Jaclyn becomes an atheist

I posted a video of Jaclyn Glenn about a week ago, her "coming out" as a liberal. But I didn't realize at the time - not until I was just idly browsing her other videos (hey, I was eating lunch!) - that she's pretty much a brand-new atheist.

Just a year and a half ago, she posted this video as a Christian, if a very liberal one:



But five months later, she's become an agnostic - and one who is tired of the whole debate on religion. Can't we all just get along?

She's definitely not going to be posting about religion anymore! "I'm done talking about religion. I'm bored with it. I'm moving on with my life."



Well, just five months after that, it's "Message to Christians: BACK THE F*CK OFF!" I had to laugh. Not only is Jaclyn still posting about religion, she's mincing no words. In fact, she's even been taking on Ray Comfort in recent videos.



OK, I do think this is funny, but it's inspiring, too. Like the vast majority of us, Jaclyn was raised a Christian. She even attended Catholic schools.

As with many young people, it was the Catholic Church stance on social issues which turned her off. But she didn't abandon Christianity, not then. After all, it's easy enough to find a Christian church which will agree with you, pretty much whatever you want to believe.

And in decades past, that would have probably been the end of it. She would have settled in quite happily as a liberal Christian.

But now we've got the Internet. Now, we atheists are coming out of the closet. And we've got a good argument, if I do say so myself.

Agnosticism is the next obvious step. Of course, you can be an agnostic and an atheist (I am). They're not mutually exclusive. Sure, no one can know for sure (the agnostic position), but atheism is about belief. Does it make sense to believe without good evidence?

If you don't believe in Islam or Hinduism without good evidence, why would you make an exception for Christianity? If you don't believe in leprechauns or werewolves, because there's no good evidence that they exist, why would you make an exception for gods, angels, or demons?

Not everyone makes it this far, because it's hard. It's hard for most people to reject what they've been taught all their life, especially when you really, really want to believe it. (And who really wants to die?) It takes courage, and it takes intellectual honesty.

Not everyone is willing to accept... reality. But this kind of deconversion is happening more and more often these days. So I thought this was kind of inspiring. Don't you agree?

Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument

This is philosophy professor Peter Millican, responding to Christian apologist William Lane Craig. You can watch the full debate between them here.

Bill Nye: firebrand for science

I've never watched Bill Nye's television show - he was long after my time as a kid. But I like him. I like his attitude, and I like his passion for science. He doesn't seem to give an inch to ignorant, anti-science loons.

Why Republicans are having hysterics about Obamacare

Do you wonder why Republicans are still having hysterics about 'Obamacare'? Indeed, after a huge loss in last November's election, they're not just continuing to fight against the new law, they're threatening to shut down our government and/or default on America's debts, unless they get their own way.

But Republicans have good reasons - political reasons - to be scared to death of Obamacare, which a few recent articles have made abundantly clear.

First, let me remind you that 'Obamacare' was originally the Republican health care plan. It was developed by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, as the free-market, insurance company-friendly alternative to the single-payer health care plans of other developed nations.

Mitt Romney, of course, pushed through a state version of the plan in Massachusetts, and he was widely praised for that. But it wasn't just him. This plan - mandates and all - was supported by Republicans right up until the moment that the Democrats agreed to 'compromise' (as Democratic compromises tend to go) by agreeing with the Republicans lock, stock, and barrel.

Almost instantly, it became 'socialism' to the GOP. Why? Well, the Republicans had vowed, before Barack Obama even took office, to do nothing which might help the country while he was president.

'Obamacare' became a political football because Republicans were terrified that, after the deeply unpopular George W. Bush had crashed our economy in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, that Obama might become another Franklin D. Roosevelt by pulling us out of it again.

Right from the start, polls showed that Americans - even Republicans - widely supported most of the provisions in the bill. It was only when these things were labeled 'Obamacare' that the response changed.

Indeed, more Republicans than Democrats have signed up for one popular provision in the bill:

Obamacare may have become a partisan issue, but more Republicans than Democrats have signed up for one of its most popular provisions, according to a survey published Wednesday.

The survey also pokes holes in the idea that most 20-somethings act like “Young Invincibles” who believe they don’t need health insurance. ...

They found that by last March, 63 percent of young adults identifying as Republicans had enrolled in a parent’s health plan in the last 12 months, compared to 45 percent of those who considered themselves Democrats. About 26 percent of the 1,800 adults surveyed said they were Republicans, 28 percent said they were Democrats and the rest either said they were independent, some other party, or did not say. ...

Overall, 15 million 19-to-25-year-olds, or about half of all Americans this age, are on their parents’ health plan, the report says.

The individual mandate - which was an integral part of the plan even when it was still the Republican health care plan - is much less popular, of course, just as taxes are less popular than the provisions they pay for. But try asking people if they think insurance companies should still be able to cancel your policy if you get sick!

And what do polls show about the plan even when it is labeled 'Obamacare'?

A majority of Americans still oppose the nation's new health care measure, three years after it became law, according to a new survey.

But a CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also indicates that more than a quarter of those who oppose the law, known by many as Obamacare, say they don't support the measure because it doesn't go far enough.

According to the poll, 43% of the public says it supports the health care law, a figure that's mostly unchanged in CNN polling since the measure was passed in 2010 by a Congress then controlled by Democrats and signed into law by President Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent of those questioned say they oppose the law, also relatively unchanged since 2010.

The survey indicates that 35% oppose the health care law because it's too liberal, with 16% saying they oppose the measure because it isn't liberal enough.

