Disqus - Latest Comments for david

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

david — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 06:50:17 -0000

While I don't always agree with you on your rants and writings, I respect your ideas a lot. They're always well thought out and VERY well presented. It's to the point where, even if I disagreed with something, I wouldn't want to respond because you'd "win" on articulation alone. I mean really, I'm not just trying to flatter you here - this is good stuff. In this one case, however, I'd like to point out something that I'm not quite aligned with.

You wrote:

"Before I heard this radio program today I was well aware of cognitive dissonance theory and I was also well aware of the role that cognitive dissonance had played in my life as a Jehovah’s Witness[...] There were a few things in the program, however, that I had previously been unaware of. The most interesting one involved a recent study in which brain scans were done of people experiencing dissonance (the abstract of the study is here) and it was discovered that the brain literally STOPS THINKING until the dissonance is reduced. This is not figurative, but quite literal. The brain ceases to perform thought when under severe cognitive dissonance until the dissonance is reduced. This is a deeply-ingrained evolved trait across all cultures and genders. What this means is that people who are undergoing cognitive dissonance reduction are unaware that they are doing it because they aren’t thinking at the time. That, my friends, is interesting."

This is inaccurate. I've read the paper (and not just the abstract that you linked to) and I do not see this "brain literally STOPS THINKING" business. It actually thinks more. If I may, I'd like to clear this up a bit.

First, I'd like to explain the study. These guys took 30 men - 15 Republicans, 15 Democrats - and subjected them to contradictory statements made by, in turn, Republican leaders, Democratic leaders, and neutral personalities. They then put up statements that cleared up the apparent contradictions. An example they give goes like this:

Slide 1 - ‘‘First of all, Ken Lay is a supporter of mine. I love the man. I got to know Ken Lay years ago, and he has given generously to my campaign. When I’m President, I plan to run the government like a CEO runs a country. Ken Lay and Enron are a model of how I’ll do that.’’—Candidate
George Bush, 2000

Slide 2 - Mr. Bush now avoids any mention of Ken Lay and is critical of Enron when asked.

Slide 3 - People who know the President report that he feels betrayed by Ken Lay, and was genuinely shocked to find that Enron’s leadership had been corrupt.

And they have an example for Democrat John Kerry and an example of a neutral person about a politically neutral subject (Walter Cronkite on the subject of retirement).

The idea is that when viewing contradictory statements about their own party leaders, the subject's brain will react differently from when they view contradictory statements by the opponent party leaders and the neutrals. They were looking specifically for emotional vs. cognitive brain activity.

I personally don't go in for all this cognitive dissonance stuff, but for the sake of argument we'll use these terms. What you've posted is that, for example, when the Republican, who is a big Bush supporter, sees contradictory statements made by G.W. his brain shuts off - "STOPS THINKING" - in the face of this cognitive dissonance. His brain then kicks back in when the dissonance is removed (during the statements that clear up the contradiction). The study did not propose this, nor did it find this.

Second, we have to understand how this kind of stuff is monitored. They use fMRI to look at the parts of the brain that are active during the different parts of the experiment. (They are actually looking at blood flow, but the correlation is pretty direct so we'll just say they are looking at neural activity.) The outputs are actually difference images. You take the fMRI of a guy doing one activity and subtract it from the fMRI of the same guy doing a slightly different activity. I'll explain the specific comparison that was made in a second, but the important thing to note is that you can have a final brain scan image with a sort of dark inactive area that was actually fully active during the test. It's only dark and inactive looking because you are comparing it to something very similar. The activity has been subtracted.

Stupid example - here's a scan of the effects of me singing my favorite song vs. thinking of my favorite song. It's a difference image so you'll notice that the parts of the brain that recall song lyrics are not active. So I'm not recalling the lyrics when I sing them? No, we've just purposely removed those bits so we can focus on just the effects of singing.

You can probably see where you went wrong already, but let's get all “sciencey” for a minute.

Let's look at the study.

The first difference image from the study compares what the brain "looks like" when the subject was looking at the contradictory statements made by his party leader vs. what his brain "looks like" when he's looking at the contradictions of the politically neutral contradiction.

From the paper:

"The first contrast subtracted neutral targets from same party targets during the contradiction phase (e.g., Republicans evaluating Bush contradictions vs. contradictions involving Hank Aaron). As can be seen in Figure 3, processing emotionally threatening information about one’s preferred candidate relative to a neutral target activated distributed sites in the medial PFC, including a large cluster of activation that included the ventral (‘‘affective’’) subdivision of the ACC, as well as the more rostral (‘‘cognitive’’) subdivision, and extending into the ventromedial PFC, a region associated with affective processing and emotional influences on reasoning. A superior medial prefrontal region was also activated. The other notable finding was a large area of activation in the posterior cingulate cortex, associated in prior studies with neural processing related to social emotions, moral evaluations, and judgments of forgivability."

Note that the rostral subdivision of the anterior cingulate cortex was more active when facing this cognitive dissonance. The subject was thinking more. Also keep in mind that other cognitive areas were in full use, but since they were in use for the “neutral targets” as well, they were removed from the fMRI.

There were three other comparisons that were looked at, but they are irrelevant to the discussion. The point has been made. People who face this supposed cognitive dissonance do not stop cognitively thinking - they think even more. Science has proved this out (although the paper has not been published nor even peer reviewed so maybe “proved” is not right).

The good news is that you didn't make this false conclusion up. It seems that some dolt spread this "brain stops thinking" crap all over the Internet and it leaked into news articles and (apparently) radio programs all around the country. Funny thing is, the original perpetrator was being ironic. Unfortunately, the media ran with it without understanding.

You wrote:

"...The average person is incapable of telling the difference between science and pseudo-science. It’s all jargon and mumbo-jumbo and if it sounds scientific, then it must be."

Very true.

The full paper can be found here: http://www.psychsystems.net/lab/06_Westen_fmri.pdf

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

david — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 06:50:17 -0000

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

david — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:56:25 -0000

I just gotta say thank you to everyone who's added to this discussion. Ryan, Tom, Jennifer - you guys are all great to read. I wish this blog discussion could go on, but it looks like it's winding down. Each of you have hit on some good points. Before I say more I should let Tom know that I'm in "the other camp" here. Ryan and Jennifer are friends of mine so they already know where we're aligned. Still Tom, I see a lot of good points in your arguments. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're one of those guys who's in the organization, but doesn't line up perfectly with every little thing.

You know, this whole discussion started with this cognitive dissonance thing. I've heard of it before (I'm guessing from James or Ryan or Jennifer) and I remember not being too taken with it. I mean, it seems to either be a non-theory theory, or it's too general and covers too much, or it's just too often abused by really opinionated people who want to sound objective. It's something though.

So maybe it's too much of a non-theory theory. Like it explains some really obvious thing so it's either a law disguised as a theory or it's just complicated wording for stuff we're all familiar with and so we sit around sounding smart while talking about nothing. I know, I know - that's my answer for everything that's over my head. Fine.

But maybe this Cognitive Dissonance is a very general thing that's everywhere all the time. You have your cognitions that make up your personality. Every time you meet a new cognition, you have to reconcile it with the rest of the cognitions. "Huh? Did that guy just jump ten feet straight up? Oh, he's on a trampoline." Did you feel the dissonance there? People can't jump ten feet straight up. I know that. But I saw what I saw.

You know, reading this blog causes CD. Ryan and Jennifer don't agree with Tom. Depending on your opinion, one or the other viewpoint will be taken in as dissonant cognitions. So if it's everywhere all the time and I'm sure to varying degrees, why say that JW's should have any sort of special interest in it? Is it because they face more dissonant cognitions based on the fact that they are constantly on the lookout for differing opinions? Is it because they are open minded people that are always trying to better themselves through change. Does their unbiased open-mindedness for truth with no emotional leanings mean that they are more likely to not only explore new conflicting cognitions, but also be more likely to change their own cognitions?

No. If anything, a "good" JW should experience less dissonance. Going to an apostate website, reading oposing viewpoint material, schools of higher education, arguing with an opposer at a door, mixing company with unbelievers, becoming overly social with people who don't agree with you... these are things that are discouraged. On the other hand, The Public Conversations Project, in Cambridge, Massachusetts is a good example of truly open minded people trying to CREATE CD to better themselves. They do this by listening to the other side. They are there to grow. They look at CD as a good thing. And why not? You can not grow without Cognitive Dissonance. If there is no discomfort, there is no reduction. Reduction is the path to change. So yeah, if you were born right and don't need to add or alter anything in your mind, please avoid CD. I like it.

But maybe it's not so general. Maybe it's only a subject for these big in-your-face topics. But then maybe you can get in to trouble if you try to use it as a tool to sound your opinions off of. You know that book that "the good doctor" was peddling? I read some reviews about it and it would seem that he makes it very clear who he voted for in the last election. I like examples and illustrations as much as the next guy, but how good of an understanding will you get looking at things in such a one-sided fashion. You have three options when you reduce dissonant cognitions. Personally, I'd like to hear examples that offer explanations of each option without feeling that one is right.

Let's say I know nothing of CD and I come to this blog. I learn about the problem that people face when they think incorrect things. They face the truth of reality and it causes them pain so they have to make stuff up or shut their brains off or do some other negative thing. That or realize how wrong they are and change to the correct way of thinking (as stated by the writer's opinion).

