House of Eratosthenes

This is like the “other side” of the 4-A debate, because some of the people running around with the strongest opinions about Autism, Aspergers, AD(H)D and allergies don’t even understand there is a debate going on. They don’t understand how little of this is proven to have any physical cause. This is the loyal dissent, and in my opinion it should be required listening for anybody who seeks to contribute to any meaningful decision about a child’s future with regard to these supposed maladies.

Like the 4A Cheerleaders, Penguins Use Bad Logic I’m not a big fan of these interviews by Dr. Savage. If you listen to an infomercial in the middle of the night, and then twelve hours later you listen to one of these softball interviews Savage does, you’ll notice they sound exactly the same. I don’t like that. I never did like it. But I’ve been following Dr. Breggin’s work for awhile now, and his side of the story is one that needs to get out. He is not overstating the financial relationships at work here, so far as I know — contrasted with that, a lot of our “4A cheerleaders” base their opinions on the unfounded premise that all the professionals involved have pristine motives. You see them, often, abruptly ending their presentation of an argument and “resting the case” after quoting a professional. There, He Said It! That settles it! Argumentum ad Verecundiam writ large. This works for them…even though said 4A cheerleaders are receiving services, or are pushing their opinions onto other people who are receiving services, that are free.

People need to think more critically about this stuff. If services are provided, and they’re free, then money has to be sloshing around somewhere. And that raises the potential for a system to be abused. That needs to be checked out. People should look into this and they should presume shenanigans are goin’ down until the opposite is demonstrated. That is the very least that should be happening. The very least.

I would point out one other thing about this: Since Dr. Savage got started on this tempest in a teapot, a recurring defense I’ve been hearing of this tidal wave of autism diagnoses with regard to borderline cases, the children who could probably succeed fine without the specialized instruction they’re receiving is this: “Since the diagnosis was made and little Johnny started receiving these services, it has done him so much good.”

That is not the litmus test. It’s exactly like saying “Since little Johnny started eating more food than all the other kids, he’s gotten so fat.”

Abnormal kids benefit from specialized instruction; normal kids benefit from specialized instruction. Kids do better with specialized instruction.

That doesn’t mean that everyone who’s received it, under mistaken or fraudulent pretenses, should keep it. It certainly does nothing to address the central question of whether those pretenses were indeed mistaken or fraudulent. In short, it’s a very poor argument for justifying the status quo.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Eliminationism
Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

I subscribe via e-mail to updates from the democrat National Committee (dNC), in addition to the Republican counterpart organization and a few right-wing think tanks here and there. I think listening to both sides is part of one’s obligation as a responsible citizen, and besides it’s an educational experience. One thing I’ve noticed, going back to my earliest days of using an e-mail account at home, and it’s an unbroken pattern…

…a right-wing fundraising letter (or request for participation, for signing a petition…whatever) invariably opens with some alarming event, and dire prognostications of where this might lead. It’s almost as if it’s addressed to people who haven’t made up their minds to support conservatives. It may summarize the events crudely, perhaps even inaccurately, but in nearly all cases there’s a foundation for the argument that substantially addresses the question of why I should care.

The messages from Howard Dean, et al, do not do this. Top to bottom, they are saturated with a call-to-arms. The theme never varies, even slightly — I, Morgan Freeberg, am the drop of water that is missing from the waterfall. It’s straight out of Mao Tse-Tung’s speech in 1945 about the Foolish Old Man Who Removed The Mountains. If everybody does their part, and you do yours Mr. Freeberg…we will win!

Not a single word about what’s going to happen once that is achieved. Or, “War in Iraq” aside, what dire calamity will befall us if we fail.

There is a suggestion here, and more than a whiff of it, that conservatism exists in service of other ideals that exist outside of it, whereas liberalism exists only for its own sake (or for some other set of ideals nobody wants to discuss). I’ve opined on this before, how incredibly suspicious I find it that modern-day liberalism shows all this dogged determination to promulgate itself, to impose itself upon echelons of high power in our society — and for no other purpose whatsoever. In other words, once the elections are won, it’s all about quitting. Before those elections are won, it’s all about winning them at any cost.

