The Six-Layer Hierarchy of Hope (featuring poker!); or, "What's the difference between Rational Hope and Young Earth Creationism?"

1. You are all in with K K.  One player calls your all in and flips over 10 10.  You say, "Boy, I hope he doesn't get a 10." Hope rationality level = excellent

2. You are all in with K K.  One player calls your all in and flips over A 10.  You say, "Boy, I hope he doesn't get an A." Hope rationality level = good

3. You are all in with A K. One player calls your all in and flips over 10 10.  You say, "Boy, I hope I get an A or a K." Hope rationality level = fair

4. You are all in with A 10.  One players calls your all in and flips over K K. You say, "Boy, I hope I get an A." Hope rationality level = poor

5. You are all in with 10 10. One player calls your all in and flips over K K. You say, "Boy, I hope I get a 10." Hope rationality level = retard

6. You are all in with 7 2.  One player calls your all in and flips over K K.  We shoot you and put you out of our misery. 

(Disclaimer: The “white men” referred to in this blog is a shorthand reference to ‘white racist sexist men.” Not “all white men.” Just, I got tired of typing “white racist sexist men” and also it made my prose look inelegant and God knows we can’t have that. )

I try to never engage in the Oppression Olympics. It’s even more pointless than trying to explain to a maniac why he shouldn’t wildly overbet his ducks the same way he bets his rockets every damn time. (And that is very, very pointless, as I was reminded yet again just the other night at an otherwise fairly enjoyable cash game.) However, someone on another blog made a good point the other day in regards to racism vs. sexism and why one or the other is “worse;” she said, in essence, that while sexism is more socially acceptable to express, racism has more dire consequences especially physically for the recipients. Naturally she was dropped on like a load of bricks by a few deeply offended ladies (one of whom actually made the statement that she “risked rape every hour of every day just walking down the street”). After I tucked my eyeballs back in their sockets and picked my jaw up off the floor (where the hell does she live? Sierra Leone?) I decided not to re-enter the fray, because clearly anybody who’s willing to say something that retarded can’t be reasoned with. But I still thought it was a really good point and it got me thinking…

I am inclined to think that the hatred that lies so thinly beneath sexism is greater than the hatred that lies beneath racism, because it IS so widespread and socially acceptable to express, and yet so much more detrimental to the white men who express it…wait, why do I say that? Because I thought about it and I realized both what a nasty situation black men are in, and what a strange one white women are. You see, white men want white women. They don’t want black men. Not intimately, not in their lives…best case, they want low-paid (or unpaid) laborers and scapegoats. However, white men do want white women. And in America today, they can’t just grab likely ones by the hair and drag them off to the nearest cave, nor buy them from their fathers, and it’s more of a challenge than ever before historically just to get them drunk and rape them with impunity. (Sadly, “more of a challenge” is still nowhere near “practically impossible,” but that’s a whole nother blog.) No, they actually need to convince these white women to engage in meaningful social interaction and earthly sexual delights. So they have to restrict themselves primarily to name-calling (blatant!) and sideways legislation against things like emergency contraceptives and funding research that shows that women aren’t nearly as good as men at (fill in the blank with something cool or that might result in a high-paying job someday). 

But they do want us. They wish they didn’t and they hate us for it, but they also are sure, on a bone-deep instinctive level, that they NEED us. And not just for sex, though I think a lot of them rather desperately tell themselves that. Take me, for example. Not to say that no man has ever wanted me for just sex, but to be honest, I am and always have been the type of girl that men want to marry. Beyond the sex, they want the companionship…the intimate, caring kind that doesn’t laugh at your deepest desires and comforts you when you’re deathly ill, that tells you that you really are the greatest, because our society also forbids adult men from receiving that sort of human interaction from anyone but his female love interest. And, of course, if you the white woman happen to possess that reservoir of interaction combined with a nice body and a good income, you, my dear, are the Holy Grail. 

