Friday, May 10, 2013

The big tent of secularism

I've noted that, even in the atheist community, there's a backlash against women's rights. Atheism Plus gets a lot of criticism, too, and message boards are flooded with angry objections from the so-called 'men's rights movement.'

In a way, that's not surprising (though it's certainly depressing), because we atheists don't necessarily have anything in common but our disbelief in gods. We can be of any political persuasion, accept any economic theories, and even believe in woo, provided it's not religious. The definition of "atheist" is rather narrow, after all.

We're not even all atheists for the same reason. I'm an atheist because I'm a skeptic. But you don't have to be a skeptic to be an atheist, and some skeptics - not particularly good ones, I'd say - are theists. (Many more skeptics, atheists themselves, just think that it hurts the skepticism movement to be associated with atheism.)

Given all this, I'll note that there's been considerable criticism of the Women in Secularism conference next week. Again, I'm disappointed by that, but I'm no longer surprised.

However, I really like this column by Jim Underdown of the Center for Inquiry:
Should women be motivated to strengthen their specific secular position in our society? Hell yes! Or do what? Sit back and take it for another 1000 years? I wouldn’t…

Which brings me to a general response…

ANY large group who feels like they have a particular beef with religion (or pseudoscience, or other wacky beliefs) has a legitimate interest in addressing that problem as a group.

At CFI-L.A., we’ve hosted Black Skeptics, Spanish-speaking atheists, gay and lesbian humanists, and others who’ve had specific troubles in our society based on who they fundamentally are. And I say, welcome to our tent.

Ideally, our whole movement is a coalition of individuals and groups who all have an interest in promoting a secular and reason-based society. And if some of those groups want to get together to fine-tune their methods for dealing with and changing this uber-religious society we live in, more power to them.

How can we help?

We're not all going to agree on anything. So what? Even theists should have good reason to support the separation of church and state - and many do. So I'll eagerly work with them on the issues where we do agree.

Atheism Plus isn't atheism. It's atheism PLUS. You can disagree without getting all bent out of shape over it. In general, atheists do support women's rights (maybe because religions are so often in opposition?). In general, we tend to be socially progressive and economically liberal, but that certainly doesn't describe all of us.

But more to the point, different subgroups within atheism have their own particular concerns. We're a varied people, and we don't all face the same issues.

Among African Americans, black churches historically took a strong leadership role in civil rights issues, simply because Christian pastors were pretty much the only black leaders who were allowed to exist by white racists, and churches were pretty much the only place black people were allowed to gather in groups.

This history makes things more difficult for African American atheists. It's certainly not an issue I face, but it is an issue for some atheists.

As Underdown notes, women "have been getting screwed by religion since well before whatever fiction writer dreamt up the story of The Fall in Genesis." Yes. And our whole culture has been patriarchal, since Christianity was - and still is, to a large extent - patriarchal. Even those of us who are atheists grew up in that culture, and we tend to think of it as normal.

That's a particular issue for women, and the misogyny of many male atheists shows that it's an important one. Furthermore, focusing on women's issues in a conference like this doesn't imply that men aren't important or that we don't face problems in a religion-dominated world, too.

It isn't dismissing men to focus on women's issues sometimes, just like it isn't dismissing white people to focus on African American concerns sometimes, or dismissing straight people by focusing on LGBT issues sometimes. That's the whole point of a 'big tent' approach.

Underdown is right. We all have the same basic interests as atheists, as secularists. We shouldn't be angry when different groups of people focus on concerns specific to them. Instead, we should ask how we can help.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

A bold move on student loans



I love this woman! Sen. Elizabeth Warren has been asking the tough questions, thanks to her seat on the Senate Banking Committee (and again, I have to thank the Democratic Party for giving her that opportunity, despite her lack of seniority), and that's been wonderful!

But now? Her first bill proposes a really bold move on student loans - but one which is hard to oppose, don't you think? Why give the big banks such a benefit - pretty much a guaranteed profit - when we won't do the same for American students?

From TPM:
On July 1, without action from Congress, Stafford loan interest rates for some 7 million students are set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.

Warren’s first-ever standalone legislation, introduced Wednesday, would prevent that hike and take the additional step of cutting the rate to 0.75 percent — the same rate that big banks are allowed to borrow at — for one year until Congress can achieve a more permanent fix.

“Our students are being crushed by debt,” Warren told TPM in an interview late Wednesday. ...

“The taxpayers are investing in the big banks,” Warren said. “I think the taxpayers should invest in our students. And so I just want the same great deal for both of them.” ...

A study this year by the Congressional Budget Office found that for every dollar the federal government offers in student loans, it makes 36 cents in profit. ...

