Movies: Most evil defeated villains

One of my buddies put together the Mel Gibson list. I did the Brad Pitt one.


Of these three people/groups that Mel Gibson has defeated, who was the most
evil?

1) William the Longshanks (Braveheart)
2) The Jews (Passion of the Christ)
3) That one British captain in (The Patriot)
4) Angel (Maverick)
5) Gary Sinise (Ransom)

Good arguments exist for all 5.


1) William the Longshanks -

WHY? Quite an evil dude. This man put up with
a gay son who had a hot wife, reinstituted the tradition of Prima Nocta, and believed that the trouble with Scotland is that it is full of Scots.

WHY NOT? Well, Wallace never actually defeated him. A tenuous argument exists that the pure sweet passion and loudness of Wallace's final word, "FREEDOM!" casued Longshanks' death, since there seems to be some sort of temporal correlation between the two. However, this word was spoken as Wallace was being executed at Longshanks' command, so there is a better
argument that Wallace was actually defeated by Longhshanks.

2) The Jews -

WHY? In this case, Mel has not actually defeated the Jews,
just shed light on their innate evil qualities for all the world to see.

WHY NOT? Again, there exists an argument that the Jews actually defeated Gibson, since they do an excellent job of torturing and killing the object of Mel's affection. (Jesus H. Christ).

3) That captain from the Patriot -


WHY? This man's evilness is unquestioned as he plays Lucious Malfoy, a man known for being a Deatheater and kicking Dobby. However he also killed two of Mel's sons. As the Scottish captain from Braveheart knows. killing Mel Gibson's loved ones is rarely a good idea. He also was British, which, as the film makes clear, is bad.

WHY NOT? Mel kind of gets his ass kicked in their final battle, and really only wins because the captain gets cocky.

4) Angel from Maverick -

WHY? Angel was a pretty bad guy, who often lets people fall down for free. He pals about with cowboys with bad hygiene, and he is a cheat.

WHY NOT? He wasn't really as evil as the commodore, who was pulling the strings. And Mel didnt actually defeat the Commodore - that was Coop, whose security wasn't worth a damn.

5) Gary Sinise from Ransom -

WHY? Gary Sinise is pretty scary looking, he kidnapped his kid, and he tormented Mel with stupid references to "the Time Machine."

WHY NOT? The Time Machine is an excellent work of literary fiction, which cogently creates an allegory of classist society in the modern world.




The answer: The evil captain from the Patriot. What pushed him over the top was the fact that Mel stuck a bayonet through his throat, which is unbearably cool.

----

Most evil villian that Brad Pitt defeated:

1) The Credit Card Companies (Fight Club)
2) Terry Benedict (Ocean's 11)
3) Tom Cruise (Interview with the Vampire)
4) John Doe (Se7en)
5) Wilkenson Center and the guards (Sleepers)


1 - Credit Card Companies

WHY? Just ask any college kid that signed up for a credit card to get a free T-shirt, then ran up $20,000 in electronics and booze - credit card companies are pure evil. Tyler Durden's Project Mayhem sought to erase the debt record and start over, and don't ask any more questions about it.

WHY NOT? For the fiscally responsible, credit cards can be a very useful financial tool. Using a credit card is the first step towards establishing good credit, which helps millions of Americans own their own homes! Plus Ed Norton killed Tyler Durden just before all the buildings blew up, apparently cause he was in love with that harlot Marla and wanted to finally take a nap. And he let that ganster dude beat the shit out of him.

2 - Terry Benedict

WHY? Benedict was a ruthless greedmonger who made a living relieving degenerate gamblers of their cash. Plus he stole Rusty's friend Danny Ocean's wife and stole his buddy Reuben's hotel. Rusty played like 8 different roles in the heist, so take that, evil Andy Garcia!

WHY NOT? Hey, if drunken idiot want to blow all their money gambling, why shouldn't I... I mean Terry Bennedict take it. He provided a nice clean comfortable hotel for them, with first rate sports entertainment and a lovely art museum. Is he really that bad a guy? He just is protecting what's his, right? How did he know that Danny Ocean had just got out of prison but not know that Bernie Mac had a criminal record? A more evil man would have known.

3 - Tom Cruise


WHY? He's Tom Cruise. Come on, is there a more evil person in the world right now than Tom Cruise? He's completely insane, he has a billion dollars, he ruined Katie Holmes, he's a fucking scientologist, and he's like 5'1". Fuck him

WHY NOT? Well, Brad Pitt tried to kill LeStat but never got the job done, probably cause he was carrying Kirsten Dunst's dead weight. He almost killed him, but the alligator blood helped LeStat recover. So in the end, Christian Slater became a vampire too.. Anyway regardless of Cruise's evilness, there was no decisive victory here for Pitt.

4 - Kevin Spacey as John Doe

WHY? Evil in the classic mad genius serial killer way. This guy went on the killing spree of all killing sprees, culminating in the beheading of Brad Pitt's pregnant wife. Plus he threw up on a guy in the subway and has no fingerprints.

WHY NOT? With the exception of Gwyneth, all of John Doe's victims deserved their fate. Especially that fat dude - "a disgusting man who could barely stand up; a man who if you saw him on the street, you'd point him out to your friends so that they could join you in mocking him; a man, who if you saw him while you were eating, you wouldn't be able to finish your meal." How wrong could it be to kill a fat guy? I want to kill that guy Jared from Subway just cause he used to be fat. And even though Detective Mills technically killed John Doe, didn't John Doe win? Once again no decisive Pitt victory over the evil.

5 - Wilkenson Center and the guards - Sleepers

WHY? Let's start with Kevin Bacon making the little boys blow him. After a year of sexual and physical abuse in the juvenile corrections facility, Brad Pitt and that dude who played the traffic cop in Scent of a Woman and their friends were scarred for life. But they eventually got even, killing Bacon and bringing the whole uber-evil Wilkenson Center down in a travesty of a murder trial. The situation forced Bobby D the priest to commit perjury. The holy man told lies. That's how evil they were.

WHY NOT? Yeah there's no way anything can top this one. Wilkenson Center and Pedophile Rapist Kevin Bacon win easily.

I got a bottle of this Sriracha Hot Sauce.


Now I put it on everything.


It makes a delicious red chili fire in my mouth.


That is all, thank you.

Help out a poor Internet Gamblin Man

Passing along an idea from the blogfather:

There is legislation being introduced in the House of Representatives to ban internet gambling in the United States, making a criminal out of me. I sent the letter below in an email to my rep. You should look up yours here and do the same.

While I obviously would be strongly financially hurt by such legislation, I have philosophical qualms with any type of legislation of morality. Millions of Americans enjoying betting on a football game or playing poker using an online account. Many states allow casinos, and most states have lotteries that are huge sources of revenue for the state. A much better way to handle the growing online gambling market would be to regulate and tax it.

