Quick Hitts

Imagine you’re sitting in your boss’s office for your annual performance review. Your boss says you’re doing well, you’ve improved in several key areas, you’ve contributed to the bottom line of the company, but you need to work on keeping your voice down in your cubicle and try to fart less. (Oh, wait, that was my last performance review, not yours. Sorry.) He tells you that he’d been planning on giving you a 6% raise, but because of budget issues he can only give you a 5% raise. 

Would you freak out? Would you bitch and moan about how many things your family was going to have to cut back on?

This is exactly what’s happening with the sequester “cuts”. (Well, not exactly. Government hasn’t improved, not even a little.) We’re told that horrible horrible things are going to happen because there was a small decrease of the increase in the budget.

The administration is doing everything they can to make the cuts painful. When Charles Brown, a director at the Department of Agriculture ‘s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] was asked about about managing the cuts to minimize the impact, he replied, ““However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.” In other words, make it hurt.

Meanwhile, the same agency is planning a conference described as “a “mouthwatering event” featuring “fine wines and exceptional micro-brews paired with seasonally driven culinary delicacies.” Good thing they’re not cutting back on anything important.

Whenever my local school district wants more money, which they can only get by convincing us to vote for even higher property taxes, they always threaten to cut sports and music programs. Always. They never try to cut the six-figure salaries of administrators – they don’t even like to admit those exist. Instead they try to trigger an emotional response to con us into forking over even more.

The Obama administration is pulling the same kind of stunt, shutting down White House tours and threatening other programs that people respond to emotionally. The fact that this is a decrease of an increase is largely ignored by Obamafans, but even some Democrats are cringing at the stupidly being spewed. My favorite, so far, is Maxine Waters’ claim that the cuts will cost 170 million American jobs. Cool trick, considering that there are about 155 million jobs in the country. We’ll have 110% unemployment!

Smaller government is generally better government, but this doesn’t cut things nearly enough to make any real difference. When I become president the first thing I’ll do is a 25% across the board cut for nearly every federal agency, and the wholesale elimination of at least 10% of them. I can’t wait to hear Maxine’s response to that.

Last year a group of atheists and skeptics decided that the only correct mode of thought was far left humanism and militant, man-hating feminism. They created the A+ movement as a response to those who dared to push-back against their nonsense. Their occasionally interesting blogs were transformed into cesspools of self-righteous name calling. They drove their most interesting writers away, leaving behind a relativity small group of miscreants who spend most of their time searching, searching, searching for something they can whine about. In nearly every case they misrepresent what the author actually said. Context doesn’t matter. Intent doesn’t matter. The author’s history and record and previous writings don’t mater. The only thing that matters is that someone feeds their desperate need for attention.

The most prominent among them are Rebecca Watson and PZ Meyers. In the past they occasionally provided insights and interesting takes on things, but these days they and their cronies spend most of their time desperately looking for something to be offended by and pissed off about.

The rift they created is now being discussed in the mainstream press, making the entire atheist movement look bad.

There are two ways to feel good about yourself. The first is to actually accomplish something. It can be something great or something trivial, but as long as it’s something you can be proud of, you can point to it, say, “I did that,” and feel good about yourself.

The second way is to look down on other people. We all do it to some extent, but some people use it as their primary source of self-esteem. They convince themselves they are morally superior to anyone who disagrees with them. They often season their disdain with a persecution complex.

The A-plusers have mastered the second technique. They carefully examine everything said or written by any atheist or skeptic outside of their self-important clique. The moment someone says anything they don’t like (and they don’t like much), they go into attack mode. They call out the offender by name, twisting their words out of context to present them in the worst possible light.

The natural response by those attacked is to defend themselves. They spend a great deal of time and effort explaining what they really meant, often inducing a detailed personal history that counters the accusations. This is the natural, obvious response to this kind of attack, but I’d like to suggest a different approach.

Ignore them.