What do black men have that white men want with any kind of comparable desire? Nothing. So what power do they have…? NONE. Except in numbers. I finally understand, now, the whole “brotherhood” that permeates black male culture. Whether or not they ever wanted that, they had to have it for simple survival. And this is why it is so much more dangerous to be one, and why they react with what many feel is hysteria to any perceived threat, such as the recent rash of “nooses.” Of course they do. What’s protecting them? Nothing but their strength as perceived by white men, their willingness to shout out and to take nothing lying down. 

Analysis aside, there’s an easy way to tell for yourself which is really worse. Set aside your gender identity for a moment…give over thinking of how you MUST be your gender, the one you are, and place it all in cold, hard perspective. In America today, would you rather be a black man, or a white woman? In terms of what kind of treatment you’re going to get from society, from birth to grave, in terms of opportunities, perception, income, education…everything?

Would you really choose to be a black man?

 

As I was driving home from work today, I passed a car with a bumper sticker I’ve seen before: “Know Jesus Know Peace/No Jesus No Peace.” Bleh, I thought, as I usually do when I see puerile bumper stickers (the “Senseless Acts of Beauty” one severely annoys me) but then (probably because I was bored, commuting is a massive waste of lifetime) I thought, “There is a point there.” I have casually read about at least a few studies that show that genuinely religious people are on average more content than the self-described nonreligious. So, there you go, I thought…it’s true…know Jesus etc. etc. 

I still consider it Bleh, though. How often do I hear about the sunny natures that people with Downs syndrome so often possess? I bet nobody can compete for lack of mental stress with the comatose. A person whose spouse is cheating and doesn’t have a clue is a happier person than the person who has found their spouse out. In other words, translated in a secular cliché rather than a religious one…”Ignorance is bliss.” So it is, frequently. With knowledge comes decisions, actions, choices, all frequently unpeaceful events. The ultimate peace is, of course, the peace of the grave. Wonder if that’s what that bumper sticker really means…? 

This line of thought reminded me of a Dinesh D’Souza column I read a few nights ago. Dinesh’s claim (this particular claim) was a fairly novel one to me—he claims that we have Christianity to thank for our glorious technology and scientific discoveries. He says:

“Consider science. Although there have been many civilizations in history, modern science developed in only one: Western civilization. Christians were the first ones who envisioned the universe as following laws that reflected the rationality of God the creator. These laws were believed to be accessible to man because man is created in the image of God and shares a spark of the divine reason. “

He’s steppin’ pretty carefully around GREECE; see, ATHENS; see, ARISTOTLE SOCRATES HYPATIA PYTHAGORUS---but let’s go with his specification of modern science, by which I’m guessing he means, post-Renaissance science. But it really, really kills me to read that last part. “…these laws were believed to be accessible to man because man is created in the image of God and shares a spark of the divine reason…”

Let’s see what God had to say about that.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Now the serpent said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

And the LORD God said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

And the man said, The woman gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, I did eat.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

Yes, the basis of the worship of the Christian God, the Genesis of the World, really encourages men and their spark of divinity to seek knowledge, don’t it? But don’t feel bad, Dinesh. The Christian God is way far from being the first and only to attempt to keep his sheep in a state of blissful ignorance…for their own good, of course…oh, wait. That isn’t ever the reason that God gives, is it..? (…Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…so he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life…) Just read the stories of Prometheus and Pandora. 

 

"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."

-- George Bernard Shaw

I’m always a little leery of telling people what they ARE and ARE NOT.  Labels are really something people should only slap upon themselves…much like religious beliefs.  But I will make an exception if the circumstances are extreme enough.  If, for instance, too many individuals out there are slapping upon themselves a specific label that I hold to be of near-priceless value…and their behavior in the name of said valued label actually damages the label…and those who oppose the ideology that I REALLY value associated with the label use these damagers to do even more damage..! 

Going back to basics, I will crack open my virtual copy of good old Merriam-Webster, which defines “feminism” thusly:

 

Main Entry:
    fem·i·nism Listen to the pronunciation of feminism
Pronunciation:
    \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
Function:
    noun
Date:
    1895

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

It seems so simple, doesn’t it.  A “feminist,” therefore, ought to be “a person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.” 