For me it's like reading about CD from a guy who thinks that Red is factually the best color. There was a time when he would tell people that his favorite color was black, but this was really more out of habit. Without noticing, his preference had shifted to Red. He buys red shirts, uses red markers to write on his white board, he even has his Windows color scheme set to High Contrast Red. One day his buddy comes by and notices the Red fetish. He grabs a couple of markers and draws two lines on a whiteboard. "Which do you like better?" He erases the losing color and draws another. And again. In the end our man has just learned something about himself. He likes Red. Not black? The dissonance grows. He could throw his red shirt away and erase the red writing on his whiteboard and change the color scheme on his computer... or he can come to grips with the TRUE truth that's all around him. Red is the best color.

Of course he doesn't need to point out the facts of red being superior - the biblical significance of blood or the scientific fact of it's unique qualities. But think of all the people out there who (like he once did) think black is their favorite. The dissonance they must feel when they buy a dozen roses for their wives or drink a can of Coke or see a really flashy car drive by. "Oh it's the smell of the roses that women like and the red ones just happen to be cheaper. I actually prefer Pepsi," they lie. And some times he wonders what the world will be like in 1000 years. Will they even make black cars? There may not even be cars, but whatever they have, he can just see some backwards nut still zipping around...

I just think that if we always put forth these kinds of examples - the DNA evidence that sheds light on a wrong decision or the war we now know to be illegal - we will start to think of CD as this thing that emotional people who are set in their ways have that causes them to be so darn stubborn. Let's hear if CD can explain Stockholm Syndrome where the new cognition is the wrong one!

Used every day or abused all the time, Cognitive Dissonance - I'm just not convinced that JW's have any special reason to care about it. Ex-JW's maybe, but then again, Tom is an ex-worldly person and I'm sure some sort of CD came right before that little change.

I'm not sure if these parts about Cognitive Dissonance in regard to how JW's view ex-JW's are from personal experience, but it would seem that JW's are taught that once a person leaves, they are worldly. They are taught that worldly people do “bad” things. They don't have to know the specifics of the “bad” things. They don't have to have evidence. They have a strong Cognition - now that the ex-JW is worldly, they do “bad” things. If such an ex-JW was to fully disclose all the private things of their lives to such JW's, would the JW continue to have the dissonance or would the new cognitions confirm their current thinking about ex-JW's? (Keep in mind we are looking at the world from their view of “bad”.) For me, I don't love Jehovah. If that were the only difference between me now and me five years ago, they'd be right. Dissonance Reduced.

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

david — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:56:25 -0000

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

david — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:22:17 -0000

"I think this whole area of psychology/sociology, all the aspects of the psychology of persuasion, are worth the time and attention of anybody who was or is a Witness."

I agree. I'd say that even if someone is in there and wants to stay there and even if they believe every bit of it and expect to always believe, they should look at how certain psychological/sociological manipulation coincides with JW practices. And if it causes too much dissonance they can always add the cognition that since God created man and he knows how man works, it only seems to reason that he'd use such techniques in keeping sheep-like-ones in the fold. Once again science proves that the bible truly IS the word of God (and thank space I have nothing to do with that guy anymore). ;)

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

david — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:22:17 -0000

Re: Wow…

david — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:01:14 -0000

"Wow..." is right. My two questions would be: What was the target audience (trade show goers, sales employees)? Were they going for kitsch/camp? Wikipedia has this product as debuting in 1991. The style seems to fit the times. If I remember correctly, white people only rapped if they were lampooning.

At any rate, it's now pretty easy to see why MS spanked Apple. All you Mac lovers out there should pray they don't make one of these for Vista. (Not to make light of marketing though - I mean, the clean contempo-look and those cleaver Mac vs. PC commercials are the ONLY things that have EVER made me even think to possibly consider a Mac.)

Re: Wow…

david — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:01:14 -0000

Re: rainy day

david — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:54:25 -0000

The Transitional College of LEX in Japan was created to study people and language. They found something very interesting (and I'd say counterintuitive) about language. The more languages you learn, the easier it is to learn another.

In monolingual countries, learning a second language is difficult. In bilingual countries, most people either know one language or the other. Also, there is often some tension between the two. In multilingual countries, however, (more than two, in this case) each person will commonly know three, four, five different languages and can learn more with ease.

(You can read a little more about it at http://www.lexlrf.org/hippo/ysomany.html)

So if there is this idea that Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin?), and Hindi each have these separate and unique reasons for learning them, they should all be learned.

On the other hand, and at the risk of sounding ego-centric, I don't think learning a second language is necessary at all (for English speakers).

It is predicted that we will be a type I civilization within the next 100 years. As a type I civilization, we will have a global language. All indications point to English as that global language. Yes, as far as first languages go, English isn't top dog. As a second language, it's big and getting bigger.

From Oxford Seminars:

"English is everywhere. Some 380 million people speak it as their first language and another 600 million speak it as their second. A billion are learning it, about a third of the world's population is in some sense exposed to it and by 2030, it is predicted almost half of the world will be more or less proficient in it. It is the language of globalization - of international business, politics and diplomacy. It is the language of computers and the Internet. You'll see it on posters in Beijing, you'll hear it in pop songs in Tokyo, you'll read it in official documents in Prague. Deutsche Welle broadcasts in it. Bjork, an Icelander, sings in it. French business schools teach in it. It is the medium of expression in cabinet meetings in Bolivia. English is now the global language."

Of course this isn't to say that English will "take over". Those who see English as the future Global Language also hold that there will still be local languages that will continue to dominate daily life. In that case, I'd say Spanish is the language to go with. You'll be able to communicate with the world using English, but you'll probably want to know the language of the local majority population.

And yet, we plan on sending Bella to Yinghua Academy. I figure she should be able to pick up Spanish just about anywhere in the future. I'm also not quite sure what China will do with its superpower status.

Re: rainy day

david — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:54:25 -0000

Re: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Blog

david — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:34:24 -0000

Nice to see you blogging again - another five months or so and I would have stopped checking. ;)

Re: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Blog

david — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:34:24 -0000

Nice to see you blogging again - another five months or so and I would have stopped checking. ;)

Re: Things I Found Interesting Today

david — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:12:18 -0000

Heheh, nice one James. I wonder if I would have been out sooner had I actually "kept up with the magazines" (probably not). I understand how this fits with their dogma, but I didn't realize they actually printed that outright.

Meanwhile, Schneier continues to impress me - he's the coolest. For as many times as I've pulled over in a residential neighborhood to grab directions on the laptop using the random wi-fi, I should probably open mine up. "Pay it forward" indeed.

And I've completely ignored this Ron Paul guy cause I hear he's a nutter. Thanks for pointing me to an article that has showed me there actually IS a candidate for me! I'll still vote Dem. (apparently I'm finding social liberty more important than economic) , but I'm sure glad this guy is out there.

I hope to see more of these "things I found interesting" posts. I almost never run into interesting things on the net.

Re: Things I Found Interesting Today

david — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:12:18 -0000

Re: Interesting Things of the Day – 1/14/08

david — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:51:24 -0000

Thank you for introducing me to xkcd. http://xkcd.com/284 reminded me of my first job - Menard's.

Re: Interesting Things of the Day - 1/14/08

david — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:51:24 -0000

Thank you for introducing me to xkcd. http://xkcd.com/284 reminded me of my first job - Menard's.

Re: Atheist Tabernacle Choir

david — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:13:27 -0000

Atheists are funny.

Re: Atheist Tabernacle Choir

david — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:13:27 -0000

Atheists are funny.

Re: Yesterday’s Interesting Links, Posted Today

david — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:50:00 -0000

From The B-List article "Legacy": "Mac users (on average) are better educated, have more disposable income and show much stronger brand loyalty than their PC-using brethren."

I hear they are also better looking. I guess they left that out because it had no bearing on the article.

Re: Yesterday’s Interesting Links, Posted Today

david — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:50:00 -0000

Re: RPM Video Blog – Day 1: Lunchtime

david — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:31:01 -0000

"It sounds like what Robert Redford heard when he was kidnapped in 'Sneakers.'"

"There's a cocktail party at the reservoir?"

Re: RPM Video Blog - Day 1: Lunchtime

david — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:31:01 -0000

"It sounds like what Robert Redford heard when he was kidnapped in 'Sneakers.'"

"There's a cocktail party at the reservoir?"

Re: It’s Charles Darwin’s Birthday

david — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:20:11 -0000

(Cool, my anti-spam word is "Buddha")

I remember reading On the Origin of Species when I was still in the group and "didn't believe in evolution." The stuff in there was so obvious I felt as if, had I been born a couple hundred years earlier, I could have been the father of evolution.

Of course I did have some exposure to biological evolution (other than being a product of it I mean) before reading Darwin's book so it's much more likely that I had worked out many of the details in my head only after first knowing the general idea.

Still, it's hard to look at someone like they are so great when you know that if they hadn't done it, the next guy would have.

It's like Euler's first theorem of graph-theory. I came up with that when I was like ten.

Inventors > Discoverers

Re: It’s Charles Darwin’s Birthday

david — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:20:11 -0000

Re: “I don’t want a man that’s going to use the Koran to be sworn in as President instead of the Bible.”

david — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:02:55 -0000

Misinformed intellectuals are far more dangerous.

Re: “I don’t want a man that’s going to use the Koran to be sworn in as President instead of the Bible.”

david — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:02:55 -0000

Misinformed intellectuals are far more dangerous.

