Crazy vs Bad

If I were to erase your memory of the last four years and tell you that Mitt Romney had won the Republican nomination and then the presidency in 2008, and then show you a bunch of newspaper reports carefully edited to say "Romney" instead of "Obama", what would you see?

Bailouts for the big banks, begun by Bush and continued by his successor. Extension of the tax cuts for the rich. Iraq being wound up on schedule; a big expansion of the war in Afghanistan, with drone strikes and incursions into Pakistan. An extra war in Libya, just with air strikes, but no congressional approval or even a request for approval. A more articulate foreign policy, but one that is just as aggressive. No serious progress on climate change, no big program to wean the US from oil, despite a huge disaster in the gulf. More surveillance of Americans, continued legal action to stop people even finding out they'd been spied on. Defense of the torturers and renditioners. The president even claimed the authority to have US citizens executed without trial. Romneycare is extended from Massachusetts to the entire country. The president's popularity is suffering from his inability to orchestrate a recovery from the recession he and his predecessor caused.

Criticism from the left. Supine Democrats rolling over and letting it all happen. But - and here's where you figure out that I've lied to you - mouth frothing hysteria from the Republicans, even as their agenda is smoothly implemented. That pretty much sums up US politics right now; the Republicans are accusing somebody who could easily be their own man of being a marxist atheist fascist muslim communist illuminatus.

In about a year I have to figure out who to vote for. I can't possibly vote for the Republicans while the US still suffers in the hole that they left it in; it would be supremely ironic if Obama lost the upcoming election because he was unable to sort out in four years the mess that the Republicans spent the previous eight years creating. Particularly since, far from learning from their mistakes, their response has been to head further into la-la land, and try as hard as they could to stop him doing anything (if things they used to agree with). Just look at their current crop of candidates - the only reason Romney is still in the race is because even (some) Republicans realize the others might be a bit too crazy to elect, but if it was just up to them he would have been out long ago.

The Democrats on the other hand have shown themselves incapable of the sort of serious reform that's needed; they are either too afraid of offending someone, or they're doing exactly what their corporate backers want them to do, take your pick.

And the US system of first past the post makes it incredibly difficult to get a third party up; people will be too worried about Naderizing their vote. If they vote for who they really want, the extremists on the other side will win.

Well, an Obama - Romney contest actually takes a lot of the sting out of that. You can either vote for the Republican Romney or the Democrat Romney. No big deal either way. Or you can vote for a third party and increase the chances - just a little bit - that next time it will be one of the main parties that suffers that exodus to the people everyone else is voting for. I won't be holding my breath, but I will think of my third-party vote as a tiny little investment in America's future. And if there's a preferential voting proposition anywhere in any system, I encourage you to vote for it and tell your friends.

On the other hand, the Republicans may just double down on the crazy. They have so many to choose from - Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Paul, Gingrich... If that happens, I think I will once again fall victim to the two-party effect, and vote Obama just to make sure I've done everything I could to keep the White House in sane hands. And hope that Obama's been waiting for his second term to get serious.

The sad thing is I don't yet know of any third-party candidates worth voting for. The most likely third runner is probably a bunch of disaffected tea-partiers running a rabid no-tax-but-double-defense candidate. Or perhaps Ron Paul, who at least has the advantage of a sane foreign policy even if his economics is nuts.

It has not escaped my attention that 2012 is when Heinlein had Nehemiah Scudder elected.