In her floor speech unveiling the legislation Wednesday, she said that if no action is taken, “the federal government is going to charge students interest rates that are nine times higher than the rates for the biggest banks — the same banks that destroyed millions of jobs and nearly broke this economy. That isn’t right.”

She's correct. That isn't right. And it's high time we invested in our country again, invested in our children again, instead of these continual giveaways to the super-rich.

___
Since we're speaking of education, here's something else from TPM which I think is very interesting:
Hispanic high school graduates enrolled in college at a higher rate than whites for the first time ever, according to U.S. Census data analyzed by the Pew Research Center.

Sixty-nine percent of Hispanic graduates enrolled in college in fall of 2012, compared to 67 percent of white high school graduates who did so.

Is that going to blow some right-wing minds? We tend to hear Republicans complaining about Hispanics swelling welfare rolls or burdening social services, not that they're attending college at a higher rate than white kids.

Now, true, this study also notes that "Hispanic students are less likely to enroll in a four-year college, less likely to attend college full-time and less likely to finish their degree." And they might be less likely to graduate from high school in the first place. But Hispanics are not just migrant farm-workers, people! They're enrolling in college at a higher rate than whites!

That's impressive, given our history of bigotry and the lower average income of Hispanic Americans. Note that, while I'm not implying that "Hispanic" is equivalent to "immigrant," not at all, there are many first- and second-generation Americans in the Hispanic community, so this is doubly impressive.

Of course, I'd have to add that it's shameful to see the college rate of Americans of any ethnicity at less than 70% - this is the 21st Century, people! - but maybe Elizabeth Warren's bill will help with that. Let's not forget that China has more people in college than we have people.

Hmm,... I wonder how the bigots will react to this, if it gets much publicity. Well, I do enjoy seeing right-wing heads explode. After all, that's harmless entertainment. It's not as though they use their heads for anything.

Blasphemy riots: 'Offend me and I'll kill you'



I like how Cenk Uygur puts it:

"Think about how ridiculous this is. 'I'm so offended that anyone would say anything against my beliefs, that I'm going to do rioting that kills 20 people.' ... Well, you know what I'm offended by? The giant fires I'm looking at! The twenty people who were killed! Because you didn't want to have your feelings hurt!

"What are you so scared of? If you're so positive that your god is correct and that your religion is correct, why would you hide, why would you run, from a little debate? So somebody says you're wrong, and you say you're right,... you've got God on your side! What are you afraid of?

"You know that God is all-powerful, right? According to your texts, whether you're a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim. All-powerful. He's got heaven and hell. What are you going to do with your stupid riot that heaven and hell can't accomplish?

"But no, no, no, no, no, they're so insecure that they have to say, 'no, no, no, if anybody disagrees with us, violence,... and we're going to put them in jail.' In other words, you don't believe. You don't believe at all. If you believed, you'd have such great peace of mind. And you wouldn't have to worry what anybody said about Islam. ...

But the reality is that you don't believe. You don't think you're going to go to heaven, you don't think that guy's going to go to hell, and that's why you're so insecure. So that's why if anybody even whispers of saying something against Islam, or your interpretation of Islam, 'that's it, I'm rioting! Who do I murder? Who do I kill?'

Yeah, way to stand up for your religion. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. No, that's the exact opposite of sense. It makes your religion look terrible, it makes you look ridiculous, it makes you look weak,... and not very bright."

Amen, brother!

As an atheist, here's how I look at it:


I'm an atheist. Of course I see it like that! But why do you see it like that, too? If you're supposed to believe in that afterlife you claim exists, and that god you claim exists, then why would you threaten, why would you kill, why would you worry about nonbelievers at all?

Is your god so weak, so ineffective, that he can't punish us himself, if that's really what he wants to do? Aren't we supposedly going to be punished for eternity after we die? So why does your god need you to punish us now?

Furthermore, maybe you'll succeed in converting nonbelievers. Maybe your argument will finally make sense and we'll see the light. But that won't happen if we're dead, will it? So you've just denied your god another convert. How will he like that?

Cenk Uygur is right. You don't actually believe what you claim to believe. In fact, you know it's not true, don't you? But you desperately want to believe it, so you think if you can only silence everybody else, then maybe you'll finally succeed in believing it, yourself.

But that's not how it works. You'll still have those doubts, even if you succeed in killing everyone on Earth. You're the problem, not me.

Abstinence-only sex education teaches rape victims they're worthless, dirty, filthy


Remember Elizabeth Smart?  Kidnapped from her home when she was just 14, forced into a polygamous 'marriage,' chained up and raped for nine months?

It was very good news when she was discovered and returned to her family, and, thankfully, it didn't take ten years or more, as it did with those three young women recently rescued in Cleveland (originally 14, 16, and 20 when they were abducted).

