Total Drek

Todd Akin is a douchebag.

2012-08-20T09:09:00.000-07:00

Those of you who read this blog with any regularity* know a few things about me. One is that I'm a total jerk. Another is that I have an ex-girlfriend who was raped. And a third is that, generally speaking, I'm pretty pro-woman. Not pro-woman in the sense of anti-man but pro-woman in the sense of, "Women and men are equals and no sex has the right to treat the other like chattel". It goes without saying that this frequently puts me at odds with the Republican party, which seems to view a woman's uterus and vagina as more appropriate targets of regulation than assault weaponry, but that's not the point. Okay, actually, that is the point because our wonderful friends in the Republican party have recently produced an individual of such cretinous over-achievement that it boggles the mind. I refer, of course, to this guy:

Allow me to introduce you to Representative Todd Akin, Republican Senate nominee from Missouri, who apparently fails at both high school biology and basic human decency. I have developed those twin opinions based on his recent comments pertaining to the need for a rape exception to legislation banning abortion:

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

Now, there are several bits that are horrifying in here. First there's that "legitimate rape" bit. The phrasing is unfortunate as it makes it sound as though some rapes are justified or something, but I think it's more likely that Akin is suggesting that rapes that aren't "forcible rapes" under the FBI's definition, aren't "real rapes". In other words, if you're date raped, then you weren't raped. In order for it to be "Rape" with a capital R you have to be attacked by a stranger, who probably has a knife or something, fight back, be injured, and then report the assault immediately to the authorities. Any rape that is slightly more complex than that- like this heartbreaking case, for example- just doesn't count. This is additionally revolting because of the apparent implication that many existing claims of rape are just women lying as, you know, women are wont to do. You know how it is- we men can't go ten feet without some evil woman (who probably took a women's studies class) leveling a false accusation of rape.** I don't know how we men can stand it- maybe our overwhelmingly advantaged position in society offers some comfort. Second, there's the spectacular biology fail involved here; "...the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down"? I suppose that's true if by "ways to shut that whole thing down" Akin means "going to a fucking abortion clinic" but, aside from that interpretation, this claim has absolutely no basis in fact.*** No, to the contrary, it shows such a spectacular ignorance of basic facts of human biology that I am STILL trying to wrap my head around it. This is a grown man who does not understand how human reproduction works and he wants to be a Senator! Frankly, this level of ignorance should prevent him from being taken seriously in polite society, much less politics. And then, finally, let's just keep in mind that in the final analysis, he just doesn't care if it was rape or not- the bundle of non-sentient cells is worth more in his eyes than the thinking, feeling woman who was sexually assaulted and now has to spend nine very difficult months to bring her rapist's child to term. And so, as I said, Akin appears to be a failure at both biology and human decency.

Now, granted, he has tried to walk his statements back:

“In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview, and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year,” Mr. Akin, who has a background in engineering and is a member of the House science committee, said in a statement. “I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life, and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.”

But, of course, the problem with that is not his misspeaking. He did not misspeak, he stated his position quite clearly. I'll grant that the reference to "legitimate rape" was probably an unfortunate off-the-cuff word choice, but the rest of it shows such an utter lack of knowledge about the world and total disdain for women that nothing short of a massive apology would be sufficient.

My father always taught me that I was never too good to shake another man's hand, but for Todd Akin, I think I might make an exception.

* This shows considerable dedication of late given that "Total Drek" has been, for lack of a better word, estivating.
** It really is remarkable how few rape allegations one receives when one treats women like human beings who are worthy of respect, as opposed to tits and a hoo-haw on legs.
*** Similarly, the bodies of Republican candidates do not have ways of preventing themselves from uttering horrifying remarks in public. Other than using their brains, I suppose, but it's been a while since I've seen a Republican candidate who seems inclined in that direction.

So, as it turns out? Republicans really do hate critical thinking.

2012-07-02T09:34:00.003-07:00

And while you might think that title is a bit of hyperbole on my part, you'd be mistaken. It is, in fact, an explicit part of the 2012 platform of the Republican Party of Texas. Seriously:

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

So, the Republicans of Texas are directly and literally saying, we do NOT want to teach our children to think for themselves. We, instead, want them to just believe the same shit they believed before and to cling to their "fixed beliefs"... whatever those happen to be.* As someone who has been an educator for quite a few years now, it's a little bit difficult for me to wrap my head around an entire group of people who think that deliberate ignorance is not just an acceptable choice, but a viable campaign position. And yet, this isn't even the only absurdist nightmare in the platform. If you're curious, you can get a look at the platform in its entirety, which produces some other interesting bits, although in the interest of brevity** I'll limit my attention to the education section. My favorite bit is probably the section on "controversial theories":

"Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

It's hard not to love that section since it only makes sense if you want to teach students to consider all sides of an issue or, in other words, to THINK CRITICALLY. Sadly, however, the Texas Republican Party is explicitly opposed to critical thinking, so it's a little difficult not to view this provision as sort of an orphan. Okay, yeah, what I said isn't totally true- these two clauses together make it pretty clear that Texan Republicans are for critical examination of views they disagree with, and slavish obedience to views they do agree with. So much more charming, eh? We also find the section on patriotism:

"American Identity Patriotism and Loyalty – We believe the current teaching of a multicultural curriculum is divisive. We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of political correctness that nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups. Students should pledge allegiance to the American and Texas flags daily to instill patriotism."

Which basically gives the finger to the melting pot ideal of everyone coming together in favor of the "screw you and assimilate" perspective. And you just have to adore that bit about the pledge of allegiance instilling patriotism- I said the pledge every damned day of my primary schooling and it never made me feel more patriotic. No, it made me feel bored. Unless Texans want us to be bored by citizenship, this is probably a silly platform position. There's the classroom discipline section:

"Classroom Discipline –We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas."

So, to recap, critical thinking = bad, hitting children = good. Stay classy, guys! There's the bit on young kids:

"Early Childhood Development – We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten. We urge Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development. "

Which wouldn't be so bad, except it wants Congress to repeal all programs that "deal with early childhood development". So, in other words, government support for non-mandatory programs to help disadvantaged populations are also out the window. Who needed class mobility anyways, amiright? Then there's the inevitable section on naughty bits:

"Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage. "

So, to recap again, hitting kids is fine, but telling them how to control their fertility and avoid STDs is bad. Or, to make that more concrete, they're fine with a teacher hitting a child but they better watch out if that teacher dares to mention the word "condom". Am I in fucking bizarro world here? Wait, we're talking about Texas, so yes. Then there's the bit on homeschooling:

"Private Education – We believe that parents and legal guardians may choose to educate their children in private schools to include, but not limited to, home schools and parochial schools without government interference, through definition, regulation, accreditation, licensing, or testing. "

Okay, so apparently if you keep your kids home you can teach them whatever the fuck you want and the state can't say anything about it. Good to know. There's the religious "freedom" section:

"Religious Freedom in Public Schools – We urge school administrators and officials to inform Texas school students specifically of their First Amendment rights to pray and engage in religious speech, individually or in groups, on school property without government interference. We urge the Legislature to end censorship of discussion of religion in our founding documents and encourage discussing those documents. "

From having grown up in the south, believe me when I say that encouragement is not necessary here- your classmates will badger you about religion no matter what you do. It's just especially difficult when they have formal sanction to do so. And finally, there's the indoctrination clause:

"Traditional Principles in Education – We support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America’s legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Founders’ writings. "

So, not only are kids encouraged to proselytize, but we're going to make religion an official part of the curriculum. It's hard to know what to say to that.

Anyway, take a look at the platform and be sure to post your favorite bits in the comments. I would hope that this would help lose the Republicans the election but, sadly, I think this just emphasizes how crazy some folks have become.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go weep for the future. Which is to say, cry because I can't bequeath a better world to JezLil.

* Of course, this being Texas, we can be fairly sure that "fixed beliefs" is nudge-nudge, wink-wink, for "Wacky version of Christianity".
** Yeah, that's a lie. It's mostly in the interest of "I'm really busy and lazy".

