or, 2) is pretending that he doesn't. Either way, his point of view is disingenuous.

I'm not sure either why atheists hang around religion blogs, unless they happen to be genuinely concerned about the deleterious effects of religion on their fellow human beings or on themselves. There's also that thing about being treated as a despised class by religious people that might be driving some of that behavior.

The notion that ex-religionists may be rejecting religion more than they reject god is conceivable, I suppose, but Daley seems to think that — James O'Keefe-like — he's honed in on the dirty secret at the core of atheism, when he's just speculating.

Let me speculate in turn: ex-religionists reject both god and religion, for pretty obvious reasons. After all, if your organization exists solely to propagate fairy tales, it's almost certainly going fall short of meeting genuine human needs. Fairy tales treated as real also offer a million different ways for institutional abuse to emerge, which I think the last couple of decades of revelations about (just as one example) profound wickedness at the heart of world Catholicism have made blatantly obvious.

I only pick on Catholicism because its sins are so baroque and the attempts to cover up so obscene and ineffective. Feel free to replace with your own favorite sect.

Daley's characterization of some atheists as saying "I hate god because he didn't give me a pony" is a weak and stupid argument, and he should be ashamed of himself for trotting it out. The absence of a prayed-for pony is certainly one way children set themselves on a path to liberating themselves from religion as they mature intellectually, but I wouldn't think it's meaningful in adults' lives. With regard to natural vs supernatural, I wasn't aware that any religion ascribed the doings of their god(s) as "natural" in this context. Whether I have the necessary information to tell the difference between science and magic really isn't relevant here. Any sufficiently advanced technology (to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke) is indistinguishable from magic . . . and that fact is meaningless in determining whether there's magic loose in the world or not.

Chalk up another red herring for Mr. Daley.

And advances in our understanding of how the human brain works — as in the "conflict" between rational and irrational — are again irrelevant to Daley's argument. Belief in the actuality of fictional beings is not one of those things that's at some imaginary border between rational and irrational — that's flatly an emotional point of view, and hence "irrational."

And thanks, Mr. Daley, for telling me that I'm "deaf" to god, and that's why I can't hear him. I'll go all the way: not only am I deaf to god, but I can't see, taste, smell, measure, communicate, or experience any effect whatsoever from "god." And as a practical matter, the only sensible thing to do is to live my life as if there were no god (and no white crows, leprechauns, or Nigerian bank managers wanting to make me rich). Thanks for clearing that up.

As for myself, I don't haunt religious sites looking to pick a fight. I consider the truly religious unreachable by reason so I don't even try. But when they insist on making public policy based on their favorite fairy stories, or insist that my society's leaders all profess obeisance to some fictional character or the other, then I push back.

Believe what you want, but don't try to use your beliefs as an excuse to claim ownership of the public square. From my point of view, there's no there there, and those of us who don't care to share your stories resent your assumption that we're missing out on anything but a shared delusion, and that your delusion earns you superior moral, ethical, or societal position.

Personally or politically.

One is an intrinsic fact of one's nature, and for which you can be denied basic human rights. The other is a frame of mind that says the universe is not driven by supernatural forces.

Sure there's a lot of hate for atheists, as there is for gays, and there is discrimination against atheists. But -- at least for me -- my embrace of the nonsupernatural is not an activist thing. While religion is silly and has often been evil, my rational beliefs are not religion's flip side and if they held a war of religion vs nonreligion, I just wouldn't show up.

I make no secret of my nonsupernatural world view, and am completely unashamed to describe myself as "not a religious person" (which gives the fundies fits -- you ought to try it sometime). And in a quietly subversive way I move in circles where the predominating -- and growing -- opinion is that no sensible person needs a sky-guy to be complete.

If I were gay, I'm sure I'd feel differently. But I'll pass on "coming out godless" -- I'm already out and don't really think I need to turn it into a political issue.

What could be more unserious than trademarking yourself? While there's no shortage of ways to ridicule her, this is particularly juicy.

Of course, she's arrogant enough to think she can slide on this one just like she slides on mean-spiritedness, quitterness, animal cruelality, languicide, antigeographicity, nonmagazinishness, and piglipstickyicity.

