No Victory

On the Saddam execution

Government in a nutshell

Head of the LAPD Internal Affairs unit had an affair with a subordinate whose job it was to investigate inappropriate sexual relationships.

LINK (use bugmenot.com to login if you really want to read it because you don't believe me since I'm a godless heathen anti-Bush liar)

Also, Jaime Gold is a piece of dooooooooo

Sam Adams Winter Classics Mix Pack

I've become something of a beer snob, but I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Sam Adams (other soft spots include Chipotle, Cal Ripken Jr., Bob Dole, The X-Files, Steve Francis, and my mom), as it was the beer that first started me on the transition towards enjoying good beer. So even though I don't really find the beers in this mix pack to be anything especially wonderful (though my first sip of a fresh cold Boston Lager still makes me weak in the knees) , I'm always excited to pick up the Sam Adams Winter mix.

A few years ago I rated the Winter Lager as probably my favorite beer, but while I still enjoy it, it has fallen far down that list. I really like the Old Fezziwig ale, and would probably now call it my favorite in the mix. I'm always weirded out by the Cranberry Lambic. Sam Adams describes it:

Samuel Adams® Cranberry Lambic is a Belgian-style fruit beer that draws its flavor not just from the cranberries it is brewed with, but also from the unique fermentation character imparted by a rare, wild yeast strain. The result is a flavor rich in fruitiness and reminiscent of cranberries, bananas, cloves, and nutmeg. A subtle cereal note from the malted wheat reminds the drinker that, as fruity a beer as this is, it is still very much a beer. It is made with native cranberries and tastes delicious with traditional holiday favorites such as roasted turkey.

Maybe I'm missing the subtle cereal note.

Jimi Haha?

Is Jimmie's Chicken Shack cool?

Hungry

I already ate a sandwhich at 12, but I'm going to Chipotle anyway. You can't stop me.

I want the new blogger!

The new blogger is somehow out of beta and yet I still don't have the option to switch over. I've been wanting labels for so long, and now google is just straight c-teasing me. My efforts to categorize all of my posts fell apart long ago, but the librarian in me wants to go on an archive labeling binge.

Sigh.

Remember Dennis Prager?

See For Yourself #1 heckler 'check my ip' made his first appearance in response to a post in which I included the words "Dennis Prager" and "brain-dead" in the same sentence. At the time I hadn't mentioned the more well-known proof of Prager's brain-deadness, this brain-dead column about Keith Ellison. (I'm not going to bother responding to it. Here's Ed Brayton on the matter, and I'm sure you can find plenty more criticism of it.)

I bring it up now because the Holocaust Memorial has condemned Prager's remarks. I eagerly await 'check my ip' pointing out how biased the Holocaust Memorial is and saying that it should respect Prager's beliefs.

That's about right

Anyone who criticizes Bush or Cheney should be locked up. This sounds like some people I know. Fascist asshats.

misc 'check my ip' garbage

This entry is to pick at a pair of little bullshit ideas, and should not be confused with my popular series "Rejecting the nonsense from 'check my ip' / part 1 / part 2" which was devoted to tearing down his 5 primary terrible ideas.


Bullshit Idea #1: Everyone who doesn't worship the supreme-alpha-male-in-the-sky is united by some common dogma and/or leadership

'check my ip' says:

In making this useless fight noticeable in every conversation you have just lumps you in another arrogant athiest who wants to shout from the rooftops what he/she belives. Why is this necessary? Why is the lack of respect for any arguments to your contrary necessary? Where did anyone in athiesm teach you this?

Where did anyone in atheism teach me this??? Huh? What on earth is this question supposed to mean? Do you think there's like an atheist gospel? Do you think there's some central leadership? Do I take orders from atheists ranked above me and command a force of lower ranking atheists? Maybe we should set up a goofy little country inside a large European city and command that our blind followers in AIDS-ravaged third world countries never use condoms. Oh wait you already said that because you once bumped into a guy in college who didn't believe in god, it is clear to you that atheism isn't a religion. Clearly.