Dear Congressman Wynn, I am writing you in regard to H.R. 4777: The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act being introduced by Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rick Boucher (D-VA). I wish to inform you that I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this bill and among my friends my view is not in the minority. We will be watching your vote on this matter closely as it will greatly influence our future votes in the 4th district. Please speak for the majority of the citizens in your district and vote against this bill. Sincerely, Adam Sparks

Losing $3,000 to impress someone

If you want to see a message board thread that captures the essense of.... something, check this out.

It started with this challenge:

I am laying down a challenge for all of those people willing to blow 20k on blackjack. This will be much more fun.

The rules:
-you must play 100 hands of LIMIT poker
-you must play EVERY single hand to the river
-you must have a PFR of over 40% and an aggression factor over 1
-any limits are allowed (.25/5 to 1 billion dollars/2 billion dollars)
-this must be in a single session
-graphs and stats must be posted for you to compete in this challenge

Seems pretty stupid, but basically just some goofy fun.

Until some kid decided to do this at $5/10 and dropped almost $3,000.

So then some people started pointing out how completely insane it is that he deliberately lost thousands of dollars just to make a funny post on a message board. This kid had made over $100,000 in February playing poker, so having a little fun and losing $3,000 in an hour probably seemed like a good idea to him. Of course the rest of us realize that spending that on a week vacation at the beach would probably be a lot more fun.

So there were a bunch of "wasting that much money is crazy" vs "its not that much money to him" posts. Lots of people just telling the $3,000 kid how awesome he is. Then some kid from my University of Maryland made some great points I think, and people gave him all kinds of shit for it, although a few agreed with him:

• Hes a young kid who recently came across much more money then he is accustomed to. I am sure he is extrapolating his new found success into being a billionaire at 40. The idea that he is willing to blow 3k to simply say "look at me" shows an extreme amount of information about his personality, imo. Someone's value of an activity or object can be grossly skewed especially temporarily. The idea that the value of everything being self-deciding just doesn't hold that much water as an argument on a number of levels.
• A better analogy would be to watch a wealthy businessman go to the center of town and light money on fire, while his yes-men cream their pants.
• you don't realize how insulated many of you are within a community you have emerged yourself into. Its akin to body builder's approval of steroids, nazis approval of anti-semitism, and the like. The groupthink becomes an unfortunate byproduct of this forum.
• it easy to become so close-minded when no one is telling you anything different. Its detrimental to your growth, so its pretty unfortunate.
• I just think it is so scary that a 20 year old kid starts making a lot of money, and the first thing he wants to do is blow 3k to impress people he does not know. If you are going to waste 3k get a pound of weed or a sick plasma tv screen. You can donate it or give it to a friend that needs it.

Somebody else wrote:

it's really sick what poker can do to our sense of monetary value. our hourly swings can be 10-15 times our hourly earn, so the money seems to be so much less valuable. compound that with someone who ran super hot for a while and the money almost has no significance. but there's a time when we will all run bad and it sucks to think back at that money you could've had.

That is another great point. I lost $1,500 yesterday and won $1,000 tonight, so it can be easy to be distracted from the fact that an hour of poker is worth about $30 to me. Playing this game for a living really fucks with your mind.

Stealing

Stealing digital media is pervasive among people my age. Very few people have any ethical qualms with downloading mp3s or copying CDs that they don't own. Now that DVD copying technology is cheap, lots of people make illegal copies of movies too.

I refuse to take part in it. Sometimes it is awkward having to deny a request from a friend to copy a CD or DVD. When I say that I won't do it, people list reasons for doing it like:

• They can't really enforce those laws
• It is just so easy
• I wouldn't buy it anyway
• Those companies rip us off with high prices, they deserve it
• It doesn't hurt anyone
  

None of those justify the offense. Stealing is wrong, and if you do it, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Yet another reason to love Mark Cuban

Mark Cuban:

Now that The Apprentice is moving to Monday nights and riding on the coattails of NBC’s newest hit, Deal or No Deal, the Donald is doing the right thing and trying to get a viewership boost from an appearance on the Howie Mandel hosted show.

Of course, being the fun loving guy that I am, and as someone who is always trying to look out for the best interests of Donald Trump, I have decided to make an open offer to Howie Mandel.

Howie, if you can get Mr Trump to pull a rubber glove completely over his head and blow it up on your show, not only will I watch it, I will donate 1 million dollars to the charity of your choice.

What could be better than that ? Money for a great cause that you love. For the Donald, the thing he loves more than anything, bragging rights. Is there any doubt that by Tuesday afternoon he would be able to say that he was responsible for the most watched television show in the history of TV ?

Is it possible that any human being on the planet would be able to resist watching Donald Trump blow up a rubber glove over his head ? I dont think so. Combatants around the world would lay down their arms and all enjoy a moment of shared laughter.

I dont have the power to cause the end to wars. If only for a moment. You do Donald.

I dont have the power to create the unquestionable number one moment in TV history You do Donald.

Sieze the moment Donald.

Be a mensch Howie. History awaits you !

great story

I just heard this on Penn Jillette's radio show.

Penn has a friend who is an expert on betting and cheating who was doing some consulting work for the Texas state lottery. Penn's friend told him the following story.

A businessman went to his girlfriend in Dallas and tells her he has a winning lottery ticket for $25,000. He told her that he has to go on the road for a few weeks, but hold on to this ticket for him and when he gets back they'll cash it in and go to Vegas and have a good time. He gives her the ticket and heads to Houston.

When he gets to the Houston he goes to see another girlfriend there. He gives her a winning lottery ticket for $25,000 and say the same thing - he has to go on the road for a few weeks, but hold on to this ticket and when I get back we'll cash it in and go to Vegas for and have a good time.

Well the Dallas girl isn't going to wait for him to get back. She heads to the lottery office in Austin, where you have to go to cash in big prizes. When she gets there, she has to answer standard questions like:

• Did you buy this ticket yourself?
• Has it been in your possession the whole time?
• Have you tampered with it in any way?
• Has anyone else had any opportunity to tamper with it?

She tells them she bought the ticket and has held onto it the whole time. Penn's friend and other lottery officials are trying to be nice to her, because just looking at it they can tell it is a forgery.

"Are you sure about that?"

Yes.

"If you sign here, and it is wrong you'll get in trouble and go to jail for fraud."

I'll sign it. I just want the money.

"Are you sure about all those answers? If you have any doubt, you might not want to sign it..."
No I bought the ticket and I've had it the whole time. I want to cash it in.

So she signs the forms, and they immediately arrest her. Of course at that point she immediately comes clean and tells them about her boyfriend giving her the ticket. So they call the businessman and ask him about the ticket.