You hear a lot of Republicans touting that first line, but none of them mention the fact that only 35% of Americans oppose 'Obamacare' because it's too liberal. Many of us - like me - would have preferred a plan more like those in nearly every other developed nation.

This is, after all, a right-wing health care plan. (Still, it's a whole lot better than nothing, I'd say.)

But it's not just the 35% support which has Republican politicians increasingly hysterical. Younger Americans are the most widely supportive of 'Obamacare,' while the oldest Americans - who already enjoy their own government-run health care (which they nearly unanimously love) - are the most opposed.

How do you think that sounds to Republican politicians? They're already losing younger Americans, while their most fervent supporters are dying off. (Let's face it, it's a lot easier to scare old people.) Do you wonder why they're getting hysterical?

But there's more:

The main takeaway from an exhaustive new study of premiums on the Obamacare health insurance marketplaces: They’re generally going to be lower than expected, undercutting the persistent claims of “rate shock” by conservatives.

Marketplaces premiums are coming in below initial estimates, said the nonprofit, nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation in a new report released Thursday.

The expected monthly premium for a 40-year-old adult purchasing a silver-level plan (the baseline, which covers 70 percent of costs) on a marketplace had been $320, according to previous projections from the Congressional Budget Office. But in 15 of the 18 regions studied by Kaiser, the average premium will be below that — thus the study’s conclusion that the prices are going to be lower than anticipated.

“While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected,” the authors wrote. [Note: Those are premiums before any government rebate, too.]

The study does not compare marketplace premiums with current prices in the individual insurance market. Instead, that conclusion is based on how released prices are comparing to previous projections for coverage costs under Obamacare. It follows a report last week by RAND, which suggested that claims of premium increases had been overstated.

If Kaiser’s estimates bear out, it could be a big blow to one of the main conservative talking points against the Affordable Care Act: rate shock. Everybody from House Republicans to think tank types like the Manhattan Institute’s Avik Roy and the Heritage Foundation have been warning that consumers would see skyrocketing prices under the law.

Republicans are good at scaring people. But what happens if the sky doesn't, after all their hype, fall? If they don't stop Obamacare before it's implemented, many Americans will likely realize how Republicans lied to them.

Then there's this:

Perhaps nobody was more responsible for making Obamacare a partisan bill than Mitch McConnell. During the grueling debate that began in 2009, the Senate minority leader worked harder than anyone else to ensure no Republican voted for health care reform.

It wasn’t just moderates like Maine’s Olympia Snowe, who voted for the bill in committee, who wanted to play ball with the new president. It was conservatives like Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, who endorsed the dreaded individual mandate that June, and Utah’s Bob Bennett, who cosponsored a bill that year with an individual mandate. The White House and top Democrats spent months trying to win GOP votes, offering senators all sorts of enticements, but failed to overcome McConnell’s whip operation. That solidified the unanimous GOP opposition in the House, where the party had been reduced to a largely irrelevant — and deeply conservative — rump. ...

The strategy worked wonders in 2010 when the conservative uproar against Obamacare — fueled by McConnell’s scorched-earth strategy — gave Republicans huge victories in Congress. But things change, and the political calculus is altered.

The law was upheld by the Supreme Court and validated by the re-election of President Barack Obama. The public has grown tired of continual budget crisis brinkmanship. McConnell still fights the fight. Obamacare, he told his constituents a few weeks ago, is the “single worst piece of legislation passed in the last 50 years in the country.” But ever the pragmatist, he knows an all-out assault on the Affordable Care Act to the exclusion of all other political considerations would be a political disaster for his party. And so, in a brutal irony reminiscent of Mary Shelley’s novel “Frankenstein,” the monster McConnell created has turned against him and is threatening to end his political life.

The Kentuckian is now fending off a strong conservative challenger for re-election in 2014 — his first since Obamacare became law. The candidate, Louisville businessman Matt Bevin, is calling on McConnell to back up his fiery rhetoric against Obamacare by threatening to shut down the government at the end of this month unless Democrats agree to defund it. ...

It’s far from clear conservatives will be able to defeat the well-funded incumbent. But if they succeed, McConnell will, in a way, have given life to the creature that brought about his own demise. Obamacare could have been a controversial but bipartisan expansion of the safety net, like Medicare and Social Security — the law was, after all, modeled on conservative ideas constructed by the Heritage Foundation and first implemented by Mitt Romney. The right-wing furor would have been less severe, the GOP less motivated to paint the law as an existential threat to freedom, and the party likelier to make its peace with it. But the GOP leader’s big gamble to co-opt the nascent tea party movement precluded that scenario. And as a result, the health care law has become an existential threat to his career.

Even by adopting a Republican plan, Democrats couldn't get a single Republican vote. That's because this was always about politics (and - let's be honest - about racism, too).

At the worst of the economic collapse, when the economy looked to have no bottom, before Barack Obama had even been sworn into office, Republicans vowed they'd do nothing to help our first black president. They were going to put politics above country, and that's exactly what they did.

In the short-term, they benefited from that (although America did not). But what will happen in the long-term?

This reminds me of the Republican 'Southern strategy,' years ago. When the Democratic Party decided to do the right thing in supporting civil rights, despite what it would do to them politically, the Republicans decided to do the wrong thing, the cynical thing, the political thing.

With that notorious Southern strategy, they deliberately wooed white racists. And it was hugely successful. They took the entire South from the Democrats. All those old Dixiecrats became Republicans, and the resulting political power let the new Dixiecrat/Republican Party dominate nationally for decades.

