I wasn’t even supposed to be there. I hadn’t even intended to go, but I couldn’t help it–I’m a daredevil, you see.

Hey, stop laughing. When you’ve said some of the shit I’ve said anonymously, you’ve got to have balls the size of Jupiter to actually show up in public to one of these things. Here’s a scaled chart to demonstrate:

It was a fun time, anyway. Here were my first impressions:

Chef Kevin: Reminds me of Paul Giamatti, minus that asinine sarcasm thing. Good storyteller.

idonotknowme: The first guy I’ve ever seen make Brad Carter stop in his tracks. Holy shit.

Morton Malaise: This man is the de facto drinking buddy. Sonic and Tails, that’s all I have to say.

CJ Summers: Exactly as described by others who’ve met him: a laid-back paragon of politeness.

jadedgirl: Very familiar, this one. Distinctly reminds me of the crowd I hung out with in high school.

Billy Dennis: Personable, but clearly more interested in Chicago Cubs games than blogger bashes.

I don’t recall meeting any other new people, though I may have said hello to Eyebrows McGee or a few others. If I were to describe the group with a single word, I’d have to go with “eclectic.” Naturally, that doesn’t tell you anything. Neener-neener.

UPDATE: I did forget one, probably because he left before the party started. PeoriaIllinoisan - Not at all what I expected. For some reason, I always picture what someone must look like after chatting with them or reading them on the internet. This time I didn’t even get the hair color right.

I was recently having a discussion with a friend over the topic of whether the Egyptians were more technologically advanced than we are. To me, the answer to this is obvious.

The original argument was about social evolution, but somewhere it was suggested that humans lived much longer back then than we do now, which would suggest a significant shift in terms of biological evolution over a very short period of time (around 5000 years). I was skeptical of both points, to say the least. Among the evidence offered for this claim was the Edwin Smith Papyrus which details medical procedures used by the ancient Egyptians.

Considering the fact that the Egyptians had been around (and had been the dominant culture in the region) for 1000-1500 years by the time-range the Edwin Smith Papyrus is believed to have been written, it is really no surprise that Egyptians were able to discover such things. The priests were a part of the government and were more or less allowed free reign to practice their alchemy and, yes, “magic.” Considering the amount of time this went on without interruption (by conquest, for instance), it follows that there would be significant advancements in their knowledge and understanding over the years.

Conceptually, it’s the same as the flourishing of rabbits in Australia, where they were introduced by the English. Having no native natural enemy, their population has rapidly grown to the point of infestation. Likewise, without a natural (formidable) enemy for millenia, the Egyptian empire flourished unchecked in many ways.

(For purposes of clarity, though they had not devised formats or standards such as those described by the scientific method, they were still able to determine what a thing did even if they were unable to explain how it works.)

Let’s consider what else the Egyptians had done by this time:

• Built 15 pyramids, including the ones at Giza.
• Had long since invented writing (at least an estimated 1300 years) in the form of Hieroglyphics.
• Had devised their own functioning form of government which was centuries old.
• Were industrious in the creation of pottery, clothing, art, paper and masonry.
• Had their own calendar based on the position of the star Sirius in the night sky, similar to ways other sky-worshiping cultures kept track of the seasons.

Again, considering the fact that they were the dominant culture in the area for millenia, cultural advancement is not only plausible, but reasonable. There is plenty of evidence to support this statement. What there is not evidence for is the assertion that people of that era (or earlier) lived any longer than we do. In fact, they were more likely to have had shorter average lifespans because of their primitive knowledge of medicine. There is no indication that ancient peoples, whether they lived 5000 years ago or were among the first homo sapiens of 35,000 years ago, were predisposed to living longer than humans today. Furthermore, considering their known accomplishments and utter lack of evidence for advancement surpassing that of modern times, the reasonable conclusion we can come to at this point is that they were not more advanced than we are. As I mentioned in the discussion, the only thing they likely had a better understanding of than we do is their own technology, their own writing, and the significance of their own creations.