"Yeah that ticket is a fake. I really did win $25,000 so I made 2 copies of the ticket and gave it to 2 girls to see which one I could trust. Looks like I'm going to Vegas with my Houston girl!"

The great part is that he had done nothing illegal - you can make all the copies you want as long as you don't try to claim a prize on them.

Weird month. Good results at $5/10

This seems like the kind of general stuff that I'll post here as well as on my new poker-only blog.

The last month or so has been weird.

January 20 - Terrible session inspires introspection
January 23 - I playfully use graphs to recap
January 26 - I sit for 2 hours in Party's $5/10 6max games, and do it again
Jan 27 to Feb 6 - I keep playing that game, with various ups and downs.
February 7 - I plan for 8 more weeks of fairly heavy volume in that game.
February 14 - Recap of the 30 hours I put in the first week


Usually when I introspect after a terrible session, I end up trying to show enthusiasm for some new plan to make maximum use of my strengths while avoiding or overcoming my weaknesses. Not on January 20:

Unfortunately financial constraints force me to try to maintain a minimum level of income, and laziness constraints limit the hours I play, so I tend to want to play higher than I probably should. I've said this same shit so many times, and I keep having the same problem.... This game is hard. It seeks out my weaknesses and exploits them. You can do the income math on the numbers above. Its not impressive at all... As it is, I'm just barely getting by month to month. I always try to make these kind of entries have a positive spin. "If I do this or that, I have reason to be optimistic... blah blah..." Should I really be optimistic? I think it is pretty clear by now that given my skill level, expenses, and endurance, I'm going to struggle to build a bankroll and move up to higher limits... Anyway, the fact that my prospects for advancing are based more on capital infusions than hard work or skill is probably an indication that I won't be a professional poker player in 5 years. I've been thinking of other things I might like to do, but most of them will take some time to get started, so I think I'll be doing this for at least another year if I can make it.

No plan, and no enthusiasm. Basically I just say I'll keep trudging on cause I don't have anything better to do. In keeping with that spirit, I randomly decided to start playing the one game that had tortured me for than any other. The results?



Pretty good picture. Now, I can actually play the grizzled veteran and say that I've been doing this long enough not to get excited about a 15,000 hand stretch of results I like.

But something that does make me feel pretty good is the 30 hours I put in last week. Considering I've averaged 22.5 hrs/week since I went pro, that's an exceptionally good week for me. And it didn't feel like I played that much. I'm hoping that something about this particular game makes it easier for me to put in more hours.

Furthermore, while the 2.22 BB/100 in the 15k hands above is well above the 0.76 BB/100 for 120,000 overall hands that I mentioned on January 20th, it actually isn't too far out of line for my results at the $5/10 limit for both short and ring games across various sites.



Since November 1 I've made 1.77 BB/100 in 40,000 hands at $5/10.

And I've done some bitching and moaning in that time. Note that the graph features 3 large downswings of increasing size: 180, 200, and 260 big bets. But it does keep going up. And I've kept on playing.

It just weird that after all this time, I'm finally showing signs that I can do this the right way. I'm putting in hours. I'm being very diligent about game selection. I'm making good decisions in spite of the emotions of a high-variance game. And all of it just happened, almost on a lark.

I'm not ready to proclaim that I've turned some corner, but I like what is happening lately. Hopefully knowing that I've struggled through and survived 3 large downswings will help with the next one. We'll see how the rest of the 8 week plan goes.

Classic article

I assume the Michael Lewis who wrote this is the same as the author of Liar's Poker.

Jonathan Lebed: Stock Manipulator, S.E.C. Nemesis -- and 15

What a joke

I first read about this issue here.

The Justice Department opened an investigation because Michael L. Dini, an associate professor of biology at Texas Tech University, insists on the following (from here) from anyone requesting a letter of recommendation to graduate school or medical school:

Criterion 3

If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation.

Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology prominent among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology. It is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make poor clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance may partly be the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.

Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known; just as one can refer to the "fact" of gravity, even if all of the details of gravitational theory are not yet known. One can ignore this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and the scientific method. Scientists do not ignore logical conclusions based on abundant scientific evidence and experimentation because these conclusions do not conform to expectations or beliefs. Modern medicine relies heavily on the method of science. In my opinion, modern physicians do best when their practice is scientifically based.

Sam Harris on the Reality of Islam

Good stuff here.


Excerpts:

"It is time we recognized —and obliged the Muslim world to recognize —that “Muslim extremism is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism. The truth about Islam is as politically incorrect as it is terrifying: Islam is all fringe and no center. In Islam, we confront a civilization with an arrested history. It is as though a portal in time has opened, and the Christians of the 14th century are pouring into our world. "

"The U.S. and British governments have chastised Denmark and the other countries that published the cartoons for privileging freedom of speech over religious sensitivity. It is not often that one sees the most powerful countries on Earth achieve new depths of weakness, moral exhaustion and geopolitical stupidity with a single gesture. This was appeasement at its most abject."

"Our press should report on the terrifying state of discourse in the Arab press, exposing the degree to which it is a tissue of lies, conspiracy theories and exhortations to recapture the glories of the seventh century. All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the Earth. Muslim moderates, wherever they are, must be given every tool necessary to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists. Otherwise, we will have to win some very terrible wars in the future. It is time we realized that the endgame for civilization is not political correctness. It is not respect for the abject religious certainties of the mob. It is reason."

"...ask yourself where the Palestinian Christian suicide bombers are. Palestinian Christians also suffer the indignity of the Israeli occupation. This is practically a science experiment: take the same people, speaking the same language, put them in the same horrendous circumstance, but give them slightly different religious beliefs--and then watch what happens. What happens is, they behave differently."

"It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is, after all, little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the September 11th hijackers may one day get their hands on nuclear weaponry."

Communication is hard

*2/13/06 - I'm bumping up this post because Joe contributed an interesting link, and because the conversation in the comments took an interesting turn that might be worth reviving.*


We've all been in discussions/arguments where we feel like both parties are just saying the same thing over and over again. Sometimes those things keep going because the 2 sides genuinely don't understand each other. But often they keep going because of the sources of error that are built into the way we communicate.

Consider this simple model.

My thought --> my choice and delivery of words --1--> your reception/interpretation of my words --> your thought in response --2--> your choice and delivery of words --3--> my reception/interpretation of the response

Each arrow is a potential source of so much distortion. I thought about this and decided to color code it. The green processes and arrows are things I tend to consider carefully; the red I overlook too often.

While I put a great deal of thought into choosing my words to carefully convey as precise a meaning as I can, I often overlook the reality that words mean different things to different people. I already know the point I'm trying to make, so that biases my interpretation of my own words. I need to give more consideration to this idea, which is marked by that first red arrow.