They used that power to drag America to the far-right, culminating in George W. Bush and the solid control of all three branches of the federal government. But in the long-run, putting all of America's crazies into one political party has turned the whole party crazy.

The GOP lost African American and Hispanic voters, of course. But they also lost the Northeast (except for Wall Street), which had been a long-time stronghold. Moderates have left the party in droves, and that's meant that the far-right fanatics, the racists, the fundamentalists, the... loons have just gained even more power.

The Dixiecrats, the John Birchers, the Tea Party types - those are now the Republican base. Republican leaders thought to use those people for their own political advantage, but now those people control the party. That's turning off everyone else - and especially young people.

Republicans had hysterics about 'Obamacare' because they thought hysterics would be good for them politically. After all, how easy would it be to scare white Americans about a black president? But now, hysterics has become a political necessity, both in the short term and the long term.

In the short term, if they're not sufficiently hysterical, they'll face a primary challenge in the GOP itself. After all, when extremists gain power, you just can't be too extreme.

But in the long term, young people are abandoning the GOP. And if they can't sabotage Obamacare now, that's likely to turn into a flood, as people discover that Chicken Little was wrong. Yeah, they might hang on to old racists, but there are fewer of those every year.

So it's really not too surprising that Republican politicians are having hysterics, is it?

Truth vs make-believe

Aron Ra is a strange-looking guy with a weird name, but he's a great speaker who knows what he's talking about.

You've heard me say this before, but I care about the truth of my beliefs. I need to have good reasons to think my beliefs are true, and if they're not true, I want to know that, so I can change them.

So I examine my beliefs critically. I know I could be wrong, so I'm always testing my beliefs. I ask myself how I know what I think I know, and I talk to people who disagree with me and listen to what they have to say.*

The faith-based don't seem to care whether their beliefs are true or not. (Indeed, I've often had them tell me that.) They just want to believe what they want to believe. Well, if you don't care if your beliefs are true or not, they're almost certainly not.

One of the things I liked about this video was the contrasting quotes from William Jennings Bryan, a faith-based Christian and politician, and Carl Sagan, atheist and scientist.

William Jennings Bryan:

"If the Bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it."

"One miracle is just as easy to believe as another."

"If we have to give up either religion or education, we should give up education."

Carl Sagan:

"[The] only sacred truth [in science] is that there are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts - no matter how fond of it we are - must be discarded or revised."

Which stance seems more reasonable to you?

___
* For example, I've had a conversation with a theist recently, someone who sent me a private message on YouTube. But while I keep doing my best to answer his questions and reply to his points, he just ignores mine.

It's not really a dialogue, because he doesn't seem to pay any attention to what I say. When I counter his arguments, he just ignores it. When I ask him a question, he doesn't bother to reply.

He claims that he could refute my "errors in theology and history" if he wanted. He also claims that he has "very good reasons" for his belief. But that's as far as it goes. He doesn't actually bother to refute my "errors" or to tell me what those reasons are.

Yeah, it's been a complete waste of time. But what can I do? I can listen to what people have to say, but I can't make them say something useful - especially if they don't have anything useful to say.

Republican congressman fuels Egyptian conspiracy theories

TPM noted this two months ago, and I've been meaning to blog about it since then. They called it The Weirdest Story in the History of the World:

I noticed what I have to say is one of the most fascinating and weirdest developments in Egypt’s now week long coup/revolution/uprisingthing. There are a lot of people in Egypt who aren’t just mad at Morsi and upset with the US for not more forcefully supporting his ouster. Many actually think the US is actively supporting a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the country. And just to be certain we’re crystal clear: I don’t mean supporting Morsi and the Brotherhood as the legitimate government because they won a fairly free national election. I mean a conspiracy to help the Brotherhood take over the country, even to the extent of rigging the election that brought him to power.

This is actually something we covered in some depth last year. But the best capsule summary I’ve found is this piece by Robert Mackey in the Times’ Lede blog. The upshot is this: we all know all the whackadoodle conspiracy theories from the right about Obama being a secret Muslim. But there’s also a more specific sub-whackadoodlism pushed by members of Congress and a group of DC-based Islamophobe activists that argues that the Obama administration has actually been infiltrated by Islamists in sympathy with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Like I said, we covered this last year and I remembered it pretty vividly. But I didn’t grasp until this weekend how far it had spread within Egypt or how prevalent an assumption it had become within the anti-Morsi protest community.

Most of this comes from the Frank Gaffney world, allied with the usual suspects in Congress: Gohmert, Bachmann, et al. You’ll probably remember the charges about Huma Abedin, Hillary’s Clinton’s longtime assistant/advisor and, weirdly enough, Anthony Weiner’s wife. There’s been a long series of accusations that she’s a Brotherhood plant at the heart of Obama administration foreign policy making. The charges became so widespread that John McCain felt it necessary to go to the Senate floor to defend her.

There are many, many other examples of this kind of craziness. Abedin is only one high-profile example. But the key point is that what most of us here take as fringe Crazy has germinated into a full-fledged set of conspiracy theories in Egypt, perhaps one of the most astounding Internet era feedback loops yet seen.

Get this? Both sides in Egypt hate us, both sides think we're helping their enemies, because of lunatic stuff coming from Republican congressmen - leaders in the Republican Party, not just random crazies.

Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood hates us, because they're not crazy enough to believe this stuff - crazy, yes, but not that crazy. But that's how conspiracy theories work, isn't it? It's never a conspiracy to help your side, but always something you oppose.