Re: Dolphin Rescues Stranded Whales

david — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:43:16 -0000

Anybody who thinks we’re the only anthropomorphizing species in the world is intelligent.

Couldn't resist. Cool story indeed.

Re: Dolphin Rescues Stranded Whales

david — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:43:16 -0000

Anybody who thinks we’re the only anthropomorphizing species in the world is intelligent.

Couldn't resist. Cool story indeed.

Re: Dolphin Rescues Stranded Whales

david — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:22:30 -0000

Ryan and that James guy who posted above are the kinds of people who know what anthropomorphism means and therefore would have got the joke (note the "couldn't resist"). Now it's accessible to the non-nerd audience - thanks. :(

Re: Dolphin Rescues Stranded Whales

david — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:22:30 -0000

Re: Stick a fork in Hillary, She’s Done

david — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:22:14 -0000

Hehheh - love it. And that site you linked to addressed the old "Hillary wins the big States" rhetoric too. As always, love your links.

Re: Stick a fork in Hillary, She’s Done

david — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:22:14 -0000

Hehheh - love it. And that site you linked to addressed the old "Hillary wins the big States" rhetoric too. As always, love your links.

Re: Expelled – The Movie

david — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:56:40 -0000

"This matters for multiple reasons. First, most of the people in our country are woefully uneducated about evolution to begin with."

Were you gonna finish this thought and actually explain why that matters? Aren't there quite a few things that our country is "woefully uneducated" about that also don't have anything to do with the day-to-day lives of 99% of the population?

"Second, to contribute to advances in medicine, biotechnology and the environment a solid understanding of evolutionary science is vital. If the youth of America are able to be convinced by these frauds that evolution is false and science can be just whatever the hell you want it to be then this country will be the one country in the world left out of the future of this world."

I didn't realize you could go directly from Jr. High / High School right to advancing medicine and biotechnology. I would have guessed that you need a lot more than a High School Science course to make the advancements you are talking about.

I guess I (having little interest in Evolution vs. Creation debates) am not clear if these ID guys are trying to get Creation in or Evolution out of the curriculum. In either case I would suggest opening a High School Psychology textbook before taking too strong of a stand on what constitutes Science and what should or shouldn't be included in a Public School's Science program.

"Expelled, is not a documentary, it’s propaganda, pure and simple."

I've found that people don't always care if a documentary is accurate or logical as long as they agree with the premise. Take most Michael Moore films for example. I often find myself agreeing with his conclusions, but hate his use of WTBS-like tactics to make his points. But it doesn't bother everyone. When discussing Bowling for Columbine, noted film critic, James wrote:

"This is another thing to take into account when evaluating a movie: if it's a documentary, does everything have to be spin-free and factual? I don't think so, as that would make for a pretty boring movie. That's closer to cinema verite than documentary."

Re: Expelled - The Movie

david — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:56:40 -0000

Re: Religious Precepts I Can Agree With

david — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:21:02 -0000

Amen, sir. I think my playing "Devil's advocate" all the time stems from my attempts at practicing number two and three on that list.

Re: Religious Precepts I Can Agree With

david — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:21:02 -0000

Amen, sir. I think my playing "Devil's advocate" all the time stems from my attempts at practicing number two and three on that list.

Re: Hooverville, 2008. Thanks Bush.

david — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:18:48 -0000

Could you elaborate on the "Thanks Bush" in the title of this post?

I don't know much about the subject, but I took a quick trip over to the Wikipedia (yeah I know it can be edited by any schmo) and did a search for "Subprime Mortgage Crisis".

They have a lengthy write-up there with all kinds of history and background. I started reading from the top, but I could tell this was one of those many faceted subjects that wasn't so simple as "thanks Bush".

Still, I figured he must have had a hand in the mess cause I hear that a lot. So I scrolled down to the section, "Role of government and regulators". Seems like that's where the finger pointing would take its aim at Bush.

"Some economists claim that government policy actually encouraged the development of the subprime debacle through legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act, which they say forces banks to lend to otherwise uncreditworthy consumers."

I looked up the "Community Reinvestment Act" cause I wasn't familiar with it. Apparently it was signed into law in 1977. Was that before Bush?

The Wikipedia continues, "Economist Robert Kuttner has criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the subprime meltdown."

Again, I didn't know what they were talking about so I looked it up. Turns out it was Clinton who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act.

"A taxpayer-funded government bailout related to mortgages during the Savings and Loan crisis may have created a moral hazard and acted as encouragement to lenders to make similar higher risk loans."

That was also before Bush - or between Bushes maybe.

The last part in that section talks about the Fed's possible role which I haven't been able to link to Bush either.

So the question remains... who's been hacking the Wiki?

Re: Hooverville, 2008. Thanks Bush.

david — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:18:48 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:50:10 -0000

There's a group. It doesn't matter if it's religious or not. If you want to be in the group you have to follow the rules of the group. If you don't want to be in the group, that's the end of it - you're out.

Why should it be the government's business if Ryan wants to join my No-Ryans club and I won't let him? He can still come in my public buildings and buy my quilts. The only thing he can't do is be a member.

Oh, and the other rule of my club is you can't talk to people named Ryan. If you want to talk to Ryans, you can't be in the club. But then who cares, right? It's not THAT great of a club.

Your dad's name is Ryan? Hmm... Well, rules are rules. I mean, I suppose you could ask him to change his name. Short of that it's either stop talking to him or find a different group.

I don't see any "intimidation, threat, coercion or abuse" here at all. Or at least, none that isn't practiced by everyone all the time.

People choose to be in the group. People choose to follow the leader. The only power they have is the power people give them. It's all 100% choice.

I don't know how Yoder won his case, but I'm glad it's a rarity.

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:50:10 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:57:00 -0000

"David is no longer an employee of Best Buy Co., Inc." Aha, I've got em now - them and their malicious hate speech.

-

I don't feel like loading up the CD-ROM, but I'm pretty sure their position on how a member is to treat a shunned individual when there's a business relationship is to continue the relationship as it was (perhaps without excessive chit chat).

-

I mean, it stinks that it breaks up families and friends, but it's the families and friends who are "at fault". They are choosing their religion over their family and friends.

And as for your KKK example - no one is lynching anyone. No burning crosses. No threats. If the some KKK member disowns his daughter for marrying a Jewish person, writing her out of his will and never speaking to her again, the daughter won't get anywhere in the courts.

-

I don't like it any more than I like the KKK, but I don't think it's the government's job to interfere. Fortunately the government isn't the only path toward change. As a matter of fact, less government might be a solution. I'm betting I could sue you for not hiring me if it was because I was a member of a hate group (JW or otherwise).

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:57:00 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:20:56 -0000

It is exactly a choice, even if there were punishment involved. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to do something, it's still a choice.

Shun one or be shunned by many = choice.

-

It's not a punishment, it's a membership. People ask to be members. Your family asks to be members. And when you are the one wanting to join up (netflix, the Army, the boy scouts...), you are the one who has to comply with whatever it means to be a member. If your friends or family no longer want to be members, they can do what ever they want.

JW's don't go from door to door telling people not to talk to you. They don't call your employer and tell them you aren't trustworthy. They don't track down your friends and tell them all the dirt they have on you. They go door to door and advertise a club. When they get someone interested, the new recruits are told the club's rules. If the person still wants to join up, they have to follow the rules. They can say "no". Most do.

As long as your friends and family want to be in the club, they have to follow club rules. (And yes, most of their rules are legal - not talking to people on their bad-list included.) If there's a rule they don't want to follow, they can leave or be kicked out. When that happens, other club members who want to stay in the group follow the rules that they have already agreed to follow.

When you joined the club you agreed to do the same. When you joined, you knew that the other club members also agreed to do the same. When you left the club you knew that you no longer had to follow club rules. When you left the club you knew what other club members would do to stay in the club.

Now if you want to do something about it, you can talk people out of wanting to be in the club. You can try to prevent people from joining. You can make a website saying how unfair it all is. But what you can't do is successfully sue the WTBS for practicing shunning.

Yoder was a rare case. Don't expect anything like it to happen again anytime soon.

-

My question to you is, what "line" have they crossed? Not a legal line. I'm sure there's some sporting teams that have a rule that says you can't fraternize with the opponent. I'm sure there are religions that require vows of silence. Don't want to do it, don't join.

-

But of course laws are just made up and have no real intrinsic correctness. Maybe tomorrow it will be illegal. I simply don't agree that it should be. (Then again, I also don't think it should be legal to take the creative work of someone and mass distribute it without the original creators consent just because some arbitrary number of years have past since the work was created. For me, the sweat of the one does not belong to the many.)

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:20:56 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:37:05 -0000

But this isn't legal, it's social.

I mean, take your idea about being a minor when you joined up. You are basically asking for an annulment. Great. Take it. But I'm guessing that when you annul a marriage, the law won't side with you if your never-wife doesn't talk to you and you demand restitution. Would she be allowed to say that the two of you were once married?

With marriage there's many legal issues that an annulment would affect. What exactly is the legal side of being a Witness?

As far as published comments go, it's completely legal to say "men are pigs." If I say, "Ryan Sutter is a liar and a thief and shouldn't be trusted," I'm getting myself into trouble. Saying, "All musicians are liars, thieves, and shouldn't be trusted" should be (and I believe is) legal. Go back to your KKK example - what are they saying about people of other races and religions? Is it legal?