Let's look at the post you (after prodding) finally provided in support of the OP in this thread. You’ve carefully documented the unremarkable truth that philanthropy is a group exercise and those engaged in philanthropy constitute a community with links to each other. Forgive me if I’m not blown away by this revelation.

Sensible people recognize that an association of like-minded individuals is not necessarily a conspiracy. However, in your mind, if you get three rich people together, it’s a sure thing they’re conspiring to screw the poor. That sort of thinking is OK for the type of Trotskyite comic books they hand out in front of Suzzallo Library, but not for serious consideration by grownups.

By referring to environmentalists as “environmentalists,” i.e., something other than real environmentalists, you were unequivocally putting words in Gates’ mouth. As someone else has said, “double quotes have consequences.” Now you and I know you were just being snotty – in your world, no such thing as truth is allowed to issue from Gates’ mouth, and so his “charitable” works are not really charitable and his vision of “agriculture” is something else entirely. What precisely you mean there is obscure.

The very concept of philanthropy seems to strike you as some grand conspiracy of wicked people, when in fact it’s how human beings arrange themselves and their assets to deal with challenges. Shockingly, there are even “impact investors” who hope to do well while doing good. Sorry if that appalls you, but you’re in the minority on that one.

A few other, rather broad inaccuracies in your posts:

• AGRA is, in fact, only partially funded by Gates – and the Rockefeller Foundation. It also has other donors. And yes, it is similar to just about every other NGO ever set up by anybody to do anything.

• You still seem to think scientists are for sale, when the fact is that almost all science outside of universities and the military is by grants or employment sourced by businesses and NGOs.

• “The earlier Green Revolution did not diminish hunger or poverty.” Flatly untrue. It had many effects, a lot of which were negative, but it sure as hell diminished hunger around the world. It was also 40 years ago. We’ve learned a bit since then.

• Poverty and hunger in Africa have everything to do with poor harvests. The fact that there is plenty of food in the world and it’s not efficiently distributed – which I’m happy to acknowledge – is not meaningful to the person who’s starving to death. I suspect we agree that the only way food security is to be gained for African people is for them to grow it themselves, and not rely on trillions of tons of food being shipped in (by aircraft and occasioning huge expenditure of fossil fuels, no doubt), which is what the “there’s plenty of food in the world” concept implies.

Is Gates an angel or a devil? Naaah. He’s a guy who made the world’s biggest pile of money, realized that with his money came power, and began to look around for ways to address intractable social issues worldwide. Are there questions about how he made his money? Sure. Are there questions about how he wants to spend it now? You bet. But it is not useful to ascribe baroque motives to what he’s about just because you disagree with his approach. He is by all reports sincere in what he’s after and he’s applying the same sort of business plan mentality to the problems that he applied successfully to Microsoft. Will it work? Maybe. There’s no question that just about everything else has failed.

A flaw in your approach to this subject is the unfortunate bee in your bonnet (perhaps – based on your posting history – a whole hive) over GMOs. Lots of very serious people don’t agree with the anti-GMO camp. Like the preponderance of agricultural scientists, for example. Additionally, in most of your arguments you rely on association = collusion, which is a conspiracy theory approach to reality that really doesn’t get anyone anywhere.

And which earns you today’s Tin Foil Hat Award. Wear it in good health.

In any case, thanks for pointing out my misuse of nomenclature. That's certainly crucial to the question I asked. I admire your ability to focus on what's really important in cases of judicial assassination, mass murder, child murder, mass wounding, and -- oh yeah -- attempted assassination of an elected federal official. Kudos.

With regard to the "what use is it" test, I think the question should probably be asked. Many commercial vehicles have electromechanical governors in them to prevent travel above the speed limit, so the notion is not entirely unheard-of. And regardless of what North Carolina may have said about banning Everclear, control of the proof of spirits (for a whole host of reasons) has been practiced since shortly after human beings invented industrial fermentation.

And my question wasn't "why don't they ban above a certain number of rounds" it was "what use is it?" One poster says that people use them at firing ranges which makes some sense, I suppose. However it emphasizes that gun fanciers really do tend to think of these things as toys, which is a very disturbing frame of mind.

