My “1984” Moment Of The Day

When life imitates fiction, I begin to worry. The fiction in question is one that should need no introduction: Orwell’s 1984. I reread it at the beginning of this year, so it’s still fresh on my mind, although I mostly consider whether Orwell’s dystopia is more or less likely than Huxley’s.

And then along comes this exchange:

Me: “So, you can tell from the email header that this is a phishing attempt. If this was the actual government agency they’re pretending to be, the email would end in .gov. This one is .com; that’s how you can tell it’s a fake.”

Person: “I already called their department and warned them they’ve been hacked.”

Me: “That’s not really what this is-”

Person: “It’s probably that Snowden character. He’s probably hacking us all from his secret base in Russia.”

Me: (after a long pause) “I’m reasonably certain that’s not true. For one thing, it would be difficult to obtain proper access while stranded in a Russian airport.”

Person: “Oh, he’s not stranded; he’s in league with Putin. And you just know that Putin is laughing at us all the way to the bank. Snowden’s given us all up to Putin. Why else did he run right to our enemies the first chance he got?”

Me: “Are we talking about Edward Snowden or Emmanuel Goldstein?”

Person: “What? Snowden. I don’t know the other guy. Is he a hacker too?”

Me: “I think we’re done here.”

Science Is Agnostic When It Comes To Coffee

I understand that reading an article on the Daily Mail means I’m not reading a premier scholarly journal. In fact, I’m prepared to say that I’m probably not even reading facts half the time with this rag. However, I didn’t know it was going to be a Daily Mail article when I clicked the link through Fark and the headline sounded interesting, so I read it anyway. The headline in question is basically that coffee is bad for you and doesn’t really work.

Okay, fine, I understand that it might be bad. Almost everything that’s enjoyable is usually bad for us in some way; life is awesome like that. However, this is why reading an article about health is prone to driving one insane. From the coffee article:

The study, published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, showed that when mice were given high amounts of this compound, the equivalent of drinking five or six cups a day, their bodies struggled to control blood sugar and they developed insulin resistance. They were also less likely to lose weight.

Well, that doesn’t sound good! It sounds like I should stop drinking coffee. But wait. From the same damn article, indeed, the very next paragraph:

However, other research has shown that regular coffee and tea intake reduces the risk of stroke and heart disease, as well as neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s.

Indeed, one large study undertaken by Harvard researchers, and published last year in the journal Circulation, suggested that moderate coffee intake (four cups a day) reduced the risk of heart failure.

Well, shit, I don’t want to have a neurodegenerative disease, either! So now I should drink coffee? The article doesn’t tell us and instead merely notes that research is “conflicted.” Which is it? Tell me what I’m supposed to be doing, science!

I guess I’ll see for myself in forty years or so which study was correct. Can’t wait to find that out.

Dragons In Your Creation Museum? It’s More Likely Than You Think

Well, this clinches it. I thought it couldn’t be done, but it seems that those wily folks over at the Creation Museum have managed to create an exhibit that has convinced me of the inherent superiority of creationism over science. They are going to have a display that will prove what I’ve always longed to believe: dragons are real.

Dragons might also be dinosaurs.

Furthermore, according to an image in the link, it’s more likely that the inverse is true: some dinosaurs are actually dragons.

You can’t argue with this approach. If believing in creationism means that dragons get to be real, then I will absolutely join this movement. I mean, let’s face it; what has science done for us, aside from proving that dragons aren’t real. That sucks. I want dragons to be real. Therefore, I shall believe the museum that says they are and deny the museums that says they are not. Ergo, dragons are real.

I have a minor in philosophy. You can tell because my thinking here is both cogent and sound, with absolutely no flaws.

Of course, the caveat is that dragons have to not only be real, but they also have to be telepathic, friendly, and prone to bonding for life with loyal human riders and then have this kinky, midair sex that also drives their riders to have sex. There’s a lot of sex when it comes to dragons, I guess. I don’t know. I started reading those books when I was ten. It might explain a few of my quirks.

However! If the previous paragraph isn’t proven true by the Creation Museum’s display, I shall recant my support of them and renew my assertion of their tacit villainy.

This tacit villainy is also naked. And likes to have sex in midair.

Don’t judge me.

And In Other News

I’m related to a lot of people who vote for the GOP. This is something I really, really don’t understand. I don’t understand how we can have the same DNA, the same stuff that programs our brains and such, look at the same actions by Republicans and have completely divergent reactions.