Every time you address their spurious arguments and deeply dishonest accusations, they get the attention they crave. You’re training them that they can remain the center of their own universe simply by string up shit wherever the attention starts to fade.

Ignoring them very, very difficult to do. Our natural response, especially to potentially reputation-damaging accusations, is to defend ourselves. But every time we do it, we’re training them to keep flinging poo in our direction.

I made this suggestion to someone they’d targeted, and she replied that it was important to defend herself. She does a lot of freelance work, and was concerned that a potential client or employer would run a search on her name and see the accusation. If she didn’t respond she might lose the gig.

This is a legitimate concern. A friend lost two paying gigs because someone Googled his name and was offended by a conversation the two of us had on this very blog. (I made a change that removed it from Google’s radar.) I’m sure I’ve missed being hired once or twice because someone Googled my name and was offended by some opinion I’ve expressed here or elsewhere on the web. The only sure way to avoid that is to keep quiet on the net, which isn’t in our nature.

But in the long run defending yourself against these bogus accusations from the A-plussers is counter-productive. It inspires them to repeat their dishonest behavior. Linking back to their accusations improves their search engine ranking, making it more likely their nonsense will come up when someone searches for your name.

Some of the people pulling this crap achieved their original prominence by offering insights and worthwhile conversations, but now they’re like poorly mannered children at an adult party.  They are jumping up and down in the living room, waving their arms and shouting nonsense in a desperate attempt to get the grownups to abandon their conversations with each other and pay attention to them.

Don’t feed the beast. Dismiss them as you would a any other tiresome troll. It’s not easy, especially when they mention you by name, but it’s the only way to get rid of them.

“Oh, it’s just Rebecca Watson. Pffft. Did you like the latest Bond movie?”

“Oh, it’s just PZ Meyers. Ho hum, what’s for dinner?”

“Oh, it’s an A-Plusser making noise? Not now, I’m having a conversation with the grown-ups.”

My morning ritual starts with making a French press full of coffee. Grind the beans, heat the water… I can do it in my sleep, which is good, because before I have that first cup I’m barely conscious. The first sip from the first cup makes me feel more alert immediately, far quicker than the caffeine can actually kick in.

As we become a more secular society we abandon specific rituals, and ritual in general, which is a mistake. Rituals provide a rote series of actions to do without a lot of thought and help us relax, calm down a bit and clear our minds, leaving us better able to focus on the next task.

One of my favorite rituals is walking the dog. It starts with picking out a cigar, a ritual in and of itself. I check out my humidor and select one. Do I want something something strong or medium, spicy or earthy, mellow or kick-ass? How long will the walk be? (Longer walks require longer cigars.) By this time the dog is getting excited, because he knows that when I open the humidor it usually means he’s going for a walk. That brings up the ritual of teasing him just a bit (“you want to go for a WALK?A *Walk?* Is that what you want?”), getting his head leash on, and then selecting the appropriated outerwear for myself.

I clip and light the cigar in the front yard – yet another ritual. Sam always holds the leash in his mouth for the first block, then I take it from him until we reach the place on the wooded path where I can let him run free. He immediately runs to the woods and takes a dump – he has his rituals too.

And all this time I’m not thinking about problems or my finances or my job or family issues or politics or the news or friends or frenemies or the next article or podcast or conversation or anything else that’s important to me. I do think about such things during the walk, but not during the ritual of getting ready for it. That few minutes of thoughtless ritual is calming and refreshing.

If you don’t have any rituals, intentionally add a few to your life. They can be a source of calm and relaxation, even if they’re short. They don’t have to have any special meaning – it is the meaninglessness that makes them work.

Shirley Einhorn, my mother-in-law, died two weeks ago. She was generous and smart and talented, and her death has left all of us stunned and devastated. 

She was an avid reader who liked buying her favorite author’s hard-cover novels as soon as they came out. She’d also bought a Nook, and although she was comfortable with most technology, she found it clumsy and obnoxious and difficult to use; a poor imitation of the vastly superior Kindle. I tried it and agreed with her.