So I’m finding this bundling of ruminations from left-wing blog Orcinus more than a tad interesting. I’m thinking probably, the author has been watching too many movies and not paying sufficient attention to what happens in real life:

What, really, is eliminationism?

It’s a fairly self-explanatory term: it describes a kind of politics and culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas for the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through complete suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination.
:
Rhetorically, it takes on some distinctive shapes. It always depicts its opposition as simply beyond the pale, and in the end the embodiment of evil itself — unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus in need of elimination. It often depicts its designated “enemy” as vermin (especially rats and cockroaches) or diseases, and loves to incessantly suggest that its targets are themselves disease carriers…

And yes, it’s often voiced as crude “jokes”, the humor of which, when analyzed, is inevitably predicated on a venomous hatred. [bold emphasis mine]

This seems to me an almost perfect description of modern-day liberalism; at least the tactics of it, if not the strategy.

They want us to go away. I’m thinking, by “us,” all the usual targets. Housewives…abstinence education advocates…Christians…climate change skeptics…meat eaters…gun owners…Boy Scouts. Those groups, and many more, I’ve seen exposed to “complete suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination.” “Unfit for participation in their vision of society.” Earlier in the piece, the author further defines eliminationism as something that “cuts the target off from the community support it might normally enjoy and leaves them feeling even more isolated.” Is it possible to jot down a more apt description for what has been done to the Boy Scouts? They were taken to court, the case went all the way up to the Supremes, and when the Boy Scouts won their opponents moved to block their funding from the United Way.

With “dialogue shunned” every single step of the way.

What a classic case of being what one calls others.

The situational difference I find most damning is this: When I have some real passion about an issue that is based on values, and I find out, say, 80% of the population feels the same way, the first thought in my head is what in the world is wrong with the other 20%. I notice a lot of the folks who agree with me on the issue have the same reaction, and when people form their opinions from their values, this is only natural — so long as we’re discussing generalized, baseline values for a civilized society, and not personally-customized nit-picky values. The Left, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be able to count up to any percentage higher than 51. It’s like Howard Dean says, they want to win. And then, I get the impression very often, whether they win by 51-49 or by 90-10, they couldn’t possibly care less which it is. So long as those who disagree with them are properly gelded, it’s all good. They don’t want us to convert, they want us to lose.

Orcinus talks about “eliminationism”; that situation with our leftists seems to me to be about as fitting a definition as can be found in modern times.

Incidentally, I learned about Orcinus’ rant by way of a wonderful and insightful essay on selective outrage by Confederate Yankee; and I learned of that essay by way of Rick.

“Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.” – Larry Elder

Cross-posted at Cassy.

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Seducing Women with Self-Deprecating Humor
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Yes, to the person who asked, I did see the article when it came out.

His wry, self- deprecating humour is as important as his floppy hair and English charm at ensuring he always wins the heart of his leading lady.

Now scientists have discovered the technique used by Hugh Grant’s film characters can bring the same romantic success offscreen.

Taking the mickey out of yourself works far better than clever jokes, which might be seen as boastful and put women off.

The findings were outlined by anthropologist Gil Greengross, who conducted a two-year study into the role of humour in seduction.

He discovered that the type of humour used by Hugh Grant in the film Notting Hill - in which he attempts to charm Julia Roberts with the poor contents of his fridge - works the best.

‘Many studies show that a sense of humour is sexually attractive, especially to women,’ he said.

‘But we’ve found that self-deprecating humour is the most attractive of all.

Barf.

See, there’s a lot of truth in this. In fact, I’m pretty sure if you did a study to find out why women decided not to go out on a second date with a guy, the number one adjective that would rocket up to the top of the stack would be “cocky.” Just as self-deprecating humor is the “most attractive of all,” a cocky personality is the most repugnant of all.

