty much all of it. Feel free to disagree, rant, or tell me how much you hate his music in the comments. Just don't eat the yellow snow, it turns you into Sarah Palin.

And don't forget to Sheik Yerbouti!

Lead up post: My Favorite Conservatives

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Thu, 16 May 2013 01:30:00 +0000

This is an opening post to kick off a series based on my favorite conservatives and their thoughts...it may be a short series, depending on how may corpses I can dig up that fit the bill. I will be taking a look at some of my favorite conservatives, some of their representative quotes, and most importantly, as this is not about hero worship or idols, their ideas and ideals that may have some relevance today. First though, some explanation and definitions.

In my lifetime, there has been a noticeable dearth of people who self-identify as conservatives, or whose political leanings seem conservative, who are worth listening to at all. While many normal working folks are conservatives, not very many of them are any good at defending their beliefs or even explaining them in any coherent way. Most of the self-identified conservatives I know do little more than fill up my facebook feed with idiotic "liberal conspiracy" theories, pure, seething, rabid hatred of Obama(but they are NOT RACIST...not at all...no, really, not at all, I know because they keep telling me so), and the conviction that any social, governmental, or community solution to a problem, no matter how necessary or beneficial, is the feared specter of oppressive communism rearing it's head. Very few of them are capable of talking about any kind of systemic problem realistically, or ever admitting when a social solution is the best solution to a problem. But...they're not really evil. To me it seems that most conservatives, like most people everywhere, are good-natured, hard-working, morally upright, well-meaning idiots. And, as with every group of people, at least a few are small-minded, ignorant, and bigoted idiots as well. But there are in fact more than a few conservative people with good ideas, and there are more than a few good ideas that happen to be considered "conservative" these days. It seems to me that many people aren't even aware that many of the ideas and ideals now considered politically "conservative" in America, are actually ideals first seriously championed during the European Enlightenment, are the philosophical and political foundations of both the United States and of most of the modern West, and are known generally as "Liberalism" in the history of Western politics. Funny how words change, innit?

These ideals include:

The right to own private property (instead of a King or a Government or a Church "owning" everything)
Freedom of speech & press
Freedom of religion
Freedom of association
Free markets as a basic starting point of economies
Freedom from unnecessary government coercion
Free and fair elections of government actors, and the basic ideal that government power derives from the consent of the governed, not from "divine rights" or brute force.
A philosophical belief in the virtues of self-determination, rather than "fate", force, or duty to a king, church, or government determining the courses of people's lives (for those of you who only know very serious conservatives who enjoy blaming people for things whenever they can, this one also goes under the name "personal responsibility", which is the only phrase some conservatives seem able to say)

Personally, I think all of these are great fucking ideas, a rational meeting of both our human nature and our human potential, and I have yet to see a single fully "collectivist" society do any better in terms of individual freedom or basic quality of life- or honestly, anywhere even close, though I must admit that some of this affluence and freedom for the masses is also the result of limited socialism introduced over time.

Back when "Liberalism" was a new thing, kings and churches, with the support of their enforcers and followers pretty much ran the show all over the developed world. "Conservatism" back then, was the belief that "traditional" power structures were necessary for civilization to exist and to keep people from evil, barbarism, and chaos. These "traditional" power structures were largely made up of monarchies that had absolute or near-absolute power that was passed down in families, and ecclesiastical authorities, i.e., whatever church happened to have conned it's way into power at the time. Brute force, a belief that some humans were inherently better than others and chosen by God to lead, and the promotion of crippling fear and rank superstition among the people were the ideals and deeds of "conservatism" then. In many ways, I think that the modern "religious right" and Neo-conservative movements, which are the guardians of "conservatism" in the minds of many today, have returned to this old and tempting mode of holding on to power. They are the "Old-Time Conservatives", those who worship power over others and will do literally anything to achieve it.

So then...when I'm talking about "Conservatism" in this series, I will be referring to modern American conservatism, which is pretty much "Enlightenment Liberalism" but with a renewed and strong small-government, low-tax stance, and opposition to the collectivist thought of communism and strong socialism. I mean people who favor limited government power, low taxes, limited welfare state, continuing self-education, and self-determination. I will therefore NOT be talking about George Bush, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Sarah Palin, or any of the other batshit-crazy religious would-be tyrants or Neo-conservative corporate-welfare loving war profiteers. Those are religious traditionalists and neo-cons, IMO, and not necessarily "conservatives" as the term is commonly used today.