So I reframe my question: outside of mass murder and using a deadly weapon as a toy, what good is a 17-round magazine?

While I think that many people would agree that Obama ended the year well with some notable wins, they were penny-ante transactions compared to the fact that the 'Licans had already emptied the back of the store.

Dangerously compromised healthcare reform, senseless continuation of our involvement in Afghanistan, and Free Money for the Rich Day loom large over programs that in a sensible political climate wouldn't be arguable at all: an arms control treaty? Healthcare for 9/11 first responders? Extension of unemployment benefits in the worst economic downturn in 80 years? If Republicans had any interest in governing (instead of their single aim of cutting Obama's balls off), such legislation would have passed unanimously.

So he hands over his entire boodle and gets a nickel back. THAT's the criticism of Obama that you hear from -- not "the left of the left" (a completely mythical faction) -- but from the progressive base of the Democratic party that occupies the territory starting a little to the left of Senator Dodd.

My hopes now rest on my expectation that the Republicans genuinely believe that they have some sort of mandate to wreck the government and so will self-destruct starting in January. And that's a very uncertain foundation to rest your hopes upon.

Is Obama the best we could have gotten given the times? Probably so. And several of the policies he's put in place (unpopular ones at that) are having positive economic effects. The fact that the tumble into the abyss that seemed very possible 18 months ago has been averted really does matter, and he should get credit for his contributions to avoiding such a disaster. That doesn't alter the fact that many of us think he gives up too easily and leaves waaay too much on the table.

Schaeffer is a fool, if not a crypto-Republican. Just being sentient enough to recognise that McCain-Palin in the White House would have been an unmitigated disaster doesn't make you a moderate.

As a matter of historical interpretation, I can't for a moment compare Obama's cards to Lincoln's. Lincoln faced dissolution of the country and (although no one expected it on Inauguration Day) an unimaginably destructive civil war for which we are in many ways still paying. And whether Lincoln had turned over his cards on the day he took office, they had already been dealt and the shitstorm he inherited makes Obama's look like a day in the park. And Lincoln brought a few turds to the table in his own right.

I'd also tend to think that Roosevelt had the harder road, but that's moot.

On the substance of your post, though, and the question you ask, I think the obvious answer is "both -- and neither." One aligns oneself with a party based on ideology (in its non-pejorative definition) and yet a party is a complex organization with many strivers in it, and it will never meet any one adherent's total needs. I share your feeling (and forgive me if in my restatement I've diverged from your point of view) that Obama has lurched mysteriously to the right. Mysteriously because it has seemed so unnecessary. I am convinced that he's convinced that governing from the left of center will fail, and so he has to carve out what he and his advisers consider the center -- and abandon most policies that might offend the center, with enough sops tossed to his progressive base that they don't revolt.

The problem, of course, is that the "center" of the electorate is occupied by essentially thoughtless sheep who will vote (when they do vote) for whatever stimulates their reptilian brain on election day. There is no center of thoughtful people anymore, because the wingnutariat has killed it while progressives have stood on the sidelines wringing their collective hands.

It's the hardass vs candyass problem writ large. 'Lican pols are meaner than Dem pols and they fight dirty and they put their money where their mouth is, and they don't care what the individual voter thinks as long as their religious enablers whip the flock to the polls and money men continue to get the gold. And they get reelected, of course.

And the question becomes: do we want such hyenas running the country? Any more than they do already?

What any single person can do in a political context is limited by the degree to which that person can motivate or inspire other people. Which is why continued support of the Democratic party seems the only practical way to stave off the dying of the light, even when the party seems to be stumbling, miscalculating, trimming, and making unbalanced compromises. Because the way out of this mess is to grab ahold of the "center" and wrench it leftwards, with the hope that enough of the virulent right wingers might fall off the edge, and so the unthoughtful "independents" have a new starting point for those brief moments when they're actually engaged in political thought.

So hammer Obama and the leadership when they give away the store; continually redefine party ideology by supporting from within those who share your views; and resist the jackals of the right by using the levers that the two-party system affords.