You’d think.

My co-blogger has a fondness for a columnist named Fred Reed who, said co-blogger tells me, is very opposed to the “Nanny State,” which he (the columnist, not my co-blogger) characterizes as a force to feminize the world (or at least the United States, its government and all its citizenry).  “But!” I objected.  “The forces of this ‘feminization,’ as you call it,” referring to laws passed for example to ban fat in food, dodgeball in schools, firing anybody who sticks a toe out of the politically correct line, etc. etc., “are not always nor even often feminists.  Your columnist is confusing two words that sound similar…frankly feminists are RARELY if EVER the force behind what he considers to be ‘feminization!’” My co-blogger agrees, and even agrees with my point that calling these bizarre episodes “feminization” is a sexist slur.  For instance, what would be the percentage of women legislators who actually pass these laws compared to men..?  However, this conversation did open my eyes to the sad frequency of this confusion.  Disgusting, I thought to myself.  Probably even a plot by certain right-wing fruitcakes to undermine the beauty of true equality, linking FEMINISM with this crap..!

Heh.  Shows how much I know.  Though I am determined that in principle, I am still right…I have been tragically disillusioned of late.  I have discovered that there is a whole entire segment of the female population out there who refer to themselves as “feminists,” and are anything but.  The most recent quote from one that sticks in my head:

“Man was God’s FIRST creation, but women were his BEST!”

That really sums it up.  These…ladies…have taken the standard definition above and replaced “equality” with “privilege” and “the sexes” with “women.”  And it breaks my heart.  It DOES.  Melodramatic, but true.

THEY get to joke about physically abusing their spouses, but woe betide any man who dares to do the same.
THEY get to lay hands upon men and their belongings with violence with impunity in their anger, but woe betide any man who dares to do the same.

They have made a priestesshood of maternity…pregnancy and childbirth are laid upon a sacred altar and any woman who has performed the two is halfway to sainthood.  No physical ordeal any man goes through is comparable; certainly they have no interest in any legislation that would give MEN any free time from the labor grind for any.

Should she stick a toe out of doors for monetary recompense before the kid hits school-age, she is making a massive sacrifice in the quality of her maternity and her fragile mental health…but it’s perfectly okay for a man to barely spend a few hours a day with his newly minted offspring in that time frame and should the relationship between a man and woman collapse, his legal custody should be instantly removed because he kept her and the kid in food, clothing and shelter.

Now, I won’t give these “feminists” any more significance than they deserve.  They are nowhere near the reason that women have been oppressed oh these many millenia, and continue to be oppressed today.  They never had any power in the past, other than the minor one of helping the sexist reinforce gender stereotypes about the hysteria, illogic and weakness of women…which the sexist had firmly in place anyway and didn’t need any help with. 

But women really do have more power now.  Really, as a group, maybe for the first time in the course of human history, women actually have some power.  Not anywhere near all of it.  Or even half of it.  But finally a measurable amount of it.  That this empowers your average woman on the street is wonderful, glorious, and gives those who actually believe in the theory of feminism as defined by M-W some real clout.  But unfortunately with the elevation of all of us, unavoidably comes the elevation of these…ladies. 

I still believe that these women are a minority.  I believe that the basic reason for the way they are is nothing more than just being not too bright…being unable to see where the path they are taking leads, and being unable to understand the fine nuances of philosophy, as in “I am a loud pushy broad who fearlessly insults anyone who doesn’t agree with me…hey, isn’t that what popular culture says feminists are?  Damn, I ENJOY that…I’m a feminist and I support feminism cause that means I can do it FOREVER!”  (…sigh.) 

But I’m selfish enough and I love women enough that I want them GONE.  And I have therefore decided to have no mercy.  Faux feminists, beware.  You will be called out on your BS, as firmly and publicly as possible, wherever I find it.  I owe the all the women, the true feminists, who’ve come before us with their strength and brilliance and patience and perserverance at least that much.  I will throw you to the wolves who cry that feminists don’t want EQUALITY, they want a FREE PASS—because feminists don’t, but you do.  And you ain’t gettin' it at my expense. 