Dude, seriously?

2012-06-07T09:02:00.000-07:00

I mean, come on! We use WAY more than six people when we run surveys. Hell, we usually use more than six people when we do experiments. It's the neurobiologists who are all like, "We did an fMRI study of 14 people- we understand EVERYONE!!!1!!"

Still and all, though, it's a fun comic. Thanks SMBC.

And that would be desirable because...?

2012-04-30T09:05:00.000-07:00

As an atheist, I'll be the first one to admit that I don't always understand why people do things. I don't get praying or speaking in tongues, I don't really understand the fatalistic acceptance of "god's will" or the unfounded assumption that everything that goes on in the world is really for the best at some abstract level. I am, in a word, accustomed, to being confused by the people around me on a fairly regular basis and, for the most part, I'm able to live with it. And yet, even with my general ability to handle things that don't make sense to me, this one stands out as particularly bizarre:

Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) has appealed to the Islamist-dominated parliament not to approve two controversial laws on the minimum age of marriage and allowing a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours of her death according to a report in an Egyptian newspaper.

The appeal came in a message sent by Dr. Mervat al-Talawi, head of the NCW, to the Egyptian People’s Assembly Speaker, Dr. Saad al-Katatni, addressing the woes of Egyptian women, especially after the popular uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak in February 2011.

She was referring to two laws: one that would legalize the marriage of girls starting from the age of 14 and the other that permits a husband to have sex with his dead wife within the six hours following her death.

Okay, so, I don't mean that the opposition to said law doesn't make sense, I mean that the motivation to pass the law doesn't make sense. As pretty much all of you know, I'm a married man, and in the hopefully unlikely event that my wife were to up and die, I do not think that my first thought would be, "Well, it'd be a shame to waste a perfectly warm corpse." Nor would my second, third, or fourth thoughts be even vaguely in that direction. I am utterly and completely at a loss to explain not only why someone would react to the death of their spouse with the sudden urge to bang the corpse, but also why this inclination would be so widespread as to garner support from lawmakers.

Just... what the hell, Egypt?

Happy Boobquake!

2012-04-26T09:02:00.000-07:00

The title to this post aside, I actually found myself rather divided about whether I should celebrate boobquake this year like I did last year and the year before. On the one hand, any excuse to get my wife to show off is a good one, but on the other hand the originator of boobquake, the inimitable Blag Hag, has specifically said that there is not to be another one. I respect her reasons, too, much as I would love to have this become an official free thinker's holiday. So, on the whole, I had basically decided to celebrate boobquake privately this year.

And yet...

And yet, I somehow can't quite bring myself to do that. You see, the original boobquake was inspired by an Iranian cleric who insinuated that earthquakes happened because women dressed immodestly, inspired men to have dirty thoughts, and that pissed god off because he's a huge prude.* We here in the United States laughed at this, as we should have, and shook our heads at the ignorance. Of course women's breasts don't cause earthquakes- that's just silly. But the thing is, underneath the whole earthquake bit was something much darker- a desire to constrain and control women and female sexuality. And the problem is, that isn't something that we in the west can laugh at, because we have plenty of it here.

No doubt in recent months you've noticed all the debates over covering contraception under insurance, and remarks that a woman who wants birth control to be covered (in much the same way that a man's boner medicine is covered) is a whore. We've seen moves in Arizona to give employers the right to fire women for using birth control, to demand private medical information pertaining to birth control, and to charge women for the privilege of having their privacy violated. We have the widespread effort to delegalize abortion, even in cases where only a moron would object. And don't even get me started on the insulting analogies between a woman who has sex before marriage and used pizza boxes or filthy water. We can laugh at an Iranian cleric all we want but, at the end of the day, a lot of people here in the U.S. are just as prejudiced, just as hateful, and just as fearful of women as he is. And all too often they're willing to do what they can to restrict and constrain women. That bothers me.

It bothers me for a lot of reasons but, right now, it especially bothers me because I am the father of a beautiful, active, happy little girl. She is going to grow up in this world and I don't want people telling her that she's a whore if she wants to use birth control. I don't want her to hear that she's filthy and disgusting if she has sex with a boyfriend. I don't want her to be treated as though she can't make her own decisions and I don't want someone else's belief in a bronze age fairy tale to make it more difficult for her to take care of herself. I love my daughter so very much, and I want her to have a world where she can have premarital sex, dress how she likes, and be who she wants without others trying to control and contain her. My JezLil is a beautiful spirit, and I do not want to see that spirit shackled.

So today, however you would like, celebrate women as powerful, intelligent, independent people. If you want to do it boobquake style, go ahead, but if you want to do it some other way, that's good too. Because boobquake isn't about boobs, it's about women.

* This is despite the fact that this cleric presumably also believes that god personally designed every bit of genitalia on the planet. I mean, bloody hell, male Right Whales have eight foot penises with testicles that weigh one ton each. I seriously doubt that cleavage is gonna shock god.

As a final side note: I apologize if this post looks a bit wacky. Blogger has updated its interface and, so far, it's about as attractive as a naked Rush Limbaugh.

Why would someone want this product?

2012-04-18T09:06:00.000-07:00

This just in from the Total Drek Asian correspondent, who has been freakishly busy lately: Looking for a new way to enjoy a corndog? Why not try a corndog made to look like a giant yellow penis?

Briefly turn on nearby men with filthy minds, before forever scarring them by biting, chewing, and generally grinding this wang substitute into mush. Yay?

Hat tip to IAB for publicizing this thing.

Aww, man, his preachers got smoke bombs?

2012-04-16T09:04:00.000-07:00

That honestly would have made sunday school so much more fun.

The comparison is striking.

2012-04-06T09:02:00.000-07:00

Every now and then I notice something that reminds me that people differ, and often wildly and incomprehensibly, in what they regard as plausible, and what standards of evidence they impose on assertions. This, it so happens, is one of those times. Specifically, I was recently perusing the usual wretched hive of scum and villainy when I ran across a pair of headlines that were remarkable for the contrast they posed. The first refers to President Obama and something he said, or perhaps didn't say, at a recent prayer breakfast:

Or, in plain text:

Obama's gaffe reinforces doubts that he's a Christian: Jesus was merely "a Son of God," Obama said. Contrast that with John 3:16, the favorite verse of Tim Tebow and most Christians. [Emphasis original. Seriously]

Now, if you follow the link they provide, you reach an article that gives slightly more detail on what was said as well as the context:

Speaking to a group of Christian clergy at the Easter Prayer Breakfast he hosted at the White House on Wednesday, President Barack Obama referred to Jesus Christ as “a son of God.”

“It’s an opportunity for us to reflect on the triumph of the resurrection, and to give thanks for the all-important gift of grace,” Obama said of Easter, which is this Sunday. “And for me, and I’m sure for some of you, it’s also a chance to remember the tremendous sacrifice that led up to that day, and all that Christ endured--not just as a Son of God, but as a human being.”

The Christian faith teaches that Jesus is the only Son of God. John 3:16-18: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

So, just to recap: Obama, the President of an allegedly secular nation, attends a breakfast for clergy of a single religion, quotes scripture, refers to their particular deity figure in terms that assume the facticity of the Christian account, and makes a rhetorical point that the supposed "son of god" was also a mortal man- a point Christianity itself often emphasizes- and he's suddenly maybe "not a Christian" because he didn't say the. It's hard to imagine what he could have done to convince these morons that he is a Christian short of, I don't know, being anointed by Yahweh in person. But let's leave that aside.

No, the thing I find interesting here is that even though we have essentially no documentary evidence to back it up, and the bible is rife with contradictions and variations in the story, leading to the conclusion that it's more likely to be folklore than fact, Obama is being chastised for daring to suggest, however inadvertently, that Jesus might not have been the only son of god. He's still saying Jesus was a son of god, mind you, implicitly supporting the notion of an invisible friend in the sky and that one specific individual had a special relationship with said friend, he's just accidentally implying that Jesus might not have been an only child. And for that, he's a bad dude.

