Dinesh D'Souza is a D'ouchebag

Dinesh D'Souza takes the opportunity of the Virginia Tech massacre to write his odd and badly-reasoned screed, "Where is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?"  He opens thusly:

Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found. Every time there is a public gathering there is talk of God and divine mercy and spiritual healing.

Yes, Dinesh, I notice that atheists are not prominently featured on the news in the aftermath of this horrible tragedy.  I also notice they aren't featured when things are going well, either.  Perhaps you're shocked that public gatherings after a tragedy take a godly tone - perhaps you've never seen a tragedy unfold before.  This is quite normal.  He continues:

To no one's surprise, [Richard] Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it's difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil.

No, atheism deals just as badly with the problem of evil as any group of believers.  What Dawkins' lack of an invitation to speak at Virginia Tech tells me is A) grieving people tend to look for some spiritual answer for their loss and hurt, and atheists don't pretend to give them those, B) Dawkins is British, and would have no reason to be invited to VT even if he was a godly man, and C) the people of Virginia Tech, unlike you, see no reason to inject a religious debate into an already difficult time. 

Is this seriously what you've taken away from this?  That a community in which 80% (at a minimum!) of the people can be expected to embrace a god of some sort wouldn't take their most painful time to put atheists out in front to help them deal with the situation?  This is, what, some sort of sign that atheists feel nothing when something like this happens? 

People who attack atheists in this way have a blind spot that makes me sad.  This belief that atheists just sit around having no moral code, stealing, killing, doing whatever they want but feeling nothing one way or the other about what happens is, frankly, juvenile.  If Dinesh D'Souza honestly believes this, he has no business writing a column that people with an IQ above 50 might read. 

Apparently D'Souza updated his blog post, energized by all the atheists he's irritated.  He continues:

One clever writer informs me that atheists don't deny meaning, they simply insist that meaning is not inherent in the universe, it is created by us. Okay, pal, here's the Virginia Tech situation. Go create some meaning and share it with the rest of us Give us that atheist sermon with you in the pulpit of the campus chapel. I'm not being facetious here. I really want to hear what the atheist would tell the grieving mothers.

So you think that since atheists won't refer to a god, they can't comfort people?  You know, I lost someone in my family recently.  Others in the family were significantly closer to this person than I was, and they're suffering unbelievable grief as a result of the loss.  And, atheists all of us, we've managed to comfort one another with love and understanding - as any humans should be able to do.  Sure, it'd be nice to say "he's in a better place," or "God has a plan for him," but it wouldn't be true, and it wouldn't make them feel better.  The person they love is still gone. 

D'Souza's line of reasoning not only fails to understand atheists and atheism to an astonishing degree, but it shows a shocking failure to understand grief.  These grieving parents, siblings, friends, and lovers aren't looking for God - they're just looking for comfort.  Those who are religious will undoubtedly turn to their faith for comfort, and it's good that they do.  To suggest that no atheists were lost this week, or that no atheists lost someone at VT, is statistically nonsense.  Those people, too, want and will receive comfort, but in different ways.  When helping those who are suffering this burden this week, one would do just as well to hold them and say "There, there.  There, there."  The grieving aren't listening to your words of "comfort"...they just need the contact.  I think between atheists and D'Souza, the unfeeling one seems to be D'Souza - because no one who legitimately feels, in their heart and soul, the pain of this tragedy would actually write what he decided to write yesterday.

Luckily, I don't have to defend atheism ('cause I'm a crappy writer and don't do it well) in this case, because an actual professor at Virginia Tech has done so, and in the process wrote one of the most beautiful and moving explanations of the atheist understanding of life I've ever seen.  Rather than bother with any more of my nonsense, I'll leave you with some choice quotes - please read the whole thing.

I am to be found in Lane Stadium, looking out over a sea of maroon and orange, trying not to break down when someone mentions the inviolability of the classroom and the bond between a teacher and his students. That is my classroom, Mr D’Souza, my students, my chosen responsibility in this godless life, my small office in the care of humanity and its youth.

I know that brutal death can come unannounced into any life, but that we should aspire to look at our approaching death with equanimity, with a sense that it completes a well-walked trail, that it is a privilege to have our stories run through to their proper end. I don’t need to live forever to live once and to live completely. It is precisely because I don’t believe there is an afterlife that I am so horrified by the stabbing and slashing and tattering of so many lives around me this week, the despoliation and ruination of the only thing each of us will ever have.