That's it for definitions and background. Later today, my first actual profile in the series: My Favorite Conservatives

Dream Journal #1- I Shit Thee Not: This Is What My Dreams Are Like.

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:05:00 +0000

When I first considered writing a blog, one of the ideas I thought might be interesting was to keep a dream journal. I tend to be a very deep sleeper, and rarely remember a dream upon waking, maybe 3-6 times per year at most. But the ones I do remember...
...oh my.
There have been a dozen or so over the years that I can still remember vividly today....real brain-fucks. They tend to be long, richly detailed, plotted along some ridiculous and often ambiguous narrative, and deeply weird. Not usually violent or gory, but weird to the point of being more than a bit disturbing. Today's early morning dream was no exception, and yes, this is honestly what I dreamed. I only put down what I could remember immediately afterward.

I am sitting in the front passenger seat of a moving car, looking out at passing fog and dim shapes, lost in a reverie. The murky outside scene passing by reminds me of morning rides to school in the wintertime. I'm aware that my mom is driving the car, and saying something I can't quite make out in my daze. I try to hear what she's saying, and start to gather my senses...

We're both adults, our current ages, but we're in our old family car- a grey 1985 Chevy Cavalier which is now long gone. I've missed what she said, and ask "I'm sorry, what was that?"

She replies, somewhat aware that I wasn't paying attention, "Oh, nothing, I just said 'thank you for coming with me for this', you didn't have to, but I appreciate your help."

"Of course, no problem! Good to get out and about anyway!", I reply.

I have no idea where we're going....I almost ask, but then I remember.....that's right....we're going to the Valley Plaza Mall in Bakersfield, to buy a harmonica for....someone, and she wanted to make sure she got a good one. It occurs to me that nobody sells harmonicas at the mall....and why drive to Bakersfield to get one anyway?

Ming Ave, southwest Bakersfield. Right turn into the Valley Plaza lot. My mother pulls into the parking lot, and drives to the side with the Sears store and drive-up key-cutting shack. For some reason, we park behind an adjacent building. Suddenly, I'm driving instead of her. I steer it into a spot, shut off the engine, and we both get out of my old blue 1990 Chevy Cavalier.

The building we're parked behind has never existed, yet I remember it. It's a long, straight, vaguely institutional-looking building...it looks like a wing of classrooms from a school, or maybe old business offices....it also reminds me slightly of a church near my Grandmother's house. But the entire building looks old and unused, and it's been painted over entirely in a thick, uniform coat of flat grey paint. Grey covers everything, even the windows and doorknobs. It looks like a real-life version of a set piece from Pink Floyd's "The Wall". We start to walk around the building we parked behind for no reason, and after a few steps, I can tell the asphalt is old and crumbling. I can feel the loose gravel poking my feet. I stop. Looking down, I can see I'm fully clothed, except that I am not wearing shoes, only socks. A pair of double thick work socks that I lost one of years ago. Annoyed, I turn back to walk to the car to get my shoes. The car is a good 30 yards away...but after only a few steps? Even more annoyed, I wonder to myself how I managed to leave my shoes in the car in the first place. As I walk back to the car, another car rounds the building behind me, and then passes by...it's a small economy sedan, being driven by a chimpanzee in a yellow clown suit with large red and blue polka dots all over it.

Huh.

He barks a quick acknowledging chimp-screech at me as he drives by, and throws some litter out of the window...It looks like the foil wrapper from an Am/Pm Mini-Mart hot dog. The chimp pulls into the spot just beyond my car and gets out of the car. It then climbs on top of my car, sits down legs crossed, puts a matching yellow-and-polka-dot, pointed clown hat on his head, and screeches some more while gesturing at me.

To hell with that, I decide to shop in socks instead. We turn again, and walk toward the mall. As we round the pointless grey building, I look back at the two cars....the chimp is still there, now silently waiting and grinning. He nods once at me, as if to say "yeah, what?". Stupid asshole chimp.