Well let's see. If I apply for a job and get turned down cause I'm Italian, who will I successfully sue, the man who turned me down or his father cause that's the one who taught him that WOPs are good-for-nothing? His preacher cause he agreed? Ron Howard, cause he directed Far and Away?

And keep in mind that in all of this, they tell their adherents to keep business relationships as they are. It's only social aspects.

Okay, maybe you won't get the 10% off discount at Charlie's when you show your death card...

-

"This is clearly a case of religious exemption to standards of conduct that are different in non-religious situations."

Well call me a blockhead cause it's not clear to me. But don't specifically call ME a blockhead. Instead say, "Anyone who doesn't get this is a blockhead." Then in another sentence you can point out that I don't get it.

-

Informed consent.

I completely agree. I mean, if you go to a hospital and a doctor tells you all the details of a procedure, but leaves out the subtle fact that the operation will take place in a hospital, you should be able to sue the pants off him. Of course you'd have to be a space alien not to know, but still...

And another thing, I think one of my ancestors died when they rubbed poop all over his infections. I should seek restitution. I mean, it's pretty obvious to me that doesn't work. He should have been informed of how bogus the procedure was.

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:37:05 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:45:28 -0000

One more quick one... are doctors held accountable when they don't inform you of the other competing new-age crystal treatments? Can you sue them for not telling you about the "power of prayer"?

I should be informed of every way conceivable to treat my brain tumor - yes even the controversial Fritos treatment. Otherwise I'm not fully informed.

(every time "buddha" comes up as the security word, I question whether I should hit "submit comment". I hope the people reading this understand that I'm not attached to the side I'm arguing for. Hehheh.)

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:45:28 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:18:36 -0000

Jennifer,

My relationships have changed. What makes playing the devil's advocate easy is that I think you are wrong and I am right. The government shouldn't have anything to do with whether a group decides to shun you so long as it's purely social. If they start telling me I have to talk to people that I don't want to or pay a fine if not talking to someone causes them to kill themselves, well then I'm outa here.

And please keep in mind that this discussion is about shunning not medicine. My comment about "new-age-crystals" was to show how silly it would be to have expected the people who taught you JW teachings to also teach you about Witchery and Buddhism when they think it's completely bogus. They taught you what they believe to be true. I also think it's ridiculous to say that you didn't know how you'd be treated if you left. Especially since you were raised in the group.

I don't think I've missed any points. You feel wronged and want big government to fix it. I've been wronged and am glad little government will ignore it. There's no question as to whether shunning is crap. The issue is whether it's a social issue that requires social justice or a legal one.

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:18:36 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:05:00 -0000

Jennifer,

Yeah, I agree the medical analogy was good. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't making light of medical (mis)informed consent. I was talking about "new-age-crystals" etc. only within the realm of the analogy to what we were talking about. I got confused when you said "...and to joke about 'new age crystals' when you’ve never had a doctor do anything without your consent..." I wasn't actually talking about the medical side of things, just furthering the analogy.

And I concede your point about not knowing at 15 how you would be treated if you changed your mind about the religion. You're right that the focus was more about DF'ing for a sin.

Ultimately though, I don't think it's WTBS policy to harass people who walk away. How can they be expected to inform you on how your family will act towards you? It's individuals that are causing you trouble (most likely family members) - not the publishing company.

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:05:00 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:12:52 -0000

Esther,

I think shunning is crap. It's not a good practice from any side. EVERYTHING I've said here pertains to that LEGAL side that you "don’t want to get into". Outside of that LEGAL side, I completely agree with everything that Ryan, James, Jennifer, and you have ever said about shunning. I don't know how I can be any clearer. IT'S CRAP! It sucks that Ryan's family treats him the way they do. It's BS that the WTBS has such a retarded policy that only does two things - keeps people in the group against what they believe and breaks up family and friendship. It disgusts me to think I used to be part of that group and participated in shunning others. What more can I say? I'll gladly say it.

Now as far as the Human element goes, this I also agree with. The Human element, to me, is when other people step in and pick up when you've been let down. That isn't the court's place. If Yoder came to me and told me his tale, I'd suggest he not sue, but I'd also offer my support.

Remember when I helped our friends move the other week? You know, when my wife was nine months pregnant and every minute was a hectic battle to get everything ready for the new baby? There was exactly ONE reason I HAD to help.

I had a buddy at work who moved the Wednesday before. I'm much closer to him than to our friends, but I didn't offer to help. It was understood that I had too much going on.

But I felt very strongly about helping our friends move because I knew that, had they still been JW's, they would have had a fleet of people helping them. Every time I've ever moved I've had a troop of Witnesses helping out. I assume the same is true for our friends. I thought it was crap that none of those people (perhaps even their family) would be helping.

Now I suppose they could have gone to the courts and asked the WTBS to pay for professional movers under the pretense that the Org. didn't allow them to make the kinds of friends that would always be there. That the WTBS has restricted it's members from giving a helping hand. But I don't think it's up to the government or to the courts.

So yeah, there is a Human element. That Human element is the friends you make once you leave. The people that support you and become your family.

I'm sure Ryan has shared with you what it's like to have lived your whole life in that group and then leave it. You don't know how to make friends. You don't trust people. Shunning is only one part of how bad they mess you up. No lawyer, judge, or jury is gonna fix that. And IN MY OPINION, they shouldn't. It's up to people. Individuals.

And I wish people would stop it with the "devil's advocate" stuff. I stand by everything I've written here 100%. True, I'm not attached to the WTBS, but I still don't think there's a legal solution to this problem. That was, after all, what the original post was about. And until this Human element stuff came up, that's all I've offered up for discussion. I never said anyone "made and [sic] choice and now [] should deal with it." I never said that anyone was "flat out wrong for even looking for a possible way to talk to [their] family again."

If I've been hurtful, I apologize. It surely wasn't the intention. Even more, it upsets me to find that it was. I don't believe I will comment here again.

(And finally, there are most definitely things I wouldn't do to save my two children.)

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

david — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:12:52 -0000

Re: Mathematics and Cognitive Dissonance

david — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:06:39 -0000

I think it would be better to say that "...studies done on the subject of [CHOICE-INDUCED cognitive dissonance] have generally been flawed..." Even in the article you cited, Dr. Chen admits that "other forms of cognitive-dissonance effects have been demonstrated in different kinds of experiments."

It may seem like splitting hairs, but I think that the aspects of Cognitive Dissonance that your readership would be most interested in (as relates to failed prophecy and religion) are not called into question by this finding.

Of course that isn't to say this isn't important. As a matter of fact, Dr. Chen's paper goes beyond questioning the conclusions from these former studies - it actually shows that opposite conclusions can be made!

I expect opponents of Science and especially Psychology will overuse this example, but then again, 50 years and who knows how many brains and no one caught this? Pretty cool.

For Dr. Chen's paper see here:

http://www.som.yale.edu/faculty/keith.chen/pape...

-

More personally, this post brought back to mind the first time I was exposed to "The Monty Hall Problem". It was in Mr. Gothman's eleventh grade math class. I think we were all smart enough to get it if he would have just explained it, but he had us break up into groups and go through the whole exercise... It was great.

Re: Mathematics and Cognitive Dissonance

david — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:06:39 -0000

Re: Go Yoko.

david — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:59:41 -0000

Imagine no overreacting Atheists.

Re: Go Yoko.

david — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:59:41 -0000

Imagine no overreacting Atheists.

Re: The Math

david — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:25:19 -0000

I wanted to comment on your last Obama post, but it was a little too ranty. This post goes well with what I wanted to say.

Obama's been in the catbird seat for a while now. The numbers have shown an inevitable win for some time. So why doesn't he run a more conservative campaign? Why make (politically) stupid comments?

At this point, there's almost nothing Hillary can do or say to capture a win. The ONLY way Obama can lose is by saying or doing something really stupid. So what I would expect is for Hillary to get absolutely crazy (nothing to lose, everything to gain) and for Obama to play it safe - no attacks on Hillary, no potentially controversial statements (no matter how bitter the uneducated hicks really are).

So when Hillary's camp jumped on Obama's "bitter" comment, it made sense. This is a political campaign - a contest. This has almost nothing to do with who will be the better President - it's who's the best at competing for the job. It's like Top Chef (a "reality" contest show). It doesn't produce the best chef, it produces the best contestant on the show, Top Chef.

When Obama made the "bitter" comment it made no sense. What does it matter if he's right? He's not some idealist running for 2% of the vote. He's a baby kissing, cow nursing, bowling, gonna-win-it candidate. Save the honest, intelligent speeches for when you stand to lose a few public opinion poll percentage points, not when you stand to lose the nomination.

He talks smart and maybe even thinks smart, but I'm not exactly blown away by his campaign smarts.

In my Senior year of High School we ran a mock election. Being a politically neutral JW I didn't figure I could run as a candidate so I convinced my friend Ian to run as an independent with me as campaign manager.

To make it as realistic as possible, the thing was rigged so that the independent couldn't win. Each candidate was given a budget in the form of units that represented money and time. The Republicans and the Dems were each given the same amount and the Independent was given considerably less.

The rest of the class that were not taking part in the campaigning were each assigned a voting block to represent. Again the Independents were slighted by not having as many points to award.

Our task was to allocate our budget by campaign aspect (speeches, ad spots, platform, etc.) and by voter block (similar to funding/spending time in specific states). You multiply the money/time units by the points awarded in their respective categories and that is your total votes.