Exchange between Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, and then Vice-President George G. W. Bush, campaigning for president in 1987:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

I am trying to think of any other classifiable set by religious, race, ethnicity, gender or even sexual orientation of legal citizens, within the United States that George G. W. Bush, or any other serious presidential candidate, could have casually stated that he didn't believe they should be considered citizens and had it raise no outcry at all.   Certainly there is a large contingent of Christians who appear to believe that they are under personal attack by the government for their religious beliefs (Google it; you'll be amazed, or perhaps not, by this very prevalent conviction among them). …But has any presidential candidate ever composedly stated that he does not consider them to be real citizens, though?  Has any presidential candidate ever been anything other than one of them?  Would any presidential candidate who was not one of them ever have the faintest, remotest chance of becoming the president of the United States?  

Speaking of religion and presidential candidates, Mitt the Mormon finally caved and gave the Kennedyesque declaration we've all…sort of, since some of us have to work really hard at caring about the specific words actually emerging from his mouth…been waiting for.  Here it is…drumroll please….

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.  Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."  -Gov. Mitt Romney (R) of Massachusetts, 2008 Republican presidential nominee

On a side note, I find this interesting from a purely Mormon perspective.  The Mormon church does make a lot of noise about keeping their mitts (if you'll pardon the pun) out of direct interference with government affairs.  However, Mormons, and the more devout they are, the more true this is, are rather famous for voting in lockstep with their church leaders.  I wonder how much slack the Church would be willing to cut Mitt in exchange for having one of their own as Big Boss in the White House.  I also wonder how far Mitt would be willing to push the issue.  The Mormons have quite the power and money base in the United States.  I find that most people tend to regard them as a quaint state-based cult out in the salty wilderness of the Southwest, and that these people are frequently eating Mormon-produced food or wearing Mormon-produced clothes or purchasing Mormon-made products as they blink at you in dim confusion…"ain't they the ones that think polygamy's okay?"  Well, not exactly…that would actually be one of the big examples of the Mormon church's willingness to cut slack with the government in exchange for some real power.  Also, they support polyGYNY, which is generally useless to point out, as most people aren't aware that polygamy doesn't mean polygyny and have never ever heard of the term polyandry.  

I did peruse the rest of The Mitt Speech, though, and found myself unaccountably on the quote reproduced faithfully at the top of this article.  So I went back and reread what Mitt had to say more carefully, to pinpoint the source of my sudden feeling of déjà vu.  

"…"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us.  If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders…Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone…It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.  And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. …But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning.  They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God.  Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life…The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square.  We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust…We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word.  He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.  Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.  I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty. Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage.  Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty? They are not unique to any one denomination.  They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common.  They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united. We believe that every single human being is a child of God …The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God…Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government…And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me…In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.'  And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'God bless the United States of America."


I take from this several clear observations.

1. Mitt, current serious Republican presidential nominee, says that atheists, agnostics and freethinkers are at odds with the founders of our nation.  Bet a few of the Founders would be really surprised to hear that, given that they were atheists, agnostics or freethinkers.  Mitt better hope they're not up in Heaven listening to him mangle their reps.
2. Atheism, agnosticism and freethinking either can't exist in a free society or a society founded by them can't be free. So, either (a) the US isn't a free society, or (b) all several hundred thousand (at least) of the atheists, agnostics and freethinkers in the US are actually imaginary or (c) Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, at the minimum, were imaginary.  I'd hate to think (a) was true but it is the only option that doesn't require mass hallucinations to support it.  Or we could just go with Mitt being full of sh*t.
3.  Mitt either never learned in school or has since forgotten that we weren't a nation "Under God" til the Eisenhower administration, a bit of a while after the time of the Founding Fathers.  Or he figures most of his audience either never learned it or forgot it.  He's stupid or he's counting on the rest of us being stupid…which one makes you less nervous in our future commissar?
4. Nativity scenes and menorahs really don't encompass more than two of the five zillion religions currently being practiced worldwide, probably at least one zillion of those right here in the US.  Hit one of the stumbling blocks of being a Friend to All Religions (Except Maybe Islam) already, have you?  
5. Mitt strongly hopes he gets a chance to replace more Supreme Court Justices with even more Scalia sock puppets.

