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?

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Sequester fixed!

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

Oh, when I say that the sequester was fixed, I don't mean it was fixed for you, of course. Congress just fixed it for themselves, and for their wealthy donors. Nice, isn't it?

The sequester was supposed to cause hardship for everyone, so as to force Congress to compromise - well, to force the Republicans in Congress, since Democrats are always eager, even desperate, to get along.

So this fix, which helps Congress avoid any inconvenience, goes completely against the whole point of the sequester. But why am I not surprised?

And that's not even the best part. The best part is when Congressional Republicans act surprised that the sequester was going to cause problems at all:

The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Cut Punters - Sequester La-di-da
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesIndecision Political HumorThe Daily Show on Facebook

La-di-da, muthafucker, la-di-da.

The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Cut Punters - The Sequestration Myth
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesIndecision Political HumorThe Daily Show on Facebook

I must say I've been surprised not to hear much screaming from the Defense Department. After all, Republicans don't care about any of the rest of this stuff. So the cuts to the military - to the military-industrial complex, basically - were supposed to get their attention.

I don't know, but I suspect that the military budget is just so bloated that it can absorb cuts like this without even blinking.

Monday, April 29, 2013

2013 White House Correspondents Dinner



President Obama did a great job here, as he always does at these things. Of course, he didn't write those jokes, but his delivery was spot on, don't you think?

And the jokes were pretty funny, too. "Look, I get it. These days, I look in the mirror and I have to admit, I'm not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be."

Or: "I know Republicans are still sorting out what happened in 2012, but one thing they all agree on is they need to do a better job reaching out to minorities. And look, call me self-centered, but I can think of one minority they could start with. Hello? Think of me as a trial run, you know? See how it goes."

But my favorite was probably that part about Sheldon Adelson, who spent $100 million on negative ads last year to defeat Barack Obama:

"You've got to really dislike me to spend that kind of money. I mean, that's Oprah money. You could buy an island and call it 'Nobama' with that kind of money. Sheldon would have been better off offering me a hundred million dollars to drop out of the race."

Heh, heh. Eat it, Adelson!

Frankly, Conan O'Brien had a hard act to follow. He had some funny bits, too, but overall, the president was a lot funnier.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Necessity's Child by Sharon Lee and Steve Miller

(Cover image from Amazon.com)

Necessity's Child (2013) is another in the Liaden series of science fiction by the husband and wife team, Sharon Lee and Steve Miller. I've reviewed several of their books here, but only the more recently published ones, and you really don't want to start in the middle of the series.

If you want a sample, try Balance of Trade (2004), which might be my favorite, while also being completely separate from the rest of the series. (It's set in the same universe, but with completely different characters.)

Or start at the beginning with Agent of Change (1988), also found in the omnibus volumes Partners in Necessity (2000) or The Agent Gambit (2011). But don't start with this one.

However, if you're a fan of the series, you'll know exactly what to expect - appealing characters, an emphasis on manners and other cultural matters, and a pronounced, deliberate, even blatant - but still effective - tug at a reader's heartstrings.

I suspect that any fan of this series will find Necessity's Child to be an enjoyable read. I didn't mean to read this book yesterday, but I picked it up when I sat down with a beer, after working all afternoon in the yard, and I didn't put it down until I'd finished. It's lots of fun. But it's not perfect.

The book focuses on new characters to the series, including Nova's young son, Syl Vor. There are three main characters, all new, all very appealing and likeable, with three separate threads which come together into one story.

In a long series like this, introducing new characters helps keep the series fresh, giving the authors not just new people to show us, but new perspectives, too. In this case, we get to see things from a child's eyes. We also see a different culture. The story is set on Surebleak, which has not been my favorite storyline, but we encounter a new, hidden culture there now.

True, that culture isn't very imaginative. They're just Gypsies - though they're not called that (nor Romani, either) - stranded on the planet, staying hidden from the gadje, surviving by theft and trickery. Of course, their magic is real - the Liaden series is filled with psychic powers - but that's all.

There could have been an interesting problem here, since these Bedel are too few to survive inbreeding (this is the far future, but there's no cloning technology, apparently) but won't integrate for fear of losing their unique culture. My sympathies are always with integration, myself, but none of this was really addressed, anyway.

Of course, if you want ideas, this isn't the series for you. These are appealing people in colorful circumstances, with a healthy dose of sentiment (not romance, not in this particular book, at least) and psychic magic. It's a quick, easy, entertaining read, but you don't want to take it very seriously.

In fact, Necessity's Child has a few situations which are so unbelievable that I felt rather stupid for even liking the book. I did like it - it's lots of fun - but even with this kind of book, there's a limit to what I'm willing to swallow.

For example (avoiding spoilers, as much as possible), twice in this book there are cases of instant attraction - not sexual - which seem to make no sense at all. I could buy it - just - in the child's case, as the bored, lonely child was desperate for a playmate. After all, their culture embraced fostering children in other homes, so he was brought up to think that was normal (if not exactly the way he went about it). But in the other, in a particularly suspicious society which shunned anyone outside their own culture, it was just completely ridiculous.