We atheists do not believe in gods, or angels, or demons, or souls that endure, or a meeting place after all is said and done where more can be said and done and the point of it all revealed. We don’t believe in the possibility of redemption after our lives, but the necessity of compassion in our lives. We believe in people, in their joys and pains, in their good ideas and their wit and wisdom. We believe in human rights and dignity, and we know what it is for those to be trampled on by brutes and vandals. We may believe that the universe is pitilessly indifferent but we know that friends and strangers alike most certainly are not. We despise atrocity, not because a god tells us that it is wrong, but because if not massacre then nothing could be wrong.

I am to be found on the drillfield with a candle in my hand. “Amazing Grace” is a beautiful song, and I can sing it for its beauty and its peacefulness. I don’t believe in any god, but I do believe in those people who have struggled through pain and found beauty and peace in their religion. I am not at odds with them any more than I am at odds with Americans when we sing the “Star-Spangled Banner” just because I am not American.

...

That is why we have science, and novels, and friendships, and poetry, and practical jokes, and photography, and a sense of awe at the immensity of time and the planet’s natural history, and walks with loved ones along the Huckleberry Trail, and atheist friends who keep kosher because, well just because, and passionate reverence for both those heroes who believed and those who did not, and have all this without needing a god to stitch together the tapestry of life.

...

Those of us with the slightest shred of deceny do not tell widows to deal with it, to get over it. That the world can be callous is no reason to be so myself. I know that no family could ever get over this loss, that no family should ever be expected to get over this loss -- either by themselves, by religious rhetoricians bearing false platitudes, or by inane political pundits -- but that not getting over the loss does not preclude some other kind of happiness, some other source of joy, at some other time. Not now, not in this moment, not when they have moved on, but only when it comes to them one day, like light dawning slowly.

Bush changes his comments

Here's what he said first:

White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said that President Bush "was horrified and his immediate reaction was one of deep concern for the families of the victims, the victims themselves, the students, the professors and all the people of Virginia who have dealt with this shocking incident. His thoughts and prayers are with them."
"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed."

Here's what he says now:

President Bush says the nation grieves with those who lost loved ones in the Virginia Tech shootings, and federal authorities will help local communities in any way possible.

Here's the thing.  I'm sure he does "grieve" with the families of those affected - any normal person does.  I can't imagine the horror the families of those killed will feel over the coming weeks, as their loss plays out on 24 hour cable news, and I feel so terrible for them.  I don't draw attention to this because I've got some opportunity to bash Bush.

I'm writing about this because on top of the horror of the situation, I'm horrified that the White House felt it necessary to make a statement in support of the 2nd Amendment part of their official comment on the shootings.  Could they not have stopped with "His thoughts and prayers are with them."?  Is it really necessary for them to add a political statement to every comment that comes out of that building?  I can't fathom even thinking of the 'right to bear arms' coming into a comment about this sad day.

Oh, he went there

What a douchebag.  31 people dead at Virginia Tech (at last count), and all Bush has to say is that he affirms the right to bear arms, as long as you do it lawfully.  Thanks for the fucking sensitive support, you jackass.  Honestly, does any human feeling penetrate the sacks of flesh currently occupying our White House?

I call it "balance"

Our faithful Hyundai was totaled, sadly. So we bought one of these:

I still have this:

I think, combined in my driveway, they average out to this:

Fascinating Womanhood, Green Prosperity Handkerchiefs

The people have spoken. As my three regular readers know, I watch my hits religiously and obsess about referring links. Primarily, I love to know what people search on Google when they find me. Lately, there's been another run on the Green Prosperity Handkerchief and Fascinating Womanhood. Being a man of democracy as well as exceeding good looks and fashion sense, I shall give you what you want!

Christ, this could take a while...Mrs. Switzer started reading the Fascinating Womanhood book. We'll have to wait while she processes her outrage...

Okay, we're back. First, a word on Don Stewart and his "Green Prosperity Handkerchief" scam. If you're looking for the green hankies because you want to help Don out and maybe get rich yourself, you need to do a couple things: 1) Change the channel. You saw him on TV and bought his line. 2) Address your own financial situation, and get real help from real people. There is always help available. Don is not going to help you; in fact, he wants to take what little money you have left and put it in his pocket. 3) Know that Don Stewart has been convicted, more than once, for stealing the money of people just like you. It's okay to be poor and hope for a miracle, but you've got to work for that miracle, and stop trusting immoral hucksters like Don. (and if you're here because you saw through the scam and want to find out more about Don, welcome, friend!)

So here's how this works. I find a section of Fascinating Womanhood that just has to be shared, and I share it. Then you read it. Then I say some nasty things about the loons who actually subscribe to this nonsense. Then Switzerblog continues it's meteoric rise to fame (5 regular readers, here we come!).