…and in the immortal words of our 41st president, father of our current president…" I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

I must begin by saying that I do appreciate your very real concern for my well-being.  You clearly (for the most part—there are an unavoidable number of power-hungry maniacs and money-hungry charlatans in every group, but we’ll just ignore those for the time being) deeply care about my existence.  Me, personally, though you don’t actually know me personally, nor do you know any of the billions of others that you care about in the same passionate manner.  Truly, I am really touched by this.  Thank you from the depths of my heart and mind and I’m sure I speak for us all.

However.  You and I do have very fundamental differences in the, shall we say, times of my well-being and my existence that are of primary importance.  Again, please don’t think that I don’t acknowledge that you do care—I know you do.  But…and I feel like an ungrateful pig by suggesting this, but…do you think you could possibly rearrange your priorities to care a little more about the part of my existence that I spend fully aware, conscious and actually, physically in existence..?

I’m not sure what state you think I am in prior to my conception, but you appear to be positive that at least some idea of me must exist, as you are sure that God has a plan for me.  You press very hard to ensure that any chance I might have of coming into being at all is preserved by your relentless insistence on removing as much contraceptive information and tools from every human being alive, no doubt reasoning that by doing so you are raising my chances to the absolute maximum for getting conceived.  You do your best to make sure that no teenager would prevent me from coming into existence by lying about birth control, encouraging that it be priced out of reach for as many potential mothers as possible, and trying to make “Plan B” as hard to obtain as you can for everyone.  And once I have been conceived, what little restraint you showed before is completely cast to the winds.  You don’t care if my mother was raped, or has health problems, or is alone in the world—you’re right there doing your best to make sure that she doesn’t, that if humanly possible she can’t, terminate my forming self.  You have even been known to with your own two hands end the lives of those known to wield the scalpels and vacuum instruments that could possibly cause my end before I am born. You don’t even care if I have as little as a two percent chance of surviving my own birth—you are there to make sure I get that two percent chance, by God. 

And then, after I am dead, your love for me, your concern and compassion for me, knows no bounds.  You know for a fact that if I allow a man to touch my naked body before I marry him, I am doomed to eternal hellfire.  If I allow a woman to touch it at any time ever, it is the same.  You know that if I take the name of the Lord my God in vain…if I don’t faithfully worship our God every day or even every hour…if I don’t follow all his rules as laid out in His holy Book…if I don’t submit to my parents, my husband and my Church, that I will suffer for all eternity.  And you can’t bear that.  You will do whatever it takes, pass as many laws as you can, exert as much social and emotional and if you can figure out a way to do it that won’t prematurely end your own freedom to minister to others, physical pressure on me as you can to save me from that fate.  For your loving kindness and concern for my life after death is boundless.

Again…I am ashamed in the face of so much relentless devotion to make even this tiny amount of constructive criticism…please forgive me!  Jesus was very forgiving, remember—could we, you and I, possibly care just a little bit more about the portion of my life that I actually remember..?  The one I’m living now…?

