1. I’m a lazy bastard, who can’t seem to motivate myself to undertake simple tasks like getting out of bed, going to the laundromat, and writing blog posts.

2. I’ve been a bit preoccupied with a recent project in the form of a podcast.

The podcast is an experiment on a few fronts. It’s not about skepticism, politics, or religion…so that’s a switch. It’s a collaboration, so I’m not by my lonesome. I’ve got two compatriots, who are sort of partners in crime. And it’s also not very serious, in that it’s about movies, but shitty movies that are just funny on a shitty-movie level. It’s just a bit of fun.

It’s called Schlock Treatment, and the premise is basically that watching really bad movies is good for the ego. So, each week we ask our listeners to check out a new movie, and we then discuss it on the podcast. Again, it’s mostly just an bit of fun. It’s an excuse for us to watch a really bad film, crack jokes, and laugh. If it sounds like something you’d be into, you can check us out at the Schlock Treatment website, or look for our podcast on iTunes. It’s still in fledgling stages, so don’t expect a well-produced masterpiece, but we think the episodes are fun.

Anyway, that’s why updates have been so few and far between here at Dimly Aware. Aside from just not having a ton of time, it’s hard to move from a goofy frame of mind to one that posts on serious topics here. Still, I’m not shutting DA down. I’m sure I’ll occasionally have reason to come back here for my usual rants and complaints.

                          

So, there it is. I have now instructed someone, anyone who reads this, on how to commit a crime. It’s possible they will act on this instruction and actually harm someone. Should I be jailed? Am I myself guilty of committing a crime? Apparently Florida thinks I am. They recently arrested a man for writing a book that instructed pedophiles in the act of seducing and subsequently raping small children.

Make no mistake, I do not condone pedophilia. I think the author of that text is probably sick and needs help
(it’s possible he’s a media-whore hoping for cheap publicity). But until the moment that he actually commits a sexual act against a child, he is not a criminal. Even if he openly speaks about his sexual desire for children…in writing or otherwise. His thoughts, and his feelings are not crimes. You cannot harm anyone with an evil thought. If that were true, our species would have all been dead and gone a hundred-thousand years ago.

There is something happening, in this country, where the “moral majority” is rising up out of OUTRAGE to trample the voices of those whom they feel say repugnant or “harmful” things. They claim the moral high-ground by saying that they are “protecting” those people who may be victims of violence as a result of this speech. It started earlier this year with a huge outcry over the burning of Muslim holy books by a back-woods preacher. Let’s not mince words, that preacher was voicing hatred of another religion. Yes he was “acting” by burning a book, but it was used as a form of speech. He didn’t destroy other people’s property, and he wasn’t destroying the work itself through systematic gathering and destruction of all printed copies. He was voicing an opinion. His opinion was indeed repugnant…and his actions were met with the outrage of the “moral majority.” The consensus was that he needed to be strung up….arrested….prevented from doing this act at all costs…if nothing else, but for the safety of the nation from the OUTRAGE of Muslim extremists. “If he was murdered by terrorists, he would deserve it,” I heard one otherwise level-headed friend say. Really?! Death is deserved for burning a copy of a religious text?

And as the destruction of a book brought OUTRAGE and condemnation a few months ago, so does the writing of a book bring that same OUTRAGE and condemnation, today! It’s for the same reason, of course. For the safety of others. “I’m all for free speech,” wrote one commenter, “but this sicko should hang for what he’s trying to do to children.” Really?! No less than a death sentence, for words on a page. Repugnant words, yes. Horrifying thoughts, no doubt. But thoughts and words only. There is no action here. And if these words bring about action…who is committing the crime? Is it the child-rapist, or the author of the book that instructed him? Both?

I’m wondering, if you said both are guilty, how you feel about the right-wing radio jockeys who encourage an overthrow (violent, if necessary) of the government? Is that their right? What about the religious leaders who pray publicly for the death of Obama? Is that their right? It’s horrible, I agree. Both of these groups are assholes of the first order. But do they need to be forcibly silenced for the safety of everyone else? If you say yes, Thomas Jefferson might disagree with you. I would have to disagree, as well.

Outrage is a strange thing. I’m seeing it more and more. And the more I see it, the more I need to question its purpose. Who does outrage serve? There was outrage over the Muslim Community Center planned for construction near Ground Zero in NYC, this year. OUTRAGE!!! But, no…everyone agreed it was their right to build there…but, OUTRAGE!!!!!! Why? If it is their right, then it is their right. Disagree, write about why they shouldn’t have made the choice they did. But, protests? Pickets? OUTRAGE?!? What is it besides an attempt at emotional manipulation.