(the other sources are here and here, if you’re interested. I haven’t had much of a chance to examine them thoroughly, but that second one looks awfully dodgy.)

At least, that was the case I was trying to argue. I only got a little ways in before the hammer fell: Well you’re just closed-minded.

Jesus Christ.

One of my biggest peeves is the rhetorical use of the “closed-mindedness” as a weapon. The threat of this proverbial scarlet letter has been used to great effect for far too long. It is designed to stifle the conversation by painting the opposition as ignorant; purposefully unwilling or perhaps unable to see things from another perspective. It has become the equivalent of the label “racist” in that if one talks about race in a way you disagree with or dislike for whatever reason, you label them a racist to discredit them, regardless of whether or not it actually applies. The same can be said of its similarities to Godwin’s Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum, where an argument is compared to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis as a way to discredit it and stifle discussion. Since nobody wants to be associated with racism or the Nazis, this comparison is used in hopes of causing the opposition to shrink from their argument so as to avert such a negative association.

More often, it seems, such arguments are used to prove that the person using them is right and the opposing position is wrong. For instance: “Your argument sounds like something Hitler would do, therefore it is not only wrong, but malevolent.” And, as an addendum,”Ergo, my argument is the correct argument.” Forget the obvious flaw in logic that assumes “because Hitler did x, x is bad.” As the wikipedia article rightfully points out, we could make an argument such as “Hitler wore clothes, therefore clothes are bad.” I’ve found people resorting to this tactic when they’re unable to prove or provide evidence that something is bad/wrong/fallacious in and of itself, and instead must associate it with something bad.

Similarly, the “closed-mindedness” method of ad hominem is used based on the misperception that the open-minded side is always the “correct” side, and the closed-minded side is always incorrect. Ironically, it is common to observe the one using the rhetorical device perceiving their view, and only their view, to be open-minded. However, the very usage of this as a weapon often achieves a quite different effect:

“You do not agree with/have dismissed my argument, therefore you are closed-minded.”

See what I mean?

Like Reducio ad Hitlerum, this substitute for a substantive argument works on the fallacious assumption that all closed-mindedness is bad. Towards the end of the discussion, I attempted to illustrate the error of this type of reasoning by asking my friend whether she was open-minded towards committing genocide.

Needless to say, I didn’t take the bait. But it did get me thinking again about what constitutes an open mind and my defense of choosing to be closed to certain subjects. Let us first start with what open-mindedness is not:

1. Treating all ideas and opinions as valid or equal. I am often irked when I hear or see written the words “Remember: All opinions are equally valid.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. There are not many who would consider, for example, the medical opinion of a hair stylist to be as equal or valid as that of a practicing medical doctor. I would go further to assert that the medical opinions of a hair stylist may in fact be invalid due to his or her area of expertise, especially in comparison with one from whom I would seek such an opinion. The claim that well informed opinions are as valid as uninformed opinions is nothing more than a way of being polite. Being an “opinion” does not preclude it from carrying a positive or negative value.
2. The willingness to seriously consider a view regardless of its probabilistic value. Some things aren’t even worth considering. Just as my friend wouldn’t give serious consideration to the merits of committing genocide, I wouldn’t give serious consideration to the merits of hate speech or torture. In fact, when I asked her the question, she more or less outright dismissed it. Why? Because the question itself is absurd. Do we really want to treat ideas such as those of radical Muslim extremists or perhaps the urges of a pedophile as anything but absurd?
3. Discussing absurdity as if it were not absurd. Quick poll: how many of you readers want to negotiate with terrorists to reach a compromise in which we accept some of their lifestyle and principles to make them hate us less? Would any American ever actually consider this? Moreover, would extremists engaged in terrorism accept this amicably without attempting to push the envelope even further? Absolutely not! When we start treating the absurd as valid, we give it an artificial legitimacy it does not deserve. For instance, by the very fact that we’re treating agenda-pushing historical revisionists as coequals when discussing their claims that America was founded on Christianity, we have not only granted them a unearned and fallacious legitimacy they did not previously have, we’ve inadvertently perverted the actual history of this country into something it is not by even considering these as “equally valid” for the sake of being polite!