But there's better news than that, since Elizabeth Smart is really making something of her life, as she runs a foundation which helps educate children about sex crimes. And she knows what she's talking about, wouldn't you say?

From Think Progress:
She explained that some human trafficking victims don’t run away because they feel worthless after being raped, particularly if they have been raised in conservative cultures that push abstinence-only education and emphasize sexual purity:
Smart said she “felt so dirty and so filthy” after she was raped by her captor, and she understands why someone wouldn’t run “because of that alone.”

Smart spoke at a Johns Hopkins human trafficking forum, saying she was raised in a religious household and recalled a school teacher who spoke once about abstinence and compared sex to chewing gum.

“I thought, ‘Oh, my gosh, I’m that chewed up piece of gum, nobody re-chews a piece of gum, you throw it away.’ And that’s how easy it is to feel like you no longer have worth, you no longer have value,” Smart said. “Why would it even be worth screaming out? Why would it even make a difference if you are rescued? Your life still has no value.”

Now in her mid-twenties, Smart runs a foundation to help educate children about sexual crimes. She now believes that children should grow up learning that “you will always have value and nothing can change that.”

Social psychologists and sexual abuse counselors agree that comprehensive sex education can help prevent sexual crimes. Teaching children about their bodies gives them the tools to describe acts of abuse without feeling as embarrassed or uncomfortable, and it also helps elevate their self-confidence and sense of bodily autonomy. A shame-based approach to genitalia and sexuality, on the other hand, sends kids the message that they can’t discuss or ask questions about any of those issues.

There are a couple of things I want to add about this. The first is that many religious groups and right-wing political figures are still pushing a shame-based approach to sex education. They're still pushing abstinence-only sex education, despite abundant evidence that it doesn't work. Many even refuse to let their daughters get a vaccination which can protect them from cancer, just because sex is all about shame with them.

Well, here's one more reason to oppose that primitive, superstitious approach. If, the gods forbid, your daughter gets abducted, she needs to know that being a victim doesn't make her worthless. It's the rapist who's worthless, not the victim. It's the rapist who should feel intense shame, not the victim. Your daughters need to know that.

And they need to know that consensual sex isn't shameful to either party. It might not be the smart thing to do, depending on the circumstances, but it's not dirty, it's not filthy, it's not shameful. Teaching kids to be smart will be a whole lot more effective than teaching them to hate themselves.

But the other reason I wanted to post this is because it's good news, don't you think? Elizabeth Smart hasn't forgotten her ordeal, but she seems to be a real survivor, doesn't she? She's making something of her life. She can be very proud of that.

I read these news stories, and I'm always happy when abducted women are recovered alive,... but I can't actually be happy when I think of how they must have suffered. And I know that experiences like that don't just go away. Even Elizabeth Smart is famous for having been a victim. How would that make you feel?

But what does make me happy is to see her rise above that. She's using her personal experience, tragic as it was, to make the world a better place. She's 25 now, she's been to college, she got married, and she's running the Elizabeth Smart Foundation to help others.

That is good news, don't you think?

The big Benghazi on Bullshit Mountain

The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Benghazi Theory
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesIndecision Political HumorThe Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Benghazi Theory - "If"
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesIndecision Political HumorThe Daily Show on Facebook

You know, it's not just the 54 attacks during the Bush Administration which didn't get this kind of attention from Fox 'News,' but also the Iraq War, which killed a thousand times - more like 2,000 times - more Americans for no reason but Bush's political advantage. (Remember "Mission Accomplished"?)

Of course, as Jon Stewart demonstrates, everything gets this kind of outrage on Fox if it's to President Obama's disadvantage - or if they can make it to his disadvantage, at least. This is about politics and it's about money, nothing more.

And damn straight this is important! Any time our people are killed, it's important, and whenever we can't protect our diplomatic personnel, we need to look into it, so we can fix any problems. But, of course, when it comes to terrorism, some attacks are going to succeed. We're simply not going to be able to stop them all.

Furthermore, that's not what this is about. This is about political advantage, and this is about making money, through feigned outrage at Fox and other Republican propaganda mills. It's just a convenient excuse for them, and if it wasn't this, it would be something else.

How cynical can you get, to make money and political hay over a national tragedy like this? And they've got nothing, nothing but "if" this fantasy of theirs actually happened. Given their track record of hysterical imaginings before, I'm going to need pretty good evidence before I even consider it as a possibility this time.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

North Carolina Republicans oppose... counting

From a blog at Scientific American:
North Carolina? You remember: the state against science regarding sea level rise? The state with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources head who doubts climate change science and believes oil is a renewable resource? The state that tried to appoint a head of early childhood education who believed the Fukushima earthquake might have been caused by ultrasonic waves from North Korea? That North Carolina?