We need to get used to hearing opinions that we don’t agree with spoken plainly and calmly. And we need to get used to meeting those opinions with plain, calm arguments to controvert them. Outrage is only a tool to make people shut up or go away without an argument. I don’t want people to shut up. I want them to talk about their disgusting desires for sexual satisfaction from child-flesh openly. That way I can calmly, rationally, discuss their problem with them, get them help they need, and remove them from their job as a boy’s choir director.

                          

So, how is it trying to separate us on 9/11? By burning a Quran, of course, as a symbol of a hateful, warlike religion that’s all about converting or destroying the heathen non-believers. Separate, separate, separate. It’s a good thing all of those religions are all about finding peace, love and acceptance. As I thought about this little act of fiery protest, I couldn’t help identifying with it, though. The only difference is that I would take it just a tad further. Maybe there should be a ritual burning on every 9/11…maybe that’s just what the world needs. But I would say that ritual burning needs to be of all the religious texts. The Bible, the Quran, the Torah (technically covered with the biblical burning, but just for symbolism), the Bhagavad Gita, the…Tao Te Ching?, I dunno…any book that seeks to control your life and threaten the lives of others. It would have to be up to the individual. Burn Oprah’s magazine, or The Secret, for all I care. But burn the book that controls you, rather than the one that controls others.

I would like to stress that I don’t advocate burning books to control information. And I don’t want all religious texts to disappear. I want their control over their followers to disappear. What I’m talking about is a ritual cleansing. A ceremony in which people decide to cast off religious isolationism and proclaim their new-found acceptance to the rest of the world.  To stop saying “us and them” and start saying “we.” What better way to prevent future events like 9/11, than to cast aside divisive theology?

I think I know just the place for the ceremony, too!

Imagine no religion.

                          

Recently, within that group, there was a minor stir when Phil Plait, former President of the James Randi Educational Foundation, made a little speech about the tone of skeptical arguments. His message, as he often sums it up, was simply “don’t be a dick.” It’s a catchphrase he borrowed from internet maven, Wil Wheaton. He is “concerned” that skeptics are engaging in “childish, demeaning behavior” and “taking the low road.” He’s afraid that people are being aggressive, and calling people “retards” and “idiots.” He’s playing the role of the tone police, for lack of a better term.

Now, ignoring the roots that I think that this entire speech has in some higher profile atheist disputes within the community, I can’t help but laugh at this topic.  Looking at this commentary, and the way in which it’s delivered, I can’t help but think of a whole range of conversations in my life.  The thing that sticks out to me, here is the hypocrisy of the “nice guy.” This is the guy who says, “I’m nice. You are not. You need to be like me.” He says, “I’m doing things right, and you are ruining it.” He says, “My way is the only way. Yours is abhorrent.” So, what bothers me about this argument? It’s fucking rude, for one. It’s wrong on top of that. But most of all, in telling you so very frankly how you should be acting (namely nice, like him), he is becoming the very thing that he wishes you were not. He’s being a dick.

Go back to that link and watch Phil’s speech, and tell me what words come to mind with his tone. Friendly? Fun? Scientific? Sorry, no. Try sanctimonious. Try preachy. Try accusatory. (Try unfounded…while we’re at it.) This is the irony of the tone-nazi. In an attempt to call out the imaginary devils of the skeptic movement, he becomes a devil himself. He’s stirring the pot, creating internal strife, and deriding his fellows. And worst of all, he’s doing all of it in the most unskeptical manner possible: with assertion, after assertion, after assertion. This is the “just-so” fallacy of skeptical speeches.

And did I mention it’s pretty fucking rude too?

Note: Am I being rude, in turn, by calling out Plait on his speech? Sure, possibly. But I’m not the one advocating his “don’t be a dick” policy. I happen to think that a firm and strident approach can be quite effective. Hell, I’d even defend a skeptic calling people “retarded” in certain circumstances. But Tone-Nazis are after one thing, and that’s to exercise control over you. Why do you think it was long considered taboo, for example, to discuss religion and politics in “polite company?” And notice, that the only two examples even lightly touched on in that video (one by Plait, and one by Bidlack in the Q&A) were….yep….religion and politics. I say, talk it up. A skeptic has nothing to fear from scrutiny.

Update: Phil has posted another addendum to his blog on this topic. Sure enough, his speech is really ringing true with, guess who? The religious skeptics! They feel that when other skeptics critically examine their beliefs, they are being personally attacked. I wonder if, as a thought experiment, we replaced all the crying religious skeptics he mentions with crying psychic skeptics. Would there be as much “let’s be nice” sentiment? I think not.