For example, my reaction to  the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is one of abject horror that something this misogynistic passed through the House of Representatives. The fact that it will likely die in the Senate is a cold consolation; what would make me happy is knowing that bullshit like this couldn’t survive long enough to make it to the House at all.

And yet, you don’t have to go far along the family tree to find beings who are almost exactly like me in terms of DNA who likely think that this is a great idea, who would have almost certainly voted for Franks if he was representing our district (he’s actually representing a district in Phoenix, which should come as no surprise to anyone ever).

The only answer that makes sense to me is that I’m a genetic aberration, a mutant who was born with a defective brain bucket that renders me incapable of understanding the wisdom of this action, or anything else that the GOP does. That must be it.

Amy’s Bug Company

I originally titled this post “Amy’s Buggery Company” which I thought was a hilarious joke on the subject matter, but after about two seconds of thought, I realized I was making a very different joke from the one I intended. So there you go; enjoy the watered down version.

Speaking of watered down versions, have you heard the latest from the insanity cesspool that is Amy’s Baking Company?  Man, did you see that smooth rhetorical transition I just did there? This is why I get paid fat sacks of cash money absolutely nothing to write on the Internet.

The latest from Amy’s is that when you order a vodka martini, you’ll get dead flies added to your drink at no added cost. This is an incredible value. You have no idea how hard it is to find a restaurant willing to add insects to your drinks. Usually, they’re all “oh god, how did that get there, I’m so sorry, let me fix that for you.” Or worse, they don’t even serve insects with their drinks to begin with! How is that fair? I argue that it is not.

The best part is you also get an example of what really, really great customer service looks like:

When our meal at Pita Jungle was finished, we jokingly asked our waitress if she could go to Amy’s and buy us a slice of the chocolate mousse cake we had heard was so good, (and possibly not baked by Amy, according to several reports). To our surprise and delight, she agreed to walk over there and buy it for us. We gave her the money to do so. The slice of cake was $10.90.

How can you not love that? I hope the servers at Pita Jungle wear identifiable uniforms; it would really add to the punchline of this whole thing.

Men’s Rights Activists: A Follow-Up

I told myself I was going to write about something happier (or at least more whimsical) but I couldn’t let this one pass by. Chloe over at the Bodycrimes blog has some great posts on the topic of Men’s Rights Activism. I wanted to highlight one of her posts because it sums up my feelings on the topic perfectly:

These reactions are rarely about addressing imbalances. They’re about the dominant group trying to stay dominant. Let’s face it, the Men’s Rights movement is never going to get out and campaign for child care in their work place, so they can see more of their kids, or shorter hours for working fathers, or the right to paternity leave. They’re not going to be marching against the sexual abuse of children, or even putting programs in place to support men in prisons and the military who are victims of rape. That’s not what they really want. What they want is for equality to go away and for us to return to some idealised time that never really existed.Let’s face it. They just hate women.

I couldn’t have said it better. The entire post is worth your time. You should go take a look.

The Irony Of Men’s Rights Activists

It’s a generally accepted consensus by sane people on the Internet that, among all the various subcultures, there is no bigger group of douchebags than the Men’s Rights Activists.

A brief explanation, in case you’re not familiar with this particular breed of insanity. These are the guys who whine that the single white male is actually the most oppressed minority in the world today due to things like affirmative action, political correctness, and rules about workplace harassment. I don’t need to explain in any great detail about their position because their position is inane. Simply put, these are the guys who mistake the loss of privilege as persecution. They’re the spoiled brats who, when asked to share their toys, pitch a fit about how they’re being mistreated.

They imagine themselves as soldiers in some great war against feminism and/or political correctness and they imagine that they will use their superior maleness and alleged intellectual capabilities to browbeat the world into seeing the truth. Which, of course, is hilarious because the only thing they’re ever going to prove to the world is that they’re spoiled douchebags. They’re not going to affect the change they desire. They’re not going to stop the march towards equality anymore than any previous hate group has done. They’re not a barrier; they’re a speed bump, at best.

The reason why I mention them at all is because of a very poignant comment a friend of mine made on Facebook. He pointed out, correctly, that there is one group Men’s Rights Activists do harm, which is other men:

What’s bothersome is that there are certain areas where greater sensitivity towards men would be nice (like the relative absence of community support for stay-at-home dads) but the irrational fucknuttery of the “men’s rights activists” sours that Discussion quickly.