The strategy: Put all our eggs in Jesse's basket.

There was a limit to how much you could put in any one category/block. Since the voters were graded on how well they reflected their voter block, it was best for the parties to put their money/time units into their respective party voter blocks. By doing so, the Republicans and the Democrats would be in a virtual tie with the independents far behind. The winner would be whichever Republican or Democrat allocated their funds the best.

Well instead of bothering with the impotent independents, I put the maximum allowed into our ad spot and in one particular Republican's voting block controlled by a kid named Jesse. I then took a camcorder to the Mall of America to get some footage of random passersby endorsing my candidate. It was really just filler for the commercial I made cause the ending was all that was needed - The Hooters girls saying "Vote Ian..."

Of the seven classes that staged the mock elections, ours was the only one for which the teacher decided NOT to announce the winner. :)

It's not a test, it's not a job interview - it's a vote. Play accordingly.

Oh, and, OH BAH MAH! OH BAH MAH! OH BAH MAH! OH BAH MAH! OH BAH MAH! OH BAH MAH! OH BAH MAH! OH BAH MAH! OH BAH MAH! OH BAH MAH! OH BAH MAH! OH BAH MAH!

Re: The Math

david — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:25:19 -0000

Re: The Math

david — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:58:20 -0000

Yeah, maybe my anecdote derailed my train. The point is that in a contest for votes, kudos to the person who moves the voters in their direction no matter how they do it.

Hillary annoys the piss out of me, but someone over in her camp has a brain and I think that's what's made this close.

I just read that she wants to go head to head in debate with Barack (no moderator). Brilliant! The challenge is an instant win for her. At first thought you might think, "He'll mop the floor with her." He owns debate, public speaking, thinking for himself... but he's already set to win. He'd get nothing from taking the challenge. On the other hand, it opens him up. Even if the odds of a misstep are slim, there's a risk that isn't there if he doesn't take the bait. All risk, no benefit.

But how do you decline a head to head without losing some face? Good luck.

So she'll gain some points when he declines and if it's too many points he'll have to do it anyway. Again, good luck.

The problem is that Obama is a little too good. As we've already heard, he's writing his own speeches. It makes me wonder what else is he doing for himself. And you might say it makes him more "real". But to me it's the old singer-songwriter scenario. What are the odds that a really great musician will also be a great lyricist as well as a great singer?

She's the name and the face and that might be it. It's obvious that she has someone else make up her positions. Someone else does her writing. Another one allocates the money. She's got a team of strategists.

I'm guessing she's got Hari Seldon working for her cause her insight into what will move the mob in her direction is very acute (and counter intuitive). What thinking person have advised her to start tearing up that time? But it worked. The examples escape me, but I've laughed at her seemingly stupid attempts a number of times only to see the numbers sway her way in response.

Meanwhile Obama is probably cutting his own hair, tying his own ties, and is certainly deciding how to accessorize for himself (no pin?).

But don't get me wrong, I'm elated that this guy will be our next President. I mean the contrast between him and Bush are well... hehheh.

Re: The Math

david — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:58:20 -0000

Re: Why Can’t Barack Obama Close the Deal?

david — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:18:18 -0000

Okay, but have any two candidates ever been so much the same "inside the box"? I mean, have you watched some of these debates? Policy can't decide this one. I think that their similarities are driving this not their differences. Even their respective blackness and femaleness make them the same. I mean, I'm sure plenty more people would have been better "represented" by John Edwards, but they didn't vote for him.

Re: Why Can’t Barack Obama Close the Deal?

david — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:18:18 -0000

Re: National Day of Reason

david — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:21:06 -0000

Reactionary.

Take a religious thing and put a non-religious twist on it. Is that all atheists and secular humanists ever do?

We need to innovate.

Re: National Day of Reason

david — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:21:06 -0000

Reactionary.

Take a religious thing and put a non-religious twist on it. Is that all atheists and secular humanists ever do?

We need to innovate.

Re: Twitter Updates for 2008-05-01

david — Fri, 02 May 2008 08:47:34 -0000

If you get hit by a bus or something (God forbid - mmkkk) and can't make it to the taping of The Daily Show, please put my name down on the list of people you might consider giving your ticket to.

Also, if you could send me a copy of such a list so I can make up my bus route that'd be great.

:P

Re: Twitter Updates for 2008-05-01

david — Fri, 02 May 2008 08:47:34 -0000

Re: I Love the Whole World

david — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:11:39 -0000

Re: I Love the Whole World

david — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:11:39 -0000

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

david — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:16:38 -0000

Of course, you know my take on things. I cannot convince myself that it matters if JW's stay JW's forever. There's all these ways of describing them (living a lie, a cult, etc.) that don't mean anything to me. I just can't see (in the ultimate sense of things) that anything I do with my time is any better than what they're doing with their time. I also think variety is key (7 million JW's, 13 million Mormons, 13 million Jews...) and I like to steer clear of efforts that try to make everyone the same. And although making everyone the same is a JW goal, we all know it has no chance of coming anywhere near reality and is nothing more than another variation that some people happen to be trying out.

That being said, I am nonetheless interested in this mythical magic weapon that undoes the JW. It's a very interesting thing.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a short list of people I'd like to deconvert, but that's not my main interest. Really I'm interested in how to deconvert myself. Don't get me wrong, I'm as far from JW beliefs and attitudes as I can be (or at least I like to think so). What I'm interested in knowing is how to deconvert my past self. What would have been the magic key to unlocking me back then? My path away from the group was convoluted. I'd like to distill the process. I can't say exactly how, but I think it would help me understand myself better and possibly (maybe I'm reaching) give me some direction forward.

I was just reading some Dawkins and he has some ideas for an idea as to why humans are suckers for religion and the belief in God. It seems to me that if this is truly an evolved trait, it looks to have a fairly high degree of specialization in man. And if I understand evolution, it should therefore be highly variate. This leads me to wonder if some people are more inclined to belief than others.

So when I was a JW I sometimes thought, "What are the odds that I was born into the one true religion?" Now I can wonder, "What are the odds that I'd find my way out?" Perhaps the deck was stacked!

Of course I am also interested in this "ultimate argument against being a JW" for the more traditional reasons too. It's complicated though. I mean, when I was a Witness, I wanted to convert people. But why? Was it really as simple as me wanting to help them? On the surface I'd say so, but there's some rather tricky psychology there too. I haven't read up on the specific behavior, but I'm sure that some people will try to convince others to join them on something in order to reinforce their own perception of their position. Didn't they always say that conducting a Bible Study strengthens both student and teacher?

So who's to say that a deconverting attempt doesn't have hints of the same? Of course this time it's much more obvious that I'm right. ;P

Naturally the biggest reason for wanting to find the secret combination is so that you can get back the relationships that were lost to the JW's. Not only is the argument needed in order to get them out, it's also needed as part of the argument for getting them out. I wish I could have written that last sentence better, but I don't know how. What I mean to say is that, one of the biggest things that keeps JW's in is the fear of losing their relationships. In order to overcome that, you almost need to be able to show them that they too will be able to deconvert their friends and family. And what better way than by using the "ultimate argument".

Anyway, good luck to you and good luck to your internet friend. Let us know how it goes.

Oh, and the "gap in the insulation" is obvious - they want you back.

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

david — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:16:38 -0000

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

david — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:13:25 -0000

I knew about the UN stuff when I was in it and it didn't bother me a bit. If you're aligned with everything else in the group, it's a very weak attack. As a matter of fact, most single points by themselves don't really land - you have to build up a case. And of course, the good JW will take each as separate and use the standard rationalizations to disarm each one individually. And of course, that's assuming that they don't tune you out the second you start talking.

The extremely challenging nature of it is what makes it so interesting.

So Ryan, what lands when you argue yourself? I know James has a weak spot for the flood story and I'm sure you do well with evolution. I've been doing pretty well with the documentary hypothesis and the obvious motivation for each of the source documents. Still, I wonder if I wouldn't have accepted it and rolled it up into the rest.

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

david — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:13:25 -0000

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

david — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:10:24 -0000

I wouldn't mind hearing an argument for "strong" atheism.

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

david — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:10:24 -0000

I wouldn't mind hearing an argument for "strong" atheism.

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

david — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:31:00 -0000

I think that the momentum from finding out that your religion is bogus can (in some cases) carry you to find out (for yourself) that The Bible, or God, or belief is bogus too. Perhaps the waves take some people farther than they might have otherwise gone. Perhaps some are still anchored to the shore. Still, I don't mind listening to why people settle out where they do - even those who are ten miles off the coast.

You don't need to love chocolate to enjoy hearing people go on and on about it. I try to catch The Splendid Table every Saturday (we're usually in the car driving to my parents when it airs). Most of the things they talk about I've never tried. There's been a few things that I have tried (some at their suggestion) and didn't like. It doesn't stop me from enjoying listening to how passionate they can be towards food.

For me, logical argument is interesting. There are honest, thinking, highly intelligent people out there who believe in God and I'm sure there are also slack jawed dimwits who don't. I may agree with the dimwit's conclusions, but I'd much rather hear the intelligent theists.

Oh, and I love that you used color as an example. I went for years telling people that my favorite color was black. It took a very creative coworker to show me that it had, at some time long before, turned to red. Very eye-opening. Also interesting is that I'm more agnostic-like and I also no longer have a favorite color.