Because as soon as I am born you no longer care what happens to me.  You don’t care if I ever see a doctor or a dentist, even if I die or am permanently maimed by injury or disease.  You hate me if I do see one and my parents can’t afford to pay for it—that one cent of your personal tax dollar that went to my care fills you with disgust.  You are enraged if my parents don’t care for me properly—not on my behalf, but on your own, to see a few more cents of your tax dollars go to schools to educate me in the areas that my parents cannot or will not, feed me what my parents cannot or will not.  If other children hurt me, you are furious when the legal authorities intervene; you think they have no right, and if I can’t defend myself, then I don’t deserve to be defended by anyone else.  You are contemptuous of me, working pitiful jobs that I can’t support myself or my family with the wages from when I’m grown, but you hate even more seeing me gain additional education with an additional penny or three from one of your tax dollars.  The only choice you offer me at all willingly for my education and advancement is death; if I agree to spend years of my young life overseas protecting your military-industrial interests, if I come back alive and sufficiently sewn back together to function at all, you will finally allow that I am worthy to attend school beyond the twelfth grade.  Once I am back, your greatest hope is to never see or hear from me again; if I cross your line of vision once more from age or disability, your hatred returns, tenfold because now I am too old to serve as cannon fodder and too tired to care for the carrot of education.  I must die before you can bring yourself to care for me once more.

Please, consider, just this once, pouring all that passion and compassion and love and energy into me between the ages of birth and death.  You might be surprised at how much more rewarding the gratitude of a living conscious and aware human being is to one who is pre-born or dead.

Sincerely,

Me

Note: Co-Blogger recommends reading Saletan’s article and Metcalf’s article

I was reading Slate today on one of my rare and treasured work breaks, and I saw this…

Dissecting the IQ Debate:

A response to William Saletan's series on race and IQ.

By Stephen Metcalf

“In response to James Watson's remarks concerning the intelligence of blacks, Slate's William Saletan wrote a series of pieces on race, IQ, and genetics.”

Did he?  Let’s go look.  Sometimes I enjoy Lord Saletan’s (that’s what they call him over on another blog I like to read) work.  (They also call the vice president “Darth Cheney,” but that’s a whole nother blog post, and I’m trying to stay on topic here.) Yep, he sure did though….let’s peruse it.

“Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."

I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians.”

Uh-oh.  Suspicious, I am.  This is a very common educated-racist comment.  If you’re lucky, that’s the last mention of Asians in the piece, the rest being devoted to black-bashing.  If you’re not lucky, a rant on why Asians are apparently smarter than white people ensues, usually boiling down the reasons for Asian scholastic success to the (genetically-based?  Sure, why not) low incidence of Asians on welfare and how they (anecdotally) use psychological torture on their kids during their school years to induce them to outperform anybody else (and somehow this gets linked to their devotion to Living the American Dream, so really, in the end, what it means is, Asians are just way better at being faux white). 

But I am actually, really, open-minded.  After all, that’s only the first paragraph.  Maybe it ain’t going where I think it is.  So I will read on.

“If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way.”

More tired and weary, to be honest.  I am not black, but I am a woman, and much the same arguments are made substituting “male” for “white” and “female” for “black.”  Being that I personally am, depending on which of my standardized test results you are interested in, 99% smarter than the rest of the world’s population, 99.9% smarter or even 99.99% smarter, I wonder what the mad pursuit of the proof of these types of conjectures is motivated by.  I really don’t want to believe it’s racism, or sexism, or anything so massively irrational.  But the people doing it do keep trying their best to convince me it is. 

“Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution.”

Erk.  How totally irrelevant, unless the Christians in question are going through this struggle because these theories conflict with their personal witnessing of the Creation events, as the people going through this struggle about the racial intelligence issue find that these arguments conflict with their personal witnessing of really smart black people. 

Stephen Metcalfe does a good job in pointing out the really good questions that should be asked and I won’t repeat them here; read his article.  I admit to being really thrown by L. Saletan’s final entry into his series—man, you find out that the co-author of one of your lynchpin studies is a famous racist and “I guess I shoulda Wiki’d him, huh?” is the only thing you have to say..? 