But of course, a manly man wouldn’t bother to be a stay-at-home dad, because that’s wimmen’s work, amirite? It couldn’t possibly be that there are real mans who would rise to the challenge and opportunity of being the primary caregiver to a child. An Alpha Male would never do such a thing! Only beta or gamma men would allow themselves to be pushed around in such a form. Pawns of the matriarchy, etc. etc., rabble rabble rabble.

The irony of the whole situation is that, barring a very few actual male-hating fringe-extremists, it’s probably the feminists who have the backs of all the stay-at-home-dads out there, not the so-called Men’s Rights Activists.

Just something to think about.

Sincere Or Satire? I Have No Idea

You know how I know that things have gotten out of hand? I was convinced that this story about a Creationist science quiz was satire until Snopes confirmed its validity. Prior to that confirmation, I couldn’t possibly believe that something like this could actually be real. It just seems like the kind of joke somebody would make with a bit of Photoshop. “Man, look how insane those Creationists are!” But no, sadly, it’s the real deal, which makes the whole story much, much worse.

While I was processing reserves at my library today, I came across the Brick Bible: New Testament. I thumbed through it to see how the Book of Revelation was depicted. Would it be the real deal or the watered down version?Well, it did not disappoint. All the gory details were there, lovingly recreated by horrifically torturing little LEGO people. There was something perverse about seeing little LEGO people in so much suffering, actually. It was like walking into the bedroom of the creepy silent kid who’s mutilated all of his toys. You just know he’s going to grow up to be a serial killer or something and it’s uncomfortable to see the insanity in those nascent stages.

As I was looking over the horror inflicted on those LEGO people who were not spared by the Rapture, I began to wonder: was this book satirical (look at how ridiculously gruesome these Biblical stories actually are) or sincere (LEGOs are cool, let’s get kids interested in Bible stories via the power of LEGO). I honestly couldn’t tell.

I had a few of those “My first Bible stories” collections growing up, but they were always the G-rated, sanitized version of any story. You don’t get the polygamy or the rape or the truly mind-boggling amount of murder, or if you do, it’s very quickly glossed over. The Brick Bible, though, doesn’t hold back. You get all the best parts, which is rather unique in my opinion. Seriously, where else can you see the Fours Horsemen, the Whore of Babylon, and the Beast depicted like this? Answer: you can’t.

Even after browsing the author’s website, I still can’t tell if he’s sincere or satirical. My general feeling is toward satire, although whether that’s due to cynicism (only a cynic thinks everything is satire) or idealism (only an idealist thinks nobody could possibly be this bizarre), I couldn’t tell you. The Brick Bible doesn’t quite go to the same insane lengths that Landover Baptist in the pursuit of satire which means that it’s just normal enough for me to think it might be sincere.

All I know is that I’m living in a time and place where I can’t tell the difference, which either means I’m irrevocably stupid (a distinct possibility, I suppose) or things have gotten so skewed that it’s impossible to tell.

This Is Why I Despise Psychics (And Sylvia Browne In Particular)

When I was a teenager, I went to a psychic medium. I don’t remember her name. She was hosting some sort of workshop at this New Age hippy crystal shop and I decided to attend. I don’t recall what the workshop itself was about; probably unlocking your inner potential or discovering your past lives or something. The whole thing was free, though, and after it was over, the psychic gave a few people free readings. I was one of those who received a reading. I’m glad it was free; in fact, considering what the reading did for my development as a skeptic, I’d say it was a bargain.

She looked me over for a while, mostly focusing on my eyes and face. Then she started in with the probing, open-ended questions. I wasn’t familiar yet with the term “cold reading” but I knew better than to provide her with any hooks. She was the psychic. She was supposed to figure me out with supernatural powers.

She asked if there was somebody in my life who I’d lost, somebody whose name started with “D.” My dad’s still alive, so that was out. Neither of my grandfathers have a D  in their names (unless you count the last letter of my maternal grandfather’s middle name, which seams rather circuitous). The only “D” I have is my half-brother, David, who is still very much alive and thus has more effective means of reaching out to me (like a phone call). So it probably wasn’t him, either.

When that failed to elicit any sort of response, she moved on to my future. “You’re good with computers,” she said. “I see that the thing you do with the computer, you need to keep doing it. You shouldn’t stop.”

Holy shit, you might say! She predicted that I would become an aspiring writer! That’s amazing!