And then I spotted this other headline:

Or, again in plain text:

Who is Barack Hussein Obama? Is that even his legal name? What hospital was he born in? We don't know! And it should be a State's job to know, when appointing Presidential electors.

Thus, when we have tons of documentary evidence supporting the identity and origins of a man who is standing right the fuck in front of us, Conservatives can't believe it. But when we have a wild assed story about a dude with a crazy relationship to something that doesn't appear to exist, supported only by a handful of mutually contradictory stories that probably weren't all written by who they were claimed to be written by? So totally plausible that even questioning it is cause for censure.

Seriously, what the hell?

Presented without further comment...

2012-04-05T09:20:00.003-07:00

...because, and I say this with perfect sincerity, I have absolutely no idea where to even start:

Then again, it isn't like we're lacking a precedent:

Ah, Japan. When will you cease providing such wonders?

This just makes me want to cry.

2012-04-02T09:04:00.000-07:00

Seriously. It's the end of an era.

It would be funny if it weren't more optimistic than the theology in question...

2012-03-26T09:05:00.002-07:00

So, lame as it may be to post two SMBC comics in a row, this one is interesting to me. Moreover, it's interesting to me for the literal reason, the implied reason, and the unstated but depressing reason. Take a read and we'll go through each.

Okay, ready? So, the literal reason I find this funny is the notion that god, as envisioned by most monotheistic religions, might essentially have made a straight up statistical error. If you look at the means- life spans are getting longer, crime rates are going down, happiness is generally increasing- on the whole, it looks like a pretty good world. Once you start paying attention to the dispersion, however, suddenly things snap into a different kind of focus. It's a useful way of pointing out that the story we tell can in many instances depend on what data we're paying attention to, and if you're not paying attention to all of the relevant data, you're probably missing something.

The implied reason is that frame at the end where the priest deals with the situation by explaining that god works in mysterious ways. He knows the reason for evil now, the holy grail* of theodicy, is simply that while god is all powerful and all knowing he isn't always paying attention to all of that knowledge. I suppose you could claim that this violates the "all knowing" clause, but omniscience doesn't necessarily have to imply omni-awareness, does it? You can know something without necessarily thinking about it, so maybe the answer to the problem of evil is simply that god just isn't paying any attention, or isn't paying enough attention. But, this answer isn't going to be satisfactory to the flock, not least because it's an insanely humbling notion, and so we get that hoary old chestnut about mysterious ways instead.

The unstated but depressing reason I find this funny, however, is that it actually deviates from one of the key elements of Christian theology: the fall. See, the notion is that before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, everything was awesome. Afterwards, however, they were cast out of paradise and things generally went to shit. Moreover, a large number of Christian denominations have basically taken the stance that the world is gradually getting worse, and will continue to do so until Jesus returns. There's great in-character discussion of this in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, but for a modern example just hang out on Conservapedia for a while.** So, in short, this is both funny and sad to me because the very notion that god would resolve the problem of evil by explaining that things are actually getting better is, itself, fantastically heretical.

And that's depressing because in the midst of a presidential primary process that features repeated and aggressive claims to be more Christian than one's rivals, the notion that Christianity asserts that things can't get better is just awful.

* Pun intended. ** Particularly see #2 under Biology in this article.

You know the old saying...

2012-03-21T09:05:00.000-07:00

"A real man can shoot his own physicist":

I don't have anything against physicists, mind you, but it is awfully nice when they realize that expertise in their field does not make them an expert in mine. You know, much the same way you don't ask a brain surgeon to run the Large Hadron Collider.

Sounds about right...

2012-03-13T09:10:00.002-07:00

So, honestly, this is just too awesome not to remark on:

Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner (D) isn't happy with bills that seek to control women's access to contraception and abortion. She has joined a trend across the nation by introducing a bill that would require men seeking a prescription for erectile dysfunction drugs to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and "get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency." Sex therapists would be required to present the option of "celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.”

"The men in our lives, including members of the General Assembly, generously devote time to fundamental female reproductive issues—the least we can do is return the favor," Senator Turner said. "It is crucial that we take the appropriate steps to shelter vulnerable men from the potential side effects of these drugs.

"When a man makes a crucial decision about his health and his body, he should be fully aware of the alternative options and the lifetime repercussions of that decision," Senator Turner said today. Men will be more easily guided through the process of obtaining treatment for impotence so they can better understand and more effectively address their condition.

I absolutely agree with this- what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Moreover, we should all remember Rush Limbaugh's recent remarks on the subject of contraception:

What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

...

Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.

...

So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

I think it's clear that the Republicans will agree to make all of those signed affidavits part of the public record. I mean, apparently Limbaugh thinks that if the public is going to pay for his boner, the public has a right to know everything there is about it. So where's the problem?

Contraception is a public good- it prevents disease, prevents unwanted pregnancies and, by extension, prevents abortion. Still, I guess we shouldn't expect too much out of a group of people who object to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child because it would mean we can't indoctrinate our children and then work them to death. No, not kidding:

Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:

Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.

A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

Christian schools that refuse to teach “alternative worldviews” and teach that Christianity is the only true religion “fly in the face of article 29″ of the treaty.

Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

If you are not outraged, perhaps you need to read these 20 points again. [Emphasis original; I omitted the first 10 procedural points as not relevant to my claim here]

Anti-woman, anti-child, anti-freedom of conscience- ladies and gentlemen, I give you the modern Republican Party!

So here's the thing...

2012-03-09T09:01:00.000-07:00

I'm a major sci-fi geek and have a fondness for older stuff. This means that I am inevitably excited by the notion of a movie version of Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter books:

You know what I'm talking about: John Carter of Earth is magically transported to ~~Mars~~ Barsoom where he proceeds to kick ass and take names because he's from a world with higher gravity and is, therefore, super strong on ~~Mars~~ Barsoom.* It's classic stuff and is really perfect for a summer blockbuster because it was pulp adventure to begin with and therefore already includes gobs of fight scenes and whatnot.

But, sadly, I'm enough of a geek to want to make a couple of quick observations based on the trailers I'm seeing:

(1) Lower gravity, especially on the scale they seem to be implying, would potentially mean lower atmospheric pressure. So, unless the atmosphere of ~~Mars~~ Barsoom has a much higher concentration of oxygen, John Carter would be having some problems.** It's not out of the question that the atmospheric pressure could be pretty high- Titan, for example, is less massive than the Earth but appears to have a higher surface pressure- but given that ~~Mars~~ Barsoom is pretty Earthlike in other ways (including in terms of how much solar energy it's receiving) I'm still curious.

(2) Lower gravity means a reduction in weight but not in mass. This reduces the energy requirements to move objects in that you don't have to fight another vector of acceleration (i.e. gravity) but a bigass piece of rock in free fall is still hard to move even if you're not fighting gravity.

(3) Rephrasing point (2) above, lower gravity does not mean reduced inertia. Once you get that bigass piece of rock moving, it's gonna be difficult to stop it again. Just, you know, be sure to plan ahead.

(4) With less gravity your feet also have less friction, which in turn makes it more difficult to walk or, less prosaically, swing giant boulders around with an attached chain. Maybe try wearing some big, rubber-tread shoes? Maybe cleats? Ah, you'll think of something.

(5) We all knew the depiction of Dejah Thoris was gonna be tricky, but it just amuses me that for once a female character in a summer action flick will almost certainly be wearing clothing MORE OFTEN in the movie than in the book.

* Maybe also because he was a white dude and, let's face it, when the author was writing it was pretty much assumed that white dudes were better than everyone else. ** Yeah, that's a major exaggeration, but anoxia is still no joke.

Why? Because space is awesome, that's why!

2012-02-29T09:02:00.000-07:00

If you haven't heard it already, go listen to this interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson over on NPR. It is truly awesome and once again reminds us that someone is carrying the fire for Carl Sagan.

Somewhere an American History teacher is drinking himself unconscious.

2012-02-23T09:09:00.000-07:00

I gotta admit, I think I might see this just for the concept:

I just shudder to think what kinds of wrong answers we're going to see on AP American History exams once this thing comes out.

Um... yeah.