There's a lot more red on your side of the communication process, and I want to be more aware of those. I don't often consider that your choice of words might not precisely reflect exactly what you're thinking, hence the 2nd red arrow. I don't usually think about how casually/carefully people choose their words, hence the first red text. And the third red arrow is because even if I assumed that everyone chooses their words very carefully (I don't think it is a bad thing that most people don't choose their words as carefully as I do, it is just a factor of personality and mood), that still overlooks that you might have a different idea of the meaning of the words than I do.

And the last red text is because I don't often consider that I could be misinterpreting your words. I need to take more responsibility for that.

Each of those sources of error can build on themselves, compounding the severity of the miscommunication. The green arrows that I think I understand fairly well can still be big sources of error, I just tend to be more aware of the possibility of error at those points than at the others.

So when I sense a miscommunication, I tend to assume that an error must have occurred at one of the green points and I try to correct that when the true source of the error was elsewhere. If both parties in the conversation do that, it could easily result in the phenomenon I described at the start - an endless frustrating argument where both people say the same things over and over.

I started a poker blog

So I decided to put together Donk Bet: 1BB/100.

2 main reasons for it -

1. To help me organize my poker thoughts, with the goal of improving my game. Having them sprinkled through this whole blog isn't very efficient for that goal. Just from copying over my poker writing from here to there, some trends became much more obvious without all the obnoxious noise I have here. So I'm already getting ideas to help me win more money.

2. Focus makes a better blog. Writing whatever comes to mind is fun for me, but probing the depths of my weird mind isn't really very interesting to many people. I guess the idea is that a poker blog brings people together to discuss poker, whereas this blog is more about discussing me.


I'll still post some poker content here, but it will be more broad themed. Hand analysis and session graphs will probably be only at the poker site.

Should I start a poker blog?

This thing isn't a poker blog. It is a blog by a guy who plays poker.

But if I seperated out only the poker posts and put them in their own blog, it would probably be a semi-respectable poker blog. ("Semi-respectable poker blog." I don't even know what that means. Is that like a semi-clean prostitute?) That would take a lot of effort though, to go start a new blog and cross-post all my old poker posts. Would it be worth it? What would I really be trying to accomplish?

Should I start a poker blog?

Who is John Galt?

So cold

A few days ago, after 2 weeks of running well, I wrote about my hot steak and included this:

A brag post is 100% guaranteed to initiate a 200bb downward correction, something I certainly deserve.

I was wrong. It now stands at 230bb down in my last 3,000 hands beginning from the minute I posted that. Dear god. That follows a 4,000 hand +375bb uptick.

As usually happens in terrible drops, every river is devastating, every KK sees an Ace on the flop, and every backdoor inside straight hits for the 85/5/2.7 idiot.

Midway through this drop, I thought summoning the power of Anchorman would help me. I thought I'd have many leather-bound books. Well now this is happening [drop-kick my winrate in half].

I just want Baxter back.

No, this isn't supposed to make sense.

I don't care about sports any more

In high school I loved baseball. I listened to every Orioles game on the radio (Hall of Famer Chuck Thompson and Jon Miller were outstanding) and devoured the Baltimore Sun's sports page coverage every afternoon when I got home from school. I knew every story about every player, could quote their stats, and monitored the progress of minor league prospects.

Then I went off to college and stopped caring about baseball.

In college I loved college basketball. I felt a personal connection to our team and went to almost every home game in my 4 years at the University of Maryland. I knew every story about every player, could quote their stats, and followed our recruiting efforts. I ran a fan website at www.juandixon.com (which I gave to Juan after we graduated) and was friends with the Washington Post's Terps beat writer. I still consider the final four weekend in Atlanta in 2002 where "we" won the National Championship one of the greatest times of my life.

Then I graduated and I stopped caring of college basketball.

Starting around the time Michael Jordan came out of retirement, I loved the NBA. I watched all the Wizards games and TNT's Thursday night coverage. I got tickets when interesting teams came to town and read all the box scores on ESPN.com with my cursor poised to switch over to an excel spreadsheet if someone walked by my cubicle. I knew every player who got minutes for every team, and eagerly awaited the All-Star Game.

Then I quit my job and I stopped caring about the NBA.

---

I've often looked back and tried to explain my abrupt abandonment of teams/sports I loved so much. Part of me didn't want to let go. I theorized that not getting the newspaper delivered to my dorm was the reason I lost touch with the Orioles. I theorized that the letdown after winning a national championship was the reason I stopped caring about my Terps (Today I still do care about the Terps, but in a different way). I theorized that moving my computer away from my television was the reason I stopped caring about the NBA.

Now I understand it a lot better, and I think it is all about entertainment.

At the heart of it, watching a ball game is entertainment, and entertainment is a way you choose to spend your time. The transitions [from high school --> college --> office job --> playing online poker at home] each drastically changed how my days were spent. Not surprisingly, major changes in the my life brought about changes in the way I spend my entertainment time.

I still like sports. I still can enjoy watching a basketball game or spending a summer evening at Camden Yards. I still think playing fantasy football or watching a game at a sports bar is a fun way to stay in touch with friends. I appreciate the skills of athletes and coaches, and I enjoy witnessing the strategy and competition.

But I don't have any interest in being an active sports fan any more. I'm not going to read all the box scores, enter 6 fantasy leagues, tune in for the TNT pregame show with Charles and Kenny, or watch every Orioles game. I'll turn down tickets to games now, or turn the game off at halftime. Instead, I'd rather read a book, or watch a movie, or kiss my girlfriend, or write in my blog, or enjoy a Samuel Adams White Ale (or 5), or go for a run, or listen to the O'Reilly Radio Factor, or anything else I do for entertainment.

I don't know exactly why my preferences are different now. I can list a bunch of theories:

• Maybe its because I play a game for a living, so I don't want to spend much of my free time reading about and watching other people play games.
  
• Maybe its because its kind of sad how rabid sports fans seem like they're trying to live vicariously through a bunch of kids in bright green shorts.
  
• Maybe its because I'm sick of every team being convinced the refs screw them over more than anyone else.
  
• Maybe its because I'm gay.
  
• Maybe its because I suddenly realized that professional athletes are modern day gladiators whose only value to society is filling some primal need for people to feel like part of a war without any actual risks.
  
• Maybe its because I'm sick of my entertainment dollars making rich superstars out of so many complete jackasses.
  
• Maybe its because I realized that the vast majority of sports commentary is meaningless bullshit.
• Maybe its because experience to variance in poker made me realize that luck, as opposed to skill, determines a lot more of the outcomes of plays/games/seasons than people want to believe.
  

Whatever the reason, I've finally come to terms with it, and I'm no longer ashamed to admit it. I don't care about sports any more.