Except, you know, not really. For one thing, she was very clear that the “thing I was doing with computers” was a current thing and that I needed to keep doing it. She didn’t say “in a few years, you will start writing on a computer.” At the time, the only thing I was working on was my fledgling HTML skills and designing horrible Angelfire websites. Needless to say, that was a phase that didn’t last and we’re all better off as a result.

So the HTML thing was a bust and she missed out on the fact that I wanted to be a novelist. I’d say she was 0 for 2.

And, honestly? How fucking hard is it to predict that a socially awkward white teenage male “does things on the computers?” Hell, you could tell just be looking at me that I was a nerd. It was a safe bet and an easy guess. And that’s all it was: guessing. Even worse was that I could feel the urge to help her along by supplying clues. I wanted it to work and I wanted to know the secret knowledge she had. If I’d been more forthcoming with clues, I’m sure she would have had lots to tell me about me.

When I learned about cold reading a few years later and compared it to my own experience, that was the nail in the coffin for so-called “psychics.”

Normally, that would be the end of that. I didn’t get conned, so why should I care?

Sylvia fucking Browne is why I care.

Like everybody else, I’ve been following the Cleveland abduction story with a sort of morbid fascination. There’s something chilling about this story that gets to me even as I imagine the extraordinary survival of these three women. The level of horror is only surpassed by the resilience of the women involved and the heroism of those who came to their aid. It’s a powerful story.

And then there’s Sylvia.

Sylvia fucking Browne, who predicted in 2008 that survivor Amanda Berry was “in heaven and on the other side” and that her last words were “goodbye, mom, I love you.”

Yeah, except not. The icing on this particular horror cake comes from the fact that Berry’s mother would die a year later and thus not live to see her daughter’s survival. So that’s awesome.

Here’s what Sylvia fucking Browne has to say in her defense:

For more than 50 years as a spiritual psychic and guide, when called upon to either help authorities with missing person cases or to help families with questions about their loved ones, I have been more right than wrong. If ever there was a time to be grateful and relieved for being mistaken, this is that time. Only God is right all the time. My heart goes out to Amanda Berry, her family, the other victims and their families. I wish you a peaceful recovery.

There are two ways to read this. First, psychic powers aren’t 100%. Sometimes they get things wrong. Sometimes, I don’t know, the spirits aren’t cooperative or whatever. Only God is right all the time, she says. But that brings up a relevant question: if that’s the case, why the fuck should we listen to spirits then? The allure of psychic prediction is that you’re getting supernatural knowledge that you can rely on. If it’s more faulty than a weather forecast, what’s the point?

If it “might be right, might be wrong,” that’s an even worse argument for psychic predictions, because you can’t test them. If you can’t know that the information is good, it’s worthless. You can’t trust it if there’s a margin of error the way you could with more mundane information, where you could test the information and hopefully reduce the margin.

The other possibility (and let’s face it, this is what’s actually going on) is that Sylvia fucking Browne is just guessing. She’s just making shit up. Her predictions are just guesses. Her track record seems to suggest that this is the case.

It doesn’t matter which way you go with this: believe in psychic powers or don’t believe, her predictions are equally worthless.

The worst part is that she fucking manipulates grieving people when they’re at their most vulnerable. It’s not even that she’s giving them false hope; she wrongly predicted that Berry was dead. She took what hope might have been there and fucking crushed it.

In any crisis, it’s always important to keep your morale up. People have lived or died because of their hope or lack thereof. If Sylvia fucking Browne was offering false hope, that would well and truly suck, but you could say, hey, she’s giving them something to cling to. But this? Making a guess about a girl’s death? This is how you make your fucking millions of dollars?

I hate her. I hate what she does to people like the Berrys and all the other families who she has harmed with her lies.

Here’s the worst part: there is no vindication forthcoming. Due to the confirmation bias of human cognition, our brains are extraordinarily good at filtering out information that disproves our particular hypotheses. If you start out with the belief that “Sylvia Browne is a real psychic and has real psychic powers,” it doesn’t matter how many times she gets it wrong. If you want to believe, you’re going to believe, evidence be damned.

The confirmation bias is why it’s so difficult to remove beliefs even after they’ve been discredited. The brain wants to cling to the belief and weighs it as more important than the evidence disproving the belief. We just don’t hold on to the relevant facts, not when the personal cost of being wrong (whether emotional, social, or economic) is so much worse than the payout, which is just the satisfaction of being right.