Here’s the trouble. It’s the word “most”…we presume this can safely depend on numbers of women. And yeah, two-thirds of all women, or three quarters of all women, make it ninety percent, will just love that self-deprecating humor.

Ooh, it’s like when he’s around I can have a never-ending Everybody Loves Raymond episode playing wherever we go! **swoon**

More power to ya — if you want to be married to my ex-wife.

Life’s way too short to accommodate nasty women like this, women who can’t see anything redeeming about their gentlemen unless said gentlemen are puttin’ themselves down. Here’s the bottom line: Those women don’t really like men that much. Yeah maybe that’s nearly all of the available women out there. Could be. If that’s the case, fellas, what you’re finding out is these chickees are available for a reason. They are, essentially, the female version of the guy who leaves his socks and underwear on the coffee table, kicks the cat, yells at his own momma, drinks milk out of the jug and couldn’t put the toilet seat down to save his life.

Women meet a fella like that, and they begin to seriously question whether a man is something they want to have around. In that respect, women are much smarter than men. Of course, acting on those reluctant thoughts is a completely different thing, but at least they raise the question. Guys — we’re pathetic. As long as we’re available we keep asking “what Hoover Vac method will suck in the greatest share of the available women?” with nary a thought pondering what kind of substandard stuff we’re sucking in.

Well, none of my business I guess. Self-deprecate away, you studs.

Sphere: Related Content

11 Comments »

Obama is Questioned
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

I see over at Old Hippie’s space, some New York Times editors sat down with The Chosen One in the classic job-interview-horseshoe configuration, and proceeded to pound him mercilessly:

Editor #2 (male, older, seersucker suit with bow tie): Great … by the way, you’re looking remarkably fit. Do you work out?

Editor #3 (younger, female, described as hip and fashionable): Of course he works out Perkins … and he runs and he plays basketball. And he’s very health conscious about his diet. Duh.

Obama: I try. You had some questions?

Editor #1: Right. First, you’ve submitted an op-ed titled “My Plan for Iraq” a week ahead of a planned trip to the Middle East, including Iraq. Do you think it would make more sense to hold off on the op-ed until you’ve finished your trip and had a chance to get on the ground there and talk with military commanders, Iraqi leaders and others? Just wondering … not a problem if you don’t think so.

Obama: I understand what you’re saying, and I will of course be talking to many people during this upcoming visit. But talking and listening are two different things. I intend to do a fair amount of talking, frankly a lot of talking … listening, eh, not so much. I think the American people have shown they really like it when I talk. I suspect that foreign folks will react in pretty much the same manner. At some point, I might go on a listening tour. It depends on the polls.

Heh. Pretty good. Go read it all.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Save the Males
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Got an off-line from Blogger Friend Buck about something interesting: Save the Males.

Feminism has flourished, many say, leading to a more enlightened, open, and liberated time. In her new book, “Save the Males,” syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker argues that this is, quite simply, a bunch of bunk. We’re more confused that ever when it comes to gender, she writes–and males, not females, often bear the brunt of the assault.

Ground zero, she argues, is the classroom. “Boys learn early that they belong to the ‘bad’ sex,” Parker writes, “and their female counterparts to the ‘good.’” In schools across America, she reports, boys are stifled, feminized, and drugged; curriculum content is gender-equitable to a near-absurd degree (”We’ve created a new generation of Americans who may be more sensitive, but they don’t know much about history,” she writes); and years of “dueling girl and boy crises” have morphed into a we’re-all-the-same dogma, ultimately translating into Brave New World-style games of tag where “nobody is ever out.”

This impresses me as something potentially interesting. Here and there people notice we’ve been watering manhood down, victimizing our boys, alienating them from the sense of manhood that God’s Will says they should embrace on the way to adulthood. Ms. Parker seems to be pointing out that our girls are becoming disoriented as well.