Folks, that’s nothing. We have a new record. ...

The scientific method the Republican-run legislature is against now is … counting. Yep — in its desperate attempts to get rid of North Carolina’s renewable energy program, the legislature has given up the radical, liberal, lamestream, obviously subjective “science” of, um, actually counting votes. You see, when the votes were actually counted, the bill that would have removed the renewables program (and said that wind, among other things, was not renewable) died in the state house, failing to emerge from committee by an 18-13 vote.

Okay, hmm … you’re Republican legislator Mike Hager, you hate the renewables program, and your bill has just been defeated by an indisputable margin of five votes. What to do … what to do? Easy. You reintroduce the bill. And when it next comes up in committee, this time in the state senate? You have a voice vote — and have your finance committee chair, Republican Bill Rabon, refuse to count the actual votes. In a voice vote so close that both sides claim they would have won if the votes had been counted, Rabon declares that the bill has passed and runs off.

No, I wish I were, but I am not making this up. We have given up counting votes in North Carolina. The Reign of Error rules supreme here.

Crazy, isn't it? And as in many states, the Republicans have gerrymandered their own districts, so they're almost impossible to defeat. That's why they still control the House of Representatives, too, despite receiving more than a million fewer votes in November than Democratic candidates.

From fundamentalist to atheist



I post a lot of these videos, because I'm really impressed with people like this - people who grew up in a strongly-religious environment and who really, really believed it, yet were willing and able to change their mind later when they realized the problems.

As I've said before, that wasn't my experience. Sure, I grew up in a Christian family, surrounded by no one but Christians of one type or another, but it wasn't intensely religious. And, more to the point, I don't ever remember believing it, not really. So I never had to make a wrenching change like this.

And it's not the same to just switch religions, even when it's a significant change and not just picking another Christian sect that matches your personality more closely. Even then, you're not giving up anything, you're just exchanging one mythology, one superstition, for one you prefer a bit more.

No, this is a real change, and it must be really difficult. (And note that he'd converted his wife to evangelical Christianity, too! How difficult must that have been?) I'm so impressed with people like this! So I'll continue to post their stories.

Well, OK, it's also because I find them fascinating. These stories are all a little different, especially the beginning. What is it that makes you start questioning what you've been taught all your life?

When you really start looking into it, you'll find all sorts of problems. But very few people question at all, and most of them get scared before they get very far. They don't want to lose their faith, and they're just not willing to follow the truth wherever it leads.

So the people who do value the truth, value it enough to keep questioning, are really admirable people,... which brings me back full-circle. As I've already said, I love videos like this.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Jesus and alien abductions



I haven't posted one of these for a long time, so I figured it was time. This is an excerpt from the Atheist Experience TV show, episode #586, with hosts Matt Dillahunty and Jeff Dee.

Why do you believe the fantastic stories of the Bible, none of them first-hand (at least, none of the authors of the Gospels had ever met Jesus, let alone witnessed any miracles), while dismissing eye-witness testimony about alien abductions today?

It's not that there's any good evidence for alien abductions, but it's far, far better than what you've got in the Bible.

Why don't you believe the people who claim to have seen Elvis still alive after his death, but you believe the supposed claims of unknown people, related by other unknown people and edited by still other unknown people, who, you think, saw Jesus after his death?

It seems to make absolutely no sense at all. The Elvis claims aren't believable, but they're a far, far better source of information than ancient stories from anonymous primitive people. And any halfway intelligent god would know that, so what kind of idiot god would depend on those old stories to convince anyone with half a brain in his head?

The only reason you believe that stuff is because you want to believe it, and because you've been taught it all your life.

The good, the bad, and the crazy - the 2013 NRA Convention

The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
NRA Convention 2013
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesIndecision Political HumorThe Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Good, the Bad and the Crazy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesIndecision Political HumorThe Daily Show on Facebook

God, we haven't seen a bigger bunch of crackpots since CPAC - or the Republican presidential primaries last fall, I guess.

And you know, the NRA has a new president, James Porter. I don't suppose he's completely batshit crazy, is he?
Porter got things going yesterday by pledging to fight a “culture war” against “fake President” Barack Obama. He also says that all Americans should be trained to use standard military weapons for possible use against the United States government.

Two other things stand out about Porter. First, he appears to signal a doubling down on the NRA’s base among older, white male Southerners or to put it more frontally, on racists, calling the Civil War “the War of Northern Aggression.”

Secondly, Porter’s background as an attorney defending firearms manufacturers from lawsuits points to what is many ways the organization’s real role as a trade organization for firearms manufacturers.

In any case, with Porter’s ascendency we seem to have moved a big step closer to the NRA leadership’s full embrace of milita-style rhetoric and increasingly open threats of violence against government officials and workers.