But their opponents hate us, too, because crazy talk from Republican lunatics has convinced them that we're secretly on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood! Indeed, not just that, but that we've intervened (past actions of the CIA have made almost anything plausible to foreign nationals) to put them in power in Egypt!

Obviously, that's batshit crazy, but Egyptians probably don't know a whole lot more about us than we know about them. Sure, no one in America with two brain cells to rub together pays any attention to what Louie Gohmert or Michele Bachmann says, but all Egyptians see is that they're among the leaders of our country.

Heck, Bachmann even ran for president last year! She was even leading in Republican polls at one point. (Apparently, there are a lot of people in America who don't have two brain cells to rub together.) And they both get elected to help lead our nation at (nearly) the highest levels. They may be crazy, but there's a lot of crazy people in America who support them.

Do they believe the crazy stuff they say? Who knows? Either way, they're still in good standing in the Republican Party. These days, crazy isn't a problem for a Republican politician. Furthermore, even mainstream Republican leaders will say anything, do anything, and support anyone who attacks our president, no matter how crazy it is and no matter what it does to our country.

(Although I must give John McCain credit for defending Huma Abedin, I should note that, in many other ways, he's done everything he could to woo the far-right crazies, since he faced a primary challenge in his own party the last time he sought re-election.)

If Egyptians actually believe it, well, then it must be working, right? What this does to our standing in the world, what this does to our ability to influence other countries, what this does to our efforts to promote peace in the Middle East,... none of that matters to the GOP. (Well, when you're willing to destroy our economy just for political advantage, what won't you do?)

It used to be that both political parties put America first. Oh, they were always ambitious for political power, sure. But there were limits to what they'd do for political gain. They wouldn't actually harm America just to further their own political ambition.

Well, when it comes to today's Dixiecrat Republican Party, those days are gone. Those limits are gone. Now, they'll do anything to gain political power again. If they have to damage our country in order to gain political points, they'll do it. They don't even hesitate these days.

Think of it as phase two in the American Civil War. They lost the first time, in the 1800s, and they lost again when it came to racial segregation. But they haven't stopped fighting. (And they might even be winning in the war on women.)

Nothing makes sense without it

(Jesus and Mo)

Likewise, scapegoating Jesus on a cross makes no sense - even if you believe that punishing someone else can magically absolve your crimes, even before you commit them - without believing that whole fairy tale in the Garden of Eden.

I know a lot of Christians who aren't crazy enough to believe that primitive story in Genesis, but - somehow - they still believe that Jesus had to be sacrificed to make up for it. Of course, they're not thinking it through.

The whole point of scapegoating - a primitive practice which pretty much no one accepts today - is that you magically transfer your sins (often to a goat, thus the name) and then drive off or kill the creature, to take your sins away. But big sins might require a human sacrifice, rather than just killing an animal.

And for really big sins, like that of Adam and Eve in the Garden, even a human sacrifice isn't big enough. (After all, God killed every man, woman, and child on Earth, nearly, in the Great Flood, and that wasn't enough, apparently.)

No, the whole point of Jesus was that you needed to sacrifice a god in order to do magic that powerful.

Well, maybe that made sense to primitive goat-herders who believed in magic and in scapegoats, but it certainly doesn't today. We've grown beyond that.

But if you don't believe that Garden of Eden story literally happened - Adam and Eve, the talking snake, eating the forbidden fruit, the whole bit - then Jesus doesn't make any sense even by those standards.

Of course, making sense isn't a requirement for religions, is it?

Xenonauts - initial impression

(screenshots all from Steam)

Yesterday, I inhaled a bacon and tomato sandwich - literally - and as I was coughing and gasping for breath, all I could think was that I didn't want to choke to death right as I was downloading a new game!

Luckily, I didn't. :)

That game was Xenonauts, a "strategic planetary defense simulator," which is still in development, but available - and playable - on Steam for $19.99. To say that it's an X-COM clone understates the case. In everything but the name, it is X-COM - which, of course, is absolutely wonderful!

Obviously, I'm talking about the original X-COM: UFO Defense, not the recent remake, XCOM: Enemy Unknown. As I said then, I would have been happy to buy the original game all over again, if they'd just updated the graphics slightly and added more combat maps.

Well, as far as I can tell from a few hours play, that's Xenonauts in a nutshell. To avoid legal issues, the names of everything are different, but the game is pretty much identical. The graphics aren't cutting edge, but you don't play this game for the graphics. And you'll never run out of combat maps, because the community is already developing new maps.

If you're not familiar with the original X-COM, check out this post. Yeah, it's three years old, back when I'd first started this blog, and some of the illustrations are missing. But it still describes the game well enough.

And Xenonauts is all that, plus it's made to run on modern computers, plus it adds a few additional refinements. These aren't things which change the gameplay at all, but just improve on the whole experience. For example, you can create and save default equipment loadouts, and your troops will automatically equip themselves that way before each battle.

Also, there's suppressive fire now. Even if you don't hit an enemy, you can throw enough lead - or plasma - its way to affect its abilities. The game has flashbang grenades now, too, which will do the same thing.

Note that you decide which soldiers to hire and what equipment they'll use. If you want a sniper, you decide who takes on that role and you decide what equipment he'll carry. And you've got all the information you need to make intelligent choices.

Keep in mind that I've barely started this game. And note that it's still in development, still in beta, so not everything has been implemented. But so far, everything I liked in the original X-COM is in this game (only better). And everything I disliked about the recent XCOM remake is fixed in this one (meaning, mostly, that it's just like it was in the original game).