“Historians aren’t sure of the precise date,” Parker writes, “but sometime around 1970 everyone in the United States drank acid-laced Kool-Aid, tie-dyed their brains, and decided that fathers were no longer necessary.” The statistics here are scary, but not unfamiliar: America “leads the Western world in mother-only families”; 30 to 40 percent of American children “sleep in a home where their father does not”; and between 1999 and 2003, the number of babies born to unmarried mothers between the ages of thirty and forty-four increased by nearly 17 percent.

Speaking of boys being stifled, feminized and drugged — once again, we need to become aware of a hot new trend, or at least, the desire some have to create one. And it isn’t new.

It has to do with convincing men, somehow, that they should wear womens’ cosmetics on their faces…

“Guy-liner” and “Manscara” to enhance the eyes of the male in your life, will appear in Superdrug this week.

Yesterday, the company’s director of trading Jeff Wemyss insisted that its cosmetics - branded Taxi Man - are not just for transvestites.

He said: “These days you can be macho and wear make-up. If you look at people like Russell Brand and Robbie Williams, they both wear make-up and they are both very red-blooded men.

“Men are more obsessed with their appearance than ever before. There is no longer any pain in being seen to be vain.”

Mister T speaks for me here…

Get some nuts!! Rrrr!!

Cross-posted at Cassy.

Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

Another Brittle Obama Fan
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Did He Give You Permission? The poor dears. Their emotions are so raw after having committed to such a thoroughly incapable and lackluster candidate who doesn’t stand for anything, the least little thing will set ‘em off…like, for example, a bumper sticker depicting a Calvin look-alike piddling on The Name Of The Chosen One…

[Doug] McKain told the officer he and his wife were driving home when they noticed a female motorist looking closely at his truck. The couple drove home then pulled into their driveway.

“Mr. McKain said shortly later the same person (Ms. [Chynethia] Gragg) pulled up to his residence (blocking his driveway behind his truck.) Mr. McKain said Ms. Gragg began to rant and rave about the sticker on the back of his truck,” the court document states.

McKain told police Gragg shouted numerous profanities at him and his wife.

“Mr. McKain said Ms. Gragg said she (would) get someone to take care of him later,” the report said.

Gragg was issued a trespass warning and then arrested on the threat charge, a misdemeanor. She was released Wednesday from the Fort Bend County Jail on $500 bond.

We’re bound to see more of this. I have some of my own experiences with it. Let’s give it a name: “Messiah Rage” works for me. It’s shorter than “Buyer’s Remorse Over Thoroughly Mediocre and Incapable Presidential Candidate Syndrome.”

H/T: Karol.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Sticking to a Goal
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Via HotAir, via Gateway Pundit, via Conservative Grapevine: Liberals are so adorable when they pretend to be carefully defining and sticking to benchmarks in measuring success. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s rationale for why the surge hasn’t worked…

Against what backdrop does she make these cutting remarks? Well, what better place to get your info, than the Associated Press:

The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

But Speaker Nan says the primary objective must be political and not military, so in her big ol’ dinner plate sized strobe-blinking eyes, it’s a flop.

What hard, crisp, cool-headed, brutal critical thinking. I guess those drops of acid must have left a few brain cells alive. If she’s being sincere. If.

This is why people hate politicians so much. Wouldn’t it be nice if liberal democrats could use this logic in measuring the success of bullshit social programs that just exacerbate and multiply the problems they’re supposed to solve over the generations?

Well, your carbon voucher program was supposed to diminish the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…well, your program to end poverty was supposed to do exactly that, and I don’t see that poverty’s been ended…well, your gazillion and one bond issues were supposed to make our children more educated and better prepared to face the challenges in an evolving world…well, your progressive tax scheme was supposed to bolster the economy overall by getting rid of something called the “wealth gap”…well, your rock concert was supposed to find a cure for AIDS…well…well…

I could just do that all day. But it doesn’t reflect reality, because in reality we evaluate left-wing initiatives by their intentions, not by results. Speaker Nan seems to think that’s okay, and yet at the same time, other efforts like the surge should be measured differently.