Today, we're going to learn about "childlike anger". Apparently, this is a great way to keep your husband happy (the ultimate goal of FW) and still get your way (goal #2). She starts with a description of a child's anger...

They are so trusting, so sincere, and so innocent, and yet so piquant and outspoken that they are often teased into anger. They are too innocent to feel hate, jealousy, resentment and the uglier emotions. When such a child is teased, she does not respond with some hideous sarcasm. Instead she stamps her foot and shakes her curls and pouts. She gets adorably angry at herself because her efforts to respond are impotent.

You see where this is going...Next we get an introduction in how to express childlike anger.

2. Manner: Next time you are angry with your husband, why not try some childlike mannerisms: Stomp your foot, lift your chin high and square your shoulders. Then, if the situation merits it, turn and walk briskly to the door, pause and look back over your shoulder. Or you can put both hands on your hips and open your eyes wide. Or (warning - Switzer's favorite tactic in 3, 2, 1...), beat your fists on your husband's chest. Men love this! (Mrs. Switzer tried it for me - it was mostly weird.) Or, there is the timid, frustrated manner of pouting, looking woeful or looking with downcast eyes while mumbling under your breath, or putting both hands to your face, saying "Oh, dear!" These are only a few of the childlike mannerisms you can adopt.

Some of these actions may seem unnatural to you, at first. If they do, you will have to be an actress to succeed in childlike anger, even if only a ham actress. But, remember, you will be launching an acting career which will save you pain, tension, frustration, a damaged relationship and perhaps even save a marriage. Is any acting career of greater importance? So, turn on the drama. It is guaranteed to prick tension in no time flat and bring humor into your life instead of pain.

That's right, ladies. If he's laughing at you, he can't be angry at you. Don't worry about working things out, just go ahead and humiliate yourself a bit for your man's amusement, and all will be well! Back to it...

3. Use Adjectives: Acquire a list of expressions or words which compliment masculinity, such as "you big, tough brute," or "you stubborn, obstinate man," or "you hairy beast" (oh, yeah, baby). Other appropriate adjectives are - unyielding, determined, difficult, hard-hearted, inflexible, unruly, stiff-necked, indomitable and invincible. Be certain that your words compliment masculinity and will not belittle his ego, such as the words little, imp, pip-squeak, insignificant, weak, simple-minded, etc.

Yeah, save weak and simple-minded for yourself, toots.

4. Exaggerate: Exaggerate his treatment of you by saying, for example, "How can a great big man like you pick on a poor little helpless girl like me!" or "So this is the way you treat a poor little helpless girl," or "Oh, what a dreadful thing to do!" or "You are the meanest man in town." Or, be charmingly defensive by saying, "I'm just a poor, erring, wayward little human being," or "Everyone has at least one little fault. Nobody's perfect!" Or, make childlike threats by saying, "I'll never speak to you again," or "I won't do anything for you anymore," or "I'll tell your mother on you." Be sure that your expressions represent a trustful, feminine woman of high character and not a vulgar or suspicious one.

Good lord - don't tell the Switzermom! Now, for some ground rules: When you do and do not have a right to be angry.

You have a right to express anger when you have been mistreated - when you have been insulted, criticized harshly, imposed on too far, treated unfairly, ignored, teased, etc. But you do not have a right to express anger when the man has failed in his world of responsibility, when he has made a stupid mistake in his work, lost his job, neglected to cut the lawn, balance the budget or wash the car, etc. He has a right to be himself, to be weak, lazy, to neglect his duty or even to fail. That is his department. He does not, however, have a right to mistreat you. This is where we draw the line.

So, I have to ask: Is it not mistreating you if he fails to be responsible? Don't both parties have an obligation to not be lazy, to ensure the family doesn't wind up destitute? This crazy broad has just indicated that men have a right to impose more work on women by being lazy and neglecting whatever their own jobs may be, because that is somehow not mistreatment! That's not even funny - it just scares me that there are still women who think this way! Oy. Anyway, crazy broad goes on to tell us that you don't use childlike anger to change your man, just to vent your feelings when he mistreats you. (If you haven't been following along, you're not allowed to try to reform a man who mistreats you according to FW) Don't use it for "trifles" so you don't seem picky, and even though it's difficult, you must use it for major offenses like, you know, physical abuse and infidelity. She makes it clear this may be difficult, but it isn't impossible! Let's take a look at major offense, then I'll let you get on with your life.