As Sam Harris has pointed out, "atheist" shouldn't even have to be a word. There are no aZeusists or aThorists or aFlyingSpaghettiMonsterists. But because most of the world is still plagued with superstitious nonsense, we have to have a special word for people who refuse to deny obvious reality. But just because we have a word for people with a common embrace for rationality doesn't mean they all agree on everything.

So let me ask 'check my ip' if I would be correct in assuming that you don't believe in Thor. Assuming that you don't, my next question would be: who in aThorism taught you to spout loads on nonsense on my blog?

Bullshit Idea #2: If you don't do them in a 100% religious way, you shouldn't do holidays at all.

'check my ip' says:

Also, I trust you will be telling everyone at work that you wish to be left out of any holiday activities, right? I mean, even the "Season's greeatings" thing came out of a PC tolerance for other religions. So don't accept any gifts or anything silly like that.

Once again I have trouble even trying to guess what some of this means, but one thing that is clear is that this guy must think that Santa Claus and stockings over a fire and Rudolph and electronics wrapped in shiny paper came straight from the gospel of Matthew. Can you tell me which verse that was?

By the logic of your statement, I should assume that aThorists like you don't acknowledge a weekday between Wednesday and Friday, right? Since "Thursday" is just a tribute to the Norse God of Thunder, I trust you'll be telling everyone at work that you wish to stay at home on Thor's day, right?

Oh wait, things that start out as superstition can become part of culture and gradually lose the original meaning? What an amazing concept!

Virgil Goode (R-VA) = asshole

Greenwald is cutting back on his blogging to work on his next book, but he still knows how to expose a Republican asshole.

SMACK!

Michael Crichton, jurassic prick

The assholes who run this country deserve to be locked up in Gitmo. They'd be among the few people there who actually did anything to hurt America.

Huge obvious jokes

All of these things are absurd hypocrisy or otherwise pathetic:

• "In God We Trust" on US currency
• "Under God" in US Pledge
• Columbus Day celebrated as a national holiday
  
• "Redskins" as the name of the US Capital's NFL football team
• "War on Drugs" but alcohol is legal

They're all so fucking obviously ridiculous. Shouldn't this be embarrassing for everyone?

Best Christmas Song ever

Artist: Trans-Siberian Orchestra
Album: Christmas Eve and Other Stories
Track: Christmas Eve/Sarajevo 12/24

You might recognize it as "that badass version of Carol of the Bells."

Man Beard Blog

Man Beard Blog has taken on an intern and conducted its first product review.

more for 'check my ip'

I've taken a break from rejecting his nonsense, and I'm not sure if I'll continue. But for now, Cara raises some questions for 'check my ip' that I'd also be curious to hear a response about. I kind of doubt I'll get one, but might as well ask.

My rephrasing of Cara's questions for 'check my ip':

1. What is your opinion of the large number of evangelical christians in the US who aggressively seek to impose their faith on others, and who would fully embrace the idea that they're defined by their faith?
2. Are these people worse than adspar? If so, how? If not, how?
3. Do you think they're arrogant ("somehow they know better than all the jews, muslims, other christians, hindus, jains, voodoo-ers, etc and find it necessary to tell us all loudly about it.")?
4. Are these people's actions somehow more defensible because they're trying to "save us"? Do you not think that adspar's intentions are more noble ["warning people that they're wasting their time/money/mind and allowing the "freaks" who do bad things to continue do those things (by not allowing an honest analysis/critique of religion)"]?

As my own followup, I'd be curious to hear what he thinks about the millions of more moderate people who don't actively push their views on others, but who also would say that they are "defined by" their religious views. Are they a problem too?

media sucks

More excellence from Glenn Greenwald as he continues to rip the mainstream media for their Bush-enabling abandonment of their journalistic responsibilities. I particularly love this quote from his link in update 2:

I wonder how the corporate media would react if Bush denied the Holocaust. Maybe something like:

The politically charged controversy over whether Nazi Germany engaged in the large-scale killing of European Jews during World War II, an alleged historical event referred to as the "Holocaust" by those who believe it occurred, became the subject of partisan bickering after a reporter asked President Bush for his view on the subject. Never afraid to take a stand, the president stated firmly that "If the Nazis were really killin' all them Jews, my granddaddy wouldn't have stood for it."