One should take pride in being labeled closed-minded when dismissing the claim that America was founded on Christianity. The alternative carries a much less desirable label: sucker.

Closed-Mindedness
Despite the obvious faults with using “open-mindedness” as a tool for suppression, admitting to be “closed-minded” towards a topic brings with it a new set of complications. What exactly are you closed to? Which parts are you open to? Why are you closed to it? These are reasonable responses you might get if you’re lucky.

Unequivocally, the most common is the old tried and true ad hominem response by the accuser. Not only is one dismissive of the topic at hand, they’re resultantly opposed learning and trying new things. This is usually asserted by the accuser as an result of frustration and as an attempt to squeeze every ounce out of the “closed” slur, but it is easy to refute: it should be obvious that the latter has nothing whatsoever to do with the former, but it is worth pointing out.

More problematic is explaining why you’re closed to the topic and not, as previously stated, simply “ignorant; purposefully unwilling or perhaps unable to see things from another perspective.” No matter what you say, you’re not going to convince the accuser–by this point it has become a miniature inquisition, so they’ll be looking for nails to hammer you to your proverbial cross. That’s just how it goes.

A formula for handling this isn’t really necessary, because by this point the discussion is pretty much over. When confronted with this, I tend to fall back on evidence. More often than not, evidence is not overly abundant when someone is applying a blanket closed-minded label to me, which, in retrospect, may be why a completely open mind is necessary to consider it. Point out quackery where it’s evident, point out where conjecture substitutes for actual evidence. That’s pretty much all you can do.

What they’re hoping for is that you’ll refuse to even look at their sources. Do yourself a favor and give them a glance. That pretty much refutes any suggestion that you’re simply stubborn. If you’re like me, you won’t spend too much time on it because you recognize it for what it is: a rhetorical device for stifling dissenting views.

—–

I’ve been reading “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins and was more than pleased to see many of my views on the topic paralleled in his argument against the automatic assignment of respect to religious beliefs for no other reason than that they are religious beliefs. He even alluded to the flaws of perfect open-mindedness in his argument “The Poverty of Agnosticism.” At least it’s not just me.

Anyway, I’ve seen this old chestnut thrown about countless times. My usual response is a groan and a mutter, but I really didn’t expect it from today’s contributor. I try as hard as I can to stay away from the open/closed labels for all the reasons listed above, but sometimes it slips out. I’m hoping today was one of those cases.

The problem I often encounter–especially among fellow liberal thinkers–is the notion that complete open-mindedness is some noble or intellectual thing to aspire to. The main problem with this is: A) everyone is open to something and B) everyone is closed to something. That’s being painfully lenient, too. The fact of the matter is, everybody is closed to numerous different things because of their absurdity or undesirability. Likewise, nobody is closed to everything. In short, all-encompassing terms such as “open-minded” or “closed-minded” are not only vague, but rather inaccurate.

To me, such terms are obsolete. Instead, I will try to make more specific distinctions between rationality and irrationality as it pertains to a topic. There are far fewer inaccurate connotations associated with those words.

—–

Blarg! I’ll be glad when all this moving is taken care of. Tonight I’m going to try to pull all of our stuff out of the basement (including my office, oh, the tribulation!), then load the back of my truck with things I’m throwing away. The actual moving date is on Saturday, and the National Weather Service says it’s supposed to be 94 degrees… and since this post has been free from vulgarity thus far, I might as well say it: god dammit. Wish me luck.

I guess it lives to see another day.

Apparently the renewal for the site was still set to automatically charge the card it was registered under. That leaves me in a bit of a tight spot, but it looks like I’ll be blogging bitching for another year. Hurrah.

First I must apologize for the lack of notice that the site was going away. My wife had to leave her job recently since her scumbag employers forced her to work in dangerous conditions. Then there was the staggering amount of incompetence displayed by her supervisors, ridiculous shifts, the refusal to schedule days off, horrible mismanagement and unprofessional behavior all around. The place was a fetid little shit hole and I hope their headquarters burns to the ground.