2012-02-22T09:07:00.000-07:00

So, when browsing over at the usual wretched hive of scum and villainy I happened to notice something bizarre, even by their standards:

Or, to quote:

Evil atheists upset nursing home residents and their families with a "sinful" and "profane" atheist publication mailed to nursing homes.

Given the accelerating decline of global atheism, militant atheist and their father the devil are getting desperate. Did you ever notice that atheists often criticize God, but never criticize the devil? Many times people are reluctant to criticize their father.

Now there are a couple of things here I just want to briefly remark upon. First, I'm actually weirdly pleased to see them refer to "evil atheists", as this inadvertently implies that all atheists aren't evil. Otherwise, why the need for the adjective "evil" when describing the atheists in question?* Second, if you follow the supplied link to see what all the hubbub is about you'll reach an article over on Creation.com about a mailing received at a nursing home. What was the mailing? Well, I'll quote from the article:

Often, our readers send in various atheist publications or promotions, hoping that we will answer them. In reality, there are so many that we are rarely able to do so in detail. However, when a supporter sent in a Free Inquiry promotion, with a note telling us it was sent to his mother, who has Alzheimer’s and lives in a nursing home for the elderly, we decided this warranted an exception. So, we are bringing it to your attention to highlight how aggressive the ‘new atheists’ are becoming.

Free Inquiry magazine claims to be the largest humanist publication in the English language, and features contributors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. As you read on you will see that they are going to attempt to take the high moral ground, but right off the bat their promotional material boasts that it is “blasphemous, sacrilegious, irreverent, impious, godless, profane, sinful” and then adds “(sounds like something you would enjoy, doesn’t it?)”. So much for their own warped version of what they think is ‘good’. They say that Free Inquiry is “the magazine religious fuddy-duddies are afraid of and don’t want you to read.” Their publication is, in their words, “bold and brave”—though mailing their advertizing to Christian little old ladies in nursing homes does not exactly match that self-awarded accolade.

Right, so what they're upset about is that a magazine for atheists, agnostics and free thinkers was being advertised- not pushed like crack, for crying out loud, but advertised- to elderly people. Apparently the folks at Creation.com also can't quite grasp the notion of sarcasm- if you're an atheist, the notions of blasphemy and sin are rather silly and, frankly, most of us really appreciate irreverence. But it gets better:

Moreover, if they had any real concern for others, why would they not allow the elderly, who might only have a few good years left, to feel some comfort in their belief in God and that there is something to look forward to after this life? After all, the atheists don’t believe in an afterlife, so what difference does it make what someone believes? If their aim is to eradicate religion, these elderly folks in nursing homes are hardly the ones to be targeted. That is, they are most likely not ‘on the streets’ evangelizing others.

And, see, this is problematic for two reasons. It's problematic because it assumes that everyone in the nursing home is Christian to begin with. That's almost certainly not true, and for those who may already be atheists, agnostics, and free thinkers, this may be just the magazine that they would like to see. It's also problematic, however, because it implicitly assumes that for someone nearing the end of their life, belief in an afterlife will be a positive thing. In Christian theology with death comes judgment and with judgment comes the possibility of hell. I've met more than a few religious people who seem to be constantly tormented by fear and anxiety about hell- either the fear that they will end up there or the fear that their family and friends may end up there. In quite a few of its modern incarnations, Christianity is more a religion of fear than a religion of hope. And yet, somehow I doubt these folks would view sending evangelists into a nursing home armed with threats of eternal punishment to be quite as evil as a simple magazine advertisement.

But, getting back to Conservapedia, the last thing I find interesting is the intimation that atheists don't criticize the devil because we don't want to criticize our father. Mainly this is funny to me because it confuses criticizing the concept of a god or gods with criticizing a specific god as though he/she/it were a real thing. Atheists don't accept the entire supernatural bestiary of Judeo-Christian religion, so when we criticize "god" we're really criticizing the entire enchilada, not just a specific dude. Additionally, however, I just have to chuckle at the notion that atheists are really derived from the devil. I mean, hell, if that were true maybe we'd get some awesome powers or something but, in reality, we're just regular people. But as long as some people believe we're allied with satan, I guess we might as well make the best of it.

Booga-booga!

* Yes, this really is all it takes to make me feel complimented by Conservapedia. They really are that hateful.

Did You Notice?- The Purity Bear: Dinner Date

2012-02-17T09:03:00.000-07:00

So, this is an advertisement in favor of abstaining from sex until marriage. Take a look and then we'll see how many of the interesting features you managed to pick out. C'mon! It'll be fun!

Okay, so, did you notice (with times in parentheses):

-The good Christian girl is dating a boy who drives a nice, American car? Wouldn't want one of those foreign cars built by heathens! (0:03)

-The director really seems to enjoy scenes of slowly driving and parking? This may signal his awareness of the quality of his acting talent. (0:00-0:17)

-The American car has a fancy built-in GPS system? Clearly, this boy or his parents have some money. Really, there's a very interesting class story in this video. (0:21)

-The boy apparently gets his advice on sweaters from Mr. Rogers? Honestly, that sucker probably guarantees his "purity" all by itself. (0:30)

-The boy reluctantly making the move after he gets an engraved invitation from his date? Based on his facial expression, I think he was much more interested in going home and catching that "Father Knows Best" marathon. (0:41-0:45)

-The girl's sudden psychotic break and segue into hallucinating a stuffed bear that speaks? (0:46-0:47)

-The fact that the blonde white girl on a date with a financially stable white boy who gets his fashion sense from the 1950s is hallucinating a sassy black woman as the voice for said bear? (0:48)

-The bear is, itself, black in color? (0:48)

-The bear is wearing a silicone wrist band which is, I assume, purity related? (0:48)

-The comparison of a woman who has sex to a pizza that's been eaten? (~0:50)

-That the bear is honestly the best actor in the entire bit? (0:49)

-The girl physically prying the boy's hand off of her neck? (0:55)

-The classic "If we really love each other, we'll wait" line? (~1:00-1:02)

-The boy's faked reluctance to agree? Damn, bitch, get out of the car! Father Knows Best ain't gonna watch itself! (1:04-1:07)

-The girl's date outfit? Christ, did you get that from Bonnie Tyler's yard sale? (1:15-1:17)

-The boy lingering in the driveway, wondering why his date suddenly started pretending to be a sassy black woman? (1:17-1:20)

-The vague, confusingly-phrased, unsourced statistics? The 2/3 of girls statistics applies to adolescents, which I do not think our actors qualify as. That stat, at least, I can source. The chronic depression and sex out of marriage thing may be reverse-causation (i.e. those prone to chronic depression are having sex in an effort to drive back the sadness). I don't even know what to do with the last one- more success at what? Being virgins? (1:23-1:33)

-That the person who designed the "Day of Purity" placard at the end clearly got his inspiration from an ironic place? (1:36-1:41)

Looks like a winner...

2012-02-15T09:03:00.000-07:00

So, apparently Kirk Cameron is making a movie. About American history. Seriously:

Now, I could go off on how silly it is to try to get historical insight from Kirk Cameron. I mean, it's fairly clear that his education is seriously suspect given that he believes that evolutionary theory predicts the existence of half-duck-half-crocodile hybrids. That's not a joke, that's literally true:

But I'm not interested in that argument. No, what I find more interesting- and this is closely linked to what we saw in The Overton Window- is the idea that America is somehow being ruined and we need to go back to the founders in order to save it. Yeah, well, you know what? We have a lot of problems right now that the founders never contemplated, including the responsibilities of a world power, nuclear freaking weapons, global warming, and so forth. We're also much, much more free than they ever contemplated us being. I think the founders were remarkable men,* but can we all just accept that they're gone and now we're the ones who have to shoulder the responsibilities?

The founders created a living constitution because they did not want us to expect them to solve all our damned problems. Just grow the hell up already, will you?

* As a side note, I often wonder whether some of the right-wing's desire to go back to the founders is really some sort of code for, "the good old days when straight white men had all the power and could treat everyone else like chattel". I mean, I'm a white man and I'm as straight as they come, but seriously, I am quite pleased with this whole "not owning other people" thing we've worked out. Just sayin' is all.