Structure

Poker Plan for the next 8 weeks:

• Starting tomorrow I'm going to play a minimum of 6,000 hands per week on Party, to take advantage of a VIP promotion they're running.

• I hope to average at least 1.5 BB/100, which will net me income of about $1,000/week with the bonus from the promotion.

• Instead of cluttering shit up with all these daily session charts, I'll just post a weekly chart and recap here.
  

• I'm going to try to get in 1 decent sized tournament every week, under the guidance of the tournament mastErm. Starting tonight at 7pm with a freeroll where the top 15 of a 300 person tournament get a free ride on the Party Poker Million V Cruise.

Last Week Recap:


So here's my last regular daily chart, followed by my chart for the last week (I count my weeks Wed-Tues).

Today: More sweet swings


Week 2/1 - 27: Shoulda just quit on Saturday

I'm Ron Burgandy?

[Click on image to enlarge. I'm kind of a big deal.]

America sucks / we love America

I liked this article.

The rest of the world complains that American hegemony is reckless, arrogant, and insensitive. Just don’t expect them to do anything about it. The world’s guilty secret is that it enjoys the security and stability the United States provides. The world won’t admit it, but they will miss the American empire when it’s gone.

As prescribed

The inevitable carnage since the last post:

heat continues

I'm on a tear in this $5/10 6max game on Party. Obviously there's a healthy amount of good luck at work here. But some of the credit has to be given to my new and improved game selection methods. This post on an excellent poker blog describes a similar process to what I've been using. Don't read that guy's posts if you play in my games though.

Anyway, I don't like to post what is basically a brag, but I do it because:
1) I complain a lot, so I should give some space to the good times.
2) A brag post is 100% guaranteed to initiate a 200bb downward correction, something I certainly deserve.

Learn

3 days in AC stacked up like this

$6/12: 2.5 hours, -$515
$10/20: 16 hours, +$220

The $10/20 game wasn't very good. The $6/12 games were better, I just caught a terrible string of strong 2nd best hands while waiting for the $10/20. The $20/40 game looked great but I couldn't bring myself to take a shot on a limited bankroll.

I really need to learn no-limit. There was tons of action in the $2/5 NL games, but I have no experience there, so I helplessly sat in the crappy $10/20 game and longed for better game selection.

In contrast, my Party $5/10 6max results since I got back

Stop believing, start thinking.

This is important.


People just aren't rational when it comes to certain topics.

State of the Union

I watched the address from my hotel room in Atlantic City. I was very glad to hear that renewable fuel and science/math education are important agenda items, and I'll probably blog more extensively about that a bit later.

On the energy note, I think its odd that nobody seems to talk about the fact that oil is going to run out some day. And I strongly suspect that day will come a lot sooner than people want to believe, probably in my lifetime. If that happens, we all could be in deep deep shit. Read this article or this book before you tell me I'm crazy. More on this later I'm sure.

Also, I think Bush could have used some of those science teachers he plans on training to clarify something for him about human-animal hybrids.

WTF!

I used this face recognition tool to match my face with celebrities. The top 3 "closest" matches (from 62 to 65%) were:


Kim Dae Jung


Pope Pius XII

Pierluigi Collina


I did my girlfriend too. Matches above 67% for her included:

Mariah Carey, Liv Tyler, Scarlett Johanson, and Marilyn Monroe.

short term is pretty

Last Thursday, for some reason I decided to sit in the Party $5/10 6max game for some reason. That particular game had always given me fits, but it was good to me this week. If I could maintain a third of this winrate over 50,000 hands I'd be beyond thrilled.

Need to get used to 30BB swings

A pair of short sessions today, both are 3-tabling.

A little over an hour this morning:



An hour this afternoon:

Cool... shit ... yay!!

3 tables of $5/10 6max on Party. 7:30am to 9am today. Why bother with coffee?

A new day

I kinda like posting these session graphs. Maybe I'll keep doing this.

12am to 1:50 am, 2 tabling Party $5/10 6max:



Miscellaneous $5/10 shorthanded on Absolute between 2am and 6am



today combined with yesterday:

Add on the next session

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I swear a fucking miracle happens every single hand in these games. I sit down and instantly suffer an unspeakable string of beats. I guess it is because every player takes any remote semblance of a hand all the way to showdown no matter what.

You'd think that with those conditions I'd

1.) be able to win
2.) not cry like a 6 year old girl about every bad beat.

Unfortunately I can't accomplish either of those. Why do I keep torturing myself?

Party 6max

I'm always complaining about Party's 6-max games. I like to imagine that I'm the most unlucky man alive, but I'm sure I've been doing something wrong. This chart is from a 2 hour session at $5/10 this morning, and illustrates how severe the swings are in this game. I'm sure players who frequent the shorthanded tables could show you even more severe variance. It makes it pretty easy to get frustrated. Note that if I had given up after an hour, the tone of this post would be a lot less playful.

Blog maintenance

I just spent a while updating all the "check me out links" to include the last 2 months worth of posts. This can't be the best way to organize my shit. I post on so many topics here, and I would like to quickly be able to access my thoughts on different topics. FJDelgado uses the only other method that I can think of. Instead of linking highlight posts under topic-based index entries, he just set up a few different blogs. He posts everything in his main blog, and then cross-posts to several different more focused blogs as relevant. Any other ideas? Does anyone care other than me?

Thanks Mox. Who wants to be this guy?

The sequels had their problems, but the first was fucking brilliant.

More pictures: Poker Graphs

Graphs to accompany this post. Slightly updated to include play between this post and that one.

Each limit since June 05 (click images to enlarge)

$3/6 (0.77 BB/100)

This starts out mostly 4 tabling, then moves to 6. I expect my winrate drops as I add 2 more tables, but if it is 70% of my 4 table rate or better, I make a better hourly rate. Hard to draw any definite conclusions, but I think I might be better with 4 or 5.


$5/10 (1.35 BB/100)


You can see the downswing I've been moaning about recently in the fall from the peak at 20k hands. Looks like I've been coming out of it. There are a variety of multitable patterns over these hands, so its hard to analyze that variable.

$10/20 + $15/30 combined (0.53 BB/100)



In like a lion, out like a lamb. Not surprising is that in the lion phase I was playing mostly 1 or 2 tables at a time (and I actually have 11k more hands in my other database at $10/20 winning 2.1 BB/100). Pretty much exactly the time I moved to 3 or 4 tables is when the curve turns downward. Since that time, I think I've greatly improved my ability to play 4 tables, but I'm going to be very very conservative about expanding beyond 2 tables when I get back to these limits. I'll have to play more hours to make up for the lower hourly volume.

Top 5 things that come in cans

I've been having too much fun with pictures lately. In an effort to control myself by inducing rock bottom, here are my top 5 favorite things that come in cans.