The end of the book makes no sense, either. How could Clan Korval survive so long if they were that stupid? Even today, government officials would be acutely aware of the danger, and in this storyline, they'd already had abundant evidence of that kind of malice.

I don't want to go into details, because I do want to avoid spoilers. But even in this kind of book - romantic-fantasy science fiction, basically, a sort of feel-good tear-jerker set on another planet, far in some magical future - where we don't expect much in the way of logic or intriguing ideas, these are big flaws - at least, for me.

If you're a fan of the series, I suspect that you'll like this book. After all, it does very well what the series does very well. And I enjoyed it, myself. But when I finish a book rather embarrassed that I did enjoy it, I'd say there's something wrong.

Maybe this won't bother you, but it did me.

___
Note: See here for more book reviews.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?

This article begins by talking about the wild conspiracy theories surrounding the Boston Marathon bombings, but I thought this overall view of conspiracy thinking was particularly interesting:
Why are some people so quick to believe in conspiracy theories? In part, many conspiracy theorists don't consider themselves conspiracy theorists. They don't see themselves as the caricatured, tinfoil hat-wearing loons. Instead, they see themselves as patriots and independent thinkers who are smart enough to see through the lies put out by the government and its news media stooges.

Often those who promote conspiracy theories frame them as simply asking legitimate questions — and who can deny that everyone has the right to ask questions of their government and news media? The problem is that the questions they ask are often non-questions that can be (and have been) easily answered. Conspiracy theorists prefer complex mysteries over simple truths, and so they find mystery where none exists. [my emphasis] ...

People who embrace and promote conspiracy theories do so for a reason — typically because it bolsters their (often anti-government) social or political agendas. Conspiracy theories don't emerge in a vacuum; instead, there are people who are simply waiting for each new tragedy to occur so that they can frame it in a way that suits their purposes. For example, many people seized upon the Sandy Hook massacre as a faked event staged to rally public support for stricter gun control laws.

They seek out what appear to be contradictions or holes in "the official story." Conspiracy theorist websites offer "suspicious" examples and evidence, ranging from real or perceived contradictions in eyewitness accounts to conflicting news reports. But what the conspiratorial mind sees as misinformation and lies, others see as merely perfectly ordinary incomplete and inaccurate information following a chaotic tragedy. Eyewitnesses can be confused and mistaken, police officers and reporters can make errors, or repeat information that is corrected after further investigation.

Part of the reason that conspiracy theories linger is that any contradictory evidence — no matter how conclusive or compelling — can just be dismissed by claiming that it's part of the cover-up.

I regularly seem to encounter conspiracy fans, and this describes them exactly. No matter how crazy - and I mean crazy - their beliefs, they think of themselves as being rational skeptics, as opposed to the 'sheeple' who've bought the government's lies.

It might be the Moon Landing, it might be 9/11, it might be Barack Obama's birth certificate, but whatever it is, they're absolutely convinced that they're the sane ones. And really, there seems to be nothing too crazy for conspiracy fans. (They don't all choose the same conspiracy to believe, of course. That usually depends on their political leanings.)

The other thing I've noticed is that they all seem to be thrilled with being one of the few smart enough to see the 'Truth' and brave enough to fight the powers behind their chosen conspiracy. It's apparently lots of fun to be a conspiracy theorist. You might be an insignificant little person in real-life, but in your imagination, you're a brave freedom-fighter facing long odds against the powers who really control this planet.

I'm sure that's why it's so appealing. It's just human nature. And that means we'll probably never see the end of these things, don't you think?

The aftermath of gun control in Australia

The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesIndecision Political HumorThe Daily Show on Facebook

This is the third and final segment of this series (the others are here and here), and... what can I say that I haven't already said? How about that "I felt I had a bit of a duty to the rest of our society"? How crazy is that,... by American standards?

"People are the problem." No kidding! That's why we don't let people get their hands on nuclear bombs - indeed, why we restrict access to explosives of all kinds (except for gunpowder, of course, which is what the Boston Marathon bombers used).

That's why we have laws. That's why we have regulations. People are the problem,... but we're supposed to be the solution, too. Even conservatives in Australia seem to understand that. Why not here in America?

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Bassem Youssef

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

Bassem Youssef is a brave guy - I mean, a really brave guy! He's risking not just his liberty, but his life. And it's a very real risk, too.

I am full of admiration for people like this. And there are people, all across the Muslim world, who are bravely fighting for basic civil rights, everyone from Malala Yousafzai in Pakistan to atheist bloggers in Bangladesh.

These people face deadly danger in an environment where even innocent dancing can be a crime. And Youssef isn't just angering the religious nuts in Egypt, but the government, too.

I couldn't do it. I wouldn't do it, at least. I'm not as brave as him, or as any of these people. If I were Bassem Youssef, I'd get the hell out of Egypt. He's funny enough to get a job anywhere, and he could always make fun of the Egyptian government over the internet (though not nearly as effectively).

The least we can do is support these people as best we can. That's not much, maybe, but the U.S. government does have influence, and so do democratic governments everywhere. Unfortunately, our governments tend to be willing to trade lives for their own convenience, so we citizens of free countries need to hold them accountable.

We need to pay attention, and we need to express our concerns. That's the least we can do.