If you're concerned about losing perspective...

2012-02-13T09:08:00.000-07:00

Just take a long look at this. Don't worry, it's worth it to sit through the ad. Really.

The Overton Window: Index

2012-02-10T09:00:00.002-07:00

This is the index to Drek's series on The Overton Window. Use the links below to find any episode in the series... if you dare!

No, seriously, it's a really awful book.

We finish the experience, in part, with a final comment of the week winner. This last time, the winner is Jay, basically because even after I suffered through this entire train wreck, he still thought it right to wrap up by mentioning off-handedly that I'm a dumbass:

What really screws up this book's argument is the fact that the founders didn't agree themselves on what they wanted. The Congregational Church of Massachusetts was a good deal more rabid than the worst fundamentalists, and was the official state church. Some of the founders were deists, which is pretty much what atheism looked like before Darwin and Heisenberg. New England Yankees had (and to some extent still have) a thriving tradition of local democracy, but the South sure didn't. Their founding document was a compromise, and when the first compromise didn't work they tossed it and wrote a new one.

P.S. The electoral college existed because without mass media, mass literacy, and fast travel it was impossible for the masses to form a reasonable opinion on the candidates. Instead, they'd have to vote for somebody they knew for the state legislature. The legislature chose men of good judgement to go to Washington and meet the candidates.

Ah, yes, the true reason for the electoral college: not because everyone was an elitist, but because horses only move so fast. I should have remembered that but, alas, I was in too much of a hurry. And yet, somehow, I think my account remained more plausible than the absurd logic contained in the book. In any case, well-played Jay, and congratulations.

So, we should finally ask who had the most comment of the week wins. The final scores are as follows:

Sassafras - 15
Jay - 14
Ken - 10
Aussiesmurf - 3
Mister Troll - 2
Jonas - 2
Whatisthewhat - 2
Scripto - 1

And thus Sassafras comes in with the most comments of the week wins, with Jay in 2nd place and Ken in 3rd. Congratulations everyone! Sassafras has earned the right to a prize, to be decided by her and subject to my veto. This can include, but is not limited to, receiving my personal copy of The Overton Window in the mail as a keepsake. Other possibilities are a post on a subject of her choosing or the opportunity to write a guest post here on Total Drek. Or, you know, whatever as long as it's not too much work for me. I'll also be extra receptive to suggestion by our top three contestants for the next book I do this to, with the understanding that my wife has basically threatened me with grievous bodily harm if I do this again in the near future. And trust me, she knows how to use that hammer.

Prolegomenon

Dedication, Acknowledgements, Author's Note, & Prologue

Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3, Part 1
Chapter 3, Part 2
Intermission
Chapters 4 & 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10

Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
Chapter 19
Chapter 20

Chapter 21
Chapters 22 & 23
Chapter 24
Chapters 25 & 26
Intermission
Chapter 27
Chapter 28
Chapter 29
Chapter 30

Chapter 31
Chapter 32
Chapters 33 & 34
Chapter 35
Intermission
Chapter 36
Chapter 37
Chapter 38
Chapter 39
Chapter 40

Chapter 41
Intermission
Chapter 42
Chapter 43
Chapter 44
Chapter 45
Chapter 46
Chapter 47
Epilogue
Afterword

Last Thoughts

The Overton Window: Last Thoughts

2012-02-03T09:03:00.001-07:00

Welcome back one and all to our ongoing series on The Overton Window, the book that shot the sheriff, but did not shoot the deputy. Last time we suffered through an afterword in which the authors attempted to justify their staggering incompetence. What happens this week? We wrap up the entire "Overton Window" experience with some final thoughts, which are also first thoughts since this book has, thus far, basically inspired no thinking whatsoever.

As I mentioned I am once again selecting a comment of the week, and this week that "honor" goes to Jay just for being depressing:

Someday the nation will have horseless metal carriages, zooming across the landscape at speeds of almost 30 miles an hour and recklessly endangering the careless pedestrian.

Sorry, I was trying to think of a warning slightly less timely than the one in this book.

Our problem isn't that a PR person may cynically manipulate us to increase his own power. Our problem is that we've become completely accustomed to treating the news as fodder for a contest between cynical PR teams, and have lost the ability to collectively react to facts except through that framework.

Jay is, of course, absolutely right. We have grown accustomed to PR blitzes and this does mean that the book is effectively "ripped from the headlines", even though those headlines derive from the late 19th century. Well done, Jay, and everyone give it your all this week: it's your last chance to get a win before I tally the results for the index!

Given that we've finally wrapped up this book, let's take a last look at the dramatis personae:

***********************************
Dramatis Personae: In an order determined by the fates.

Eli Churchill: Former janitor at a volcano lair. Fan of remote telephone booths. Shot in the head by parties unknown.

Beverly Emerson: Mysterious correspondent of Eli Churchill's. Molly's Mom. Injected with weed killer by parties ~~unknown~~ blisteringly obvious to everyone.

Noah Gardener: 28 years old. Sets the dating bar "medium-high". ~~Works~~ Vice president at a PR firm. Went to NYU. Is "witty". Frequently forgets where he's going and why. Not good at talking to women. Not really inclined to help out cab drivers. Low tolerance for alcohol. Lost his mother when he was young. Fond of chicken and waffles. Rich as shit. Views himself as a sexual panther. Likes bacon. Considers himself to be good at word games. Wants to bang his mom. Some kind of moronic double-agent.

Molly "Hottie McPretty" Ross: Dresses like a hippie, but not really. Looks like a free spirit. Perfectly captures the essence of womanhood. Auburn hair. Green eyes. Pale skin. Has a tattoo on her chest. Wears a silver cross around her neck. Lost her father when she was young. Impressed by fancy cars. Cocktease. Possibly suffering from bipolar disorder. Looks just like Noah's mom. Also looks just like Natalie Portman. Almost certainly dead from a nuclear blast.

Arthur Gardner Noah's father. Owner of Doyle & Merchant. Megalomaniac. Surprisingly vigorous for a 74 year old man.

Khaled: Lebanese cab driver. Sold out by Noah Gardener.

Hollis: Friend of Molly Ross. Very polite. From the country. May be a Yeti.

Danny Bailey: Some kind of YouTube celebrity. Former lover of Molly Ross. Kind of a dickhead. Loves conspiracy theories and incoherent speeches. Sodomized by inmates following the rally. Once dressed up as Colonel Sanders to infiltrate the United Nations. May be afraid of cats. Fast draw, terrible shot. Died pointlessly in a nuclear detonation.

Charlie Nelan: Gardner family lawyer. Silver hair. Impeccably dressed. Looks awesome. Has some sort of weird relationship with GQ. May have the ability to sense when Noah's in trouble using some sort of clairvoyance. Possible kleptomaniac.

Stuart Kearns: FBI agent. Works on homeland security matters. Kinda old and wrinkly. Not particularly trusting. Lives in a double-wide trailer. Sixty-three years old. Died pointlessly in a nuclear detonation.

Mr. Puddles: AKA Gray Death. AKA Ninja Cat. Stuart's cat. Large. Dangerous looking. Possibly plotting his demise.

Tiffany: A stripper at the Pussycat Ranch. Thinks Danny is awesome.

Ellen Davenport: Old friend of Noah's. Second-year neurology resident at Mt. Sinai. Doesn't appear to need sleep or have good taste in her associates.

***********************************

It contains 13 characters, although in fairness to the authors two of those (Mr. Puddles and Khaled) have a lot more detail as a result of our fertile imaginations. Also I wasn't really paying very close attention. Regardless, given that the "story" is 292 pages long, that averages to about 22 pages per character. That's more impressive than Left Behind's 15 pages per character, but not really when you realize that the authors of The Overton Window used every trick they could think of to run up the page length. This 292 page story could probably have fit comfortably in 100 pages, which would have given us something more like 8 pages per character or, to be generous, if we assume it would have fit into 200 pages, we'd have 15 pages per character. Or, hey, if you think that's not generous enough, we'll go with the 11 named characters (i.e. excluding Khaled and Mr. Puddles) and 150 pages for about 14 pages per character. So for all intents and purposes we're in the same class as Left Behind.

