Thought of the day

About 243,000 jobs were created in January, or roughly 113,00 more than were expected. The November and December jobs reports have been revised to reflect 60,000 more jobs than were originally thought to have been added. The report for 2011 has been revised to include 200,000 more jobs than were first thought. Unemployment has ticked down to 8.3%.

No word yet on how the Republicans are going to revamp their plan to reverse course and sabotage the economy for political gain.

Why a new campaign for black atheists does not offend me

The above title may seem odd, but it is a reference to a post I wrote back in October. In that post I wrote about a short piece by a black atheist explaining why she is an atheist. Her basic point was that she didn’t see a distinction between modern day religion and older religions we now accept as fictional, so she concluded that all religion is false. It was faulty reasoning, but that isn’t what got me. What drew my ire was that she then randomly mentioned the color of her skin. I considered that bad writing because it was a non-sequitur which she didn’t even bother to explain. I’m sure being black has contributed greatly to her perspective in life, but failing to draw a distinction between religious premises is not race-dependent. And if it is, she didn’t bother to tell anyone why.

One result of my response post was some misunderstanding by FTSOS readers. Occasional commenter Paul Kussmann, for instance, claimed I was making racial assumptions. Neil Rickert thought I was offended by the specific content rather than the writing itself. Both were wrong, Paul less understandably so than Neil. The fact is, I cringe at bad writing. In that fact is not a claim on my part to be a great writer (though I think of my skills in the area as quite strong). I simply have a considerable concern for language.

This all brings me to African Americans for Humanism. The group is currently running an ad campaign to bring atheism to the black community and/or encourage black atheists to be more vocal. It’s a good campaign because of the high degree of religiosity amongst blacks. We need to discourage religious belief everywhere, but especially where it holds strong. I support the goals of the AAH and I hope it succeeds.

All that said, could it be rightly claimed that any of this offends me? Of course not. I’ve never denied that being a black atheist is often very different from being a white atheist. It’s important to acknowledge, discuss, and understand these distinctions in order to better advance the cause of humanists and Gnu atheists. I’m confident I have never once expressed a problem with any of this. The only way I would have a qualm with the AAH or its goals is if they were ever expressed in a poorly organized, haphazardly composed, or badly written fashion.

Language matters.

Prison

I was perusing the letters to the editor for my local paper when I came across one about the treatment of prisoners. It was a response to another letter, but it isn’t necessary to get bogged down in details. The gist is this: Some people think prisoners have it too easy and should get no privileges (such as TV) whereas other people believe it is better to use the carrot instead of the stick. Here is the response I left in the comment section:

[Letter writer] Kevin Tardiff makes some very salient points; I agree with his position.

The point of prison is not to merely punish. Punishment is the vehicle we use for two more important purposes: the safety of society and the rehabilitation of the offender. We cannot achieve these goals if we mistreat those we place behind bars. Isn’t it obvious the U.S. prison system is a failure? Countries which treat their prisoners with a certain level of human respect have lower recidivism rates, less crime, and less violence behind prison walls.

It’s clear there is an underlying desire among many people to get revenge. This reflects the false view that prison is for the primary purpose of punishment, and it’s a petty perspective to have. Aren’t we supposed to be better than those we imprison? People will argue (and some here already have) that violent offenders have mistreated their victims, so we shouldn’t give them any decent treatment in return. This is a bogus, inhumane position that promotes the exact sort of thing we wish to deter. People who make that sort of argument should be ashamed and embarrassed – ashamed because they are seeking hypocritical revenge, and embarrassed because their argument is logically incoherent. Should we also rape rapists in an act of tit-for-tat?

No one is arguing prison ought to be a cakewalk. And, the fact is, it isn’t. That’s why no one wants to be there. But we should have societal safety and rehabilitation in mind when we design prison programs and procedures. Treat the animal in the cage nicely and it won’t bite you when you let it out. Treat it poorly and you get what you deserve.

We’ve tried the macho tough-on-crime bullshit for a few decades now. It hasn’t worked. It has been an expensive endeavor that has only trained people to be better criminals. It’s time we start looking in the other direction. I know people are interested in abstract ideas of justice, but we have to do away with some of that. Let’s hold onto our ideals, of course, but let’s not pretend like we’re actually making anything better in the world by doling out a sort of government-endorsed karma. That might make us feel better in the short-term, but it doesn’t make us any safer or productive as a society.