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

david — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:31:00 -0000

Re: Twitter Updates for 2008-05-23

david — Wed, 28 May 2008 09:19:29 -0000

http://www.gapingvoid.com/history76156.jpg

Re: Twitter Updates for 2008-05-23

david — Wed, 28 May 2008 09:19:29 -0000

http://www.gapingvoid.com/history76156.jpg

Re: http://www.ryansutter.net/blog/?p=809

david — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:25:57 -0000

I'm with you on this one. There are a number of ways in which the old beliefs have shaped who I've become. I rather like who I am so I don't fight it too much. To be sure, there are definitely some categories where I can say to myself, "Look, you're only like this because you were a JW - snap out of it!" Overall though, I'm not looking for a major overhaul of who I am.

When I was in the group, I didn't 'do' and 'not do' according to the rules. I did according to my personality and ideas that were created and shaped by the rules. Rules gone, personality still there. So while we weren't supposed to wear a beard, it turns out I never wanted to wear a beard and still don't. Maybe a lame example, but you get the point - it goes for the shallow things as well as the deeper things. I made up my own reasons for why I was doing the things I was doing. They weren't always the same as the reasons why JW's did what they did, but the output was the same and no one was the wiser.

Of course some of the things, although not based on the JW line, are just as invalid now. I never cared that the only two birthdays mentioned in The Bible were celebrated by unbelievers. And so what if the day of a man's death is greater than his birth - celebrate them both. But I had my own reason not to celebrate birthdays that was based on not knowing Jesus'. Either way, that's all gone now.

As far as the ways in which I've been affected that fall in line with what you're talking about, I'm for sure messed up. Unfortunately, I'm rather happily messed up. I don't trust people. My circle is small. Smaller than ever. But I like it that way. Sure I'm venturing out in some ways, but in others I'm glad to be so closed off. I only hope I can stay this way as time marches on.

Re: http://ryansutter.net/wp/2008/06/02/809/

david — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:25:57 -0000

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

david — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:15:58 -0000

Bigoted much? Maybe you can do a follow-up post: "It doesn't bother me that Obama is black, and here's why..."

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

david — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:15:58 -0000

Bigoted much? Maybe you can do a follow-up post: "It doesn't bother me that Obama is black, and here's why..."

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

david — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:51:30 -0000

"Despite the fact that Christian leaders have nearly destroyed our country over the last 8 years..."

...after having built it over the previous 200. And please, remind us of the very SHORT list of non-Christian leaders this country has had.

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

david — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:51:30 -0000

Re: Religions of our Presidents

david — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:30:15 -0000

I don't know where you did your research, but the rest of the internet doesn't agree.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/fran...
http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Sta...

William Henry Harrison - Was a vestryman of Christ Episcopal Church in Cincinnati, Ohio - http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0194730-00

Andrew Johnson - "As for my religion, it is the doctrine of the Bible, as taught and practiced by Jesus Christ." - G.F. Milton (2004). The Age of Hate: Andrew Johnson And The Radicals. Kessinger Publishing, 80.

Ulysses S. Grant - "Ulysses S Grant was a nominal Presbyterian throughout his life. Many sources list his religious affiliation as Methodist based on a Methodist minister's account of a deathbed conversion by Grant." - http://www.adherents.com/people/pg/Ulysses_Gran... (adherents.com - take it for what it's worth)

Rutherford B. Hayes - "I am not a subscriber to any creed. I belong to no church. But in a sense, satisfactory to myself and believed by me to be important, I try to be a Christian, or rather I want to be a Christian and to help do Christian work." - May 17, 1890 Diary entry - http://www.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/hayes/Volu...

Franklin Pierce - "Pierce expressed himself in writing at least twice on the subject of religion, once in a manuscript fragment written in later life describing his beliefs in college which show them to be decidedly orthodox... In later life, during the Civil War, he was baptized, confirmed and became a regular communicant in St. Paul's Episcopal Church, in Coneord." - Professor Roy F. Nichols, of the Department of History, in the University of Pennsylvania - http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/fran...

I'll leave the deists alone - three of the four listed are often labeled as Episcopal, but it's obvious these guys were fence sitters.

The next group that you have listed all thought of themselves as Christians, but you seem to have taken the JW stance that it's not up to a person to decide if they are themselves Christian.

To illustrate the point, I used to be a JW. When I joined up with a prayer group at school, no one thought twice about the fact of my Christianity. When I joined the work force, my closest friends were all very active Christians. We disagreed on almost every religious subject, but not once was my Christianity questioned. When I moved to Maryland I was hired to work at Trinity Labs where all upper management were die hard Christians. They welcomed me like a brother. In all cases I was known as a JW who did not believe that Jesus was God and that I rejected the Trinity. At no time was my Christianity questioned.

As a matter of fact, the ONLY time I have EVER heard such a notion was within a Kingdom Hall or from a JW - whether talking about how others supposedly think JW's aren't Christian or that JW's were the only Christians.

Of course, if we get to decide who is and who is not a Christian based on our own beliefs or by popular vote, I'm sure most would say G.W. Bush isn't "Christian". But that would put the kibosh on your idea that Christians have been running this country into the ground for the last 8 years.

Next you have a group that you say are "Nominally Christian, but questionable". Again this is more about outsiders deciding who is and isn't Christian in spite of what each individual claimed themselves to be. In each case there is considerable evidence that they presented themselves as Christian.

Before this post I was under the impression that three Presidents were non-Christians. I'm now open to the idea that it may be as many as five, but also just as likely two. Thanks.

Re: Religions of our Presidents

david — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:30:15 -0000

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

david — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:18:34 -0000

Feel free to redefine words as you see fit, but "Bigot" includes religion. But let's say it doesn't. Let's take on a new definition that doesn't include "optional belief systems".

Is Christianity an "optional belief system"? For a person who defines themselves by their religion, it may be, but that doesn't represent the majority of people. How many times do you hear people list "Christian" when they are asked to describe themselves? I personally know the spouse's names, hobbies, interests, colleges, etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam, of all my co-workers, but only the religious beliefs of two - because I asked. It's not a subject of interest to many and they never question it. So why would they ever think to change? Why should they see an option - it's a non-issue, a family thing, a universal understanding (for them). (And before you question their intelligence, I'll remind you that I don't work at Menard's any more - hehheh.)

The majority of people follow the religions of their parents. It's not that they aren't questioning, thinking people - it's that they are allowed to hold the religions of their parents and still be whoever they want. You and I were not afforded that, but we are the minority.

And you may think, "Well, people like that aren't truly believers," but they are. They just weren't raised as JW's where it mattered so much that even when you decide not to believe, you'd darn better be sure you're RIGHT.

Next, you may say that you agree that Bigotry covers religion, but nothing you said was bigoted.

"There are intelligent, kind, good, honest, hard-working, and amazing people in equal amounts in every race as well as equal amounts of ignorant, evil and lazy ones. People are people, old, young, black, brown, white, etc. You don’t know what they think or how they think without hearing from them. Believers, on the other hand, are a different animal..."

That's bigoted.

You said, "'Hey, even though this guy belongs to a religion that condemns me to burn to death forever and thinks I should have no place in society, I still support him' I have a hard time seeing how you can call that a bigoted statement."

That reminds me of the time JIK said, "She's pretty cute for a black chick." He honestly didn't think it was a racist statement - "What, I said she was hot."

Seriously, it is individuals who "condemn [you] to burn to death forever..." The majority of Christians do not think this way. Even if it were the majority, there are certainly some who do not - you may know a few. This means that you have to "hear from them" before you can "know what they think or how they think" - that's right, Christians too.

But let me be clear about something. I do not think of you as Bigoted. Some of the things you've said here have that sort of ring to them, but I've read your blog for a while now and I know you are fair minded. The definition over at dictionary.com says "utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." This does not define Ryan Sutter.

I don't agree with some of your word choice, but I do agree with what you are saying. The type of Christian that we've had running things and the type of Christian that makes up a large voting block in this country is not the type of Christian I would like to see at the helm of this country. They are a type that taps into their beliefs and religion to inform their decisions. Obama is not that type of Christian. Thank God. :P

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

david — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:18:34 -0000

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

david — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:24:29 -0000

Oh, and as far as the video, that's awesome. I especially liked the comment about the Defense Department not surviving the application of The Sermon on The Mount and the whole Abraham thing. "The best thing we can do is act in accordance with those things we all see..."

Gave me goose bumps and my wife looked teary eyed.

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

david — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:24:29 -0000

Re: Religions of our Presidents

david — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:13:54 -0000

I agree. I also think that political pressure can influence how politicians word their statements which adds even more complexity. The quote from Rutherford B. Hayes, "...I try to be a Christian, or rather I want to be a Christian and to help do Christian work," is clearly not an "I am a Christian" statement. Was he a non-Christian trying to liken himself to a Christian or was he a Christian trying to sound more middle of the road - secular? I don't know the history of the political environment of the time, so I have no idea. It would seem that being a Christian wasn't as important to electability in the past as it is now (in this country).

And I suppose I shouldn't limit that to politicians. That Steven Hawkins guy ended Brief History of Time With something like, "...then we will know the mind of God." I mean, how misleading is that? And why? To sell a few extra books? He was later quoted as saying, "In the proof stage I nearly cut the last sentence in the book... Had I done so, the sales might have been halved."