Now, in this final post I wanted to review the lessons that The Overton Window has taught us. As it turns out, this is a pretty tall order because this book is so stunningly vapid, it's difficult at best to take anything substantial away from it. Nevertheless, I owe it to you, dear readers, to try, and so I will attempt to draw blood from this particular turnip.

Lesson One: If you're going to write a "thriller" it should at least be mildly diverting, if not actually thrilling.

I would have hoped I wouldn't have to make this an actual lesson. I mean, it seems rather obvious to me. And yet... it appears that, no, for some people this really has to be spelled out. And by "some people" I primarily refer to the authors. You see, this book really contained few instances that might be referred to as slightly thrilling. There was a bar fight, which was brief and quickly lost. There was Noah's heroic resistance to oppression in the police station, but that took place off-stage. There was Noah's penetration of Doyle and Marchant, but with his daddy in charge it was difficult to be all that thrilled by a guy basically taking the back door into his own workplace. There was Danny and Stu's meeting with terrorists, who were universally cordial right up until the end. There was Noah's quest for vengeance, which was derailed in about a chapter. There was Noah and Molly's daring escape, which was somewhat daring but unspeakably dumb. There was Danny and Stu's gunfight, which was told but not shown. There was Danny and Stu's suicide, which was thrilling only in that we all hated them. And then I guess there was Noah's effort to stop the cops, which was just dumb. Over and over the authors attempted to invoke something akin to a thrill, but they were consistently and utterly defeated by their own inability to craft a believable character or make the reader care about the situation. As a result, we were left with a narrative, but not a story.

Now, it's fair to ask whether I could do any better, and the honest answer is, "No, probably not." I am not much of a fiction writer- as anyone who has read this blog long enough already knows*- but the thing is, I don't claim to be. I'm a social scientist and a university professor, not a writer of popular fiction. My writing is for scientific journals and is not exactly the stuff of best seller shelves. One could, of course, argue that Beck is also not a fiction writer, by training or inclination,** which is true. He's a radio "personality" and he's managed to make the transition into television as well, which is a medium far removed from fiction writing. Fair enough, but Beck also has quite a few co-writers on this thing. And as a result, one would have thought that at least some of them would have more writing credentials. So, we're forced to conclude that Beck either chose a bevy of co-authors who are also unable to produce decent fiction, or else that he forced so many convoluted and ridiculous constraints on them that they were unable to actually produce very much. In either case, we're left with a sorry situation and an even sorrier book. The simple, final reality is that if you are going to write a novel to promulgate your philosophy, you must at a bare minimum make it entertaining. And yes, I am looking at YOU Ayn Rand. Which brings us to our next point.

Lesson Two: Incoherent anger at your opponents is not the same as a philosophy

When I started reading this book I wasn't expecting much, given my experience with Beck's version of rhetoric, but I was looking forward to learning a bit more about his views. I am, perhaps, a little warped in this regard, but I actually enjoy learning about perspectives that differ from my own. And I think I had a right to expect in a "novel" such as this one that I might, possibly, have gained deeper insight into the ideal world of the right-wing. Sadly, however, this was not to be. The authors of The Overton Window spend a great deal of time criticizing various groups. They apparently view government as corrupt and inefficient, which it sometimes is. They also apparently view corporate America as greedy and underhanded, which it sometimes- perhaps even often- is. They want smaller government, and lower taxes, which are goals that I doubt many of us would really dispute in isolation. But aside from those things we never really learn anything about what they think is good. If we're to have lower taxes, what programs should we cut? Medicare and medicaid? Social security? The military? How about education or funding for science and technology? If we're to have a smaller government, does that mean that more powers devolve on the states, or do we simply give up on regulating some things? Do we give up on regulating pollution, or prescription drugs, or product safety? Do we stop prosecuting the war on drugs or do we give up on the war on terror? The simple truth is that if we are to change our government and the way we live hard choices will have to be made. Certainly a novel cannot be a policy document, but one would think that the authors could have given us some idea of what tradeoffs they would prefer. But, alas, this was not to be. What we got was poorly-directed venom against the "bad guys" and a caricature of "good guys" who reflect nothing moreso than a romanticized notion of what the original rugged individualist Americans would be like if they were somehow transformed into a modern context. It's a sort of wish fulfillment book, only instead of obsessing over fancy cars and apartments like their avatar, Noah Gardner, the authors are obsessing over the notion of what would happen if everyone believed and behaved the way that they do. It's an immature longing for the smoothly functioning democracy that would result if everyone believed the exact same things. Except... that's the whole strength of a democracy, that people don't all believe the same things. If we all agreed, we wouldn't need an elective government. We wouldn't need mechanisms for routinizing political conflict to eliminate the need for political groups to establish safe houses and manufacture hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Simply put, the form of government the authors purportedly long for is one expressly intended for a world other than the one they think necessary to make it work, which reveals such a spectacular misunderstanding of the nature of democracy that I can hardly catch my breath.

In reading this book I was constantly struck by the contrast with Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Those who have read the book, as opposed to just watching the hideous movie version, know that while it sounds like an action novel, it's really a book about political philosophy. Heinlein lays out in intricate, and often very engaging, detail his vision for how a more smoothly functioning democracy might be built. It's very different from our own, often in ways that I think many of us would find unappealing, but one at least walks away understanding what he's presenting and his reasons for suggesting it might work. It can function as a starting point for discussion and, if it isn't the sort of democracy I'd want to live in, it at least preserves an awareness that democracy is a system built around disagreement and negotiation rather than a sickening conformity of thought and belief. Heinlein provides a good example of how a sort of right-wing utopian novel** can be written and made enjoyable, and The Overton Window is all the more disappointing for failing so dramatically in comparison. But, we may as well move on to the next lesson.

Lesson Three: When writing faction, one should be careful not to cherry-pick the facts

Writing any book that is "ten minutes into the future" and "ripped from the headlines" is going to be tricky because much of what you write will become dated and quaint virtually instantly. The authors of this book in theory attempted to deal with this problem, at least in part, by sourcing a lot of material, although they themselves admit that a lot of it was still of very dubious veracity. The thing is, if you're going to go to all that trouble, you should probably try not to miss the forest for all the trees. That is to say, don't focus on getting the little stuff right- like the fixtures in limousines- to the point of screwing up the big stuff. See, the authors were portraying the founding fathers as these god-fearing populists who wanted nothing more than for regular, average joes to be able to set the course of government. The founding fathers were indeed radicals, and for their time they were populists of a sort, but by modern standards they frankly had more in common with Arthur Gardner than with Molly, Hollis and the rest of her merry band of retards. See, when the constitution was written the founders installed an awful lot of protections that had the express purpose or preventing the common people from being in charge. To begin with, the franchise (i.e. the right to vote) was restricted to land-owning white males. Property requirements weren't completely eliminated until about 1860, non-white men couldn't vote until 1870, women couldn't vote until 1920, the poor and racial minorities couldn't vote due to all kinds of measures including poll taxes until the mid-1960's, and adults between 18 and 21 years of age didn't get the vote until 1971. So, for all intents and purposes, the founders intended to limit who was able to set national policy quite tightly. But wait! There's MORE! See, the founders also thought this might be a mistake, so senators were elected by state legislators rather than citizens directly until 1913 and we even got the bizarre institution of the electoral college, which was in theory intended to make sure that if the people voted for someone stupid, older and wiser heads could essentially give the country a do-over. The simple fact is that the constitution of the United States of America, as written by the founders, basically institutes a plutocracy in the guise of a republic and American history since then has been a gradual effort to change the democracy-in-name to democracy-in-fact. As for the notion that the founding fathers were god-fearing populists... well, Jefferson was arguably the most populist guy among them and he was, simultaneously, likely the most hostile to the intersection of government and organized religion. So, not so much.