Okay, they aren’t total cowards

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about The Hostel Life refusing to publish constructively critical comments. Well, I’ve taken another look at the comment section in question. They still haven’t published my original comment (I presume it has been deleted all together), but they did publish this other one:

Again, great article, terrible title.

I’m glad someone has a little integrity. Now go read this wonderful article if you haven’t already.

Colorado considering trans-fat ban in schools

I hope they follow through:

The nation’s leanest state is taking aim at junk food in school cafeterias as it considers the nation’s toughest school trans-fat ban.

A Colorado House committee was scheduled to hear a bill Thursday to forbid any trans-fat in school food — not just the food served through regular cafeteria lunches.

That would mean vending machines, after-school bake sales and popular “a la carte” items on lunch lines such as ice creams or pizza would have to be produced without artery-clogging trans fats.

This would constitute one of the broadest bans in the nation. I fully support it. There is no reason we should be practically trying to produce unhealthy children. It isn’t merely the improvement of their minds that should be our concern.

Colorado has a decent track history of creating good public healthy policies. It also is usually in the top ten in income, so when that is coupled with its expansive outdoor recreational options, the results are generally positive. For instance, as the article states, Colorado is the “leanest” state in the Union. It still has an incredible 19% obesity rate, but this is pretty decent by American standards. (When looking at other health factors, New England tends to dominate the positive ranks.)

I hope to see more aggressive steps by Colorado in the future. It isn’t a polarized state in the eyes of the nation like a Mississippi or a California is, so it has a real chance to be a leader in health.

I guess I have to post this

“If God created the Universe, then who created her?”

Every so often I will see some God issue where God is referred to as a woman. For instance, there’s a Facebook group I recently saw on my feed with the same name as the title of this post, and there are countless other examples where people intentionally use the feminine pronoun. I find it annoying and here’s why. In almost no instance has the writer of such a question had the intention of opening up a discussion or making an important metaphysical point. No, the entire point is simply to needle the religious.

I know the first thing frequent readers are probably thinking is that I commonly needle the religious too, so who am I to talk. That misses a key component: I don’t merely write to bother Bible, Koran, and other holy text thumpers. That may be one goal of mine, but it’s really quite secondary. I don’t think that’s the case when people go out of their way to refer to God as a woman. I think in almost every instance the point is to simply be spiteful. It isn’t a matter of women’s issues or talking about religious perspectives and assumptions. Someone has just decided to be a jerk because they know most religious people care whether or not their particular god is referred to as a man or a woman.

Well, isn’t Indiana just silly

A bunch of kooks in the Indiana state senate have decided to go ahead and try to bring an expensive lawsuit to their doorstep:

On January 31, 2012, the Indiana Senate voted 28-22 in favor of Senate Bill 89. As originally submitted, SB 89 provided, “The governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.” On January 30, 2012, however, it was amended in the Senate to provide instead, “The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.”

In other words, these people recognize the fact of evolution – that fact that is supported so thoroughly, overwhelmingly, and wonderfully – is in direct conflict with their religious dogma, so instead of adjusting to the evidence, they want to ignore it, even promoting ideas that are blatantly false. It’s a good thing it is so well established that they cannot use government to do this. Not that bill sponsor Dennis Kruse knows this:

Kruse acknowledged that the bill would be constitutionally problematic but, he told the education blogger at the Indianapolis Star (January 31, 2012), “This is a different Supreme Court,” adding, “This Supreme Court could rule differently.”

It’s true that there is a reckless disregard for the constitution amongst some of the justices and political figures on the Supreme Court, but with the possible exception of worst-court-members-in-history Scalia and Thomas, no one is going to uphold the teaching of creationism in public schools. Kruse doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

If these religious zealots are so anxious to promote their doctrines and dogmas, then they can do so through dispassionate courses such as comparative religion and philosophy. That would enable them to spread their views without actively promoting them; it is active promotion that is the problem here. Of course, students will also have to deal with competing ideas, something which is antithetical to religious thought, but it’s the best that these kooks are constitutionally allowed to do with public funds – thank goodness.