Going through her things, my wife found an unopened, unused Nook case and asked me to return it to Barnes & Noble.

There was no receipt in the bag, so I expected to be issued a gift card. It would probably be for their lowest sale price. Cases and accessories are usually outrageously overpriced. She probably paid forty bucks for it, and I figured I’d get a GC for half of that.

I waited in line and the first clerk I talked to said she couldn’t process returns, but the other clerk behind the counter could. I waited while that clerk’s slow-motion customer finished her purchase, then stepped up and told her why I was returning the cover.
She asked if I had the card that was used to purchase it. “No,” I said, “I have no way of knowing what card she used, or even if she used a card.”

“I’m sorry,” she said, “without a receipt or the card we can’t do anything for you.”
“Seriously? This was bought from here, and since the purchaser died, I have no way of verifying the purchase. I’d be happy with a gift card.”

“I’m sorry.”

“Are you willing to lose a customer, forever, over a purchase this small?”

“I’m sorry, there’s nothing I can do.” Then she helpfully added, “Next time be sure to save the receipt.”

I left, angry and annoyed. I won’t be back. Ever.

I didn’t shop there often – maybe three or four times a year – but now I’ll be shopping there zero times a year. Free Clue, B&N: In today’s market no retailer can afford to piss off any customer, even one who only shops there occasionally. Shopping elsewhere is easy, cheaper, and fun. You’re barely staying alive, and this is one of the reasons. You just might want to review your return policy, while you still can.

State and Federal Legislators are trying to rush gun restrictions into law before the memory of Sandy Hook fades. It’s important they capitalize on fear, paranoia, and the innumeracy of the pubic before people lose interest and turn their attention to something else.

Many of the restrictions seem reasonable, like background checks, licensing and tests for mental competency. But even the most reasonable restrictions must be opposed, and opposed vehemently, for one very good reason: We know how nannies work. We have already seen their master plan in action.

When anti-smokers asked for, and received, a law mandating smoking and non-smoking sections in airplanes, there was little objection. It was a perfectly reasonable request. After it was in place for a while, they asked for, and received, a smoking ban on flights of less than two hours. That also sounded reasonable.

Imagine, back then, someone raising the following objection: “Folks, if you put this in place, it will eventually lead to a jihad against smokers. Smoking will be banned everywhere. Businesses will be prohibited from providing rooms where their employees can smoke. You won’t be able to smoke in a bar, fer chrisakes. When smokers obligingly go outside to smoke, nannies will complain they’re standing too close to the door, so laws will be passed forcing them to stand fifteen feet from any door or window. Then thirty feet. Smoking will be banned in parks and beaches and in private vehicles. Entire universities will prohibit it anywhere on their campus. People will be banned from smoking  in their own homes.”

Anyone making such a claim back then would have been brushed off a loony, but that’s exactly what’s happened. The nannies got one rule, one seemingly reasonable restriction in place, then paused while people got used to it. Then they demanded another restriction, got it, and paused again. Then they did it again, and again, and again. It took them fifty years of baby steps to get to where they are now, and they’re still pushing for even more restrictions.

The anti-gun lobby does not want anyone but the government to own weapons. That is their end goal, but they’re not foolish enough to try to reach that goal immediately. Few of them will even admit it. Ban all guns? Naw, not them. Never! All they want is to make them safer, or to make sure they’re registered so the government knows who has what, or to make sure that mentally unstable people can’t get to them, or to make the magazines smaller, or to limit guns that look scary. That’s all. Simple. Reasonable.

Baby steps.

The general public examines their current proposals, thinks about them, reacts to them, and many people support to the ones they think are reasonable. They think that once those reasonable restrictions are in place that will be the end of it. They assume that anyone opposing such things must be come kind of foaming-at-the-mouth gun nut. (And to be fair, there are a few honest-to-goodness foamy gun nuts involved in the conversation.) They are either unaware of the nanny master plan or think that it’s different this time.