You can build multiple bases, and you decide the layout. (As in the original game, the first one starts with the buildings you need right away.) Your soldiers all have stats, and when you hire more, you can choose among many applicants. Right from the start, you can fit eight soldiers on your transport (with luck, there will be even bigger transports later).

Ground combat takes a long time, and it's very strategic. But you don't have to track down that last remaining enemy on the map. If you want, you can merely capture the enemy vessel and hold it for five turns. (That's another improvement over the original game, though I haven't take advantage of it, myself.)

Keep in mind that I've barely started the game, so these are just my initial impressions. I've only seen one alien species, so far. I have no idea how the difficulty ramps up, what alien equipment we'll be able to research, or anything like that.

And, as I say, this game is still in development. There's no tutorial and not much in the way of instructions. (Search for "Xenonauts" on YouTube for some examples of the gameplay.) I don't know what the final game will cost when it's released, but if you buy this developmental version, your game will be updated with each new release.

But so far, this is X-COM, one of the best computer games ever made. Xenonauts isn't fancy. It's been developed by an indie game developer, with funding from Kickstarter, not by a huge corporation. (From Kickstarter, it received more than three times as much in pledges as it asked for, which shows you how much gamers love the original.)

OK, if you know me at all, you'll know that I needed a new game like I need a hole in my head. I don't have time to play the games I've got now. But I couldn't pass up this one. I missed the Kickstarter campaign, or I would have pledged then. Come on, this is X-COM!

___
PS. Check here for more comments on this and other games.

The disaster that's anti-science politicians

A great idea, don't you think?

"Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is incredibly dangerous." "Sen. David Vitter is turning out to be one of the hugest and costliest disasters in American history." "Sen. James Inhofe has turned out to be a worst case scenario come true. And now an entire nation is wondering how they'll ever recover from the disaster that is James Inhofe."

The petition is here.

Sequels

(all cover images from Amazon.com)

I'm still reading quite a bit, but it's just light-weight entertainment. And these are all sequels in series fiction, most of which I've written about before, so I don't have too much to say about any of them. (I can hear the sighs of relief already.)

Taken (2012) by Benedict Jacka, for example, is the third in his Alex Verus series of urban fantasy. Like the first two, this one is lots of fun, but it's not much different. (If you're not familiar with the series, please read my comments about the earlier books.)

The characters are still appealing - not just Verus, but Luna and Sonder (and Arachne), too. And the Dark mage/Light mage split still reminds me of America's political parties, where the Democrats tend to be almost as infuriating as the Republicans, though for different reasons.

In my comments about Cursed, I wondered if it wasn't too much like the first book in the series. Well, this one does move the series forward, a bit, as we see Luna learning about magic as an apprentice. I really liked that.

Also, this book introduces two more young mages who might become regulars in the series, too. I would be very glad of that, if so. The thing is, we already know what Alex Verus can do, and to see him do it over and over again is likely to get old (though it hasn't yet).

True, he often uses unique one-shot magical items, so those can surprise us. But I think it's his allies who'll keep the series fresh. Of course, I like that kind of thing anyway. I always have. I enjoy heroes who work with other people. Superheroes don't interest me.

Persona Non Grata (2009) by Ruth Downie is the third in her historical mystery series staring the Roman doctor, Gaius Petreius Ruso, and his British lover, Tilla, both struggling to get by, and to understand each other, in the Europe of 2000 years ago.

This time, Ruso is called back to his dysfunctional family in Gaul, and Tilla hates everything about it. Yeah, it's a pretty nasty place, where violence is a spectator sport and politics,... well, you might hate politics now, but I'm very thankful we live in the 21st Century!

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of humor in this book. If you're familiar with the series, you'll know what to expect. If not, read my comments on the first two books. (Note that I recommend you read all of these series in order of publication.) But it's kind of depressing, too.

You see, I don't normally read historical fiction, because I know enough of history to be aware of the terrible things which lie in the future for people back then. (On the other hand, I love alternate history because the future of those worlds hasn't happened yet, thus there's always the chance things will be better.)

In this case, it's historical fiction, so we know there's a thousand years of the Dark Ages ahead, and centuries more before humanity really starts to progress. And things are pretty bad for most people already!

OK, this is a mystery, but it's a mystery in a historical setting, so it's not the kind of thing I normally read. The fact that I enjoy this series is pretty remarkable then, don't you think? But the characters are great. And I can't help but wonder what will happen to them next. (Their relationship has been evolving, slowly, from book to book.)

Finally, I wanted to mention another mystery I read weeks ago, but just never got around to reviewing. Midnight Fugue (2009) by Reginald Hill is the last in his long-running Dalziel and Pascoe series (unfortunately, Hill died early last year).

I've read - and loved - the entire series, but I haven't blogged about it previously, since this is the first one I've read since I started blogging a little more than three years ago. I actually watched a BBC television production of the first book, A Clubbable Woman, first, years ago. But it so caught my attention that I had to track down the book. And then the rest of the series.

Andy Dalziel is a crude, fat, heavy-drinking Yorkshireman who's from an earlier era of policing. Peter Pascoe, his assistant, is well-educated and well-mannered, a modern detective and a completely different kind of person. And as the series continued, a whole bunch of other characters - recurring characters - were introduced, most notably Sergeant Edgar Wield.

The funny thing is, I doubt I'd like any of them if I met them in real life. Dalziel, in particular, would seem like the worst kind of person to put in any kind of authority. But I'm not sure I'd like Pascoe much better. And his (eventual) wife, Ellie,... well, I could never understand the attraction there.