Unfortunately, this basically ruined our ability to pay bills. Coupled with some family-related scumbaggery, we’re swiftly on our way down to the bottom of the proverbial barrel: moving in with my parents. Oh, to swallow my pride.

Getting to work cost about 400 dollars a month on a fuel-efficient compact. Energy bills cost about 500 a month since Ameren has decided to demand its little ransom in the form of a $600 deposit. The company I’ve been shelling out $260 bucks a month to for health insurance decided it wasn’t going to pay for any of our routine checkups at the doctor’s office, and will undoubtedly be sued in the face if they don’t change their tune.

On the bright side, moving back to the Peoria area has its perks: no 2 hour commute, far less money wasted on gas, no electric bills, no other bills but a meager $250 for rent and the generic costs of living for things such as food and beer. My parents will get to see their grandson whenever they want and will have help of their own with bills and shitty house jobs. Not that they need it all that much.

The downside, as any who have had to resort to parental symbiosis can attest, is self-evident. We’ve already started packing and moving things into storage.

—————

In other news, I love when uber-conservative bastards get backed into a corner, especially on the internet. When you nail ‘em to the wall and expose their reasoning and claims to be nothing but well-marketed baby shit presented in a fancy diaper, they just delete your response. Owned.  FUCK!  It was deleted by accident.  There goes my day.

I’m still working on the redesign of the site. There are still changes to come, fortunately they’re the good kind this time.

Can anyone tell me what would happen if you or I disobeyed a congressional subpoena to testify before the House Judiciary Committee? We’d be held in contempt, arrested, then dragged to the Capitol Building in Washington D.C., then sworn in and been forced to testify. Our lawyers would be karate chopped in the neck if they tried to intervene by asserting that we were immune to having to do jack or shit for them.

So tell me why Karl fucking Rove, a private citizen, thinks he can get away with it? His lawyer seems to think that he’s protected by executive privilege, which apparently extends from the president to anyone he goddam pleases. Newsflash, Rover, you resigned. You’re ours now, shitfeast, so waddle your pasty ass down to the congressional chambers and spill your rotten guts! Nobody buys this “executive privilege” bullshit anymore, so if you’re not going to comply, you might as well flee the country now. Either way, you’re a guilty-looking bastard.

Honestly, why the fuck are we being coy with these crooks? Forget the skeletons in their closets, they’ve got corpses in there that are still rotting. Can’t you smell it? If these scumbags had nothing to lose they wouldn’t be acting like they do. Complying with a congressional subpoena is not an admission of guilt but running from one is!!

It’s about goddamn time for a second revolution. We have experienced the most aggressive, radically authoritarian agenda this country has ever been subjected to. The courts are stacked with dirty, corrupt Neo-Con hacks, the corporate elite are harmoniously ass-fucking the rest of us with the federal government and getting paid to do it; and now we’re stuck in a perpetual, corporate-benefiting war paid for by you and me.

Especially telling of the times, the United States Congress as a ruling body is impotent and unfit for passing legislation, oversight, appropriate regulation and especially upholding the Constitution–and they’ve all been bought and paid for by the “flawless and innocent” private sector. Not only are they completely unable to stand up to one who is, by even the most relaxed definition, an American dictator, they can’t even get his aides or former advisors to show up to a mandatory summons!

Well I’m not having it. I wasn’t born into a fascist totalitarian nation and have no desire to live in some kind of Orwellian theocracy. For the longest time I’ve said we’re on our way there, and son, we’re knocking on the door. Jesus Christ, we have an administration made up of war criminals! Go ahead. Click it. Tell me if you recognize anything.

The day we treat our public figures as being above the law–the day we allow them to assert immunity from criticism or oversight–is the day democracy dies, period. If ever there were a time to revolt, it is now.

Wingnuts:  still crazy.  Fortunately, it’s easy to spot when they’re desperate.  I was reading an ABC News blog from about a month ago which revealed that Obama had fallen off the non-smoker wagon.