Democrats eagerly pounced on Bush's statement in an effort to score political points by claiming that the "Holocaust" did in fact occur and is well documented. But the president's press secretary countered that some people also believe evolution is well documented, even though the jury is still out. Senator Joseph Lieberman, who is Jewish, said that he personally believes that the "Holocaust" may have occurred, but warned Democrats not to "play politics" with the issue by criticizing the Commander in Chief in a time of war. Lieberman also pointed to Bush's support for Israel as evidence of the president's high regard for Jews, notwithstanding the "honest difference of opinion" regarding the fate of some Jews many years ago.

Also disagreeing with Bush was Sophie Wasserman, 89, who claimed to have personally witnessed the murder of her husband and children in a Nazi "concentration camp" in the German city of Dachau. However, conservative humorist Ann Coulter disputed Wasserman's account. Coulter, using her trademark tongue-in-cheek cleverness, described Wasserman as a "vicious, senile whore" whose husband and children "probably committed suicide to get away from her."
Gator90 | 12.14.06 - 10:46 am | #

Jason Bourne

If you could be any movie at all, you might have some confusion about how to select which movie you'd be. Let me make it easy for you. You should be The Bourne Identity. You'd rather have amnesia than not, right? You'd contain Mr. Eko and Goodwill Hunting, which is the top two characters to contain, by vote of the citizens of 17 first-world democracies. I don't work for the Americans any more, but if we stay here we die. COME ON, WHAT ABOUT THIS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND??! Remember the homophobic gay neighbor from American Beauty? He's in you. How is this not a good thing? You've got a black-ops agent off the reservation, and we will burn for this. Team up, motherfucker! Matt Damon can carry a movie now; we all know this. Bypass that shit! Tell me what is going on at those locations where Bourne might be at. The only possible confusion would be if you wanted to be Bourne Supremacy or the Bourne Ultimatum. I could respect that if you wanted to be one of those movies. You'd be wrong, but at least I could support it. But you just need to ask Matt Damon. When he was interviewed by Working Moms Magazine (2003), Hebrews for Halloween Magazine (2004), and Mormon Retards Quarterly (2006), he repeatedly asserted that Bourne Identity is the movie that anyone should be if they were to be a movie. How can you possibly argue with that?

Yao Ming!!!!!!

Yao Ming is probably my favorite NBA player now, behind Juan of course. He's 7'6" and 310lbs. What a fucking beast. Plus he's a good shooter and he's Chinese. You know what else? He plays with Shane Battier. I've hated that guy for so long that now I love him. That's another notch on Yao's massive Chinese belt. Yao is a nice guy and he lives in Houston. If you were Yao and you were my friend, you'd be my best friend. Yao likes to shake hands with small white men who seem amused by his massive size. Yao loves to make brilliant passes, using his supreme vantage point to create unprecedented geometrical angular situations. If you were 7'6" tall and you were my friend, you'd create angular situations and be my best friend. Plus you might get dizzy if you stood up too fast. I wonder how much Yao eats. I wonder if Chinese women love Yao as much as I do. Yao's feet bare a massive burden. You know how Denver is like a mile high and that makes it hard to respirate? Do you think that means it is harder for Yao to breathe than for Earl Boykins? Earl is my least favorite NBA player, except for Duke Jason Williams. If I was Yao, I'd smite them both. But Yao is a fucking pacifist, which is why I have so much respect for him. Plus he's Chinese.

Rejecting the nonsense from 'check my ip' / part 2

Someone calling himself 'check my ip' typed lots of words and posted them in reply to this post. I summarized his disorganized ideas into 5 general themes, which I posted in those comments. The purpose of this entry is to respond to point #3. Perhaps I'll have 5 posts eventually, or maybe I'll get bored with this.

I asked him if it would be fair to say that one of his main points is "3.) There is a proper way to discuss such matters and treat other people, and adspar violates it."

His response was that this is "true."