But all of these people have good qualities about them. Sometimes (with Dalziel, for example) it's pretty well hidden. But they all become very sympathetic. In fact, I'd have to say they're some of the best characters in fiction, not just mystery fiction. I really cared what happened to all of them.

As the series continued, new characters helped keep the whole thing fresh. In fact, I was rather disappointed at later books in the series which didn't involve the minor characters much, which were too much Dalziel or Pascoe. And there have been other flaws, too, occasionally. But that's just nitpicking, because this is easily my favorite mystery series (and I've enjoyed other books by Reginald Hill, as well).

You very definitely need to read this series in order, so it's kind of ironic that my first post is about the very last book, isn't it? Well, all I'm going to say is that this is a fitting end to the series.

Dalziel has been out of action for awhile - in a coma for one book, then on convalescent leave - and Pascoe has taken over for him. Now, Dalziel wonders if he can take charge again, or if he's just going to be a fat old man, struggling to maintain his authority. And Pascoe has been running things for awhile, so he's not exactly eager to become a subordinate again, either. (Pascoe is not the same guy he was at the start of this series. That's neat, too.)

Time passes, and nothing lasts forever. That's an appropriate thought for the last book in a series, isn't it? I've loved this series, but it was always going to end sometime. As are we.

As far as the mystery here goes, I enjoyed it. I don't particularly like these kinds of endings (I won't say any more about it than that), but that's just personal preference. I don't read these books for the mystery, anyway. I read them for the characters.

But it was the underlying theme here which really made the book special. This really was a fitting end to the series. We even got to see some of the minor characters from the series, and that was particularly nice, for the last one.

I'm sorry it's over, but... that's life. (And I'll be equally sorry - and equally resigned - when my life is over, I'm sure.)

Looking great

(Savage Chickens)

Or maybe your eyes are just getting worse. Well, it's all good, right? :)

Jaclyn comes out as a liberal

This isn't new, since it was first posted almost a year ago, but I thought it was funny. And inspiring. I mean, look at Jaclyn and then look at her grandfather. That's progress, don't you think?

I noticed that she didn't tell him she was an atheist. That's how I discovered her videos. (I was just wasting time tonight, which is why I went back and watched some older ones.)

I can understand it. There's really no sense in getting the old fart too upset. Of course, no one should have to live a lie, but it's not always necessary to volunteer everything, either. Either way, I'm not going to second-guess anyone on that decision, whether to come out of the closet or stay inside.

She's very definitely out of the closet on YouTube, and she doesn't mince words. She's funny - and easy on the eyes, of course. But she doesn't mind offending people. It's an entertaining combination.

I enjoy her videos, but this is the one I had to post. This is the one that really struck me. There's a lot of love between Jaclyn and her grandfather, but a lot of mutual incomprehension, too.

Of course, I'm not sure how much of this can be attributed to age. I suspect that her grandfather was always crazy as a loon. But then, I don't know. It's hard to even imagine him as a young man, isn't it?

Faith over facts on Bullshit Mountain

Faith-based people don't change very much, do they? The truth of their beliefs doesn't really matter, since they're going to believe them, anyway.

I posted a video clip of that Reza Aslan interview a month ago, so I wanted to post this follow-up. But also, I was struck by how similar to those ancient Christians Fox 'News' is today.

Of course, for Fox, the bottom line is money - even more than political influence. But still, facts mean nothing. Reality means nothing. What's important is what they want to believe - and what they want you to believe, too.

They'll use facts if the facts back them up. But the facts rarely back them up, so what are they going to do? They certainly won't change their mind! No, they'll just believe anyway,... and either deny the facts, or lie about them, or make up new 'facts.'

This is faith-based thinking. This is believing what you want to believe, and not really caring if it's actually true. This is Bullshit Mountain.

How evangelists sound to atheists

This is from the Atheist Experience TV show, episode #505, June 17, 2007, with Matt Dillahunty and Don Baker.

It wasn't original with them, of course. It was created by James Huger. You can read the whole thing at his website, if you want.

I'm a liberal because...

Nicely put, Steve! I can't object to any of it.

Narendra Dabholkar - the death of a skeptic

(Manpreet Romana)

From the New York Times:

For nearly three decades, an earnest man named Narendra Dabholkar traveled from village to village in India, waging a personal war against the spirit world.

If a holy man had electrified the public with his miracles, Dr. Dabholkar, a former physician, would duplicate the miracles and explain, step by step, how they were performed. If a sorcerer had amassed a fortune treating infertility, he would arrange a sting operation to unmask the man as a fraud. His goal was to drive a scientist’s skepticism into the heart of India, a country still teeming with gurus, babas, astrologers, godmen and other mystical entrepreneurs.

That mission ended Tuesday, when two men ran up behind Dr. Dabholkar, 67, as he crossed a bridge, shot him at point-blank range, then jumped onto a motorbike and disappeared into the traffic coursing through this city.

Dr. Dabholkar’s killing is the latest episode in a millenniums-old wrestling match between traditionalists and reformers in India. When detectives began putting together a list of Dr. Dabholkar’s enemies, they found that it was long. He had received threats from Hindu far-right groups, been beaten by followers of angry gurus and challenged by councils upholding archaic caste laws. His home state, Maharashtra, was considering legislation he had promoted for 14 years, banning a list of practices like animal sacrifice, the magical treatment of snake bites and the sale of magic stones.