TDC’s: Capitalism – an economic system that allows for non-labor income like profit, interest, and rent based on extended absentee ownership.

WIKI’S/MINE: Capitalism – an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

Comment: “extended absentee ownership” is encompassed under capitalism, but is an extremely minor feature thereof – far from being the basis of capitalism.


TDC’s: State – a monopoly on violence/power over a geographic area. It was designed to protect private property and continues to protect the capitalist system existing today. States can take the form of official government police to private thugs like the Pinkerton National Detective Agency.

WIKI’S/MINE: State – the formal institution on which a political community is organized under a government. A Sovereign State is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, independence from other states and powers, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.

Comment: again some elements of TDC’s definition are not entirely untrue, but are presented as the central fact of the definition when they are merely incidental. A state is formed for a whole host of reasons besides protecting private property (“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” being a good starting point). Under no circumstances do police equal a state, and the Pinkertons even in their heyday were never as important to the man in the street as the local cops (Pinkerton strikebreaking notwithstanding).


TDC’s: Socialism – an ideology that seeks to abolish capitalism and all forms of non-labor income. Consistent socialists push to abolish the State and Capitalism since they are both connected. Marxists and Anarchists only differ on the strategy of how to do this.

WIKI’S/MINE: Socialism – an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. Its society is characterized by free association not based on wage labor. It is organized on the basis of relatively equal power relations, self-management, collective decision-making and adhocracy rather than hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization in the economic and political systems.

Comment: Socialism is an economic system in much the same way that capitalism is and is not defined by the abolition of capitalism. Nor is it incompatible with the concept of a state. Marxism and Anarchism differ on almost every single element of their doctrines – to the extent that Anarchist “doctrine” can even be defined.


TDC’s: Anarchism – a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.

WIKI’S/MINE: Anarchism – a socialist ideology that rejects all forms of authority, hierarchy, domination, and exploitation regardless of who is implementing them. Anarchism stands in opposition to Marxism since Marxism embraces the authoritarian state as a tool to implement revolutionary change.

Comment: As above, the difference between Marxism and Anarchism is huge.


TDC’s: Libertarian – the term embraced by the French anarchists and anti-authoritarian left when the French nation-state banned the use of the term "anarchist" back in the 19th century.

Libertarian Socialist – a term used by anarchists to separate themselves from so called authoritarian "socialists" and Marxist-Leninists.

WIKI’S/MINE: Libertarian – Any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power (either total or merely substantial) from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals, whether voluntary association takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.

Libertarian Socialism (sometimes called social anarchism and sometimes left libertarianism) – a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production.

Comment: There’s a fair amount of slop in all these definitions, but Wiki considers libertarianism a much broader field than merely a linguistic device by disenfranchised French leftists.


TDC’s: Authoritarianism – an ideology that embraces the concepts of structural authority and institutional hierarchy.

WIKI’S/MINE: Authoritarianism – a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is opposed to individualism and democracy. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political power is concentrated in a leader or leaders, typically unelected by the people, who possess exclusive, unaccountable, and arbitrary power.

Comment: Authoritarianism goes a lot further than “embracing the concept of hierarchy.” It breaks down your door, drags you out into the street, and shoots you in the back of head. Food for thought, no?

I'm kind of proud of my response, so please forgive me.

Here's arch-dickhead John Guardino queeping and bliffing at the American Spectator about how the end of DADT marks the collapse of all that is good and holy, and my letter posted in response: http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/21/dadt-...


Where to start with Guardino’s repulsive screed?

With the creepy arrogance of a tinpot commentator who starts off sniveling that the blogosphere (even conservatives!) has ignored his previous effusions?

Or his truly sad opinion that calling a bigot a bigot is somehow warped?

How about psychosocial grand master Guardino going on to state as incontrovertible fact that “homosexual dynamics within small-scale military units are inherently problematical and disruptive,” an assertion he makes with no authority whatsoever, issuing the diktat ex cathedra from the same part of his body that tightens up whenever he thinks of what gays do with each other in bed.