I’m holding my breath, with you, waiting for the press to ask the tough questions about this. I’m sure it will happen on The View first.

Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

Penn and Teller on Being Green
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Hat tip to Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

Caution urged; it is very dangerous to laugh uncontrollably with vomit in your mouth. And you don’t want too many details on how I know this, but it has to do with this episode.

Update: Meanwhile, via Boortz, we are shocked — shocked! — to find out the democrats have been peddling energy credits to fund a wind turbine that doesn’t work. Well, democrats sell a lot of boondoggles, and we tend to presume their intentions are honorable; this time we know it for a fact, because the innocent folks they were hoodwinking was…them. This was supposed to offset the energy consumption of their own national convention.

Now, I guess they’ll just be unclean pigs, like all the rest of us. Unless…quick, someone get a “labyrinth.”

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Old-People Jokes
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Miss Cellania is looking into them and it’s pretty hilarious.

Before I send you there, though — my Dad’s all-time favorite old-person joke is here.

Now then, on to MissC.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Top 100 Films
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

I always like these lists, and this one seems to be just as good blog-fodder as any of the others.

Criticize away. I see my gripes are nearly all Spielberg-related: E.T. is above Jaws, and Raiders of the Lost Ark it seems isn’t even on there.

I just don’t think E.T. was that good. Whatever “best movie” list includes it, should include Cocoon in an equal-or-higher slot, and for that matter maybe Old Yeller should also be in an equal-or-higher slot.

A tearful “goodbye” doth not a great movie make, sorry.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Jon Voight Hates Hippies
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Via Ace…

Cool guy.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

Outside of Ace’s excerpt, Voight concludes…

…while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.

Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

Yeah, well some people will like us better. Of course, with friends like those who needs enemies. But what the hell.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Cry of the Bloggress
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

You’ve got to read this thing from Rachel. It’s priceless. It’s about that thing we’ve known and loved for forty years now — here’s a profession, only X% of the people in it are female, therefore there are sexist knuckledraggers running amok — only this time it is the blogging profession. Yeah that highly-compensated coveted occupation…

The New York Times wrote about about the Blogher conference (it’s a “community for women who blog”! yeeeee!), which complained about “blogging’s glass ceiling” and how all these women bloggers are so powerful and creative and smart yet just can’t get taken as seriously as men’s blogs such as DailyKos. Which, who takes DailyKos seriously? That’s really the big question on my mind.

I’ve written about this before, and as ever, what makes me roll my eyes at the whole thing is the air of entitlement - I blog, therefore I should be taken seriously. The article mentions “top blog” lists by Techcult and Forbes and implies that it’s just wrong that more of these women bloggers aren’t on those lists, but almost every Blogher blog they mention in almost the same breath is a mommyblog or a diabetes blog or a romance blog. Is this that confusing?

Anyway, so the BlogHer chicks were upset about not being taken seriously, and then the fembloggers spontaneously menstruated when they noticed the article was in the Fashion/Style section of the Times. I would like to thank the writer of that post I just linked to for reminding me how important it is to use the F-bomb in moderation. Jesus. Also, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d find it easier to take the feminists seriously if they didn’t express their displeasure like this:

Yeah, those fucking laydeez are so heinous, they even took over the manly-man bathrooms!! And they’re such feeble-minded superficial silly bitchez, all they care about is “nurturing messages”, neck massages, and the trappings of femininity. LACTATION!!1!!!!11!1!! Why aren’t those bitchez at home taking care of the damn baybeez properly, anyway!?!?

Yes of course, that is exactly what the NYT was thinking. Pigs!

I have a confession to make: Sometimes, when I’ve a mind to skim through a blog or two before getting my day started, I get it in my head “This is a lady blogger day” and I skim through only the female-operated blogs. Cassy, Rachel, Toldjah, Michelle, Karol, Anchoress, Melissa, Neo-Neocon, Princess.