5. It is really hard to take a legitimate meal and make it taste good out of a can. Dinty Moore Beef Stew is by far the best at this nearly impossible task.















4. Soup isn't a legitimate meal, it can be an ingredient in some excellent cooking. Campbell's Condensed Cream of Chicken is easy to cook with and lays the groundwork for some awesome meals.
















3. Beer comes in cans. Unfortunately the best beers come in bottles (I guess we could debate if a keg counts as a can), so 3 is the highest spot in the can hierarchy for beer. Coors Original is my favorite beer that is widely available in cans.













2. Soda is awesome. A cold cola is one of the most easily available simple pleasures in life. Cherry Pepsi is my favorite soda.










1. It isn't a legitimate meal for the exact same reason that Twinkies aren't a legitimate pastry, but I defy you to name anything that comes in a can that is better than Spaghetti-Os.




Ok there might be one thing better: Spaghetti Os with meatballs

9000 awesome words

I hate people... no I don't

I stumbled upon this page of quotes by Alexis de Tocqueville, who I had never previously heard of. He was French, but I won't hold that against him. Apparently he famously observed that it is easier for people to accept a simple lie than a complex truth; a full discussion of that concept would be worthy of a doctoral thesis.

Several quotes struck me, but for now I'll note this one:

"Those that despise people will never get the best out of others and themselves."

When I see irrationality winning out over reason, I'm often tempted to think "I hate people." But I always hold back because I know that hating people is giving up on them, and giving up on myself. I'm not going to do that. Reason wins.

Wisdom of Stevie Wonder

When you believe in things that you don't understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain't the way, hey hey hey.

running bad (i love variance)

Win Percentage, BB per hand

First pair is from 120,000 hands at a variety of limits and # of players. Winrate a spectacular 0.68BB/100 hands. Second pair is from 3,874 hands in the last 3 days. Winrate -4.31 BB/100.


AA: 81%, 2.08 / 64%, 0.10
KK: 75%, 1.92 / 72%, 0.94
QQ: 70%, 1.54 / 65%, 1.40
AKs: 65%, 1.02 / 58%, 0.93
AKo: 59%, 0.45 / 52%, -0.15

Tough to win when your biggest cashcows aren't pulling their share, especially when you can't pull that much to begin with.

In conclusion: woe is me, variance sucks, I suck.

"Don't blame religion for what evil people do"

Some great discussion in the comments of my recent entries, definitely worth checking the comments out if you haven't. Thanks to everyone for your thoughts.

I wanted to highlight my response to someone who basically said that I shouldn't blame religion for the terrible things that people have done, because they were just bad people using religion in a bad way.

"i am quite sure there is some corruption involved and its not automatically the relgion to blame."

Do you think we should give judges the power to seize anyone's assets without explaination or appeal? Lets call that the Donkey Power.

And there are lots of good reasons to use the Donkey Power - you could take everything a drug dealer has and give it to needy children. Only the corrupt judges would abuse that priveledge, so its not that there's anything wrong with the Donkey Power, only there's something wrong with anyone who uses it inappropriately. Right? Come on.

Any power granted to people can be used inappropriately. For that reason we should be very careful what powers we give and why.

I like many of the core social teachings of religions. I don't like the absolutes and eternal consequences that they use to blackmail people who can't think for themselves. Be good because you'll go to heaven? No, be good because we're all better off that way.

Some religious leaders teach heaven and hell to encourage people to do good. They're the judges who use the Donkey Power to steal from drug dealers and give to needy children.

Some religious leaders teach heaven and hell to get people to fly planes into buildings. They're the judges who use the Donkey Power to steal from you to buy themselves a new car.

And here's the other thing. Do you think that Osama sees himself as a bad person? Of course not. Not too many people wake up in the morning and think "I'm going to do some evil today." Osama probably genuinely believes that his god will reward him for what he's doing. Is his god wrong but yours is right? The answer of course is that there is no god. God is the Donkey Power that someone invented and that people use for good or bad like every other power.

If Osama didn't have his imaginary friend, would he be trying to kill Americans? Maybe he'd find another reason. But he'd have a tougher time recruiting his soliders, who'd rather try to find 1 virgin here on earth since they'd know they aren't getting 6 dozen of them when they die. They'd rather trade with the US and improve their own lives than kill themselves fighting a far superior military power.

"religion is just the vehicle used by some evil people."

And its a really fucking powerful vehicle, so why give it to anyone? Yeah the donkey power can be used to do good, but it can also be used to do bad. Why put the donkey power out there if we can fight crime and poverty in other ways? We don't need religion. We dont need to invent heaven and hell to have reason to do good. And we dont need to give evil people such a powerful weapon to manipulate people.

my poker past and future

After a terrible evening, I decided to do some poker introspection. The following is semi-stream of consciousness.

Let's put tonight's loss in perspective.

At all levels since June 1, I've won 0.76 BB/100 in 120,000 hands.

$3/6: 0.77bb, 52k hands
$5/10: 1.27bb, 22k hands
$10/20: 0.49bb, 23k hands
$15/30: 0.56bb, 14k hands

If you're wondering why bothered with $15/30 when I haven't even shown much profitability at $3/6, here's the rough sequence of limits since June:

$10/20 ---> $15/30 hot at first, then very cold ---> retreat down to $10/20, frigidly cold --> retreat all the way down to $3/6, double from 2 to 4 tables and grind away, gradually go to 6 tables (which lowers my winrate) --> $5/10

So here I am at $5/10 and based on everything else, my 1.3 bb/100 here might be temporarily too high because I'm running hot. (1.3 would be 1.5bb if not for tonight. Shows you how volatile this stat is) Or maybe I've finally learned something and I'm improving a bit.

When I first move to a new game I'm very cautious about table selection, which probably helps me get off to a hot start. But when I'm being cautious, I'm not playing nearly as much because the higher stakes make it more emotional. Then I look at how little I'm playing and see that I've got a good winrate at first, and I start forcing myself to play more, sacrificing selectivity. Eventually I get sloppy, sit down without scouting it out, and play too many tables at a time. And then I start wondering what went wrong.

A better approach to moving to a new game would be to play it a bit here and there when the games look good, but then drop down and play the game I had been comfortable with before moving up. Or better yet, make damn sure I have a solid long-term win rate in a game before jumping up. Unfortunately financial constraints force me to try to maintain a minimum level of income, and laziness constraints limit the hours I play, so I tend to want to play higher than I probably should.

I've said this same shit so many times, and I keep having the same problem. This game is hard. It seeks out my weaknesses and exploits them. You can do the income math on the numbers above. Its not impressive at all. Luckily rakeback and bonuses more than double that number, otherwise I'd be employed by now. As it is, I'm just barely getting by month to month.