Cranston ordered to pay ACLU $173,000

The school district that knowingly attempted to defy the constitution is being asked to pay the ACLU $173,000 in legal fees. And this is after the ACLU decided to give deep discounts:

The Rhode Island Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which won a lawsuit against the Cranston School District for a religious display at Cranston High School West, filed a request for repayment of attorney’s fees in the amount of $173,000 in U.S. District Court today.

In a release, Steve Brown, executive director of the RIACLU, said the amount includes major discounts for hours of work by volunteer attorneys Lynette Labinger and Thomas Bender. He also said the amount is mindful of the school district’s budget woes in recent years.

“In terms of its complexity, the ACLU noted that the school district initially raised ten affirmative defenses when it filed its answer to the lawsuit. The amount sought by the ACLU attorneys pales in comparison to the attorneys’ fees that lawyers working with the Becket Fund, the national group that assisted the school district in defending the case, obtained in a church-state lawsuit two years ago. In that case from Colorado, dealing with a church zoning dispute, attorneys working with the Becket Fund were awarded over $1.25 million in attorneys’ fees for their work handling the case in the district court.”

This is what these people get. If they really didn’t think they were going to lose this lawsuit, they had to at least know there was a possibility they would have to pay attorney fees. And for what? An old prayer banner? They should have just taken it down when it was brought to their attention. Hell, they could have even taken it down months after they were made aware of its problems:

“In fact, in an attempt to avoid the costs of litigation and spare the taxpayers, we waited eight months before filing suit in the hope that this matter could be informally resolve,” [Brown said].

Part of me is glad the school district has this bill. It would be ideal if they could spend the money in more fruitful ways, but they brought this on themselves. It isn’t what the students should get, but it is what the administrators deserve.

Don’t do business with Bill Groome of Madhatter Magic Shop

I’ve never been a fan of douchebag businesses and the entitled twits that run them. That’s why in 2009 I wrote about T’s Golf of Manchester Maine, run by Rawn and Judy Torrington. I even wrote about them in print (in addition to a number of other subjects), making sure they received a copy of my publication. I know for a fact that I took business away from them and I’m damn proud of it. Nobody likes to pay for services when the person doing the serving is a colossal sac face.

With that in mind, I’m glad that Jonathan Kamens wrote about asshat Bill Groome of Madhatter Magic Shop in Columbia, S.C. Here are the basics. Kamens asked Groome specific questions about a product. That information turned out to be incorrect. Kamens sent two emails asking for a refund. Both were ignored. When he sent a third email where he said he would initiate a disputed charge claim with his credit card company, he got this asshattery-laden response:

This is the first email I have seen from you since your purchase. I am very busy and I give information to the best of my knowledge. I get over a hundred emails per day and try to reply to all of them personally. My reply below was accurate and gave you the information on how the trick worked. Now I have more important things to deal with than a little boy crying over a $5.00 trick. I am sorry it did not fit your needs, but I described it as accurately as I could. Feel free to send it back in new condition and we will refund it per our return policy.

There are more intricate details that can be seen here, but the gist is that Groome only offered a refund when he was told one would be forced upon him. And that’s hardly an offer at all. Moreover, the comments Groome has left on Kamens’ blog makes it clear Groome is a liar. He claims that he did give a refund, except the way the charges appear on Kamens’ statements are such that only the credit card company could do it.

To make matters worse, Groome went after Kamens’ for being Jewish. I’m not familiar with Kamens’ blog or writing, but him being Jewish is irrelevant. This is a disputed business transaction. As silly as all religious beliefs are, Groome is just being mildly anti-Semitic.

But it gets worse. You see, whereas the idiots at T’s Golf were, well, idiots, they managed to keep their stupidity confined. Had they been dumb enough to respond to me, I would have done all I could to make the biggest stink possible about them. Christopher Maloney knows that all too well. Groome, on the other hand, went ahead and left a number of responses, as I have been showing. But now he has taken it one step further and threatened to sue.

This is all impressively dumb. Not only has Groome ensured that his online presence continues to be tarnished, and not only did he do damage to his reputation by race-baiting and calling a customer a ‘crying little boy’, but he has no case judging by his inability to demonstrate a single false statement on the part of Kamens.

So remember: Don’t do business with Bill Groome of Madhatter Magic Shop in Columbia, South Carolina. He’s a douchebag.

via Popehat