So yeah, any accounting of Presidential religious affiliation should be taken with a grain...

Re: Religions of our Presidents

david — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:13:54 -0000

Re: Rude People On the Bus

david — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:27:09 -0000

I never realized suburban bus riding had it's own unique set of annoyances. It makes sense, I just never thought about it.

I used to ride the 21. It has its own kinds of problems, but definitely not what you're dealing with. I remember seeing little kids that I wouldn't think old enough to read looking at the bus schedule posted inside the shelters and figuring out when the next bus was coming. You'd see a troop of kids, six, eight years old with no parents in sight helping their even younger siblings get themselves on the bus as quickly as possible. I still bring it up every once in a while when talking about how much smarter and resourceful the inner-city kids can be starting out compared to much of their suburban counterparts - only to lag behind in later years when it comes to test scores and graduation rates.

I miss the bus.

Re: Rude People On the Bus

david — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:27:09 -0000

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

david — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:32:29 -0000

Up until 1996 the Federal Government took it upon itself to take care of the poor. They did this through a really crappy welfare system (AFDC) that handed out tons of money with impunity. Clinton set out to fix the system with a bunch of new laws, rules, initiatives and programs called PRWORA. PRWORA created TANF which replaced AFDC. The big difference between the two programs is that TANF isn't the blank check that AFDC was. There are limits. Recipients of TANF are expected to get jobs and stop having babies (under the old system, "welfare moms" would just pop out another kid as soon as the benefits were about to expire).

Also part of PRWORA was the shift from having the Federal Government take care of all these programs to having the states take on ownership. The idea being that as you move closer to the level of the people in need, the better you'll be able to help them. In this vein, smaller organizations were enlisted by states to help as well. And here's where Charitable Choice comes in to play.

Charitable Choice was also part of PRWORA. What it says is that religious organizations can bid for TANF (as well as CSBG's, SAMHSA's etc.) contracts just like any other organization. You see, states can hire out groups to help disseminate the government funds to the poor. Going on the whole separation of Church and State ideas, religious groups wouldn't normally be included. Charitable Choice made an exception of the Government's typical separation stance. BUT, with certain rules.

Under Charitable Choice, government money cannot be used to pay for religious stuff. The money has to go only to fulfill the public social service goals. Additionally, religious organizations can not discriminate based on religion where these social programs are concerned.

So the whole idea of Charitable Choice is anti-discriminatory. Any organization can bid for these social contracts and religious organizations aren't going to be singled out as long as they keep the social programs separate from religious ones.

But there was a problem. No one bit. The Churches didn't want any part of it because they were sure it would mess with their religious missions and of course there was some apprehension on the government's part because of the Establishment Clause.

Here is where G.W. comes in. He created something called The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The purpose was to get governments and religious organizations together to make Charitable Choice work.

So the conclusion is this. The Federal Government realized that it sucked at getting our nation's poor the aid it needed. It set out to transfer that responsibility to State Governments. To further help, it set up the provision that States could use local organizations to help in this endeavor. Of course, religious institutions are right there in the thick of helping out those in need so special provisions were made to include religious organizations if they kept that portion of their activities separate from their religion. Since there was some apprehension on both sides (state government and faith-based orgs) to partner up, a special department was set up to get things going between the State Governments and the local groups that would most likely be interested in helping the poor.

Obviously G.W. has been criticized for setting this up. What you may not know is that a good portion of the criticism is that he set this up in name only and that it hasn't really done all that it was supposed to do. Obama's expansion of this Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is more about making it work. And good for him.

I will say though that I do understand your concern. Of course, American Atheists doesn't need a special office. They are already more than welcome to bid on TANF's, Welfare-to-Work, and Community Services Block Grants. But do they? (I rather hope so. It would be a good way to show that FBO's don't have a monopoly on charity.)

Also interesting to note is that Clinton created Charitable Choice and both Gore and Bush endorsed it. Obama, Bush, and McCain are all for OFBCI. The only one that I know of that might not be for it is my boy Barr. But of course his concern would be less about whether religions should be involved and more about whether the government should be.

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

david — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:32:29 -0000

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

david — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:16:39 -0000

My brother used to work at a Mall store. As part of his duties he had to make the weekly deposit to the bank. So in addition to the hourly rate he got for working, he also got thousands of dollars in cash and checks given to him every week for doing no additional work. All the other employees tried to get the manager fired because they didn't think it was fair that my brother was given hundreds of thousands of dollars a year more than everyone else. But don't worry, when the manager explained to them that my brother didn't actually get to keep the money and that he was just the middleman between the store and the bank, things quieted down rather quickly. Naturally my brother's arch nemesis still posts on his blog that the store gives my brother hundreds of thousands of dollars for nothing, but he's just a little slow so it's understandable. :P

And yeah, I agree that even if things are carried out as the laws are set up (not likely), it would still serve to strengthen FBO's and I do agree that the Government shouldn't be strengthening FBO's. I do not, however, agree that Obama is trying to give "federal taxpayer funds to religious institutions." That's the kind of oversimplification you hear in the news. The kind of uninformed version of the truth that people grab a hold of and make their political decisions on. The kind of thing that got G.W. voted in for a second term. It's just ignorance.

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

david — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:16:39 -0000

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

david — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:44:50 -0000

Well you are probably right not to trust them. There's already been problems. But I don't know how effective the Government would be if they designed all their policies around how much they trust people. Who would get a license to drive? Nobody can be trusted to always drive under the speed limit. I won't go on.

According to David Kuo (former Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and a person who has actually reviewed Obama's plan), this "expanding" is looking at what isn't working with the program and working on it. If religious groups are abusing the system, that would probably fall into the "not working" category.

I'm also not convinced that your secular institutions don't have something to peddle. Non-religious organizations run all over the place doing charity work. Sorry to break the news, but it's not entirely out of the goodness of their hearts. It's PR. But that doesn't bother me. I'm not interested in motivation if there's results.

My wife just got back from the Parenting Oasis. They meet at a church even though they are almost all the crunchy granola alt-faith types. When I rolled my eyes at it being in a church she said, "I think it's good that they let them use the space." Then she went on to describe the community art project that the teenagers were building in the parking lot (some sort of cardboard shark). She told me about the daycare and the cool creations the kids made that lined the halls. They are close to the community and are perfectly positioned to take the lead in charitable work.

Of course if you went there you'd probably spot a cross in one of the clay sculptures and scoff. You'd look at a drawing and sarcastically ask if the little girl who drew it is currently being molested by a priest somewhere. I mean yeah, that's one way to live life. Not mine though.

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

david — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:44:50 -0000

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

david — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:55:44 -0000

"...I was throwing a bone to David’s Libertarian leanings"

Aww, and here I thought you were starting to make sense. :P

No, you make some good points and it's hard to argue that the ultimate goal shouldn't be to move away from FBO's having a role in this. Still, it seems a little discriminatory or prejudicial. I mean, if the government says that it's taking bids from organizations that are setting up to offer aid to the poor, I don't think it's right to say, "Except for religious organizations - you guys are a bunch of nutters." Or even to say that they are more likely to misuse the funds. Any organization can misuse funds - religion holds no monopoly on that. You've said that atheists are the last group for which it is socially acceptable to discriminate against (or something like that) - I don't believe turnabout is fair play. The day will come when we are the majority. I'd like to think we'll do a better job than they did.

Oh, and why doesn't your blog have a "preview" option for posting comments?

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

david — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:55:44 -0000

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:58:42 -0000

http://obama.senate.gov/votes/

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:58:42 -0000

http://obama.senate.gov/votes/

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:23:22 -0000

Are you referring to H.R. 6304? Is that what it says? Funny, my copy doesn't read like that at all.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6304/text

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:23:22 -0000

Are you referring to H.R. 6304? Is that what it says? Funny, my copy doesn't read like that at all.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6304/text

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:03:42 -0000

I'll have to contact them and ask for their copy as well. Mine says:

"SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.

‘(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)--

‘(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:03:42 -0000

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:02:31 -0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_auth...

It may be possible that my mind is finer.

The person being targeted has to be outside the US. Show me the text that says otherwise. It's stated so many times and in so many ways it's ridiculous. There's even a bit that says that you aren't allowed to go after someone outside the US if your true objective is to use them as an excuse for getting info on someone in the US.

Court certification is required - another thing very clearly stated. There is a provision that under circumstances where timing is critical, the certification may be obtained after the fact, but it is still required. Keep in mind, this stuff in question is only dealing with electronic communications. These are special provisions made specifically for the uniqueness of electronic communication.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:02:31 -0000

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:36:44 -0000

Here's the deal. Not on this issue (I'm done with it), but with me.

For about 25 years I let other people dictate how to think. I selected a group of guys to determine my morality, ethics, political ideals etc. I listened exclusively to them for everything from what I should eat and what time I should wake up in the morning to where to work and who to have as friends.

Well, it turned out that the guys I selected for this task weren't very trustworthy. Every bit of Science, History, Archeology - you name it - was altered or translated in such a way that I never really saw an original source.

But I'm not mad at the guys. Turns out nearly everyone does this - alters data (whether intentionally or not) to fit their ideas. No, instead of holding a grudge against them, I've decided to take accountability for my own stupidity.

When I read a news article that interests me, that may shape how I think, I carefully scrutinize it. I find other sources covering the same information. I search out the source material and sometimes I go out of my way to find a dissenting opinion (even if the opinion is from someone I'm sure to disagree with).