The failure to see the forest for the trees issue in this book might be viewed as a sin of the authors, but it's not a unique sin of the authors. All political parties commit this sin to a greater or lesser extent, but in the case of the modern right-wing it's rather striking. Conservatives often claim, as their description suggests, that they would prefer to stick with time-tested approaches to various problems. That's a valid perspective and one I have no small amount of respect for, even if I tend to be a fiend for new technology. The problem arises when, instead of trying to stick with the way things have actually worked, you tell yourself an elaborate story about how they should have been and then try to stick with that while claiming to be conservative. See, it's much easier to be in favor of founding fathers who weren't racist, sexist, elitist jerks as opposed to the real founding fathers who just happened to be less racist, sexist, and elitist than the norm for their time period. Don't get me wrong, I love the United States of America and have a great fondness for our government, it's just that the stories we like to tell about ourselves don't always fit very well with reality, and very little good ever comes from self-delusion. If the conservatives want to have the populist nation they half-assedly describe in this book, that's fine, but it's absurd to pretend that it's any less radical a deviation from the traditions and history of the U.S. than what the Democrats want. Both sides want to turn the country into something that, at present, it isn't- it's just that only one side is honest about it. Well, sort of.

And, honestly... that's kinda it for me. I feel bad only drawing 3 lessons from this book, but to be utterly honest it was a trite, hackneyed piece of trash that really only teaches anything via its failures. There is no substance to the characters, the narrative, or even the animating ideas, and as a consequence no matter how hard we try, there's just not that much to be had here. And so, on a low note that frankly captures the entire Overton Window experience, we have to skid to a halt, little more enlightened than we were before, and wondering what we ever did with the time.

Thanks for coming along for the trip! Next week we'll see the series index posted, announce the winner of the comment of the week competition, and then, finally, I am done with this nightmare.

Fuckin-A.

* Yes, if you look hard enough through the archives you'll eventually find one of my high school era short stories. No, I'm not going to find it for you. ** Although if you've read his books on politics you may be inclined to disagree. *** I say "right-wing" but I'm never really convinced that does justice to Heinlein's actual views. He was fiscally conservative and pro-military, but he was also sexually very liberal and believed that individual choices were sacrosanct. I suspect he would have preferred lower taxes, but would have supported gay marriage and opposed efforts to determine U.S. policy from the bible. I don't think I would necessarily have agreed with Heinlein's views on modern politics in a lot of areas, but I sure as hell would prefer him as an opponent to most of the morons we have around today.

Damned lactation nazis...

2012-02-02T09:04:00.000-07:00

As it happens my wife is an absolute breastfeeding champion and our little JezLil is doing wonderfully. That said, I have so much profound sympathy and appreciation for this that I can't even explain:

You really did not think this was going to happen, partly because you spent nine months being practically Gisele about EVERYONE SHOULD DO IT and WOMEN WHO SAY THEY CAN'T ARE LIARS BECAUSE EVOLUTION (not out loud, or anything, because you're likable), but quietly and fatuously in your head. And you read The Politics of Breastfeeding and attended the LLL meetings and waltzed around feeling completely confident that you would produce such an excess of precious perfect nutrition from your body that you could probably add it to kale smoothies and donate it to nice gay male adoptive parents.

...

But natural childbirth worked! And it took a couple of days for your milk to come in, which is completely normal. Expected! You expected it. And in the interim she lost about 13% of her birth weight, which is...more than normal, but not completely disastrous. And she was a little baby to begin with, so she started to look like a plucked chicken, but no big deal. But your milk came in, and you fed every hour or so, because that's what you do, and you had to wake her UP to feed, because snoozy, but she always had a great latch, and looked satisfied and drunk when she fell off, so you assumed you were in business.

And then you brought her back in, and she had lost another ounce. So, obviously, you had a crazy weeping fit in your pediatrician's office, and BEGGED for more time when she extremely hesitantly suggested you might need to start supplementing. Lactation consultant! Pump! Fenugreek! Blessed thistle! Nursing vacations! (You get in bed, naked, with your naked baby, load up the entire run of The Wire, have people bring you water and food, do nothing but nurse for 48 hours.)

She wouldn't gain. It wasn't great.

It's worth reading the rest, because it's an awesome, awesome post. Breastfeeding is a very healthy thing for both mother and child and should be encouraged, but good lord! Doing it doesn't make you an angel from heaven and not doing it doesn't make you a crack smoking reject. Being any kind of parent is so freaking impossible that you'd cry if you didn't love that little four-limbed alien so much, and you'll probably still end up crying from sheer, unrelenting frustration. Breatfeeding mothers? Rock on. Non-breastfeeding mothers? Rock on.

This actually made me giggle a little bit.

2012-01-31T09:09:00.000-07:00

If you thought getting an abortion in this country is a pain in the ass, guess what's almost happened to men who want prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication:

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.

"We need some gender equity here," she told HuffPost. "The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we're going to do that to women, why not do that to men?"

There are all kinds of arguments to be made here but, hey, if we can do all kinds of unnecessary crazy shit to women when they need help to end a pregnancy, why not do all kinds of unnecessary crazy shit to men who need help to start one? Sounds fair to me.

It'll be a few decades (I hope!) before I might be in the market for wang medication, but let me go on record as saying that I would be more than happy to get a rectal exam and cardiac stress test first if it means that JezLil will have the right to choose when she's all grown up.

The Overton Window: Afterword

2012-01-27T09:00:00.000-07:00

Welcome back one and all to our ongoing series on The Overton Window, the book that killed the dinosaurs. Last time Noah woke up in a sanitarium, indicated once more that he's an incompetent fuckup, and learned that Molly may somehow still be alive. What happens this week? Almost nothing, because all we have left is the authors' afterword. Blessed be!

As I mentioned I am once again selecting a comment of the week, and this week that "honor" goes to Jay for telling the hilarious truth:

Actually, the lettering on the bracelet was probably dulled when the EMP inductively heated it to several hundred degrees. If Molly was wearing it, she probably lost the hand.

But now they have Noah as an inside man. Now, he's not good at sneaking. When he needed to minimize his profile, he had Molly impersonate a movie star. When he knows they'll kill him if he isn't loyal, he can't play loyal. My guess is his email password is Tr@itor. The worst thing they could do is try to use him as a spy. The best thing they could do is nothing; Arthur's getting old, and there's no way Noah will be able to fill his shoes.

You just have to love that penultimate fail: in order for "good" to triumph, they should actually do nothing since that will allow "evil" to put his incompetent, half-witted, sex-starved son in charge, who will promptly crash the evil conspiracy into a mountain. Is there anything less satisfying than a hero who can only be counted on to fail? Probably not. Well done, Jay, and everyone give it your best shot for next week- it's your last chance!

And, with that, let's begin! As always, page/line numbers are in bold, quotes from the book are in block quotes, my commentary is in regular print, and you can navigate the whole series with the provided tag. My footnotes use the traditional star system (e.g. *, **, etc) while references included in the Afterword to the book are noted with numbered parenthetical tags (e.g. (1), (2), etc.). Fo-shizzle!

***********************************
Dramatis Personae: In an order determined by my angry dog.

Eli Churchill: Former janitor at a volcano lair. Fan of remote telephone booths. Shot in the head by parties unknown.

Beverly Emerson: Mysterious correspondent of Eli Churchill's. Molly's Mom. Injected with weed killer by parties ~~unknown~~ blisteringly obvious to everyone.

Noah Gardener: 28 years old. Sets the dating bar "medium-high". ~~Works~~ Vice president at a PR firm. Went to NYU. Is "witty". Frequently forgets where he's going and why. Not good at talking to women. Not really inclined to help out cab drivers. Low tolerance for alcohol. Lost his mother when he was young. Fond of chicken and waffles. Rich as shit. Views himself as a sexual panther. Likes bacon. Considers himself to be good at word games. Wants to bang his mom. Some kind of moronic double-agent.