Everyone knows a smoker. To most people, it’s not a big deal… unless you’re a conservative tool and the smoker is a Democrat running for President.

Seriously, people?

I have a love-hate relationship with blog comments on news websites. On one hand, it’s useful for finding out what people are saying. On the other, it is almost always a stunning manifesto of futility.

According to the commenters at abcnews.com, these are the reasons Obama shouldn’t be president, with appropriate responses by yours truly:

“Smoking shows his bad judgment.”

Yes. Because Republicans have been paragons of good judgment. Just look at the decision to fight in Iraq. Or how about the response to Hurricane Katrina? Jesus, that’s like an all-you-can-eat buffet of incompetence. Let’s see, we have the military telling volunteers and aid agencies that they can’t enter the area to help. What else… oh, levy maintenance, the failed implementation of an evacuation plan, formaldehyde-contaminated FEMA trailers…

How about education? Republicans, your judgment has led to all these fine outcomes of the NCLB Act: lowered standards/expectations, a steep decline in the availability of advanced placement courses, lowered taxes causing schools to cut back other programs and activities, and requires schools to provide all the students’ information to military recruiters (caught ya, you warmongering bastards).

If we have a question about yachting or golfing, or things like denying health care to sick children, we’ll come to you. You’re in no position to lecture about judgment. Hell, you don’t even recognize bad judgment when you see it. Per Bush: “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job!” ‘Nuff said.

“Smoking means that he has a flawed character and an illogical mind.”

…said the guy who thinks teaching Creationism/ID is a viable alternative to teaching science.

“Smoking means he can’t handle stress and needs a crutch.”

It’s better than being a boozed up coke-head throughout your twenties and thirties. Again, no moral high ground here.

“He’s a liar because he said he quit!”

And you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand the nature of addiction.

“He’s sending a bad message to our children!”

This is one I heard a lot of. “What about the children? My kids might start smoking!” Look, if your kids start smoking, it’s because you didn’t teach them not to. Got that? You’re the parent, their failure is your failure. Don’t you have any control over your life or your kids? Why are you asking others to do it for you? Isn’t that what you cons accuse the liberals of doing?

Ah, res ipsa loquitur.

“We condemned Bill Clinton for having an affair, so we should condemn Barack Obama for smoking.”

Yes, because both are ethically equivalent. He might as well have raped a child, right?
“Smoking is not a noble behavior, and we can’t have a man with a non-noble behavior as president. And I hate him.”

Hatred isn’t a noble behavior either.

“He’s not showing us his birth certificate, so he can’t be president!”

It’s good to know that the Republicans still care about the important things in this election.  But wait, what’s that?  McCain smoked two packs a day for 25 years? Go, go gadget Implacable Outrage!!

*chirp*chirp*

Chads are everywhere. My brother first introduced me to this idea after hanging around with some frat guys, then noticed some patterns. According to him, every fraternity has a guy named Chad. Chad has many roles, from being the drunk party guy, the asshole jock, or just that cool dude you go to bars with.

I noticed it as well. First, the idea that guys with names like “Chad” might want to join fraternities just made sense for some reason. Second, I found that the number of Chads I knew was mostly proportionate to the amount of fraternities I had acquaintances for. On occasion, a house would have more than one Chad, which threw off the numbers a bit.

To this day, every single person I’ve asked has confirmed that yes, Chad was in their frat.

Today, I decided to reverse the question to see if I’d get the same results. I work with a Chad and ran into him while he was outside having a cigarette. I interrupted his conversation with his boss to ask “Will you help me confirm a theory?” I then asked if he was ever in a fraternity and y’know what he said?

You guessed it.

Another guy who works there started shooting the bull with Chad about their frat experiences. So I turned to him and asked,”was there a Chad in your frat too?” Sure enough, he had one. I swear, you could go into any frat house in the United States and say,”hey, is Chad here?” and you’d get a response like,”Oh yeah, Chad’s upstairs.”

Why? Because every frat has a Chad.