What I've found is that everyone is susceptible to making mistakes, misunderstanding, or altering information when trying to compress, translate, and opine on some bit of information. It's unavoidable.

And if you think that news sources, scientists, and professionals are somehow above scrutiny, I will remind you of the time you claimed that a person's mind who's experiencing Cognitive Dissonance "literally STOPS THINKING". It wasn't your claim. You heard it on NPR's Science Friday. I also found it in a number of places on the net, from blogs to news agencies. And it was completely incorrect.

So this bit that the ACLU is making a case doesn't mean anything to me. Especially when they use terms like "sweeping and virtually unregulated". There's no hard fact there. It's all written as opinion. "The amended law eviscerates..." Do you know how many sites are using this same exact wording? Who are they all copy/pasting from?

I ask for a single line from the text that supports your position and you give me link after link of what someone else is saying. Are you letting others think for you like I used to?

Sorry, but I just can't sign up for the idea that there's some authority out there who, once they speak, everyone else must bow to their superior abilities and intellect. Everyone is fallible. Everyone needs to be checked and double checked.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:36:44 -0000

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:09:51 -0000

Oh, and you're right - Barr does have it over on Obama (again). Let's just vote for him then, shall we? :P

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:09:51 -0000

Oh, and you're right - Barr does have it over on Obama (again). Let's just vote for him then, shall we? :P

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:54:29 -0000

No offense taken. I'm not asking you to "trust my ability to analyze and interpret" the act. If you are limited in your ability to understand it, then I can understand why you've been reading blogs and grabbing news headlines to help you. I'll step back from this one - no problem.

But just in case want to take another shot at thinking for yourself, here's another original source that may be a little easier to read. The text around page 32 or so gets really plain language-y although I think the whole thing is pretty easy to follow. Might help.

http://www.shopfloor.org/wp-content/uploads/bon...

If you want, I can list the page and paragraph numbers for the parts you (your sources) seem to be most interested in.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:54:29 -0000

Re: Obama

david — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:44:19 -0000

Obama is Jesus!?!

http://images.tdaxp.com/tdaxp_upload/obama_as_j...

Whoa!

And saying that the UN is preparing to outlaw Christianity and then posting that press release implies that Christianity is nothing but a hateful, discriminatory, and intolerant group. Heheh.

Re: Obama

david — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:44:19 -0000

Re: Ars Technica Breakdown of Loopholes in FISA Legislation and Repercussions

david — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:30:18 -0000

I agree with this one-sided interpretation. I was sure the last bullet was wrong and it had me all over the place, but sadly it seems true. The key was in the definitions (US CODE: Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, 1801, h, 3). It's a pretty funny jump from this to the prognostication of doom from your earlier post. The only really disturbing bits have been on the books since before I was born!

I still think that after your "this is how fascist police states start" comment I should go back to your "I play with myself in the shower" post and comment, "this is how pedophiles and rapists start." :P I used to think like that. Then an Onion headline showed me how silly I was being.

Re: Ars Technica Breakdown of Loopholes in FISA Legislation and Repercussions

david — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:30:18 -0000

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:35:24 -0000

I see this as "politics as usual" too.

But not on the side of the politicians.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:35:24 -0000

I see this as "politics as usual" too.

But not on the side of the politicians.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:03:29 -0000

Reposting my comment (in part) to The Godless Heathen's blog:

I don't think it's as simple as "just vote for the third-party" and we'll magically have a multi-party system. I think it would require a major overhaul in how we elect the president.

If you look at working multi-party systems around the world, you will find some funky voting systems (two-round, runoff, approval). Now, I'm not saying that this isn't the direction we should be heading, I'm just saying that this is what might be required.

Look up "Duverger's Law" for more on how this works.

I'm also not sure that these third-parties would have such integrity if they actually had a shot at winning. Perhaps Nader or Barr, specifically, would hold their positions (Nader for sure. Barr - well, just look at his record.), but as a general rule I don't see why we shouldn't expect three, four, five parties all moving toward the center. Look at the coalitions of India as an example.

Another thing, from my atheist side, I'd be concerned that the religious wackos might possibly hold together stronger than others. In a multi-party system that doesn't employ things like instant runoffs, rankings, etc, you can have a winner that received much less than 50% of the vote. Then it becomes a matter of who can coalesce 20-30% of the voting population...

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

david — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:03:29 -0000

Re: Are You Registered To Vote?

david — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:03:28 -0000

Can you really confirm your registration status online? I'm skeptical. Also unregistered.

Re: Are You Registered To Vote?

david — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:03:28 -0000

Can you really confirm your registration status online? I'm skeptical. Also unregistered.

Re: Are You Registered To Vote?

david — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:48:27 -0000

There are voting instructions for those who "fear for their safety".

"State law allows voters to have their name and address withheld from the public list if they sign a statement certifying that they need their name and address withheld for their safety or their family’s safety."

Seems like a good route for fringe JW's who want to vote, but are worried that some overzealous Elders are out to get them deleted from the ranks. :P

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=943

Re: Are You Registered To Vote?

david — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:48:27 -0000

Re: I shouldn’t be surprised…

david — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:00:55 -0000

Both Melanie and I got a 1984 flash this weekend while listening to an opinion piece on All Things Considered. It was a segment putting forth the idea that Gross National Happiness is a more important metric than GDP or NASDAQ. "I can envision a day when, along with the Dow and the GDP, the NHI, or National Happiness Index, flickers across our TV screens." And even though it lacked any real blatant 1984 bits, it set both Melanie and me off.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...

Re: I shouldn’t be surprised…

david — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:00:55 -0000

Re: Why Do American’s Fail To Understand Science?

david — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:52:40 -0000

More importantly, why do Americans fail to understand fashion and good taste? The vast majority of fashion designers (97%) accept that socks and sandals NEVER go together (I'm guessing the other three percent just don't want to offend their relatives or something) but only 61% of the general public understands this self evident truth. On the topic of 40+'s wearing trendy clothes, the divide is even greater (not according to the numbers, but I am trying to copy your words as much as possible). 84% of designers are convinced that wearing trendy clothes after 40 just makes you look like you're trying to hang on to your youth but only 49% of the public agrees.

Nothing new here, really. Americans love them some fashion when it comes to magazines and red-carpet premiers, but if someone points out a serious fashion faux pas, well they're just gay (and they'll mean both - the idea that if you know anything about fashion, you must be homosexual and also the homophobic use of "gay" to mean stupid).

Sigh...

You know, most of the people I work with (my peers) have their PhD. Every quarter we have a meeting in which we acknowledge the people who have hit a milestone number of patents. We are developing new technology, running never before run experiments. This is educated people doing science (or something close to it).

And so I know you're not going to believe me when I tell you this, but when I traded in my hymnal for a copy of The Blind Watchmaker, not only didn't I get the obligatory raise at work, none of my colleagues even noted the conversion. I went from kneeling down on my rug, facing east five times a day before crossing myself and saying a brief benediction trying to find a divine answer for why my NMOS transistors are so far shifted with the new SONOS stack to just simply running the full factorial DOE and no one noticed! It's almost as if my understanding of biological evolution has had no impact whatsoever on my work.

On the other hand, knowing that all known life descended from a common ancestor did help when I picked out a new car. And I will concede that having read Origin of Species did make all the difference when calculating my taxable income for my 1040. Oh, and how would I have known to eat this morning had it not been for turning my back on that mythological deity?

Why do Americans fail to understand Science? Who cares is why. If it's not gonna add a pixel of resolution to Julianne Hough's Paso, I don't want to hear about it.

Obviously joking as always. Good post.

Re: Is It Possible to Build Faith In a Creator? Um…

david — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:22:00 -0000

Thanks for the great post. Your last sentence summed it up nicely.

Re: Favre

david — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:05:40 -0000

When I heard the news I went straight to your Twitter feed. You had Twittered it four hours prior - heheh. I knew you'd be excited.

For me, football was supposed to have ended on January 25th 1998. It just couldn't get any better than seeing my two favorite teams playing in the Super Bowl and Elway coming out on top. But the '98 Vikings pulled me back so quickly. I had never even considered them. My home team and I didn't so much as own a hat of theirs (and I had a lot of hats back then).

What a great year.

After that I was gone though. It wasn't out of disappointment or anything. I had already had all my football dreams come true. The '98 Vikings were just a bonus.

But now, I don't know. Maybe this is the year I get interested again. To be sure, I'll definitely be watching the first few weeks. I'm not expecting anything, but at the same time, I don't want to miss out on what could be something really great.

Re: Nike/Converse Boycott

david — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:23:20 -0000

It seems if Nike were to sign this guy up it would be because they carefully weighed out the cost/benefit. It would be a reflection of Nike's market and public sentiment more than it would be of Nike, the entity.

The CEO of the company I work for has written for the CATO institute speaking out against government subsidies. He's very idealistic on the subject, but our company bought a solar panel company, built it up, and made a killing by spinning it off all the while taking full advantage of all the subsidies associated with it.

Nike is a public company and business is business. They would be failing their investors if they took some idealistic track over increasing their value. (Of course, this idea does not apply if it's the company that is making the unethical choices - defrauding, polluting, animal testing, etc.)

That's why I like the boycott idea and, even more so, blogging it. Good post. If Nike is actually considering this, you and your fellow bloggers/twitterers are helping them make their decision.