The following quotes from his comments supported this idea. I don't believe any of these quotes are being taken out of context, but feel free to read the original and decide:

1. "This is not a way to have a fair and meaningful discussion."

2. "“Be aware, kind and respectful to others and you will receive such treatment in return."

3. It seems to me that all the quotes in part 1 are also intended to provide examples of the way I violate the proper ways of discussing things.
   

My immediate reaction to this idea of his is that the irony of him telling me how to have a fair and meaningful discussion is so ridiculous that it barely deserves acknowledgement. But since in this context he's 'check my ip' and not someone with a real name and a personal history with me, I'm going to have adspar respond and leave Adam Sparks out of it.

One idea he has that I agree with is "Be aware, kind and respectful to others and you will receive such treatment in return." And I agree with the implication that if one fails to be aware, kind, and respectful, one shouldn't expect to be treated well.

Let's talk about how 'check your ip' has decided to have a "fair and meaningful discussion". He writes:

Nobody wants to hear anyonein your position coming off as a victim of society's distrust. I wonder how that distrust has ever hurt you? I wonder what the heck that has to do with the conversation you want to have with your parents?

One of his main points was about "playing the victim card"and I'll hopefully address that in another post. But for now I'll simply note that of course nobody wants to hear that they've been unfairly victimizing someone else. Nobody likes to think of themselves as a bad guy and nobody likes it when their misdeeds are brought to their attention. But sometimes it needs to be said, and hopefully people who are basically good will be able to swallow their pride and accept constructive criticism. If not immediately, in the long run a good person will appreciate someone who is willing to tell them a hard truth (popularized by the hanging booger theory).

He goes on to obnoxiously wonder how I'm personally a victim, and what that has to do with my looming conversation with my parents. His questions seem to imply that he thinks I'm not a victim and that he thinks it doesn't have anything to do with my conversation with my parents. Well, I am and it does. I find his line of questions so offensive because it is immediately followed with:

I wonder why, if you are an athiest, you can't just let the Christians be. Nope, you have to set out to mock (yes, you do) and try and prove people wrong and defend yourself.

So he seems to be implying that my conversation with my parents is just some part of my greater plan to attack and mock and prove everyone wrong (although I'll allow that there is a possibility that his poor organization had him asking genuine questions and following them with this offensive bullshit, though it seems far more likely that the questions were not genuine and that they were part of this offensive bullshit).

As I clearly laid out in my last post, I only mock or attack people who deserved it based on their words or deeds. A privately held personal belief in a supernatural deity is a bit goofy, but I'm not going to attack someone just for that, although I might lightly mock them. As I said, I don't have to respect everyone's beliefs; respect for someone is a willingness to hear them out, not a guarantee of respect for what they say. What I will attack without apology are words or deeds that violate me or someone else.

Then he gets even more ridiculous and out of line:

DO you think people would really care if John Doe became an athiest? No, they wouldn't.

What a presumptuous asshole 'check your ip' is being here. People do care that I'm an atheist, and they treat me like shit because of it, just based on hearing about my atheism, before I've even said a word to them about it.

A fair and meaningful discussion is characterized by things like intellectual honesty, genuine attempt to understand the other's message, and avoiding words that are primarily intended to provoke or hurt someone. I emphatically reject his idea that I've violated any rules of fair and meaningful discussion, and I assert that 'check your ip' is the one who has violated those rules.

He rejects, out-of-hand, the idea that atheists could be victims. He rejects, before even considering it, that I could have been treated unfairly because of my atheism. He simply assumes that I'm attacking my own parents out of some ego-fueled quest to prove that I'm right and they're wrong.

What kind of person visits someone's personal blog and decides to write such offensive bullshit, and then on top of that has the gall to suggest that I'm the one who doesn't know how to have a fair and respectful conversation? I think it offers great insight into the mind of 'check your ip' that he makes baseless accusations about me in the same post as he demonstrates on of the very same characteristics he is allegging.

Is he so consumed with emotion and his own ego that he doesn't realize this is happening? Does he need to feel like the good guy and need to paint someone else as the bad guy so much that he can't see the obvious projection that is happening here? This is some ugly shit.