Why?

Because women put out an entirely different product. Their disclaimers, should they put in any at all, are much shorter. Simply put: A lady blogger can type in things like “this chick is messed up in the head” with no preamble. Guys? Heh…”Now, don’t get me wrong, I have long been an advocate of equal opportunity, and I know all women aren’t like this, it’s just that…” blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. And I’m one of the worst offenders, because friends and relatives read my stuff and it’s known my love life has been somewhat…tempestuous…

…I digress. The point is, I can only evaluate my own behavior on this issue, and I do not take bloggers less seriously just because they are bloggresses. Far from it. I exercise the most flattering brand of “affirmative action” — the kind that cares about the end results, and discriminates to get what’s wanted, not to showcase the discrimination. But then, if the next fella is discriminating the other way, avoiding female blogs, and avoiding any positive acknowledgment of them — what am I supposed to do about that? What the hell is anyone supposed to do about it?

Because, it should be noted, that is the focus of the New York Times’ bitch pitch. Not the number of women blogging, but the decisions of the readers as they peruse the blogs, and nominate their favorites for recognition:

There is a measure of parity on the Web. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, among Internet users, 14 percent of men and 11 percent of women blog.

A study conducted by BlogHer and Compass Partners last year found that 36 million women participate in the blogosphere each week, and 15 million of them have their own blogs.

Yet, when Techcult, a technology Web site, recently listed its top 100 Web celebrities, only 11 of them were women. Last year, Forbes.com ran a similar list, naming 4 women on its list of 25.

Two points, both painfully obvious:

One, if women can’t fail, they can’t succeed. That means, if each and every time the ladies are perceived by someone as having their clocks cleaned, we have to go back and do it over again, ultimately we’re all going to have to disrespect women and, more importantly, whatever “accomplishments” they pull off. In anything. That includes Danica Patrick. The sentiment will unavoidably arise that, ho hum, another woman did something wonderful and we’re all supposed to applaud. We’ll applaud, but nobody will mean it.

Two, if people are entitled to their own opinions about things in our society, there’s gonna be racism and sexism out there. Regulated or unregulated, pick one. But — if you want things regulated, and you want to somehow ostracize or expunge any notions that aren’t to your liking, I hope you don’t do it in the name of “tolerance” because what you’re advocating is exactly the opposite.

And then, if unregulated is the way to go, there’s no point to having conferences like this, or the New York Times pieces that cover them. But deep down you knew that already.

Cross-posted…Cassy.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Drive Through Church
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

I had made a comment in my intro over on Cassy’s blog (from which, some of you are reading this for the first time since this is a cross-posting; hang with me, m’kay?) that I don’t go to church anymore. And that my reason for not going has to do with my distaste for the decisions people make in groups. Fact is, the decision people make in groups can turn out to be wonderful, and I still don’t like it because of how it was made. I find it to be unaccountable. The very meeting-in-groups, itself, over time has come to impress me as a way of scrubbing accountability clean. This all turns to crap — who takes the body blows for it? If it’s “Joe Says We Should Do This” the answer is crystal clear. If we all sat around a conference table and “it was agreed that we should…” then the idea itself takes on a flavoring of legitimacy it doesn’t deserve, even if it’s right. If it turns out to be wrong, and now we have a cleanup we need to do, we’ll probably proceed from that point with the same mindset that got us into trouble in the first place.

And then there is the notion of “everyone.” The older I get, the more jaundiced a look I cast in the direction of that horrible, horrible word. No, I don’t like the word “everyone” anymore. It has come to be an insidiously insincere word. Just keep your ears peeled next time you hear it –

“All” does not mean “all.” “Everyone” doesn’t mean “everyone.” I remember being summoned for a parent-teacher conference and the lady on the phone explained why I had to miss three hours of work with this lame cliche: “This turned out to be the only time that would work for everyone.” And I retorted “well yeah, but I’m part of ‘everyone,’ aren’t I?”