Back to being a woman, which I can speak about with a lot more authority than being black.  We (women) get this genetically-dumber stuff a lot.  I used to visit an MRA website…if you don’t know what they are, in a nutshell, they are what everyone imagines a radical feminist must be, just in the opposite gender direction.  I will totally go into detail about them but darn it, I am staying on topic here if it kills me.  Which it may.  But as I was saying, I used to visit this discussion forum, and every time a new study or survey or whatever came out that supported that the boyz is smarter than the gurlz, they went hog-wild over it.  Whenever one came out supporting the opposite, they sneered at it and dismissed it as yet another manifestation of the Power Women Wield in the Media/Government/Academia.  (Yes, they are being totally irrational using both arguments at once.)  But to be fair, feminist groups tend to do the same thing, though usually more mildly—overall they are not interested in proving women to be SUPERIOR, only EQUAL (which cannot be said in reverse about MRAs overall). 

My problem with the whole thing is, as I said, not personal—regardless of what type of standardized intelligence test you throw at me, I will pass it with a 99%, 99.9% or 99.99% probability of doing so better than you.  Whether or not you or anybody else thinks that that’s (1) because there are always genetic gender freaks and I am obviously one of them or (2) for reasons totally unconnected to my gender or (3) because of a unique set of personal life circumstances I was better equipped to throw off the chains of patriarchy to show what women can really do if only given a chance is irrelevant to the fact that that’s what I can do, period.  My problem is the motives of those performing this kind of research and writing these kinds of articles.  I am all about the pursuit of knowledge…but what good do they really want to do with it?  Why do they care so much?  What dreams do they think they can make possible with this knowledge?  With lots of research the answer to that last question is obvious.  With MOST research it is.  But with this particular flavor, particular brand of research…what? 

L. Saletan says:

“Why write about this topic? Why hurt people's feelings? Why gratify bigots?

Because truth matters. Because the truth isn't as bad as our ignorant, half-formed fears and suspicions about it. And because you can't solve a problem till you understand it.

Two days ago, I said we could fight the evidence of racial differences in IQ, or we could accept it. Yesterday, I outlined the difficulty of fighting it. What happens if we accept it? Can we still believe in equality?”

There’s so much wrong with this set of statements I hardly know where to begin.  “Because truth matters.”  It sure does.  But it isn’t an answer to any specific question.  It’s a lot like answering the question “Why is the sky blue?” with “because your brain perceives it to be blue.”  Well, thank you, Captain Obvious!  But could you be a little more specific…?

I also get very wary when folks start talking about hurting people’s feelings.  This is basically code for “politically correct” and objecting to it is the individualistic hero’s task to Defy the Collective Hurt Feelings and Quest for the Truth!   Minimalization and ridicule of good and moral things doesn’t make them any less good and moral and doing it doesn’t make you any more clever or sophisticated.  I genuinely don’t get why so many people think it does.  I quite happily go my own way and believe precisely whatever I damn well deduce as being the most accurate description of what is and what could be and am very, very frequently at odds with the prevailing conventional morality.  Yet I somehow manage to also not only refrain from “hurting people’s feelings,” I manage to do all this secure in the knowledge that my beliefs will cause harm to practically nobody, in their feelings or anywhere else. 

Did he seriously ask if we could still believe in equality if we found out that some people are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than others?  Did I miss the stripping of citizenship and legal rights from all Americans who have been diagnosed with Downs syndrome, for instance?  When did our entire system of equality become contingent on a citizen’s genetics or raw intelligence?  If George W. Bush can become President of the United States, how can anybody ever again argue with a straight face that intelligence is a requirement for equality, much less the most elevated position anybody in our society can have..? 

L. Saletan goes on to list eleven reasons why we might want to pursue this research.  Some of them are reasonable, if not terribly significant, and the rest are so trivial as to be completely insignificant.  And I’m afraid the researchers, and the article writers, just managed to strike another blow to my determination to believe they are not motivated by prejudice. 

Exchange between Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, and then Vice-President George H. W. Bush, campaigning for president in 1987:

 

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

 

I am trying to think of any other classifiable set by religious, race, ethnicity, gender or even sexual orientation of legal citizens, within the United States that George H. W. Bush, or any other serious presidential candidate, could have casually stated that he didn’t believe they should be considered citizens and had it raise no outcry at all.   Certainly there is a large contingent of Christians who appear to believe that they are under personal attack by the government for their religious beliefs (Google it; you’ll be amazed, or perhaps not, by this very prevalent conviction among them). …But has any presidential candidate ever composedly stated that he does not consider them to be real citizens, though?  Has any presidential candidate ever been anything other than one of them?  Would any presidential candidate who was not one of them ever have the faintest, remotest chance of becoming the president of the United States? 