Rejecting the nonsense from 'check my ip' / part 1

In case you didn't notice all the excitement in the comments, someone calling himself 'check my ip' typed lots of words and posted them in reply to my last post. I summarized his disorganized ideas into 5 general themes, which I posted in those comments. The purpose of this entry is to respond to point #1. Perhaps I'll have 5 posts eventually, or maybe I'll get bored with this.

I asked him if it would be fair to say that one of his main points is "1.) adspar can't handle when people have different ideas than him and he attacks anyone who disagrees with him. One should have respect for the beliefs of others, and adspar clearly doesn't."

His response was that this is "clearly true."

The following quotes from his comments supported this idea. I don't believe any of these quotes are being taken out of context, [I've added contextual helpers in brackets] but feel free to read the original and decide:

“You can't even stand when someone thinks different than you. It frustrates you. I saddens you. It angers you. It drives you crazy.

I am not playing the underdog in some big attention-desiring battle to tell everyone what I believe and why I think it is the right thing to believe. [... unlike adspar]


Why is the lack of respect for any arguments to your contrary necessary?

You have zero respect for any ideas other than your own

You have to have respect for what other people believe [;] you clearly do not.

Other beliefs drive you nuts.

My response to this line of criticism it that it simply isn't true. I certainly can handle it when other people have different ideas than me. I don't attack anyone who disagrees with me. And I reject the notion that one simply must have respect for the beliefs of others.

It isn't that someone thinks differently than me that frustrates me, saddens me, angers me, or drives me crazy. To the contrary, I'm eager to hear from people who have different views from me. I like to be exposed to new perspectives.

What I can't stand is dishonesty. What drives me crazy is hypocrisy. What frustrates me is irrationality. What saddens me is ignorance. What angers me is when someone actually takes pride in their dishonesty, hypocrisy, irrationality, or ignorance. And what drives me crazy is when all of that comes from my friends or family.

I don't attack anyone who disagrees with me, though I might challenge their views. I see nothing disrespectful about this.

Except for using the word in the sense of "acknowledgement of their existence" I see no reason why I have to "respect" beliefs that are not worthy of respect. (Belief that the world was created from nothing 6,000 years ago is an example of a belief for which I have no respect. Belief that someone who rejects Islam should be beheaded is another example of a belief for which I have no respect.) Respect for someone's belief is a separate matter from respect for the person who holds a belief. I'm more than willing to respect someone who holds an un-respectable belief, until they start to be dishonest. Then I start to have less respect for them. If they're hypocritical, or if they make irrational arguments, they'll lose a little more of my respect. Ignorance by itself doesn't necessarily mean they'll lose my respect, but if they're proud of they're ignorance that's tough to overcome.

For the record, I also have disdain for when these same faults are demonstrated in those whose views I share. If I start to see a pattern of dishonesty, or irrationality, or hypocrisy in people who share my ideas, that makes me start to question my ideas. In fact this is precisely what happened over the last year or two as I gradually shifted from a position of moderate support for Bush and the Iraq war to an extremely critical view of Bush and the Iraq war. Similarly, if you took the time to search through my archives for all my comments about Bill O'Reilly you'd see a graduate trend from general respect, to "usually I agree with him, but..." to generally disliking him and disagreeing with his views now, all because I saw increasing evidence of O'Reilly's dishonesty, hypocrisy, and irrationality.
----

I find it revealing that 'check your ip' was so eager and enthusiastic (at least 6 different statements on the matter, not to mention the emphatic "clearly" true) to conclude that my attacks and my scorn and my ridicule is aimed at anyone who disagrees with me. He seems quite anxious to cast me as someone who cannot tolerate disagreement.

I would think it should be obvious to any objective observer that my frustration in the specific post (involving the exchange between Prager and Harris) was with Prager's illogic, his dishonesty, his hypocrisy. I would think that anyone who follows this blog generally would be hard-pressed to cite an example where I "attack" someone who disagrees with me who hasn't demonstrated one of the negative traits I've mentioned.