That wrestling match - between science and superstition, between skeptics and true believers, between evidence-based and faith-based thinking - continues everywhere in the world, but a skeptic doesn't risk his life here in America.

Well, all the more reason to recognize the bravery and the sacrifices of people like Dr. Dabholkar then.

And what do his opponents think?

“Instead of dying of old age, or by surgery, which causes a lot of suffering, the death Mr. Dabholkar got today was a blessing from God,” the leader, a former hypnotherapist now known as His Holiness Dr. Jayant Athavale, wrote in an editorial in the organization’s publication, Sanatan Prabhat.

'God' had nothing to do with it. Narendra Dabholkar was murdered by human beings.

Funny how 'God' is so impotent he can't do anything by himself, isn't it? Well, maybe that's not so surprising, given that he can't even demonstrate his own existence.

This is what racism looks like

(Cowgirl Up)

From Cowgirl Up:

This is what racism looks like.

Racism is the utter lack of compassion it takes to see a mother grieving for a boy and afraid for her own sons, and think, “Wow, that would be really easy to tweak in Photoshop to make her look stupid. Wouldn’t that be funny?”

Racism is dehumanizing. Racism robs this woman of her individuality, her humanity, and her gender. “And ain’t I a woman?” This mother ain’t a woman to “The Patriot Nation.” She’s an object to be ridiculed for mistakes she never made; mistakes, in fact, that someone intentionally added to a photo of her for the purpose of mocking her grief and fear.

Racism is someone in front of his computer whose face twists into the same mask of disgust we see in grainy old black and white films of the KKK burning schoolhouses and churches, and instead of a racial slur spilling from his curled-back lips, he sneers, “Sheeple,” or “Socialists,” or “Obamanation,” and he clicks “like” and “share” on this photo because there’s no little switch in his brain to say: “Is this right to do to a human being?” No. The filter turns off when his hate is triggered by this image. And the really scary thing is, that missing filter means he’s also missing the ability to honestly ask himself, “Am I responding this way because of this woman’s race?”

This is also what courage looks like, over there on the left.

This wasn't just to mock this woman, or even black people in general, though it was all of that. This was also to push a political narrative against Barack Obama.

How much of that was racism and how much crazy right-wing partisanship? Well, they go hand in hand, don't they?

Click on the image to enlarge it, if necessary. This was racism and right-wing political ideology and a deliberate lie, all rolled into one (as they so often are). I won't call you a racist for opposing Barack Obama. But I will call you a racist for shrugging off this kind of racism, for political purposes.

Republicans have been using racism for decades. They deliberately wooed white racists with their notorious 'Southern strategy,' because political power meant more to them than doing what was right. It still does, not even close.

If you're willing to shrug that off, then you're probably willing to overlook this, too. Oh, sure, you'll deplore the whole thing when the truth comes out, but only because the truth was discovered. You've seen the racist stuff being passed around. You probably get emails all the time. It make you wince, but you don't really care, do you? Whatever works, right?

Ron Paul deliberately sought support from white supremacists. His racist newsletters gave him both political support and money, and he made a point of wooing white supremacists. His supporters shrug that off. Oh, he really didn't mean it, right? They just don't care. If it works, it works.

This is what racism looks like. If you're willing to use racism for your own benefit, you're a racist. If there's a difference, it's immaterial, at least to me. I don't care if you really mean it or if you're just using racism for your own advantage. As far as I'm concerned, it's the same thing.

And if you're willing to just shrug if off, that's pretty much the same thing, too. Don't try to pretend there's a difference, because it's all ugly.

Replaying Fallout: New Vegas

Looking west towards Mojave Outpost

Yes, just seven months after I finished the main quest in Fallout: New Vegas, I'm back playing the game again. It's just that much fun! (You can read my earlier thoughts about it here.)

It's not that I don't have many, many other games to play. But I just couldn't resist. At first, I thought I'd load up a saved game and try one of the DLC I'd skipped. (Since this game wasn't new, I could buy the "Ultimate Edition," which came complete with all the previously-released downloadable content. Note that the game is dirt cheap these days, especially when it goes on sale at Steam or GamersGate.)

But pretty soon, I just decided to start the whole game all over again. And I'm having a blast! I'm not doing things too differently, but some. I started the first game on Easy difficulty, but I'm on Normal now, right from the start (and I'm not noticing much difference.)

The first time, I focused on Guns as my weapon skill, but I'm using both Guns and Energy Weapons this time. My skill level isn't very high with either, since I'm splitting skill points between them. But that hasn't been a problem, either.

Ranger Station Charlie

And right from the start, I've been finding things I missed the first time. OK, they're just small locations, mostly, but they're still fun. Of course, I know what to expect from the main quests, but I can still do things differently, if I want.

For example, the first time I needed to find Primm a new sheriff, I just reprogrammed their robot to do that. It was quick and easy, and it seemed to work just fine. But the other options offer a lot more gameplay. So, this time, I tried them all before making my decision.

It's funny - if a bit embarrassing - but I was such a bad shot at the start of my first game that I apparently didn't kill anyone when I was helping Goodsprings fight off the Powder Gangers. So the Powder Gangers didn't hate me, and we just ignored each other for the rest of the game.

This time, I did much better, so we were enemies right from the start. And since, this time, I needed to talk to an ex-sheriff at the NCR Correctional Facility, to see if I'd want to hire him as Primm's sheriff, that opened up a whole new area for me.

But sure, most of this has been a replay of what's still fresh in my mind. But it's been fun, anyway. You know, there's a lot of Skyrim I haven't even touched,... but I just couldn't get interested - not even when I tried with a different character. But Fallout: New Vegas is just my kind of game, I guess.