It’s not. It never is.

So when people resist any attempts at any restrictions, restrictions you think are perfectly reasonable, don’t assume they’re just some violent whack-job that wants everyone to carry RPGs on the street.  They may be people who have looked at the numbers and seen that violent crime is lowest where gun ownership is highest. They may be folks who have studied history and learned that the first thing any tyrant does is disarm the public. They may have concluded that the eleven thousand gun homicides every year in the US are outweighed by the hundreds of thousands of crimes prevented annually by gun-wielding citizens. And maybe, just maybe, they know and understand how nannies of all sorts work, and so understand the importance of opposing any restrictions they want, on anything, ever.

It’s the only reasonable stance to take.

Southington, Connecticut, thinks they have a solution to violence. They’re offering a $25 gift card for every violent video game that’s turned in. The games will be incinerated, probably just with matches, although it would be much cooler if they destroyed them with a flamethrower or a BFG.

They don’t define what makes a game violent. Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty obviously qualify, but what about Diablo II and Starcraft? Rise of Nations features tiny solders killing each other. Football is a violent sport – how about a three-year-old copy of Madden?

I wish I lived close enough to take advantage of their foolishness. I have lots of old games I’ve played and am done with. I never buy them when they first come out – I always wait until the price drops and buy them out of the cheepie bins. I have a shelf full of games that cost five or ten bucks. There are even a couple unopened packages in my collection: A five-dollar intro to World of Warcraft and a promotional disk for Conan the Barbarian someone gave me at a convention. I could take several hundred dollars from these silly people.

“There is ample evidence that violent video games, along with violent media of all kinds, including TV and Movies portraying story after story showing a continuous stream of violence and killing, has contributed to increasing aggressiveness, fear, anxiety and is desensitizing our children to acts of violence including bullying,” wrote John Myers, a spokesperson for the program. “Social and political commentators, as well as elected officials including the president, are attributing violent crime to many factors including inadequate gun control laws, a culture of violence and a recreational culture of violence.”

There are a few little problems with his claims. First off, most elected officials are experts at getting re-elected, and little else. Social and political commentators are often quite ignorant about whatever they’re pontificating on. Free clue, Mr. Myers: their yammering isn’t proof of anything, ever, on any subject.

Let’s take a look at the “ample evidence” Mr. Meyers talks about. It’s….hang on….wait a minute…still looking…damn. There isn’t any. Not even a little. In fact, we could argue that increased video game violence reduces real-world violence.

Let’s start by agreeing with their premise that video games have become more and more violent over the years. Part of it is the technology – improved graphics allow for more realistic gore. Now let’s look at the sales numbers – American’s spend more on video games than any other form of entertainment, and violent games are among the most popular. Sales of such games rise every year. We’ll avoid the tedium of breaking it down to specific numbers and just give them that point.

Now all we have to do is look rate violent crimes committed in the US and compare them to video game sales.

Oops.

The rate of violent crime has been steadily dropping for the past thirty years. There was a spike last year, but the rate is still far below what it was three decades ago. It would be simple, with a few charts and graphs, to “prove” violent video games reduce violence. We could bolster this argument by adding some pseudo psychological babble about providing an outlet and escape valves and teaching children to cope with blah blah blah. This would be just as silly as blaming violent games for real-life violence, but if we did it carefully enough it would fool a lot of people.

These are all facts, of course, and mere facts are seldom enough to convince the unsmartenized masses, who will continue to clamor for crackdowns on anything they don’t like. But if you live near Southington, Connecticut, at least you have an opportunity to profit from their ignorance. Grab all the old, beat, discarded video games you can find and turn them into cash. Use it to go to a violent movie or buy a bloody video game, and claim you’re doing it to help reduce crime.

More Info:

I glommed the graphics from two good articles on the subject:

The NRA: oblivious and talking
Crime and Victimization Rates: Are Our Streets Still Safe?