Guardino’s right on one thing, though: “leftists” are generally intolerant when they see their fellow human beings denied justice solely because of what they are, as if one’s inborn nature was something the majority gets to penalize you for. One thing WF Buckley didn’t say when he complained about liberals’ amazement that there are other points of view is that it’s not amazement at all: it’s humanity. It’s a bit more than an intellectual disagreement when someone’s “point of view” is that a whole segment of society is to be scorned, and shunned, and punished.

The “prevailing left-wing orthodoxy” (by which I presume Guardino means the view that gays are people too, and deserve fair treatment) does have a certain in-your-face element to it. Yes, if you’re that kind of a bigot, keep it to yourself. Kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” for peckersniffs.

With regard to the substance of Guardino’s post, it’s full of red herrings, red flags, and red meat. In other words, poppycock. It is not the military’s job to “endorse sexual orientation” of any sort, whether that be heterosexual, homosexual, or nonsexual. The notion that extending the same unconcern to licit homosexual unions that it extends to licit heterosexual unions constitutes an existential hazard to military effectiveness is not only shrill, self-important nonsense, but is also unsupported in fact by military organizations around the world that already “allow” gays to serve unremarked.

I could go on. However, I’d like to end with one area where I agree with Guardino: this is the beginning of a zero-tolerance policy toward anyone who disapproves of homosexuality. It joins zero-tolerance policies toward anyone who disapproves of black people, of women, or of those who don’t share the same religion.

And about time.

Hitler's relationship to religion was (by all reports) extremely complicated, almost certainly not in line with what we would recognize as "Christian virtues," and a force he wielded as a weapon of war and oppression -- as he did so many other forces.

But Hitler also offers a real-world example of why you don't need to believe in supernatural beings to believe in evil. And why, IMO, belief in supernatural evil -- as opposed by that resulting from the acts of human beings -- is debilitating and foolish.

Resisting satanic forces gets you nowhere; resisting evil men is the duty of the good. Religion just muddies that simple relationship.

burbled by Glenn Beck, snarked by Bill O'Reilly, and shrieked by Anne Coulter. It has no semantic content.

"Gay" is not the antonym to "homophobic."

"Live and let live" is not balanced by "My way or die."

I'd agree that hating individual teabaggers is a waste of time and corrosive to the character. But applications of courage (to do what?) and tolerance (of evil?) are insufficient to bridge the divide. What's more, unity is impossible in a pluralistic society made up of millions (billions!) of individuals. As it's impossible, it's not worth pursuing -- and not merely because it's a waste of effort, but also because unity is sterile and easily diverted into channels that please only the masters.

Reason, fortitude, scorn of the wicked, and relentless pursuit of a high place from which to speak -- that's how we get to where we need to go.

Mere kumbayah won't cut it in the real world.

 
It'll be a three-day wonder and fade away.

And a lot of what you say is a tad hyperbolic.

My position is that a bodyscan doesn't strike me as an unreasonable search. You may disagree, but it's not legit to say I'm throwing others' rights away because my definition of those rights differs from yours.

I have mixed feelings about the enhanced patdowns. I've never seen them in person or experienced one myself -- just the regular patdowns, which are unexceptional. The enhanced patdown is not "nothing more than sexual assault" -- it's an enhanced patdown for security purposes. If you (and others) think it crosses the line into "inappropriate touching" or even sexual assault, you're entitled to your opinion and I might agree with you. But characterizing it as something it's not doesn't help either.

For good or ill, some form of security measure involving the screening of passengers is necessary. There are just too many crazies out there who are too inept to jump the hurdle of a TSA screening but would happily perform some insane act in the absence of such screening.

The question -- for me at least -- is why is the TSA so stupid and ineffective? Why can't they train workers to apply a modicum of common sense to their screenings? It doesn't make a system more failure-prone if the screeners are empowered and trained to be sensible about what they're doing -- quite the reverse. So why are TSA screeners (or enough of them anyway) brainless trogs?

I've got one reason: no union. If TSA screeners were protected by a union, they would attract a much higher quality of applicant; they could demand training, procedures, and working conditions that would avoid the travesty of a 3-year-old being groped; and there would be a grievance procedure in place that could raise legitimate concerns to management in a way that couldn't be ignored.