Get that? Porter isn't just pushing guns, he's pushing military-grade weapons for fighting our democratically elected government. Barack Obama is a "fake" president - somehow - so I guess those Obama targets make sense now, huh?

Keep in mind that it was George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, who lost the popular vote and was appointed president in 2000 by the five Republicans on the Supreme Court (5 to 4, it was that close). But it's Obama who's supposedly the "fake" president?

Of course, to Porter, the Civil War is still the "War of Northern Aggression," so it's pretty clear that "fake" means "black," don't you think? Bush was a "real" president by that calculation, since he was white. Doubling down on racism, indeed!

This is the guy the NRA chose as their new president. Incredible, isn't it? But then, he's a lawyer for firearms manufacturers, the people who actually run the NRA.

Let me just conclude with this clip from the Colbert Report. He focuses on a slightly different angle, that massive government conspiracy to buy up all the ammunition in America:


I know I keep asking this, but is there no limit to the crazy in America? Sure, we expect crazy when it comes from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. But should we expect crazy from United States senators? Should we expect crazy from Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates?

Crazy in an insane asylum, or from talk radio or cable TV, isn't overly surprising. Manufactured crazy, to push the commercial interests of gun and ammo manufacturers, isn't too surprising, either, I suppose. But absolute, batshit crazy in a mainstream political party? Crazy in the political leadership of that party? How did that become normal?

And think about James Porter and his "War of Northern Aggression." These people are still unhappy at the end of slavery! Incredible, isn't it? Is all this crazy just the revenge of the Confederacy?

More on those zombie Obama gun targets



I showed you pictures of those 'bleeding' gun targets yesterday, but here's Cenk Uygur's take on it. Note that I particularly wanted to show you that video clip with the little kid.

You know what I think of when I see that? Did you see this recent news clip about the five-year-old who shot and killed his two-year-old sister?
As Stephanie Sparks cleaned the kitchen, her 5-year-old son, Kristian, began playing with a rifle he was given last year. She stepped out onto the front porch, poured grease out of a frying pan for the dogs and “heard the gun go off,” a Kentucky coroner said.

Authorities said the boy had fatally shot his 2-year-old sister, Caroline, in the chest. ...

Kristian’s rifle was kept in a corner of the mobile home, and the family didn’t realize a bullet had been left in it, Cumberland County Coroner Gary White said. ...

In this case, the rifle was made by a company that sells guns specifically for children — “My first rifle” is the slogan — in colors ranging from plain brown to hot pink to royal blue to multi-color swirls.

A rifle. A real rifle, which this five-year-old was given last year. That's too young even for a BB gun. And it's made by a company which sells real guns to children as toys! "My first implement of death."

So, then there's this guy, in the TYT video clip, teaching his tiny little kid to shoot people-shaped targets that actually bleed. And, if that's not enough crazy, it's a target of a black man - a black man who not only looks suspiciously like the President of the United States, but which his father dismissively calls "Barry"!

How's that for crazy?

Monday, May 6, 2013

Obama and 'ex-girlfriend' gun targets


Think you've seen everything? Ha! No, there's really no limit to the crazy out there. From TPM, here's a company selling "life-sized tactical mannequin" targets that "bleed" when shot.

And, of course, they've got one that looks like Barack Obama.
Buzzfeed asked the worker if the resemblance was intentional.

"Let's just say I gave my Republican father one for Christmas," the worker replied.
Here's the same target after the guns nuts get through with it:


But don't worry, you women haven't been left out. They also sell the "Ex-girlfriend Zombie," because misogyny is always in good taste:

Before

After

I especially like the fact that these targets 'bleed' when shot. That just makes the whole thing completely insane, doesn't it?

Demolishing the Kalam Cosmological Argument



I thought this was excellent. It's a mirror, though, so if you'd prefer to watch it in the original four separate videos, see this.

Also, here's more about my own views, if you're completely new here.

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Sexual/domestic violence and men



In my last post, I quoted Warren Buffett: "Fellow males, get onboard." Well, this guy has the same attitude. I like it.

But don't go to YouTube and read the comments, not unless you want to lose all faith in humanity. Yeah, the 'men's rights activists' are voting this one down. They're angry, very angry, that anyone - especially a man - dares argue against violence directed against women (and against children, and against other men, too).

It's hard to imagine, isn't it? What is there in this video that could bring out such vitriol? But as I said before, these are men unhappy with competition. They either can't compete or they think they can't compete, so they're unhappy with losing the automatic status being a man used to confer.

Now they actually have to amount to something. Scary, isn't it?

Well, they're a minority of men. They're an angry, vocal minority, but they're still a minority. Jackson Katz here is more representative of our future - at least, if we don't let the haters have their way.