                          

Is it any wonder that I find this mentality….lacking? No one who knows me is surprised, I’m sure. I hate everything, I’m told.

What is the world, though, when the completion of tasks is more important than the task’s purpose? As usual, I can’t help but ask, “why?” Naturally, this goes over like a lead balloon in the harried, “efficiency-driven”-yet-woefully-inefficient corporate bureaucracy that is my workplace. Where the motto is “I need it yesterday no matter how impossible and no matter how completely I botched the process before handing it off to you.”

As new crises and “challenges” trickle into my inbox, I’m struck with a deep-seeded need to find the root problem. I can’t help but stare into the mountains of miscalculations that led to the inevitable crisis we now face and ask why those errors were made. I can’t help but suggest ways to avoid those errors. And yet, I’m faced with “git ‘er done.” There is never time to address the root cause, because we are so harried with a need to resolve the issues caused by the root cause. It’s frustrating, is all.

It’s like Superman arriving upon a disaster scene and being told to work crowd control. “Or I could make the earth spin backwards and prevent this disaster from ever happening.”

“…just make sure these folks don’t go under the tape, hot shot!”

Would a little introspection be remiss in the modern world? Would it hurt if, instead of asking what we are going to do, we instead asked why we are doing what we do? To what end? For what purpose? And for what need? Albert Einstein said that “bureaucracy is the death of all sound work.” It’s possibly true for a creative process, but I can’t help but think an efficient bureaucracy is the last defense against the failings of any non-creative process necessarily involving humans.  And efficiency is achieved, not by doing without question in order to “git ‘er done,” but by evaluating each action for it’s value before acting.

Unfortunately, my bosses don’t agree.

                          

CLICK FOR SURVEY

To that end, I’ve developed a simple survey to measure Christian beliefs. If you consider yourself a Christian, please respond as honestly as possible about what religious statements in the survey you believe to be literally true. Note that when I say “literally,” I mean that a statement like “angels exist” really and truly means that there are ethereal entities called “angels” that work as agents of a supreme being and interact with humanity on his behalf, not that sometimes people do angelic things and they are metaphorical “angels” doing the work of a higher power. You dig?

So have at it, and please answer honestly with the literal interpretation in your mind. Feel free to pass the link on to any of your Christian friends. This is for any denomination that considers itself Christian. So, if you would ever self-identify as a Christian (were someone to ask you if you were one) then this survey is for you.  I will share the survey results in a blog entry once I get the preset number of respondents (which may be a long while, at the rate my blog is viewed). Looking forward to your answers!

                          

So, you’ve heard the craaaazy news, right? It’s all over the place! Yes, friends, Wonder Woman is changing her look, and it is serious business! There are stories in the Washington Post, The Boston Herald, and the L.A. Times to name a few! What? It’s not like there’s anything more important to be talking about. Which is why I’m going to blather on about it here!!

Folks are up in arms about the costume change. Some say, why mess with success. Others say what’s the big deal? Some think it will reinvigorate the series. Others say it’s awfully cold fighting crime in a silk teddy. So what does this new hero look like?

80s Wonder Woman? No..it's 80s REVIVAL Wonder Woman

So, there it is. The amazing Amazonian warrior princess is scrapping her old digs for some new threads. She’s ditching the bustiér that barely contains her considerable cleavage, and trading up for some too-tight black pants, and a jacket with the sleeves pushed up. It’s a daring new look! Except for that it isn’t new at all. That’s really my only beef with it. It’s 1982 all over again.  Seriously people…costume changes are fine, but do we need to buy the costume at American Apparel?!? I hate the 80s fashion revival!!

Don’t think it’s 80s? Okay….picture the jacket as yellow, and a pair of pink sunglasses pushed up in her hair, and we pretty much have any member of Jem and the Holograms, or to be fair….Jubilee.

I see this “new and improved” look, with the too-tight black jeans and I feel compelled to think of Joan Jett. Now, don’t get me wrong! Joan Jett was totally rad, in her 80s rocker-chick way, but in the 80s! It’s 2010 now, right? Come on! I can only be glad that they ditched the more butch characteristics of the Amazonian that she had in the very early drawings…else we might have the return of Hollywood Montrose!

Let’s be honest, folks. Of all the things cool about the 80s, fashion ain’t on the list! Are these the 80s images we want to influence the look of a hero? There’s really only one 80s persona that it’s appropriate for Wonder Woman to emulate. She’s awesome, and she’s got the look we want. Join our team!!!