I see that the front corners of the building had rough, terracotta brick planters at one time. I remember some kind of yucca or small desert tree once grew there, maybe a small pine. Now the tree is gone, and it is all painted grey, even the lava rocks in the planter. I complain, "I hate it when people do that, just making things ugly on purpose...whatever they use this place for, why take out the plants?"

Mom replies, "Maybe they didn't want to pay the water bill."

As we walk on, another car pulls up, almost cutting us off but stopping short. A dark-complexioned man with black and grey, medium length, somewhat receding hair gets out of the car. He looks at us with a nervous, confused half-smile and says, "It's my daughter, I don't know..."

I ask, "What?"

"It's my daughter, she just gets crazy sometimes...she gets in a little argument and just goes crazy, I don't know..."

The man and his car both seem familiar to me. The grey light of early afternoon has quickly faded to dark evening. I look closely, and recognize that the car is the same Pontiac Firebird that James Garner drove on The Rockford Files, except very badly over-painted in red...I can even see the old gold color shimmering on the inner edges of the open door. And I recognize the man as the actor who played one of the terrorist bad guys in the movie True Lies. I am suddenly suspicious of him.

(Actor Art Malik....except now he's in my dream, driving Jim Rockford's stolen TV Firebird and babbling about his daughter.)

A second car pulls up a few yards away with a hysterically screaming and weeping woman at the wheel. Now there are actors involved, and they don't even show up on cue. Her car is the same model as his, and also has a fresh, badly done paint job, but white. I am extremely suspicious now.

The man asks my mother if she could talk to his daughter. "She won't talk to me...please, can you just see if she's O.K?", he asks. I start to warn my mom to not go near, but with a leery and cautious look, she steps toward the vehicle. As she approaches, the woman, also vaguely Pakistani/Indian in appearance, stops weeping and forcefully pulls my mother into the car (how is she fitting both of their bodies through that sports coupe door, I wonder, and why is she so strong?...what the hell???) The car lurches and screeches off. I jump to give chase...useless, too late. I try to read the license plate number, but I can't make it out. I glare at the man, who smiles laughingly at me.

My mother has been kidnapped by Southern Asian gypsy car thieves played by actors, and their chimpanzee accomplice.

Confusion and Rage.

I advance toward the man and raise my hands to grab and attack him. As I look at my right hand, I find a large, very shiny, chrome-polished automatic pistol there... it's like some Desert Eagle show piece or something....definitely not my style, but whatever.
Taking a risk, I carefully aim at the tires of the receding car, but only make sparks on asphalt, and the car disappears down the road. I turn to the man and point the gun at him.

"Where is she taking my mother?!?", I demand.

He laughs long and loud, and says, "Go ahead, shoot me....then you will never find her! He has his eyes open wide for effect, his lips curled back in a menacing smile.

Realizing the truth of his statement, I lower the gun. But then he moves to get back in his car so I aim at him again and squeeze the trigger....
...but I am only pointing my finger at him.

He laughs again. I look down to read his license number, and though it is right in front of me, my eyes can't make out the sequence. Before he can leave, I start to run back to my car to give chase, chimpanzee be damned. As I run towards the anticipating chimp, I start to hear loud voices from nowhere, out of the sky. The voices get louder, and a violent rumbling and sudden ear-splitting grating sound of heavy machinery begins. Finally reaching the car, I attack the chimpanzee, who is also trying to attack me and keep me out of the car. The voices and noise grow louder again, and the grey sky and building start to shake and split, like an old tattered film going off the reel...everything is jumbled confusion and madness....

I'm awake now, still blind in the dark bedroom. I know immediately that it's between 6:30 and 7:00AM on Tuesday morning. I can hear the loud voices and machinery of the garbage collectors in the apartment parking lot just outside the window. As I lie still and blink into the darkness, the only thing I'm thinking is...What the Fuck was that all about?

If anybody who reads this wants to comment or share their own, feel free.

December so far: A Birthday, an Anniversary, and Mmmmmmmmbeefygoodness...

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:28:00 +0000

A couple of things I wanted to share with whoever might be reading out there- both of them late. In the way of excuses, I never really meant to do a lot of daily-life-type blogging, as it all happens too fast for a slacker like myself to chronicle. If I try to live life while writing about it in real time, I'll get nowhere fast...I know my limits. I try to force the world to slow down a bit by procrastinating as much and as often as I can, but it just keeps on spinning no matter what I do(or don't). The lead in my ass doesn't provide enough friction, apparently.