Conspiracy Du Jour

A few years ago there was some kind of internet award running, and PZ Myers and Phil Plait were both in the running for it, along with a bunch of other sites. PZ started up a big song and dance about how much more deserving he was and how everyone should vote for him, and soon there was quite a contest going. PZ eventually won by a small margin, but the interesting things was that the two of them completely streeted the field. No-one else was close. People love the controversy.
This occurred to me recently when I was reflecting on the current fuss over gay marriage. When I was younger marriage was supposed to be in decline; marriage rates were falling, divorce rates were rising, more people were cohabiting. Marriage was supposed to be a relic of the past. Now one of the arguments I frequently hear is that countries that have legalized gay marriage have seen rising rates of marriage generally - far from seeing straight marriage destroyed.
What if it's deliberate? I imagine a small cabal of Christians and Gay activists meeting in the nineties to discuss a campaign. "We'll make a huge fuss about marriage. Christians, you do everything you can to keep the Gays out. Gays, do everything you can to get in. Christians, you might lose the battle but you'll win the war (and soon enough everyone will forget you even lost) - Gays, you get to fight for widespread public acceptance on grounds that are entirely respectable."
The best part about this for the Christian side is that the fundamentalist nutters can be let off the leash - in fact, the more intemperate the better. The most ridiculous arguments will bring in people from both sides to an ever-growing public issue, and ensure that even if gay marriage is legalized, the fight will continue for a long time afterwards. The best part for Gays is that the focus is on aspirations that in themselves are admirable from everyone's point of view.
The only ones marginalized are those who are anti-marriage.
Like all good conspiracy theories its chief failing is the difficulty of keeping a secret shared by so many people; although in this case the conspirators would have no trouble (on both sides) whipping up supporters without telling them anything. And, of course, the attribution of foresight, intelligence and cooperation to groups of people who show scant evidence of it.

Actually, I kind of wish it were true; it would raise my opinion of a great many people on the Christian side of the debate, and make me worry less for the future. And such a brilliant piece of social engineering! The alternative is that so many people really mean the tripe they spout, and that really is depressing.

The Laws of Internet Christianity

As a counterpart to David Heddle's "inviolate laws of internet atheism", here are a few inviolate laws of internet Christianity (not theism; I hear very little from non-Christian theists, for reasons that are undoubtedly cultural). Heddle, of course, does not subscribe to any of these laws, and neither does anyone he knows.

The Law of Real Knowledge: There are no actual atheists. Everyone who says they are, is either angry at God or denying him so they can practice their heinously depraved lifestyle.

The Law of Biblical Knowledge: Atheists know little or nothing of the bible and would be instantly converted if they would only read it.

The First Law of Inclusivity: This is a Christian country. Almost everyone in it is Christian and it was founded by Christians on Christian principles. Therefore it should promote Christianity as much as possible, no matter what those pesky laws say.

The First Law of Exclusivity: Many people claim to be Christians but hold deeply un-Christian beliefs - even though they claim to have arrived at them via careful and faithful study of the Bible. For instance, the following are not real Christians (or shouldn't be taken as any sort of representative): Catholics, creationists, mormons, JWs, Adventists, Christian Scientists, trinitarians, believers in an anthropomorphic deity, Calvinists, believers in the existence of heaven or hell.

The Second Law of Inclusivity: Good people who make any comment even slightly positive about theism are Christians.

The Second Law of Exclusivity: Bad people who make any comment even slightly disparaging of mainstream Christianity are Atheists.

The Third Law of Inclusivity: Science was invented by Christians and is based on the existence of Laws, which implies a Lawgiver. All the best Scientists were Christians, like Albert Einstein.

The Third Law of Exclusivity: Science is run by Atheists in an evil conspiracy, which is why so many anti-Christian things like evolution are taught in schools these days.

The Law of That's You Told: The most important verse in the Bible is Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God." Because "if you don't believe me, you're an idiot" is an unrefutable argument.

The Law of Dark Brightness: The worse the behavior of an atheist, the more honest the atheist is.

The Law of Specified Ignorance: anything that can't be completely explained by well-understood natural principles is proof of the existence of the Christian God.

The Law of Specified Knowledge: The fact that so many things can be explained by well-understood natural principles is proof of the existence of the Christian God.

The Life Extension to the Law of Specified Ignorance: It is impossible for life to have evolved in this universe, therefore the Christian God must have done it.

The Life Extension to the Law of Specified Knowledge: The universe is exquisitely fine-tuned to allow life to evolve, therefore the Christian God must have done it.

...no doubt there are more that I've forgotten.

The Broken Compass

Over at Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig has a post explaining why it was OK for the Israelites to commit genocide in the Promised Land. Craig has apparently taken a strong position on Euthyphro's dilemma: a thing is good because it is commanded by God. God himself "has no moral duties to fulfill"; human moral duties are "constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God".