MAJOR OFFENSES
There are some serious ways in which men sometimes mistreat women - infidelity, physical abuse, gross neglect, non-support, and lack of respect for human rights and liberty, etc. When a man thus mistreats his wife, she needs to live the entire philosophy of Fascinating Womanhood for a period of time, to soften his heart and try to bring about a reformation in his behavior.

You read that right. If he cheats or beats you, don't leave - just practice being a Fascinating Woman. The best part is coming up.

Men's ugly actions are sometimes the woman's fault, sometimes due to her lack of acceptance, admiration, sympathetic understanding, and her failure to place him No. 1. When she so neglects his greatest needs, she can bring out his ugly side.

Yeah, you read that right.

But, in addition to living all of Fascinating Womanhood, major offenses can sometimes be handled with childlikeness. For example, a woman wrote to me the following experience: "One night my husband was out with another woman. As I waited in agony for him to come home in the early morning hours, I determined to react with childlikeness. When he came home, I ran to the door to meet him, threw my arms around him weeping, and said, 'Oh, how could you do this to poor little me?' My husband was aroused to compassion and took me tenderly in his arms. This was the beginning of a new life for us."

Yes, a life where you're going to get syphillis from your cheating shit of a husband.

Christ. Okay, listen. If you're here because you searched Fascinating Womanhood and you're interested in using the method to improve your marriage, please - consider just finding a better man to be married to. This book is nonsense. It is not your responsibility to be taken advantage of, or to roll over while your husband hits you, lies to you, fails to make any effort to help support the family, gathers STD's from some other woman. You are just as capable of handling the finances as a man. Men don't want women who wear frilly dresses around the house or who avoid physical labor by manipulating their men. Be a partner - if your man can't handle it, he's got insecurity problems that you can't fix, and it ain't worth trying.

Kiss Hank's Ass

An oldy but a goody.

Testing Windows Live Writer

Damn Blogger - changing everything so my Writer settings are screwed up!  If you can read me bitching about this, my settings successfully changed, and w00t for that.

Pharmacies must fill Plan B prescriptions!!

The undereducated throughout Washington state shudder in fear.

After the Board of Pharmacy decided last year that pharmacists could ignore their training and job descriptions and prevent women from receiving the Plan B emergency contraception, rational people around the state rebelled. Loudly. In very large numbers. Using, you know...reason. They of course didn't stick with the decision and Chris Gregoire pushed them down the right road. Today, they voted to require pharmacies to fill lawful prescriptions no matter what individual pharmacists have been told by their pastors.

Plan B in short:

Sold as Plan B, emergency contraception is a high dose of the drug found in many regular birth-control pills. It can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

So, as you can see, it prevents unwanted pregnancies, and the resulting abortions, by actually blocking conception. (More on this later)

The "problem":

Some critics consider the pill related to abortion, although it is different from the so-called abortion pill RU-486 and has no effect on women who already are pregnant.

Some critics consider the pill related to abortion. Honestly, I'm so fucking sick of American legislative policy being driven by a group of people who willfully avoid education for themselves and their children, lest science or 'proof' disturb their chosen set of beliefs. I'm speaking, of course, of the goal-driven zealots I've mentioned in the past.

Look, for the GDZ reading this who don't comprehend the issue and just reflexively equate any woman's decision about their body with abortion, here's a primer:

* Abortion works like this: First, one must concieve. A fetus must be present. Then, development of the fetus is terminated. I'm not going into great detail about the procedure, true, but this is the basics.

* Plan B works like this: It prevents conception.

Without conception, there can be no abortion. Hence, Plan B cannot possibly in any rational world be equated to abortion! It's truly difficult to fathom how anyone can be so dense as to not follow this, but the goal-driven zealots running today's American Christianity-like product are making every effort to prevent their followers from gaining any, whatcha callit...knowledge or reasoning skills.

You goddamn GDZ retards are so blinded by your fear that other people are having sex or fucking learning something that you'd rather your kids be exposed to cancer unnecessarily than receive a vaccine that can prevent it (HPV - another post, another day) because NOT getting debilitating STD's might tempt you to fuck strangers wildly, and you're so goddamn blinded by your abortion-quest that you'd block access to something that will reduce the need for abortions because you don't understand the difference between conception and a vagina with some semen in it.

Please - I'm begging you - for the good of all Americans, please put your bible down a couple times a day and read a fucking science book so you can navigate your way through the world we all have to live in without hurting other people.

Thanks, Slog!