In other words, it doesn’t matter how many times Sylvia fucking Browne gets it wrong. She can get it wrong every single time. She’ll still be there, telling lies, making guesses, pretending she has special powers and hurting people who need real answers, not charlatanism. It is possible to overcome the confirmation bias but it’s not easy and you have to really want it.

One of Sylvia Browne’s most vehement critics, James Randi, is a personal hero of mine. He is a personal hero because he took the skills of deception and illusion that he mastered as a stage magician and used those skills to improve people’s lives by exposing frauds like Sylvia fucking Browne. You might say I’m trying to follow in his footsteps, in my own small way, by using my talent for spinning bullshit to call another bullshitter out.

As a writer, telling stories and making shit up is my stock and trade. I tell stories all the time. I tell stories to amuse people. Sometimes, I’ve even tried to trick people. I can keep a straight face while spinning a line of bullshit and I’m roguishly proud of that fact. But at least I’m honest enough to label all my stories as fiction. I don’t put my shit in the non-fiction section of the library and tell people it’s the real deal and that I can talk to angels. I don’t tell grieving families that their little girl is dead just because of a fucking whim.

I just tell stories to entertain people.

Why does Sylvia tell stories? Does she tell stories to make the world a better place?

Or does she do it to sell another book, charge another $20 dollars a minute for a phone call, or to keep herself relevant in a digital age that’s making her lies easier and easier and easier for all to see?

Tucson, You Continue To Disappoint

I know that the state I’m from doesn’t define me. I’m my own person, after all. Just because I’m from Arizona doesn’t mean I fit the mold of what Arizona is to the rest of the country. I shouldn’t let this kind of thing bother me, right? It’s just that it’s hard to even want to call a place home when you have brilliance like this:

A former mayoral candidate in Tucson, Ariz., is launching a privately funded program to provide residents of crime-prone areas with free shotguns so they can defend themselves against criminals. . . McClusky said citizens need to do more to protect themselves because city government is failing to do the job.

“We need to take back our city, and it needs to come back to the citizens and not the criminals,” he said.

There are so many things wrong with this, I don’t even . . .

I don’t even feel the need to point out the idiocy of just handing out guns to people with nothing more than a background check, considering how thorough and reliable such background checks are. I imagine there’s also a part in this program that plans for each person to “solemnly swear that they will use this free shotgun only for good.” Maybe they’ll swear on a Bible, ’cause, you know, that always works.

The thing that really bothers me? It’s not even about the guns at this point. It’s about the fact that there are people that think like this and even worse, there are people that look at the first group and say, you know, I think that there is a good idea.

I’m not afraid of guns. I understand their place and their purpose. I own a gun myself. But to launch a plan to “take back our city” makes it seem like it’s a gunfight a minute around here. Honestly, it’s not, although I suppose that will change when everybody has a free shotgun and it’s like that time all the neighborhood kids had a big Super Soaker fight, except that everybody will be dead instead of soaked. Can’t wait for those good times to roll.

It’s like the people that moved out here arrived in the Southwest with their minds filled with images of cowboys and gunfights and OK Corral shootouts. And when it turned out that, surprise, the Wild West isn’t, those people were disappointed. There’s a part of those people who really wish, deep down, that they could tote their shotgun and their revolver and just lay waste to the first motherfucker who does something to deserve it. It’s like they’re disappointed that we don’t need to solve things with shootouts.

Every single time Arizona does something, it’s embarrassing for anybody that engages in rational thinking. I’d really like for that to stop, but I won’t be holding my breath, because then somebody might see me holding my breath, assume I’m up to nefarious purposes, and it’ll be another Wild West shootout.

When it comes down to it? I think that for the vast majority of people, even so called responsible gun owers, guns are just another form of toy. They’re dangerous toys and they’re expensive toys and they carry an awesome burden of responsibility, but I think that years and years of immersion in a pop culture where the dramatic gun cock is considered the ultimate form of punctuation have made us forget that this isn’t a fucking game.

I’m not blaming pop culture and movies and video games for making us violent, especially when statistics show that overall, things are getting better. It’s not the media’s fault for making violence sexy. I’m blaming us for being too immature not to realize that violence in reality is not fun or sexy or exciting. Deep down inside, we think it’s going to be just like the movies and that’s why we want it. That’s why we long for a zombie apocalypse. That’s why we hope for the chance to shoot a home invader so we can be a hero, even though if we really wanted to “be prepared,” we’d eat better and exercise more instead of buying more guns, considering the likelihood of dying to cardiovascular disease in comparison to violence.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.