One might perhaps dispute that the subject of my ridicule has been hypocritical, dishonest, or whatever. But I don't think it is difficult to realize that I think those flaws are there, and that is why I'm being harsh in a criticism. One might argue that I'm only claiming hypocrisy or dishonesty because these people have beliefs that I don't share. First, there are examples of posts where I've been quite respectful of differing views. Even if one found many more examples of negative posts than respectful, all that would demonstrate is that I'm more inclined to write about negative things I encounter, not that I react negatively to all opposing views. Even if I saw hypocrisy or ignorance in every single opposing view I've every written about, I generally explain how their words or actions are worthy of ridicule, how they're being irrational or ignorant. And furthermore, if I've slipped into a pattern of just presenting someone's rejection-worthiness as self-evident, I'd always be willing to discuss the matter if someone were to say for example that Prager wasn't dishonest in his responses. The bottom line is that I react negatively to things that deserve negative reactions, and that this should be obvious to any reasonable reader of my blog, or to anyone who knows me fairly well.

So, why would 'check your ip' be so quick to conclude that I shut out all opposing views? Could it be because he himself shuts out all opposing views and so assumes everyone else does? Could it be that he has some psychological defense mechanism where he won't have to confront ideas that challenge his sacred cows if he can find a way to discredit those who voice such ideas? Could it be that he's so deep into the confrontational "us versus them" mentality that is fostered by religion, partisan politics, and even team sports that he's unable to see any disagreement in any other terms?

Perhaps those questions will be further addressed if I respond to his other 4 criticisms.

On the topic of atheist discussion

What I just read, a debate between Sam Harris and Dennis Prager (this page contains links to each of 8 total pages of the back-and-forth debate), makes me so sad, angry, and scared. This guy Prager seems to be completely brain-dead, and yet he has a national radio show that presumably has a large audience or other brain-dead people who live and vote and operate heavy machinery. Over and over and over again Prager takes Harris's flawless logic and ignores it, distorts it, laughs at it, or just falsely calls it illogical. It is painful to read this stuff at times, but for me the most painful was this exchange:

Prager: You are right that this moral clarity and courage among the predominantly religious does not prove the existence of the biblical God. Nothing can prove God's existence. But it sure is a powerful argument. If society cannot survive without x, there is a good chance x exists.

Harris: No, Dennis, this moral clarity is not a "powerful argument," or even an argument at all; please keep your x's straight. If humanity can't survive without a belief in God, this would only mean that a belief in God exists. It wouldn't, even remotely, suggest that God exists.

Prager: You write: "If humanity can't survive without a belief in God, this would only mean that a belief in God exists. It wouldn't, even remotely, suggest that God exists." This statement is as novel as the one suggesting that Stalin was produced by Judeo-Christian values. It is hard for me to imagine that any fair-minded reader would reach the same conclusion. If we both acknowledge that without belief in God humanity would self-destruct, it is quite a stretch to say that this fact does not "even remotely suggest that God exists." Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?

Prager offers pathetic argument, Harris easily refutes it, and Prager repeats his original nonsensical argument without acknowledging that it had been definitively struck down. Whether this is because he's too dumb to understand it, too blind to see it, or because he has no regard whatsoever for intellectual honesty is anyone's guess. Harris' first message contained the following statement, and Prager certainly delivered on the request:

Against these plain truths religious people have erected a grotesque edifice of myths, obfuscations, half-truths, and wishful thinking. Perhaps you, Dennis, would now like to bring some of that edifice into view.

Bring it into view he did.

A related aspect of this so-called debate that pushed my damn buttons was Prager's transparent dishonesty and his inconsistent wavering in his views towards academia. One day he's bowing in reverence to academic achievement, as if a man's scientific accomplishments somehow suggest that he's incapable of irrationality in other areas (despite a book by Francis Collins that proves otherwise), and the next minute he's dismissing all of academia as being full of intellectually confused PhDs who grow more foolish with every year of exposure to higher education. I have a tough time seeing this as anything other than pandering to his ignorant, anti-intellectual fan base, cultivating the kind of "us-simple-folk vs. those-know-it-all-fancy-pants-idiots" mindset that pervades modern discourse, for which George W. Bush is the poster boy.