Thanks, Slog, for making me a “Friend of Slog”! As you no doubt know, you have long been in my blogroll, and the requiting of this previously unrequited blogroll love certainly does this blogger’s heart a world of good. In appreciation for your elevating me to this status, I promise to write more often, and perhaps even with more quality. In time, I hope I can provide a service similar to Seattlest and occasionally free you from the burden of creating original content.

/asskissing

Okay, so...Felix seems to be for real.

So, seriously – just turned 21, he goes into a pressure-cooker in Boston against Dice-K and proceeds to throw a complete game 1-hitter? And only four balls even get out of the infield, all in the 8^th and 9^th inning? Yeah, Felix Hernandez is for real. Looks like he’s going to be the every-fifth-game stopper that Randy Johnson was in the late ‘90’s, a guy that can come out when the team gets wobbly and prop them up by sheer dominance. Sure, it’s early, but in his first two games he’s faced two pretty damn good offensive lineups and given up four hits. That’s four hits and two walks over 17 innings of pitching. That’s dominance, and it’s really never too early to recognize that.

For streak watchers, he’s got 17 straight innings without giving up a run. So he’s only 43 innings away from setting a record already!

History Channel's Christianity Problem

I'm home sick today. While waiting for the Mariners to start their opening day game, I watched a lot of History Channel, as I do whenever I have a chance. I can't get enough of that shit - I'm addicted to History's Mysteries, Modern Marvels...just about all of it other than the days-long Hitler fests they sometimes binge on. Today brought up a recurring problem I see with the History Channel, though.

Today, they had a show called "The Exodus Decoded", which according to the abstract claims:

With a new timetable, Jacobovici reexamined artifacts and discovered that the traditional consensus on the date was reached without reference to Judaic texts that record the oral traditions. When Jacobovici consulted these texts, they revealed names of people and places unknown to researchers until recently when extensive excavations in the Nile Delta took place. Teaming up with special effects designers, he created a unique digital experience of the Exodus. Blending archaeological findings with eye-catching effects, Jacobovici creates a virtual museum to showcase his discoveries.

Okay, fine. Unfortunately, this isn't really the thrust Jacobovici goes for in the actual show. In the show, he uses geographical, archaeological and other evidence to verify the story of the Exodus - he stresses that he is countering people who don't "believe" in the Exodus, who he claims doubt the Exodus because, if true, it would "confirm the existence of God". He even goes on a bit of a tangent about God not "suspending" nature, but "manipulating" it, allowing us to verify His works through science.

Look, I don't mind verification of Bible stories - honestly, are there people who doubt that an exodus similar to that in the Bible really happened? When proof is found of a biblical town - Jericho, Sodom, etc., I think it's super interesting from a historical standpoint. It's even good stuff for the History Channel (watch "Digging for the Truth" when they cover a biblical story - it's a great example of saying, "Oh, here's proof of this story," without taking a position on what that means about God). You find archaeological evidence of a thing, it shoudl be studied and touted!

But this guy goes beyond that, in more ways than one. One of the things he does is insert a great deal of supposition. When talking about the parting of the waters, he reaches, for example. The entire story is based on what 'could have' happened, but he claims these 'could haves' as evidence. he talks about the geological instability of the region, and suggests that a small earthquake could have started a massive underwater landslide, causing the surrounding land to possibly raise up as much as a meter and a half. This could have created enough dry land among the water to allow Moses to take his people across what had been a small sea. THEN, he reaches further by supposing that a tsunami could have resulted (apparently running in reverse from the path of the landslide, by the way) and swept across said raised land, wiping out Pharaoh's army.

Let's just think about this for a minute:

1. You can't build evidence on 'could have'.
2. It's really not relevant if the Exodus story is true - interesting, but not relevant
3. Most people assume it IS true, not literally, but at least allegorically (i.e., the very broad facts are accurate, details filled in)
4. Even if this guy is dead-on, it doesn't prove God was involved - it actually would underscore the power of nature.

Look, the bible is a fascinating book, with lots of stories - mostly oral traditions written down after centuries of retelling, with some myth and allegory thrown in. But proving that a story in the bible actually happened doesn't mean God exists! I don't know how to get across to Christians that the bible is not proof. Repeating that "it's the word of God" is not proof. It's just your belief.

And it offends me when the History Channel runs shows purporting to be 'history' that attempt to use verification of some historical retelling from the bible as proof of God. I expect better. History is a science, and should retain it's integrity, free from any religion and any bias. It's hard enough to trust history when we know that the winners write history, but when we even abandon that and just let religiosity (not religion) rewrite history, and use that to make leaps that are unrelated and make no sense.

Was Switzer right?!?

Remember this?

I'm just sayin'...I'm not the only one who's noticed.