First, a belated Happy Birthday to my one and only sibling Renee, born Dec 8th 1969. A full 1127 days older than me, at 43 years old she's doing pretty well considering her advanced age.(joke) She has always been the absolute best big sister a guy could have.(no joke) Weird story-I remember one year on her 11th birthday some creepy dude Mark tried to impress her by shooting John Lennon, but that's not the kind of guy my sister would go for anyway, and all it did was piss off Mom something awful.(bad joke) Crazy days. I hope you had a great birthday, Renee, and I hope you enjoyed spending it cleaning out your garage.(no joke) Wow, the crazy party times those 40-somethings go in for, eh? Either way, Happy Birthday to a great sister. I have it on good authority that you're a great mom, too. I'm pretty sure my niece and nephew wouldn't lie about that. Maybe I'll be able to visit next year and we can clean out the rain gutters!(joke?)

Also, a happy late 11th Blog-o-versary to the Stupid Evil Bastard at stupidevilbastard.com, also known as Les Jenkins, who crossed the 11-year mark on Dec 2nd. I've been reading his stuff for about 71/2 years now, since the summer of 2005, and I still check in at least once a day to see if anything interesting has crossed his mind. If you enjoy a healthy dose of skepticism & critical thinking, or a bit of gaming & tech, or wonder what a rational and well-meaning non-believer thinks of all the crazy religious, superstitious, social and tribal things that humans do or all the crazy scams people fall for, or if you just want to read the musings of a cool guy from Michigan, check out the Stupid Evil Bastard. Do it. Though I've been slow to start my own writing, I can say without hesitation that it was Les' blog, along with Brent Rasmussen and the other guys at the now-defunct Unscrewing the Inscrutable that inspired me to think that I too could haul out a digital soapbox and join the party. Thanks Les, for the inspiration and the entertainment, and keep up the good work!

Now back to the business of living....what the hell am I going to have for dinner tonight? There are only a couple of frozen pork chops at home, but I don't really feel like pork, and I didn't want to go shopping until the new sales papers come out tomorrow....oh, bother and fuck...decisions, decisions. I want to keep it healthy, so....pizza, or Vons deli fried chicken? Oooooh, come to think of it, Vons has tri-tip for $3.47/lb this week.....not quite as cheap as I like it, but the sale ends tomorrow and I still have some A-1 sauce at home(BBQ snobs can laugh all they want, I love that shit). Yup, tri-tip steaks it is, pan-seared in olive oil with some fresh crushed garlic & onion, and maybe a little salad. Screw the starch, croutons are good enough. mmmmmmbeefy goodness. They better not be sold out, whoever they've got running the meat dept there has a bad habit of not ordering enough of the sale items.

mmmmmmmmmmbeefygoodness....by all the Gawds, it will be mine tonight!

A cow-map to help YOU find mmmmmmmmbeefygoodness. I already know where the fuck it is!

That's it for now, I'm busy with thoughts of mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmbeefygoodness.

Trick or Traitor, Smell the Haters, Wanking like Chronic Masturbators!

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 01:17:00 +0000

Halloween has always been my favorite holiday. I remember being mildly scolded in kindergarten when I kept fingerpainting halloween scenes well in to other holidays. Picture a fat, smiling, badly painted Santa in his sleigh, flying over a pumpkin patch full of Jack O'Lanterns, and some bats in the sky behind...good times. But this year, I'm all growed up and Halloween is on not just a weekday-workday, but a boring-ass Wednesday, so I'm not going to do much of anything special. I'll probably drink a few beers, strum a little guitar, pet the dog, and try to think up new and exciting topics to blog about.

But I did have one little idea today, and I wish that I had thought of it weeks ago, when I would have had time to work on it.
I want to dress up as Zombie Obama and trick-or-treat anyone with crazy anti-Obama signs in their yard. Not just your day-to-day republicans with Romney/Ryan -signs...no, I mean the real winners, and there are plenty of them. The best one I've seen is one guy a few blocks from my workplace with all kinds of nuttiness going on...several hand-made signs all over his yard. "Don't Help Obama Destroy America", "Don't Let CommieBama Steal Your Freedom", "Vote the Traitor Out!", and all that crap. He's had at least half a dozen or so over the last few weeks, all with about the same level of genius involved. Wait...sorry, I meant "jeenyus". My favorite one was a big, hand-drawn checklist with "Obama is a" at the top, and the words "Leader", "Patriot", "Citizen", all unchecked, and at the bottom "Failure" with the only check mark. Yup, a "Real American Patriot". Or maybe I meant "Real American Idiot". Or "Dipshit". They all kind of rhyme, and I'm a little tired. Whichever, you pick.