Warren Buffett is bullish on women

Here's Warren Buffett (originally in Fortune magazine):
In the flood of words written recently about women and work, one related and hugely significant point seems to me to have been neglected. It has to do with America's future, about which -- here's a familiar opinion from me -- I'm an unqualified optimist. Now entertain another opinion of mine: Women are a major reason we will do so well.

Start with the fact that our country's progress since 1776 has been mind-blowing, like nothing the world has ever seen. Our secret sauce has been a political and economic system that unleashes human potential to an extraordinary degree. As a result Americans today enjoy an abundance of goods and services that no one could have dreamed of just a few centuries ago.

But that's not the half of it -- or, rather, it's just about the half of it. America has forged this success while utilizing, in large part, only half of the country's talent. For most of our history, women -- whatever their abilities -- have been relegated to the sidelines. Only in recent years have we begun to correct that problem.

Actually, that's far less than half of it, since, for most of our history, it was only about white men, too. It's odd that Buffett doesn't mention that, because the same arguments could be said about race, not just gender.

And this, too, easily applies to both situations:
Resistance among the powerful is natural when change clashes with their self-interest. Business, politics, and, yes, religions provide many examples of such defensive behavior. After all, who wants to double the number of competitors for top positions?

But an even greater enemy of change may well be the ingrained attitudes of those who simply can't imagine a world different from the one they've lived in. What happened in my own family provides an example. I have two sisters. The three of us were regarded, by our parents and teachers alike, as having roughly equal intelligence -- and IQ tests in fact confirmed our equality. For a long time, to boot, my sisters had far greater "social" IQ than I. (No, we weren't tested for that -- but, believe me, the evidence was overwhelming.)

The moment I emerged from my mother's womb, however, my possibilities dwarfed those of my siblings, for I was a boy! And my brainy, personable, and good-looking siblings were not. My parents would love us equally, and our teachers would give us similar grades. But at every turn my sisters would be told -- more through signals than words -- that success for them would be "marrying well." I was meanwhile hearing that the world's opportunities were there for me to seize.

If you're young, you may be surprised at this, but it was very much the case when I was a kid, too. There were a number of very bright girls in my high school, but none of them were on the "major college" track. They were encouraged to take classes in home economics, for example, rather than classes which would help more in college.

And even if they planned to continue their educations - almost always in such traditionally female areas as nursing or school-teaching - that was mainly for finding a better class of husband. I thought that was very old-fashioned myself, even back then, but that was their society's expectation. That was, in general, their teachers' expectation and that of their parents, too (and so, their own expectation).
Fellow males, get onboard. The closer that America comes to fully employing the talents of all its citizens, the greater its output of goods and services will be. We've seen what can be accomplished when we use 50% of our human capacity. If you visualize what 100% can do, you'll join me as an unbridled optimist about America's future.

Yes,... well, there's certainly reason for optimism. And Warren Buffett is exactly right about the potential here. But let's look at the backlash, which is becoming more and more evident every day.

You see, it used to be that white men were just automatically on top - or, at least, not at the bottom. No matter how much of a loser you might be, your status as a white man still put you ahead of more than half the country. You could still call a black man 'boy,' and you were still the unquestioned lord of your household.

You might not have any education at all, but you didn't have to compete with black or Hispanic men, or with women of any race. You might be far down the pecking order, but you could still lord it over plenty of other people. Sure, you'd have to take crap from your boss and pretend to like it, but then you could do the same to other people, if you wanted.

Of course, I'm talking about complete losers, but the benefit wasn't restricted to them, not at all. White men had to compete against other white men, but that still left them - us - with a huge, built-in advantage.

But what happens when black people become your equals? What happens when Hispanics become your equals? Suddenly, you have to compete against everyone. Now, you still have a huge advantage - your boss is still white, your political leaders are (mostly) still white, our entire economy is still run by white men - but it's not what it was, and you can see that advantage slipping away more and more.

I worked with plenty of white men who were convince that white men couldn't get a break these days, that white men faced tremendous discrimination with everyone favoring minorities. These were people whose bosses were white men, who'd been hired by white men - often someone they or their families had known socially, often in their church, which was also overwhelmingly white - and whose co-workers were also white men with the exact same experience.

When the boss hired or promoted his nephew, that was considered normal. But if he hired someone who wasn't white - or hired a white woman, for anything but a secretarial position - that was clear evidence of discrimination against white men (even though the boss was a white man with opinions very like theirs). Of course, such a thing didn't actually happen, not to them, but they were still somehow convinced that they faced discrimination. After all, now that could happen, right?