So it's OK for the Israelites to commit genocide. In fact, it was "morally obligatory", because God told them to do it. This makes Craig an unsafe person to live near. If he gets it into his head that some group of people are an affront to God and he's been called on to kill them, he has no morals that will stop him doing that. Worse, as a prominent theologian, he has now transmitted this position to everyone else that looks up to him. If someone who follows him starts to hear voices in his head telling him to kill - or voices from some rabble-rousing preacher - then there will be deaths.

It's worse than that, in fact. What was it that made the Canaanites worthy of death?

"By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice."

But why would they do these things? Because, presumably, that's what they thought God wanted. So Craig's own argument shows them to be perfectly justified in carrying out such things, as far as they knew. So what's their crime? To have the wrong religion. Yes, William Lane Craig has just told us it's OK to kill off the infidels, the basis of religious wars since time immemorial. Even when those inciting them have non-religious reasons for wanting them, that doesn't mean the religion itself can't help or hinder such wars; Craig has gone for "help".

And for icing on the cake, God's own reasoning for this killing is:

"that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18).

But the Israelites failed in their attempts to wipe out the Canaanites (for various reasons) and these crimes were in vain.

But Craig brings up an interesting point at the end:

"So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."

He doesn't go far enough. The wrong here does not stop with the Israelites; it includes everyone since who has followed Jehovist religions (which is more than half the planet at present). They follow a religion that includes a command from God to exterminate some other group of people, and they must cast about for explanations for that or else know (as Craig is apparently happy to do) that God might come back and demand the same of them. And it includes all the people have been victims of those who have followed Craig's position and therefore decided that it was morally right to kill people off, singly or in groups, for following the wrong religion, or the right religion the wrong way.

In his introduction, Craig says:

"The command to kill all the Canaanite peoples is jarring precisely because it seems so at odds with the portrait of Yahweh, Israel’s God, which is painted in the Hebrew Scriptures.".

That's not my impression. When I read the Old Testament I was struck by how violent it was, and how much of that violence was at God's command; and for Craig to observe that:

"You can’t read the Old Testament prophets without a sense of God’s profound care for the poor, the oppressed, the down-trodden, the orphaned, and so on."

is merely to say that like any demagogue Jehovah (or more accurately his prophets) know to pretend that they care for the masses. How else to get those masses to do what they want?

Imagine what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be like if the Israelites had been instructed that in entering the Promised Land, they were now responsible for the care and protection of its original inhabitants. If Jehovah wanted some violence to show off his powers, no doubt some of the Canaanites would have attacked the newcomers and been destroyed; and then there would have been an opportunity to show genuine care for the relatives of the dead, in not attempting to visit the sins of the warriors on them despite the obvious temptation.

I don't really understand how anyone who has read the Old Testament can stay a Christian. But I do have sympathy for those who - attracted by the positive side of Christianity - try to ignore it as a mystery and get on with living the "love thy neighbor" parts. People like William Lane Craig, who read it and try to pretend it's all morally reasonable and justifiable, disturb me. It is them, and the people they influence, who genuinely poison the religious well.

If your moral compass won't point you away from wholesale genocide, what good is it?

Catch this

In high school the one subject that I didn't like and couldn't drop was English.

This is odd, because I grew up surrounded by books. In my parents' home almost every piece of otherwise blank wall holds a bookshelf - floor to about head high, packed with books of all kinds. My mother started me reading before I went to kindergarten and regularly took us to the library to get more books. And I read. I read for relaxation, I read to avoid doing homework, I read at night and on weekends, I read on the train to and from school, I read at lunchtimes. The neighbourhood was quiet so I would sometimes read while walking home. I read like it was my life's purpose. And I didn't enjoy English at all.

At the time, I believed this to be because English class would take a book and analyze it in the most tedious way possible, like studying the paint pigments in a Monet (except that even that would be potentially interesting). You could also argue that it was because we rarely read anything in English that I would have voluntarily read myself. A few years out of high school I put this to something of a test by re-reading "Emma" and then reading "Pride and Prejudice" and "Sense and Sensibility". My conclusion was mixed. They were still not books I would have read voluntarily (I was pushed into it by some friends, although not very hard), but I still found them a lot easier going than I had found "Emma" in high school. I also had a few years of reading Usenet news under my belt, so I had much more of an appreciation for well-written English. See, the internet is good for something.