The answer is no. “Everyone” means “me, and people who agree with me.”

So this video Rick put up, speaks to me on all kinds of profound levels. It makes me think of a bunch of conversations I’ve had with my Dad about his frustrations with church, how it’s being taken over by those goddamn long-haired hippies with their guitars. People like him are facing the same problem with church that I faced with the teachers, you see — that music ensemble just worked for “everyone.”

What comes next seems so patently obvious I feel a little foolish for jotting it down: Church isn’t supposed to be about us. And yet, there’s a dilemma here, because a man’s relationship with The Almighty is a personal thing; if the format of the group worship isn’t to your liking you’re not going to be happy. That means you’re not going to go. And so churches bend over and take it, and they end up being parodies of themselves.

A situation which apparently inspires this darkly humorous clip embedded by Rick:

Could there be some common ground? Seems to me, the answer might involve a “least common denominator.” I’ve always held a little bit more sympathy to those who attend group worship, and object to some new embedded cultural flavoring therein, than to those who likewise attend group worship and insist on inserting one. I mean, what is the objective here? To share in the experience of communicating with The Lord, with dozens of others in your flock — or to have things customized to your personal tastes? If you need to have things customized to your personal tastes, well, that’s when you need to learn to sustain a relationship with your Creator as an individual.

And I can’t help but think, for folks who’ve worked themselves into that kind of a fix, maybe that’s the answer. Maybe they’re not the kind of people who should be attending church either.

Cross-posted at Cassy’s.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Another Carbon Footprint Calculator
Monday, July 28th, 2008

This one I found out about via Neal Boortz. It must be accurate because it’s got music and you can make your own avatar.

It says if everyone lived like me, we’d need 3 to 5 planet earths to support our lifestyles.

Hmmm…I don’t know. I have one son, my girlfriend has no children. I didn’t see where the quiz asked me that. Somehow, I think if everyone on the planet had one or zero children, that might skew the results toward the positive, y’know?

Half man…half bear…half pig. I’m serial.

Cross-posted at Cassy Fiano.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Ten Things I Love About The South
Monday, July 28th, 2008

Not me quite so much, since I’m relatively inexperienced at traipsing through The South. Although, it should be said, I have done some tr

House of Eratosthenes

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Community Members

Site Admin

Michael Savage Interviews Peter BregginThursday, July 31st, 2008

EliminationismWednesday, July 30th, 2008

Seducing Women with Self-Deprecating HumorTuesday, July 29th, 2008

Obama is QuestionedTuesday, July 29th, 2008

Save the MalesTuesday, July 29th, 2008

Another Brittle Obama FanTuesday, July 29th, 2008

Sticking to a GoalTuesday, July 29th, 2008

Penn and Teller on Being GreenTuesday, July 29th, 2008

Old-People JokesTuesday, July 29th, 2008

Top 100 FilmsTuesday, July 29th, 2008

Jon Voight Hates HippiesTuesday, July 29th, 2008

Cry of the BloggressTuesday, July 29th, 2008

Drive Through ChurchTuesday, July 29th, 2008

Another Carbon Footprint CalculatorMonday, July 28th, 2008

Ten Things I Love About The SouthMonday, July 28th, 2008

Michael Savage Interviews Peter Breggin
Thursday, July 31st, 2008

Eliminationism
Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

Seducing Women with Self-Deprecating Humor
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Obama is Questioned
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Save the Males
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Another Brittle Obama Fan
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Sticking to a Goal
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Penn and Teller on Being Green
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Old-People Jokes
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Top 100 Films
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Jon Voight Hates Hippies
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Cry of the Bloggress
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Drive Through Church
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Another Carbon Footprint Calculator
Monday, July 28th, 2008

Ten Things I Love About The South
Monday, July 28th, 2008