 

Speaking of religion and presidential candidates, Mitt the Mormon finally caved and gave the Kennedyesque declaration we’ve all…sort of, since some of us have to work really hard at caring about the specific words actually emerging from his mouth…been waiting for.  Here it is…drumroll please….

 

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.  Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.”  -Gov. Mitt Romney (R) of Massachusetts, 2008 Republican presidential nominee

 

On a side note, I find this interesting from a purely Mormon perspective.  The Mormon church does make a lot of noise about keeping their mitts (if you’ll pardon the pun) out of direct interference with government affairs.  However, Mormons, and the more devout they are, the more true this is, are rather famous for voting in lockstep with their church leaders.  I wonder how much slack the Church would be willing to cut Mitt in exchange for having one of their own as Big Boss in the White House.  I also wonder how far Mitt would be willing to push the issue.  The Mormons have quite the power and money base in the United States.  I find that most people tend to regard them as a quaint state-based cult out in the salty wilderness of the Southwest, and that these people are frequently eating Mormon-produced food or wearing Mormon-produced clothes or purchasing Mormon-made products as they blink at you in dim confusion…”ain’t they the ones that think polygamy’s okay?”  Well, not exactly…that would actually be one of the big examples of the Mormon church’s willingness to cut slack with the government in exchange for some real power.  Also, they support polyGYNY, which is generally useless to point out, as most people aren’t aware that polygamy doesn’t mean polygyny and have never ever heard of the term polyandry. 

 

I did peruse the rest of The Mitt Speech, though, and found myself unaccountably musing on the quote reproduced faithfully at the top of this article.  So I went back and reread what Mitt had to say more carefully, to pinpoint the source of my sudden feeling of déjà vu. 

 

“…"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us.  If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders…Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone…It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.  And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. …But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning.  They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God.  Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life…The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square.  We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust…We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word.  He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.  Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.  I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty. Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage.  Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty? They are not unique to any one denomination.  They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common.  They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united. We believe that every single human being is a child of God …The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God…Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government…And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me…In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.'  And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'God bless the United States of America."

 

 

I take from this several clear observations.

 

1.        Mitt, current serious Republican presidential nominee, says that atheists, agnostics and freethinkers are at odds with the founders of our nation.  Bet a few of the Founders would be really surprised to hear that, given that they were atheists, agnostics or freethinkers.  Mitt better hope they’re not up in Heaven listening to him mangle their reps.

2.        Atheism, agnosticism and freethinking either can’t exist in a free society or a society founded by them can’t be free. So, either (a) the US isn’t a free society, or (b) all several hundred thousand (at least) of the atheists, agnostics and freethinkers in the US are actually imaginary or (c) Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, at the minimum, were imaginary.  I’d hate to think (a) was true but it is the only option that doesn’t require mass hallucinations to support it.  Or we could just go with Mitt being full of sh*t.

3.         Mitt either never learned in school or has since forgotten that we weren’t a nation “Under God” til the Eisenhower administration, a bit of a while after the time of the Founding Fathers.  Or he figures most of his audience either never learned it or forgot it.  He’s stupid or he’s counting on the rest of us being stupid…which one makes you less nervous in our future commissar?

4.        Nativity scenes and menorahs really don’t encompass more than two of the five zillion religions currently being practiced worldwide, probably at least one zillion of those right here in the US.  Hit one of the stumbling blocks of being a Friend to All Religions (Except Maybe Islam) already, have you? 

5.        Mitt strongly hopes he gets a chance to replace more Supreme Court Justices with even more Scalia sock puppets.

 

…and in the immortal words of our 41^st president, father of our current president…” I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”