East Las Vegas looks a little sad these days

Most likely, after my character level rises a bit, I'll try some of that DLC. The only one I've played is Old World Blues, and it was just massive. That was a whole game in itself (and you couldn't leave until you finished the quest). But if I want something new, there's a lot more DLC I haven't even touched.

I did take a brief look at Dead Money, but that one didn't appeal to me much. Well, you can't take any equipment inside - or out, I think. And I'm such a scavenger that loot is a big part of this game, for me. Old World Blues gave me some great weapons, but I don't suppose I'll want to play that one again, not yet. But Honest Hearts and Lonesome Road both look interesting.

But I'm a long way from that - my character has just reached level 10 - and who knows how long I'll want to play this, given that I've spent more than 200 hours (228 hours, to be precise) in the game already! And I have a lot of games I want to play.

There's never enough time for everything, is there?

What America is all about

(Jae C. Hong, AP)

The New Mexico Supreme Court this week ruled that a wedding photographer had violated state law by refusing to serve a lesbian couple. TPM has the details here.

The owners of the photography studio argued that their actions were justified as freedom of religion. The high court disagreed. You can read the whole decision here, if you wish.

But I wanted to quote just a brief passage from Justice Richard C. Bosson's concurrence:

On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship. I therefore concur.

Nice, isn't it? This really needs to be more widely understood.

You are "free to think, to say, to believe" as you wish. Absolutely. But we don't live as isolated hermits, each on our own mountaintop. We're social animals. We live together. We survive or not, thrive or not, in groups.

And these days, we live in an advanced society with very diverse people. America, in particular, has thrived on that diversity. That freedom of religion these people are using as their argument was established as a way for diverse people to live together in peace. It was specifically designed as an instrument of tolerance, not intolerance.

You can believe whatever you want, but this is about your conduct, not your beliefs. It's not your business to demand that everyone else follow your own religious beliefs. In fact, that would be turning freedom of religion upside down. Again, freedom of religion is about tolerance, not intolerance.

You can believe that lesbians are going to 'Hell,' if you wish. But that shouldn't influence your conduct towards them. This is a diverse nation. Other people believe differently than you do. So feel free to run your own life, but don't try to run theirs.

If you want to operate a business, you need to treat your customers equally. Fairly. Look at it as the price you pay for civilization. After all, you'll benefit, too. Your neighbors may not like bigots, but you'll still be able to buy the goods and services you need, yourself.

This deserves repeating:

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world.

If we've learned anything from history, it should be this. As an American myself, I find it embarrassing that any of us would think otherwise.

Heck of a job, Republicans!

(Mario Piperni)

My brother sent me this link from TPM:

A significant chunk of Louisiana Republicans evidently believe that President Barack Obama is to blame for the poor response to the hurricane that ravaged their state more than three years before he took office.

The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling, provided exclusively to TPM, showed an eye-popping divide among Republicans in the Bayou State when it comes to accountability for the government's post-Katrina blunders.

Twenty-eight percent said they think former President George W. Bush, who was in office at the time, was more responsible for the poor federal response while 29 percent said Obama, who was still a freshman U.S. Senator when the storm battered the Gulf Coast in 2005, was more responsible. Nearly half of Louisiana Republicans — 44 percent — said they aren't sure who to blame.

Bush was criticized heavily when he did not immediately return to Washington from his vacation in Texas after the storm had reached landfall. The government was also slow to provide relief aid and Michael Brown, then-director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), admitted in a televised interview that he learned that many of the storm's victims at the New Orleans Convention Center were without food and water well after the situation had been reported in the press.

Brown's handling of the response ultimately led to his resignation, but Bush offered an infamous endorsement of the FEMA chief only days before he stepped down.

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," Bush said.

Yes, more Louisiana Republicans blame Barack Obama for our government's response to Hurricane Katrina - more than three years before he took office - than blame George W. Bush. Incredible, isn't it?

And a whopping 44% can't make up their mind whether Obama or Bush are more to blame!

Now, if this were anywhere else in the country, I'd assume that these Republicans simply didn't have a clue what Hurricane Katrina was. But this is Louisiana! They certainly haven't forgotten Hurricane Katrina down there!

But I guess, if there's a black man to blame for anything, they're going to blame the black man, huh? Is there any other explanation? Other than Republicans being completely insane, I mean?

PS. Here's the poll. Apparently, younger voters (ages 18-45) blame George W. Bush more than Barack Obama by nearly two to one (although a whopping 50% don't know who's more to blame).

But Republicans age 65 and older blame Obama more than Bush - for something that happened more than three years before he became president - by 42% to 24%. That's got to be from the lingering racism of those old Dixiecrats, wouldn't you say?

PPS. Here's another poll from the same time period. But while the first was just Louisiana Republicans, this one polls all Louisiana voters. I think the contrast is interesting. Even in such a red state as this, in a formerly Confederate state in the Deep South, Barack Obama has a 41% approval rating (vs 28% for Republican Governor Bobby Jindal).

Of course, 37% of the state is African-American and/or Hispanic. And I think that everything, pretty much, is about race in Louisiana. If you look further down the poll, you can see huge racial disparities in the response to just about every question.

(One big exception, oddly enough, is in background checks for all gun sales. 85% of African Americans support that, but so do 72% of white Louisiana voters and 72% of "other." So, of course, there's not the slightest chance of actually getting that accomplished, is there?)