But nooooo. Giving TSA workers the dignity of union representation would be too expensive. Besides, they'd get "uppity." And we can't have that.

Please, let's put the blame where it belongs: on the hysterical post-9/11 nellies who created the TSA as a lowest-common-denominator employer, and subsequent administrations that have allowed it to remain that way.

And I've lived here for three years already -- I love the weather. The funnel-web spiders, not so much.

I've been an American abroad for half my adult life. I've seen 50 countries worse than the situation in the US is now or is likely to get. I've been in 4 or 5 more that beat the US hollow for civility, sustainability, and opportunity. Sadly, American exceptionalism is a thing of the past.

As I originally said, I don't have the luxury of letting my family's fate be determined by the nutjobs who are going to shut down the government for two years (or longer); who are going to paralyze civil society exactly when it needs wise and bold action to stave off economic disaster.

The storm is coming. I'm buying waders.

I'll continue to do my part, by which I mean pay my taxes, participate in political discussion in places like DU, vote, and donate to candidates and causes I believe in. That probably makes me more involved in improving the country than 80% of the people in the US.

But I'm also hedging my bets, making sure I've provided for my family and myself when I'm no longer able (or willing) to work. I have teenagers and only about 10-15 years of active working life left. I have no choice. Would I have made this choice *now* if the election had gone the other way? Maybe not. A different outcome would have allowed me to keep alive the dream that a gradually maturing American polity could be relied upon to govern itself sensibly enough that I could come home someday.

Even if (happy thought!) this is the last hurrah of the troglodytes, and the disastrous mistakes they are certain to make doom them to obscurity after 2012, I'm in no position to pay for the cleanout of the stables -- again.

I'm much more comfortable as a world citizen of American origin.

(PS: Your characterization of Aussie imperfections is exaggerated. Murdoch moved to America decades ago; the Internet filtering program shows every sign of withering away even before the new national broadband is rolled out; and the issue of the Aboriginal peoples is a hundred times more complicated -- and sadder -- than you paint it.)

It's not an act of desperation — although there's despair aplenty to go around — but one of practicality.

Elections have consequences. The likely consequences of this one are that Republicans and their brain-damaged Tea Party sidemen make effective government impossible, throwing sand and hand grenades into the works at every turn; that craven Democrats become even more craven, even when it's plain as day that they could have won the midterms if they'd been bolder; and that the nascent Brownshirts of the right will tell themselves that head-stomping really pays, and store that lesson away for another election season.

An endless round of Congressional subpoenas delivered to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? You betcha. War with Iran? Why not? Continued vampirism of the middle class by the Owners? A near certainty.

And the outcome? America gets smaller, and less able to compete, and meaner, and stupider, and more expensive, and cities deteriorate and die, surrounded by crumbling dreams.

Americans on the whole are a reasonable — let's say "sane" — people. But the inmates have seized control of the asylum and the moron-Americans and their handlers rule the day. Continued degradation of the American soul is inevitable.

I don't have the luxury of paying for the sins and nonfeasances of the political class. I have a family to look after.

Hence Australia. An imperfect society, to be sure, but with a crazies-per-thousand score waaaay below the US's. A place where my children are not surrounded by whack-jobs, god-botherers, and grundyites. A place where the military isn't going to invade *anybody* (having learned a lesson or two from Vietnam, East Timor, and Afghanistan). A place where they have this quaint notion that any full-time, adult job performed well should earn you the means to a dignified, if modest, living. Where falling ill doesn't automatically mean bankruptcy.

And where mealy-mouthed and snarling politicians are told to fuck off.

Permanent Australian residency doesn't relieve me of my tax responsibilities in the US — and that buys me my ticket to continuing to contribute (and complain). It won't make me any less of an American, despite not living in America anymore. But it will give me a sane alternative when I grow too old to work and my children have left home.

My kids are the lucky ones. Having been born in Hong Kong, they have the right of abode there, along with their US citizenship and (what will soon be) Australian residency. In times like these, multiple options are the only way to go.

I don't think they'll choose to live in the US, though. Too mean. Too crazy. Too corrupt.