Recently I got another chance, when another friend expressed surprise at my negative opinion of "Catcher In The Rye". I found a copy in the library and re-read; and today I see on the Daily Beast a discussion of its merits. The task is a little complicated by the fact that I remember little of the book from studying it in high school, beyond the impression Southpark beautifully summed up with "just some whiny annoying teenager talking about how lame he is." I recall starting it with the hope of seeing some penetrating observations of humanity in general; but mostly people are just described as phony. I also hoped for some Bueller-esqe hi-jinks, but Holden Caulfield does nothing remotely interesting.

Caulfield spends the book wandering around doing increasingly irrational things until he simply appears to run out of ideas, money, and time. His blather about living in the woods is ridiculous and he ends up apparently in psychiatric care without doing anything especially drastic beyond the fact that he is making no effort at all in school.

When I was in high school I would have related very well to feelings of alienation and disconnection. But even then there was nothing for me in this book; Holden Caulfield learns nothing that will help him fit in better - he just magically improves. It amazes me that this is supposed to be one of the 100 best English-language novels of the twentieth century. I would recommend it to anyone who irritates you by waxing lyrically about how wonderful adolescence is (if there are any such people out there), but I am surprised that there is not a better book for this purpose somewhere.

So where does that leave my analysis of English lessons? Again, mixed. There might have been an interesting discussion over the issues raised in such a book, but that's not what we did in English class. And to be fair, I would have been more inclined to heckle at the time. I probably wrote an essay analyzing Salinger's use of language to convey Caulfield's state of mind, or describing the key themes of the book, or something. It's a tossup whether a tedious and forgettable book is the problem, or an unengaging and soul-less treatment of it. It seems I need to find another book if I am to determine which it is.

Emma, at least, has a main character who learns something.

Feedback. Pay attention to it.

I really don't understand ElevatorGate.

A lot of men complain about how hard it is to approach women, and wonder aloud what it is that they want. Some complain more, or more often, or whatever. I have occasionally voiced this complaint myself.

So when a woman takes the trouble to stand up in public and explain that a particular style of romantic approach is creepy and not going to work, there's really only one response: "Thank you very much for the information. I will bear that in mind".

It would make sense to consider encouraging her to provide more such information in future. Or encouraging other women to do the same. If you think the comment doesn't apply to all women, you might want to try asking a few if they agree. Perhaps you might be unsure of what the central cause of the creepiness is, and ask a few followup questions.

But trying to tell her she's wrong... well, that just doesn't make sense. Who's got a better chance of correctly stating what a particular woman finds creepy - the woman herself? Or you?

Greta Christina summarizes it well: "We are trying to help you get laid." If that's not what you're interested in (one way or another), then what's the problem? Just ignore the advice. If it is what you're interested in, pay attention!

Perhaps we should just consider this as evolution in action. There's a decent case to be made that a strong selective pressure on the human brain has been for chatting up women; those who fail at it will see their genes selected out.

Adjusting your moral compass

I have a prediction. In about fifty years, assuming western culture doesn't get wiped out by a Great Plague or an asteroid or something, homophobia will be about as socially acceptable as racism is now. That is to say, plenty of people will still think that way, and some will be quite open about it, but it'll be a career-stopper in politics. So of course those politicians who want to appeal to that part of the electorate will develop a dog-whistle vocabulary.

But that's not the prediction. That's just the way things are going. I'm not exactly sure when that will happen - it might happen in my lifetime, or it might take a century, but the trend is unmistakable. When it does happen, most churches will cope just fine - same as they coped with divorce, and racial equality, and allowing Catholics/Protestants/Jews/whoever to have equal rights, and not being in charge of the government.

That's not the prediction either. Churches have coped with vast changes over the millennia, and this is a relatively minor one.

The prediction is that when it does happen, church theologians will argue that equality for homosexuals is biblically based. And they will point to religious campaigners for equality, and completely ignore all the religious campaigners for inequality. Just as they did for slavery and racial inequality and women's rights.

Because obviously, if a thing is good, the church has always been in favor of it.