I always try to make these kind of entries have a positive spin. "If I do this or that, I have reason to be optimistic... blah blah..." Should I really be optimistic?

I think it is pretty clear by now that given my skill level, expenses, and endurance, I'm going to struggle to build a bankroll and move up to higher limits. But I'm clearly a proven winner at this point, albeit a marginal winner.

But then would I probably be a marginal winner at the next level? Say I can win 1.2 bb/100 at $5/10. That's $12 per 100 hands. Could I expect to win 0.8bb/100 at $10/20? That seems like a reasonable assumption. That's $16 per 100 hands with the same skill level. Plus then I'd be playing against better competition and hopefully learning from them and improving.

Is it insane to think I'd be better off playing higher when I haven't even been able to build a bankroll to afford higher stakes? This is part of the reason I think selling my house would be a good idea. I could live someplace cheaper that lowers my monthly expenses, increasing the amount of my winnings that I can reinvest in my bankroll. Hell if I had no expenses the last 6 months, I'd have a very nice bankroll. Plus I could use some of the cash infusion from the equity gain to pad my bankroll and possibly move to higher stakes.

Another weird possibility would be having someone stake me. I've never really seriously considered such an arrangement, but it might be a good fit here if someone with money to risk buys into the idea that I'd probably be a winner at a higher level. I'm not sure if playing with someone else's money would make me feel less pressure or more, although I suspect less since I'm a selfish bastard (luckily in this case that works to the advantage of my theoretical backer).

Maybe the Vegas trip I have planned for April would be a good test-run for a staking deal. From what I hear about the $20/40 and 30/60 games out there, I probably have the skill but not the bankroll to beat them. If anyone wants to invest in a mediocre poker player, let me know. (Yes, someone asking to borrow money is a huge warning sign that they'd be a bad investment. That's why this isn't really me asking. It is more like me letting you know about a lukewarm opportunity that we could consider. I expect the offers to now come flooding in.)

Anyway, the fact that my prospects for advancing are based more on capital infusions than hard work or skill is probably an indication that I won't be a professional poker player in 5 years. I've been thinking of other things I might like to do, but most of them will take some time to get started, so I think I'll be doing this for at least another year if I can make it. I still really enjoy poker, and I imagine it will be a great hobby and supplemental income source for the rest of my life.

terrible poker post, DO NOT READ

seriously I can't imagine anyone would want to read this. fair warning. halfway down there's a list of reason to read it. i'll highlight it in red. if any of those apply to you, maybe give the rest of it a read.

I've been sitting at a table for close to two hours now, with a huge fish directly on my right. He played almost 90% of his hands, and calls til the river with any hand. He'll bet, raise or check-raise only when he has a huge hand, 3 of a kind or better. Nobody else at the table has been better than mediocre.

I have nothing to show for this. Having position on this guy I've been raising quite frequently (27% of my hands) to isolate, and only 1 other player seems aware that I'm doing this. But the fish has made enough miracle hands against me that I've only managed to break even. It is getting pretty frustrating, especially since I got beat up tonight on a couple other tables and this one should be helping make up for those..

This is just a stupid bad beat story. Nobody wants to read it but writing it has theraputic properties. I've been on a terrible run lately so I need whatever edge I can get. In fact since I started writing it, things have turned around a bit. Nope, nevermind, some idiot just called with pocket deuces til the river and spiked a set. Woohoo!

If you're still reading there's an excellent chance that one of the following applies to you:

• excessive gay love for me
• hate me cause of the bad things I said about God and want to bask in my misery like a good Christian
  
• really really bored at work
• computer is frozen and you are glued to your chair
• you just really love bad beat stories

Hooray I just flopped a set against this idiot. Uh-oh he check-raised me. Guess I'll call down and see his straight. Yup.

[note: it gets a lot worse from here]

The idiot has now lost 67 big bets at this table, I'm sitting on his right, and I've lost 4. Awesome. This is pathetic. I am terrible at this game.

Yay he just check-called to the river w/A5 on a 678T5 board against my K9. Now I'm only down 1 bet. I just flopped a set of Kings now. Turn made a flush, sweet. Yup, I lose to 8-2 suited. Fuck me. Great the next hand some guy bet-3bet the Q52 flop with T7 and turned a T to beat my A4 flush draw. Thanks to the river 4 for making me call.

Oh boy here is AA. T7 guy 3bet me, fish calls, I cap. Board KJ6Q6 I put in lots of bets Fish boy bet the river with T9. I guess I should have folded. T7 guy mucked. Dear fucking god.

I don't really know when to stop in these situations. I've lost so much money tonight, but this is such a good table. How can I leave this seat? The fish has now lost 85 BBs, and I've lost 17 here, plus another 40 on other tables. I might as well just get a job.

There's my top 2 pair KJ losing to T4, who raised preflop. Awesome.

KJ again. Isolate! Some guy cold-calls and then raises the flop! Fold! Lose!

Alright fuck it. Nothing good will come of keeping playing. Wow what a terrible night. 67 big bets lost tonight, and 160 big bets in under 48 hours, erasing everything I had won in January so far. Seriously, anyone want to hire me?

I like the prison analogy by the way

I'm planning to keep working with that for future discussion. Obviously the question of guilt or innocence will be used to correspond to the question of the existence of god, although that wasn't its purpose in the context of the honesty illustration.

Am I better than you? and the value of dishonesty

In a comment on the previous post, Brian asked several questions that I might respond to in future posts. But what I want to address now is this question:

"why are you so certain you are so much better than others because you base your entire life on logic and reason?"

The notion of one person being better than another is meaningless to me. I don't think I'm better than anyone. I don't think anyone is better than anyone.

"Better" only makes sense to me in relation to goals. Which is a better car: a minivan or a Porshe? Well it depends if you need to get 1 person someplace in a hurry or 6 people someplace by noon.

When I say that acting rationally is better than acting irrationally, I mean that it is more likely to result in health, happiness, achievement of goals, or any other measure of commonly accepted positive aspects of life. I also think that an individual who behaves rationally is better for his community than one who acts irrationally, with the same positive results being the measure.

(I know that something like "happiness" or "positive aspect of life" are a fuzzy concepts that are difficult to measure. That doesn't make my contention wrong or unprovable, it just makes it more difficult to prove.)

I want to note that believing non-truth can in some ways appear to be advantageous to your health, happiness, and achievement of goals. This is why I also throw in that honesty is important.

As an example here's a scenario.

Assumptions:

• You wake up in prison, with no memory of what happened for the last week. You are told that you committed a crime and have been sentenced to life in prison. There is no appeal.

• You strongly believe that someone who committed the crime you are charged with deserves life in prison.
  

• The truth is that you had done nothing wrong, but you don't know it.

• Someone your age in good health can expect to live 50 more years.