Obviously, the only reason Barack Obama was elected president - twice - was because he's black, right? Oh, 'those people' get all the breaks! Remember when Mitt Romney bemoaned the fact that he wasn't the son of a Hispanic migrant-worker? Gee, if only he could have chosen his father. But no, he was stuck with being the son of an extremely wealthy, politically-connected white man, born with every advantage in life, including lots and lots of money. Poor guy.

This is how many white men think - Republican white men, at least. As you can see from Romney's comments, even the most powerful of them tend to think that way, as crazy as it seems. The least powerful? They join those white supremacist groups. No, they're not racists,... but someone has to stick up for white people, right?

We're seeing the same thing when it comes to women, too. I told you how it was when I was a kid. Attitudes were starting to change, but only just starting. Still, that was unsettling to men. It used to be that you didn't have to worry about knocking up some woman, because that was her problem. But when they started demanding child support - especially when DNA testing became available - well, that was just too much. Why should you have to pay out the nose for the next 18 years or so, just for one night of fun?

The sexual revolution was great,... but women began to learn they could do without men. By and large, they still wanted a husband, they still wanted a loving partner, but that wasn't absolutely required in order to have a family, so they didn't have to pick the first loser who came along.

And soon, there were good jobs out there for a woman with an education. You didn't have to settle for nursing or secretarial school. Women were still paid less than men, but they didn't have to settle for the lowest-paid jobs, or jobs that traditionally went to women (which was pretty much the same thing).

These days, even more women are going to college than men - and not just to get husbands. Women are getting a better education than men, and so they're getting the better jobs, too. You'd better not slap that waitress on the butt, because it's likely to be a man now, earning $3 an hour, plus tips. Women have better things to do. More men are dropping out of school, dooming themselves to poverty - and now they're finding that they can't even attract a woman desperate enough to find them attractive.

Suddenly, you don't just have to compete with racial minorities, you have to compete with women, too! And in many ways, women are harder to compete against. Your white boss might feel uncomfortable around blacks or Hispanics, since he's never had much contact with them, but he's been around women all his life. And he likes them - young, pretty ones, especially (yes, that's still an issue).

And now, we're seeing an incredible backlash against women. I've been shocked at how common it is online - even among atheists (which shouldn't have surprised me, I suppose, but it really did). Often, these are young men, too. But they're very unhappy at losing their privileged position.

Videos that criticize the 'men's rights movement' (like this one) or which feature feminists or support feminist concerns, tend to receive a torrent of complaints from angry men. Atheism Plus is vigorously denounced. Women who dare to speak up are inundated with threats of rape or other sexual violence. These are from a minority of men, of course - especially the threats - but they're a very angry and very vocal minority.

Some men are unhappy about real issues, of course. We're in a period where attitudes are changing, but not yet fully changed. And thinking that a woman's place is in the home, with her children, can actually benefit a woman who wants to keep custody of her children, though it will hurt her when looking for a good job.

Likewise, some feminists go completely overboard - just like some of every group go completely overboard. Note that there are complete loons on the left, as well as the right. The big difference is that the loons on the left have no political power at all, while the loons on the right pretty well control the entire Republican Party. But let's not deny the presence of loons... everywhere (and yes, that includes the atheist community, too).

But most of this is just backlash. The men's rights movement and the white supremacist movement are similar in being a backlash against social changes that are causing a privileged minority to lose their automatic privileges. Well,... tough! Face it like a man, why don't you? (And no, I don't mean by whining.)

Warren Buffett is right. For most of our history, we've accomplished great things with one hand tied behind our back. No matter how capable, no matter how accomplished, non-white men and nearly all women were kept from contributing fully to our society. That's not to say they didn't contribute, of course. But they weren't allowed to contribute to their full potential.

Well, now things have changed. Now things are changing, at least. For us white men, that means we have a lot more competition, and that's making some white men unhappy. But not all of us. And unhappy or not, this is a big advance for our society as a whole.

This will benefit all of us - white men, too. You may not like being a little fish in a big pond, but that pond is likely to be a far better place to live. And that will benefit you, your friends, your family - everyone. I may not be as bullish on America as Warren Buffett, but in this respect, at least, we're very definitely moving in the right direction.

Friday, May 3, 2013

Removing guns from domestic violence situations

Funny how this works, isn't it?
Federal law requires anyone served with an order of protection to give up their guns, but it's rarely enforced at the state level, leaving domestic violence victims in jeopardy.

One community in California, though, is using a federal grant to tackle the problem -- with promising results, as a report by NBC News' "Rock Center with Brian Williams" found.

San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff John Kovach and his partner head a team that tracks down and confiscates these weapons one by one. Last year, his department collected 324 firearms and for the third year didn't have a single gun-related domestic violence homicide. ...