Anyway, I 'd love to show up at his door looking like this:

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH....I'M GOING TO EAT YOUR BRAINS AND YOUR FREEDOMS! Oh damn, no brains left...I guess I'll have to settle for freedoms. The little kids always get all the good stuff before it's even dark out! You got any mini-Snickers left?

As far as my favorite holiday goes, I'm keeping it mellow this year. The fun bit of playful scaryness that Halloween is supposed to be, the flirting with fear and playing bogeyman to shock the faint-hearted (or at least get them to see how silly such fears are), has already been squeezed dry. Between the last four years of general ugly idiocy, and the Hategasm build-up of the election season, it's kind of killed the holiday for me this time around. Watching the antics of republicans for the last year has been like watching a never-ending reel of necrophilia porn, like watching brain-dead zombies grudge-fuck each other until they fall apart at the joints. Between all of the idiotic right-wing nutjob political conspiracy theories, the creeping paranoia becoming so disturbingly commonplace over the last four years, and all the insane zealotry and witch-hunt demonization of all things not 100% Right and White, it feels like I'm already in a horror movie. A badly written, plotless, and annoyingly long horror movie that had already lost all plausibility before it even began, but a horror movie none the less. The monster is evil and must be brought down before he destroys us all! The mob of illiterate and gullible townsfolk has been panicked into a righteous fury, and now SOMEONE'S GOTTA BURN!!!

*YAWN* Seen it already, and it sucked.

Oh well. Happy Halloween anyway, everybody. Next year, Halloween is on a Thursday....hmmm, Slo Farmer's Market might be fun! And the year after that it's on a Friday, even better! Maybe next year, after the pus-filled pimple of politics has either burst or at least shrank back down to an ugly little red spot, I can get back to having a little fun. In the meantime, I hope the morons of the Kenyan Kommie-hating Kult enjoy the Bogeyman of their fevered imaginations while they put on their Two Minutes Hate Election Pageant for the rest of us to watch. They're so far down the rabbit hole that they've made it all the way up their own assholes, and they're making the candy-hoarding kids in costumes seem mature and respectable by comparison. So it goes.

Dark Dungeons...One of the Many Reasons I Love the Internet

noreply@blogger.com (Neil Terry) — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:17:00 +0000

So assuming I take a shine to this blogging thing, I will likely get into some pretty heavy political, cultural, and religious issues sooner or later. But even though I'm going to mention culture and religion in this one, this is not that post. The heavy and political one, that is. Not yet.

I am one of those people who genuinely enjoys the essentially meaningless bits of cultural detritus that ebb and flow like driftwood throughout the swampy ecosystem of our combined consciousness. If I see a decades-old Coke bottle in a vacant lot, I am likely as not to pick it up, try to remember the last time I saw one like that, maybe even take it home, clean it up and set it on a shelf next to my old copies of Mad Magazine for a few years. I am often amused and even fascinated by old newspapers, magazines, dated advertisements, old pop-culture stuff that must have seemed new, fresh, and vibrant at one time but has become laughably dated if not hopelessly obscure.

Like this old coffee ad, which suggests that a good marital ass-beating is the proper response to stale coffee and bad shopping habits. Ah, those were the days!

While individual bits of culture may not have much influence alone, they are still part of a greater whole. If Mr.T had never achieved fame, the eighties would have been much the same culturally, except that wearing a scowl and gruffly shouting "I pity the fool!" wouldn't have any referential meaning today. I wonder how different the 80's would have been if there was no Mr T, no A-Team, no awesome TV show themes by Mike Post (He did A-Team, Rockford Files, Greatest American Hero, ChiPs, & Hill Street Blues among many many many others), no bad synthesizer music, no insanely bad hairstyles, and no Aquanet hairspray? By themselves these things have almost zero meaning or impact on our lives (except that giant Aquanet hole in the ozone layer, I know it wasn't just Freon from leaky air conditioners that did that) but together, they ARE the 80's, at least the pop-culture 80's that many of us remember and can access in our common cultural memories.