                          

Anyhoo, it’s a new and innovative product from our friends at LYSOL®! I couldn’t find the exact ad, but here’s a similar one for the same product:

Cool! You know, I’m as worried about germs as the next guy. I probably wash my hands 8-10 times a day! I’m downright compulsive about it! And, hey howdy, do they ever raise a good point! I never considered how many filthy, disgusting hands might be pressing down on my soap dispenser! Seriously, when do people push on a soap dispenser? Right after…..you know! And also after…EEEW! I mean…you could be getting some NASTY stuff on your hands every time you go to…wash…uh…wash your…

HEY!!!

Yep…dumbest product EVER.

                          

Saving the world one fad at a time.

Now I have nothing against these causes, let me be clear. It’s all well and good. What I wonder about is the nature of activism in America. It all seems inextricably linked with commerce. If you aren’t being basically guilted into going to a TV or corporate website to be sold their products, you’re basically just buying something for status or fun and being told that a portion goes to something. Why doesn’t a corporation just donate their product to the needy group? Nope, sorry, they have to donate one thingy they plan to donate for every widget you buy!!  Look at Lance Armstrong’s yellow bracelet fad….there was a time when it was a must-have fashion accessory, but why couldn’t the money to make those bracelets have just gone to the cause instead of only a portion? Yeah, yeah, human nature…economics, advertising, blah, blah.

What about the rallies? Are they really convincing anyone, or just making people feel like they have control. Sometimes (like with tea party rallies) I hope it’s just the latter. But then make it a big event. Get the celebrities to show up! Get the corporations to donate free widgets for the attendees! Get politicians! Get Sting to sing a song! Make signs and chant chants! But in the end, what’s been changed? You’ve rallied for the environment, and maybe got some media attention. But what if each of those 50,000 attendees just went to the EPA website and told their electric company that they only wanted to buy green energy? What if they each got 2 friends to do the same? What if those corporate sponsors switched their companies to only green energy? Or what if they invested in green tech for their corporate offices and factories? Or what if they encouraged their employees to do the same? Or if they used that cash to pay the difference in price for every employee who switched?

What if, instead of having an environmental walk/run for charity, where everyone showed up and walked/ran and drank their bottled waters and generated their trash, and had their after-party, or whatever, all those people just changed the way they lived? Maybe if they walked/ran home instead of driving to work? No, let’s drive our cars to the event where we walk in a big pointless circle to help someone. I confess, it doesn’t make much sense to me. If you want to donate to a charity, donate. If you want to help the environment, help it. What the hell does a bracelet do for anyone? What’s the point? And now social netwoirking is bringing a whole new level of conspicuous slacktivism. Today I was invited to a “1 Million Strong Against Cancer” group on Facebook. Come on…does anyone like cancer? Can you think of anything more pointless? The only thing I can think of are the “viral” status updates that say things like “change your status to this pointless glurge for a whole day to irradicate Muscular Distrophy!” In fact, allow me to present the Golden Sheep Award to those useless slacktivist pages.

Seriously, here’s a litmus test for you. Think about what you do each day, think about what the results of those things are. Now ask yourself, “if everyone did that, what would the world be like?” Is it better or worse? I find I come out pretty good on that scale when it comes to environmental, economic , and (I think) political issues. Now social health, that’s another story…..I have no clue there. Don’t look to me for advice on dealing effectively with people.

                          

THEY LIVE!

All this builds up to my skepticism in viewing this article in the Telegraph, which basically states that a poll showed that 20% of respondents believed that aliens existed and were walking among us right here on our very own planet Earth. I mean, come on! One in FIVE?!?! The first thing I checked was the sample size…it might be tiny.  Turns out it’s 23,000. That’s a pretty robust poll. But there the data on this poll ends. The article gives no information about who conducted the poll, or the methodology.

Google reveals a scant few articles about this poll, with most simply dropping the 20% number in a quick blurb along with a sensationalist headline and moving on to other things. I finally discovered that it was Reuters which commissioned the poll, and found their initial article about it. They also don’t reveal the methodology. The polling firm, Ipsos, has a little blurb about it but says nothing about the nature of the poll or how data was gathered.

So, bottom line? The information is interesting. If the responses correlate with the actual public opinion, then the findings are downright scary. Frankly, I don’t find them that hard to believe. People believe weird stuff. If accurate, then nearly 45% of Indians and Chinese think aliens are among us! They Live!! Additionally it says something interesting about relatively secular and socialist countries like Belgium, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Only about 8% of them put any stock in the idea. But all this is pointless if the poll was biased or flawed. Where is the careful reporting on this subject?

Now that I’ve blathered on about how silly polls can be, here’s one for you. Have at it….what’s your take?

View This Poll