• If you try to escape from prison, you have a 90% chance of being killed in the escape and a 10% chance of escaping and going on to live a normal life outside.

The question: Do you want to know you didn't do anything wrong?

In some ways, it would be better if you believed the lie. You wouldn't wrestle with your lack of memory and wonder if it really happened. You'd never consider escape, so you'd live 50 more years in prison. You'd accept your misdeed and you might be able to achieve happiness knowing that you are fairly paying the price of your crime. You could enjoy reading books and lifting weights and make the best of the situation. Dishonesty has some appeal here.

But I'd sure want to know that I was innocent. Then I could make a choice about escaping. I'd have to decide if a high risk of death is worth my freedom, and I'd probably conclude that it is. I value honesty.

Is believing in God stupid?

I've been told that another reason I'm so arrogant is that I seem to think that everyone who believes in god is stupid. I've been contemplating this matter, and I keep thinking about Bill O'Reilly.

I'm mentioned a few times on here that I've occasionally listened to his radio show and I like a lot of what he has to say. I like his approach of being fair-minded and objective, and his willingness to fight for what he believes in. I think he's a brilliant guy, and I know that he is a devoted Catholic.

If he believes in god with absolute certainty, then it is because he doesn't apply the same fair-minded objective standard to his religious thought. In establishing political, historical or scientific claims, he would demand supporting evidence that passes fair tests of logic, objectivity, and reproducibility. No reasons that he or anyone else believe in god would meet those standards of proof.

Is he stupid for believing in god? No. He just hasn't decided to apply those standards to every part of his life.

Is it stupid not to apply such standards to every part of his life? Ah, this is a better question. I think it probably is stupid not to consistently apply standards of proof to all aspects of belief, but I'm not as sure about this. To answer that question, we need to determine the good and bad consequences of that decision. If the bad outweighs the good, belief without adequate evidence is stupid.

Belief in god, or choosing to follow a certain faith has certainly been a very positive thing for many people. The good side of religious faith is well documented, and I don't think I need to elaborate here. Some parts of the bad side of religious faith have also been well documented - people commit all kinds of unspeakable atrocities in the name of god.

But what about Bill O'Reilly? He's not advocating killing all the non-believers, so there isn't that bad consequence of his decision not to apply rigorous standards of proof to his religious faith. But a point I've touched on before from the Atheist Manifesto is that widespread acceptance of religious thinking encourages people to accept false certainties. Just because he doesn't choose to take drastic actions based on his beliefs doesn't mean that other people won't.

If Bill O'Reilly, who demands proof for almost everything, believes in his idea of god without proof, why can't radical Muslim terrorists do the same:

A person can be so well educated that he can build a nuclear bomb while still believing that he will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Such is the ease with which the human mind can be partitioned by faith, and such is the degree to which our intellectual discourse still patiently accommodates religious delusion.

So I think an important downside of Mr. O'Reilly's religious beliefs is that it adds to societal acceptance of irrational conclusions.

No, I don't think Bill O'Reilly is stupid for believing in God. But I suspect it does more harm than good, a suspicion based on my belief that honesty is better than dishonesty. Obviously this entry isn't a full analysis of the harm and the good, it is just to illustrate the kind of approach needed to answer the questions asked.

I'm open to the possibility that full analysis might show that religion does more direct good than harm. But I'm not sure than goodness built on irrational belief is the way I'd like the world to be running. Maybe my valuing honesty is naive.

Atheism under fire

I was confronted today by a very close family member who heard that I wrote that I'm an atheist. It was clear that there was not going to be a discussion, just a very emotional expression of disapproval and an accusation of arrogance. I probably am an arrogant bastard, however it boggles my mind that an otherwise very smart person can think an expression of my (dis)beliefs arrogant.

Such is the preposterous infallibility of the believer; their belief is unassailable, and anyone who dares question it is to be ridiculed and shamed. Is that not the definition of arrogance? We overlook the boundless arrogance of the faithful every day*, mostly because those of us who recognize it would rather try to ignore it than call them out on it and face their self-righteous indignation.

Neither of us expect to be able to change the other's mind. However, because this is someone that I love, I plan to try to explain why my atheism doesn't make me a bad guy.

The claim of arrogance against me was explained by a comment "the vast majority of people, and so many brilliant people believe in God." So the idea is that I'm arrogant for thinking I know better than them.

I'm sure I could spend hours documenting hundreds of stupid things that lots of people believe. I could theorize why people tend to believe dumb things, and tell the story about the Emperor's new clothes. I'll save myself the effort and skip to the bottom line: if a million people believe a stupid idea, it is still a stupid idea.

But I think there is a fair point - learn from smart people. A problem with this is that I could probably also provide plenty of examples of people known for their brilliance in one area who have ridiculous beliefs in other areas. Hitler, Osama, The Unabomber, Sadaam... intelligent people with bad ideas. Some people use their intelligence to cleverly argue the case for a belief they chose irrationally, kind of like brilliant lawyers defending obviously guilty clients.

So the smart people I look to are scientists. The scientific method trains you to remove sources of bias and rely on evidence. Science is open to disagreement, constructive criticism, and falsification of theories. Master the scientific method, and you master the best path we have to discovering truth.

From Natalie Angier's Confessions of a Lonely Atheist:

Recently, Edward J. Larson, a science historian at the University of Georgia, and Larry Witham, a writer, polled scientists listed in American Men and Women of Science on their religious beliefs. Among this general group, a reasonably high proportion, 40 percent, claimed to believe in a "personal God" who would listen to their prayers. But when the researchers next targeted members of the National Academy of Sciences, an elite coterie if ever there was one, belief in a personal God was 7 percent, the flip of the American public at large. This is not to say that intelligence and atheism are in any way linked, but to suggest that immersion in the scientific method, and success in the profession, tend to influence its practitioners.

So here are the stats** on belief in God:

American Public: over 90%
General Scientists: 40%
Elite Scientists: 7%

Scientists are overwhelmingly less likely to believe in God than people with little scientific expertise. I don't even think it is arrogant to profess a belief in God, thus rejecting the disbelief of the people who understand how best to search for and discover truth. But I do think it is arrogant to have all that information and still think less of someone for their atheism.



* Sam Harris: "Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs."

** I didn't go to the trouble of checking those stats, because I'm lazy. I've seen similar stats before, and I doubt anyone would seriously dispute the contention that atheism is much more common among elite scientists than in the general population, which is all I need to make my point. The inevitable comic result is that some religious zealot will provide stats that show the opposite, I'll criticize their survey methodology, and they'll say the results bias my evaluation. Of course the scientific approach has solved this dilemma - simply have someone review the methodology before they know the results. Religion has also solved this dilemma - simply form your beliefs regardless of evidence, and ignore anyone who questions you.