Molly "Hottie McPretty" Ross: Dresses like a hippie, but not really. Looks like a free spirit. Perfectly captures the essence of womanhood. Auburn hair. Green eyes. Pale skin. Has a tattoo on her chest. Wears a silver cross around her neck. Lost her father when she was young. Impressed by fancy cars. Cocktease. Possibly suffering from bipolar disorder. Looks just like Noah's mom. Also looks just like Natalie Portman. Almost certainly dead from a nuclear blast.

Arthur Gardner Noah's father. Owner of Doyle & Merchant. Megalomaniac. Surprisingly vigorous for a 74 year old man.

Khaled: Lebanese cab driver. Sold out by Noah Gardener.

Hollis: Friend of Molly Ross. Very polite. From the country. May be a Yeti.

Danny Bailey: Some kind of YouTube celebrity. Former lover of Molly Ross. Kind of a dickhead. Loves conspiracy theories and incoherent speeches. Sodomized by inmates following the rally. Once dressed up as Colonel Sanders to infiltrate the United Nations. May be afraid of cats. Fast draw, terrible shot. Died pointlessly in a nuclear detonation.

Charlie Nelan: Gardner family lawyer. Silver hair. Impeccably dressed. Looks awesome. Has some sort of weird relationship with GQ. May have the ability to sense when Noah's in trouble using some sort of clairvoyance. Possible kleptomaniac.

Stuart Kearns: FBI agent. Works on homeland security matters. Kinda old and wrinkly. Not particularly trusting. Lives in a double-wide trailer. Sixty-three years old. Died pointlessly in a nuclear detonation.

Mr. Puddles: AKA Gray Death. AKA Ninja Cat. Stuart's cat. Large. Dangerous looking. Possibly plotting his demise.

***********************************

Afterword: In which the authors try to make it all make sense.

Recommended Mood Music:

Page 293, Line 1:

"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." -Andre Gide [emphasis original]

For those who are wondering, that's the quote the authors selected to start the afterword. It sounds neat and profound, but frankly it's dumb. Whether someone claims to know the truth or whether they claim to be seeking it has nothing to do with the reliability of their views. Instead, what you should pay attention to is evidence, actual information that supports or falsifies a given assertion. Because, as it turns out, humans can be very good at talking themselves into various notions, so if you rely on certainty as a measure of accuracy you will surely be disappointed. But, hey, I'm just a sociologist, what do I know?

Page 293, Line 2-9:

There's a very good reason we called this book The Overton Window, and it's not just because it's one of the techniques that Arthur Gardner uses to push his objectives. We chose this title because it's also a technique that, to one extent or another, we just used on you. (The key difference is, I'm openly telling you that's what I'm doing; I don't have a hidden agenda here.) In the course of reading and thinking about this story, it's simply my hope that you've spent a little bit of time entertaining ideas that you might not have considered before. [emphasis original]

I see what you did there, authors. You're like a regular Morpheus with the red pill and I'm all like "Woah!" and you're all like, "Nobody can by told what The Overton Window is. You have to see it for yourself." Riiiiight. OR this was just a piece of trashy fiction that panders to the lowest common denominator on the right. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to consider which is more likely, with the caveat that we'll be discussing exactly that next week. Still, I guess it's nice to find out what the authors were hypothetically trying to do. As for that "I don't have a hidden agenda" bit... well, to paraphrase the authors' own quote, "Believe those who admit to their agendas. Doubt those who claim to have none".

Page 293, Line 10-14:

Remember, the Overton Window concept is that only the few scenarios that currently sit inside an established window of acceptable debate will be taken seriously by the public. To move the Window toward their ultimate goal, those pushing an agenda have to introduce radical ideas that fall outside of the current comfort zone.

Wow. This explains people like Michelle Bachman so incredibly well. Thank you, wacky authors! Seriously, though, I love how the authors are trying to cap off this book with an extra dose of incipient paranoia. Be afraid of people proposing new and unusual ideas- because they're trying to TAKE OVER THE FUCKING COUNTRY!!!!

Page 294, Line 5-6:

Applying this concept to our story, it should be obvious that we set out to create a plot based in reality...

You're joking, right? Because I read a lot of sci-fi and, I gotta tell you, this shit strains credulity more than the average David Weber novel. And I have fucking READ his Empire from the Ashes bit, okay?* In that one he decided that the entire freaking MOON was, in fact, an ancient alien** battleship, and it's STILL more plausible. I mean, yeah, your book had recognizable place names and depicted creatures that had human names, but none of them behaved in a remotely human manner and, for all the description we got, they might have had a radially-symmetric body plan. Just sayin' is all.

Page 294, Line 6-7:

...and then we pushed it to an absolute extreme.

Extremely stupid, yes. Otherwise, no, this was not an "absolute extreme". On the extremity scale, this "revolution" was a poorly planned absurdist disaster. Seriously. Did the evil characters conquer the U.S. with a secret army? No. Was there some kind of nanotech plague that re-wrote everyone's minds? No. Were there sharks with frickin lasers on their heads? No. Instead, of these "absolute extremes" we got an ambitious PR man and his moron son. That is so far from the "absolute extreme" that I can't even begin to describe it. Nevertheless, the authors go off explaining how fighter pilots use simulators to prepare for the worst possible situations and then return to discussing their book.

Page 294, Line 19-23:

This book is your simulator. It's unlikely that we'll face anything close to the challenges that Noah and Molly are up against. But, after experiencing their scenario in its fictional setting, maybe it will become a little easier to have deeper conversations about the important forces that are actually at work in the real world.

Right, OR we'll run the risk of being diverted from those discussions by poorly thought-out nonsensical horse shit that someone put into a book marketed as "ripped from the headlines" but in reality "ripped from the slush pile". I can just imagine the sorts of discussions this book provokes, and somehow I doubt they really involve serious discussions of the actual best way to deal with poverty and economic prosperity within the same context.

Page 294, Line 24-25:

As I told you at the outset, while I certainly used a lot of dramatic license, this story is loaded with truth.

Well, it's loaded with something at any rate. It doesn't smell like truth to me, though. That said, I find this last authorial statement amusing in light of the beginning quote for this section.

Page 294, Line 25-28:

But facts can easily be manipulated, and that's why we are including this section. I want you to decide for yourself exactly what is fact, what is based on fact, what is common belief possibly based on a distorted fact, and what is complete fiction. [emphasis original]

God, I just love that. The authors are actually making the claim that their pastiche of reality, horse shit, and damned lies is something other than laziness or ideological blinders and is, instead, their effort to provoke deeper thought. Seriously, folks, who uses this method? When we teach our classes, do we deliberately intermingle things we know to be wrong with stuff we know to be right to provoke deeper thought? Hell no- because that doesn't work. I almost wish I could get away with this idiocy when I write papers. Can you imagine what the reviewers would say if they discovered a statement in the discussion section to the effect of, "Some of what I've written I know to be crap- but I want you to have the exercise of finding out what"? Yikes.

Page 294, Line 29:

Don't stop at my sources; find your own.

Yeah, you'd better, because his are weird as hell.

Page 294, Line 29-31:

That way, you can determine where your own Overton Window should be located as we continue to debate what kind of America we want to live in.

Well, I'm certainly not going to castigate education and reasoned debate. Too bad neither one plays a role in this book but, hey, whatever. Anyway, we get another few lines encouraging readers to pour over the text to find other hidden gems (hell NO!) and then we start the endnotes section, which has a little bit of exposition slipped in at random that I'm not going to worry about because I integrated the endnotes into the text this entire freaking time. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we are officially done with this book.

So, what have we learned? Well, if you want to talk about that you'll have to come back next week when I try to wrap things up with a few "insights". Or, failing that, just swear at this disaster a whole lot. Either way, though, it'll be fun.

See you then!

* Actually, in all fairness, I do like a lot of what he writes, melodramatic crap that it is. I do wish he'd finally fucking kill off Honor "Uber-Menschen" Harrington already, though. ** Well, sort of. It was actually built by humans from the original human homeworld of, if I recall corectly, "Birhat". That part is totally loony since the DNA evidence is pretty conclusive that we're linked in a consistent web of evolutionary relationships to every living thing on the planet, but whatever.