"I pity the fool who watched 80's TV but doesn't know who Mike Post is!"

This is one of the many reasons I love the internet. It can act as a one-way time machine, showing us things we've forgotten which may never have had much import to begin with, but still subtly affected the world and our perceptions of the world. It can present a historical record of culture that is otherwise easily forgotten. Not only that, but it can keep these things alive well past their sell-by date and (more importantly to me) even allow them to be re-used and re-purposed in an unpredictable infinty of ways- a vast, chaotic, user-driven system of cultural recycling and creation.
We can take the old, and easily compare, contrast, and incorporate it into the new. The result of cheaply reproducible culture combined with the internet has been a global return to the way that culture was created long before there were records, film, video, and onerous copyright laws: one big artistic and ideological free-for-all, modeled after the chaos of life and built on itself, ever familiar yet ever renewed, and heedless of attempts to control it. And I LOVE that.

So what is all this leading up to? One of my favorite things from the 80's, one of my favorite bits of cultural detritus from my childhood, is the Chick Tract, the brain(?)child of Jack Chick, a prolific artist who was extremely serious about Hell and the many ways to get there.

No, not "Chicks"....."Chick TRACTS" I realize that

expecting tits and getting religion instead can be disappointing, but let's move on.

If you grew up going to a conservative Protestant church, or grew up anywhere near a conservative Protestant church, if you had any friends or relatives who lived in earnest fear of Satan and his many worldy snares, if you ever read the crappy little pamphlets left in coin laundries, truck stops, and phone booths, then you have probably read a Chick Tract or ten. They are innocent-looking little booklets containing various stories that are illustrated comic book style, but with only one Holy-Rollin' purpose...to scare kids (and presumably, semi-literate adults) straight into the loving arms of Jesus Christ. As far as the flavor of Christianity involved, it's a pretty rancid form of paranoid fundamentalism, with plenty of hatred and demonization to go around. That is one thing I love about them...the religious ideals involved are every bit as cartoonish as the artwork- it's a good match. Video games, television, Halloween, drugs & alcohol, Catholics, liberal Christians, Wiccans, Muslims....the list of doomed people and paths to hell is long, and wide is the way. Even role-playing board games, with their magic incantations and mythical beasts, are a one-way ticket to the Hot Place. One of the best tracts ever was called...

DARK DUNGEONS (click and read it, it's great!)

I don't want to reproduce the whole thing here, it's a large picture and copyrighted, but seriously, check it out!

I've never even played a game of Dungeons & Dragons, but I know plenty of people who have....and I'm pretty sure that they aren't members of an actual Coven. I did watch a game once, but it was disappointing...no real magic, no coven of witches, no Black Mass- just dice, bad jokes and Natty Light of all fucking things. I suppose you could call the beer a hellworthy curse, but really we were just young and tasteless, not truly evil.

So what has the wonderful, chaotic internet done to Dark Dungeons, that brooding, paranoid work of fevered religious

fantasy from my childhood memory? Made it awesome, that's what!

If you've read the original, you are primed and ready for the new. Truth be told, the main reason I wrote this post was to do my part in spreading these parodies as far as I can. They're just that awesome.

The first is a parody reversal of the entire tract, with the Role-Players representing Evangelists playing a Christian role-playing game, and using logical fallacies and threats of Hell to convert others to their cult, while the originally "Christian" characters are rationalists who recommend logic and debate, leading to positive outcomes. From blogger Bronze Dog at The Bronze Blog, Dark Dungeons becomes:

Christians and Crusades

It's a link to the original content...CLICK IT!

The second one is a brilliant parody using the format of one of the greatest concepts to ever be broadcast on television, Mystery Science Theater 3000:

Mystery Science Theater meets Dark Dungeons

Another link! Exercise that index finger!

So, I just wasted an hour or two of my time, and hopefully some other peoples' time as well, to rant a bit about the effects of the internet on today's culture and to share a couple of my favorite examples. I hope anyone who might stumble across this post enjoys these as much as I did.