When someone in his county takes out an order of protection, Kovach interviews them to find out what kind of guns the other party might have. Then he goes to the home to serve the order and take the weapons.

Sometimes the owner says they don't have the weapons any longer; sometimes they say they're at a relative's home, which means another stop for Kovach and his partner.

The sleuthing and legwork is worth it, he said.

"I've worked in a lot of different areas of law enforcement," Kovach said. "They are all satisfying, but nothing like this."

He noted that responding to a domestic violence incident is among the most perilous calls for a police officer. Getting guns out of the hands of those with restraining orders means other cops -- along with civilians -- are safe, he said.

Simple, isn't it? Simple, but effective. And, frankly, just the fact that the police are taking protection orders seriously probably helps a lot.

Yet, according to this, it's a law that's simply not enforced. Well, the minute you start talking about taking guns from anyone, you encounter a storm of protest. And there's never enough money to do everything, because no one wants to pay taxes.

But we do need to start taking protection orders seriously, and we do need to start taking domestic violence seriously. Get the guns away from these people and we'll have fewer tragedies. A man might still beat his wife, but he'll be less likely to kill her.

And that's why the ready availability of guns is so dangerous in general, too. If you get angry and swing a fist, or even a knife, that's one thing. But the mortality rate goes way up if you get angry and there's a gun right to hand. Guns were designed for killing people. That was the whole point, and they're very effective at it.

Catholic bishops condemn abortion bill

Just think about this:
Ireland’s Roman Catholic bishops say the public should lobby lawmakers to reject a bill that would allow abortions to save the life of the mother.

The bishops in a statement Friday say the bill represents “a dramatic and morally unacceptable change to Irish law.” ...

Ireland has the most severe restrictions on abortion in Europe. Thousands of Irish abortion-seekers travel annually to England, where abortions have been legal since 1967.

An uproar ensued last year when a woman died from blood poisoning after she was refused an abortion.

The Catholic Church has long been a power in Ireland. As the article states, Ireland has the most severe restrictions on abortion in Europe. And the power of the church has also led to other things, like child rape and the enslavement of young Irish women.

Last year, a woman died because she couldn't get an abortion to save her life. (Yes, the fetus died, too - funny how that works, isn't it?)

So now, the iron grip of the Catholic Church in Ireland seems to be slipping a bit - at least, enough for an exception to the ban on abortion when a woman's life is in danger. To Catholic bishops, though - celibate old men who think that they're experts on everything about women's reproduction and health (not to mention morality) - that's "morally unacceptable."

Just think about that. It is morally acceptable, apparently, to let young women die in agony, rather than let them have an operation that will kill a fetus which will likely die anyway. Well, the Catholic Church has never cared for women. No doubt that's their punishment for 'original sin,' huh?

Or do they really think that women want to get abortions? Do they somehow think that an abortion is a pleasant experience? Do they think that women are just naturally slutty, and that their evil nature needs to be controlled (and can be controlled) by denying them birth control and abortions alike - even when their life is in danger? What kind of fantasies do these old men have?

The Catholic Church is a patriarchal institution. Catholic women have no power at all. This would be plenty bad enough if it were women imposing their control on other women, but it's almost laughable (it would be laughable, if not for the tragic results) when it's celibate old men dictating to young women.

Why does anyone still belong to the Catholic Church? Well, I guess a lifetime of conditioning, with a heavy load of guilt (especially for women), is hard to throw off, isn't it?

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Five stupid things about the men's rights movement



As a man, I find the "men's rights movement" horribly embarrassing, for exactly these reasons. Plus, I can't stand the incessant whining.

Christ, man up, why don't you? Whining about how much of a victim you are, when men control governments, businesses, and religious institutions worldwide is a little much, don't you think?

And as a man, I've never had to worry about violence from women, while nearly every woman must be careful about the reverse possibility for pretty much her entire life.

Medical leave


What kind of people have we become? Is this really the kind of country we want to be? How did we get to be such miserable, tightfisted, old misers?

Generosity used to be a good thing. Charity used to be a good thing. We used to sympathize with people in trouble, especially after an unexpected tragedy. But now?

What has happened to us? What has happened to America? Iowa deporting comatose accident victims? Las Vegas shipping off the mentally ill with one-way bus tickets?

And it's not because we're poor, but just because we don't want to spend any money. And, especially, that we don't want the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. The Bush tax cuts nearly bankrupted our country, and we still made them permanent for 98% of tax-payers!

Have we simply forgotten what it's like to be a community? Have we forgotten that we're social animals, that we're all in this together? Have we forgotten that we might be one disaster short of needing help, ourselves?

More sequester fixes


Hey, we need tanks! After all, we're currently fighting a war against illiterate goat-herders using improvised explosives. Doesn't that just say "tank" to you?