Quick Hitts

Alternate Title: Shark Lessons

“The funniest thing to a great white shark must be a wounded seal trying to swim to shore, because, where does he think he’s going?”
–  Jack Handey

It’s fun to mess with Jehovah’s Witnesses who knock on your door, but most people find it difficult to throw them off their message. It’s like thinking you’re going to get the best of a used car salesman. You’re not. He sells cars every day and gets frequent training. You buy one car every few years. He sees you trying to swim to shore and it’s the funniest thing.

Witnesses go to five meetings a week. Two of them consist of training on how to overcome the very objections you’re throwing at them. They’ve also got experience – they’ve been bothering people for years, sometimes decades.

A while back I did a podcast that detailed one technique for dealing with them. It’s fun, but the process takes a while. Here are a couple of other responses that can be almost as devastating in far less time.

When doing this, always be polite and friendly. You are the shark, and you’re going to make them your chum. (Sorry.)

Early in these conversations I tell them I was raised as a fundamentalist and am now an atheist who remains fascinated with religion. I tell them that I’ve studied most religions, including theirs. All of that is true, and explains how I know so much about the bible in general and their religion in particular. I don’t tell them that I used to be one of them, because they’d have to stop talking to me immediately, depriving me of my fun. They are deathly afraid of “apostates” and run away from us, sometimes literally.*

The World is A Horrible Place

One of their standard openings is “how bad things are in the world.” They’ll mention wars and the economy and other ills of the day, then ask, “Things are getting worse and worse. Don’t you agree?” Everyone does, which lets them launch into their “solution.” (God’s going to take care of it, so get on his side.)

Instead, tell them that they’re wrong. “No, the world keeps getting better, faster. We’re all going to live twice as long as people did a mere century ago, and that’s because of science, not religion. Crime has been dropping for the past twenty years, and keeps going down. Teenage pregnancy is down. So is teenage drug use. A decade ago it cost an enormous amount to make a long-distance phone call. Today I can talk to someone on the other side of the world, instantaneously, for as long as I want, for free. I have a disease that used to be debilitating and a death sentence, now, because of science and medicine, it’s a minor pain in the ass. Things just keep getting better and better.”

Most of them have never heard this response and it really throws them. They may try to get specific, pointing out some particular incident or world issue. Twist the conversation back to generalities. “Yes, that was horrible, but on average those kinds of things are happening less and less.” Keep insisting that the world is getting better while they insist it’s getting worse. Observe their condition, which is known as getting flusterated.

The Movie Question

This is my favorite, one of my own recipes for filleting these fish

You: “So you believe that eventually most of us will live forever here on earth, is that correct?”

Shark Bait: “Yes.”

You: “And you believe there will be no death or disease or nations or crime or anything bad, correct?”

S.B. : “Yes.”

You: “Will you have novels and movies?”

S.B. : {Long pause while that rarest of things, a new idea, clatters around inside his head before it settles down so he can take a look at it.} “Yeah, I guess. I don’t see why not.”

You: “Great, because I love novels and movies. Just one more question on this subject. What will they be about?”

S.B. : {Sensing a trap is about to snap shut and it’s too late to escape}. “What. . .what do you mean?”

You: “The subject, the plot, the story. They’ll be no crime, no adultery, no lying, no cheating, no natural disasters, no monsters, no addictions, no death, no wars, so what will your movies and novels be about? What kind of plots will they have? How can you have any story if there’s no conflict?  Could you give me an example of a novel in your perfect world?”

Enjoy his next few moments of stunned terror. Savor the deep silence, a silence that’s far more intense than lesser, unterrified silences. Suppress a smile as he tries to recover and sputter a reply that makes little sense to either of you.

Continue the conversation along this line for as long as you can keep from laughing.

As with any other sport, you’ll get better with practice. It’s unlikely you’ll get the same J-Dubs the next time, so you can use the same routines over and over. Just keep practicing and honing and improving them every time they bother you. Give yourself points based on how rattled they get. One point for a stutter, two for a sputter, another two points each time they touch their head. If you’re really good you may witness a demonstration of flop sweat, which gets you twenty points.

You win all the points if they physically back up so slowly that they’re not even aware they’re doing it. When you see that, smile a toothy smile, because, where do they think they’re going?

___
* If you’d rather just get rid of them you can use their fear of apostates to scare them away permanently. Use the magic word and they will mark you on their territory cards (little cards with maps on them) so no one will visit you again. The magic word is “disfellowshipped.” (Don’t use “excommunicated” or any other term, or they’ll know you’re faking it.) Just say “I’m sorry, I’m disfellowshipped.” They will race away like cartoon animals, making little cartoon clouds of dust and that pacheewww sound.

This article takes the time to carefully debunk these claims by a fundy anti-choice group. I saw it when some skeptic friends posted it on some social network sites.  They were upeset at the nonsense the fundies were spewing.

I look at it a quite differently. This kind of hyperbole is a powerfully good thing.

Think about the intended audience, the people the authors of such nonsense are trying to influence. It consists of young fundies who really want to get laid. Some of them are such hard-core believers that nothing is going to get through to them. They gobble up the myths and re-spew them, using it to strengthen their armor against reality, while fervently praying to their god for forgiveness every time they finish masturbating. No report or article or logic is going to have any effect on them, ever.

But there is a subset within that group, a fairly large one, who are beginning to notice that everything they’re being taught has the odor of bullshit. They are, slowly, growing a bullshit meter, and if it becomes fully functional it will make them abandon their cult and accept reality.

I speak from experience. I was one of those kids, and the funky, not-quite-right BS spewed by my cult was the primary thing that woke me up. “Wait, that can’t be right. Let me dig some more.” Back then research required a trip to the library. Now such forbidden knowledge is just a few clicks away.

When a scientist’s mistake is exposed we say “Cool, that’s how science works.” New facts, even facts that change our whole understanding of reality, are celebrated. Mistakes are a good thing because they give us another opportunity to learn something. But fundy cults teach that their “knowledge” is 100% inspired of God, and therefore infallible. This means a doubter may need just one piece of bullshit to pierce their armor. “Hold on, that’s wrong. Which means their claim of 100% perfection is wrong. Which means….”

Doctrines that are just slightly off, just vaguely goofy, won’t be enough to drive a wedge into the cracks in their armor. But things like this, which are completely off the wall, can. The more of this kind of nonsense they’re inundated with, the faster their BS meter will develop and the quicker they’ll leave the world of spooks and demons.

Brains and curiosity are deadly to cult beliefs. My mother once said to me, “If you weren’t so smart you’d be able to accept The Truth.” She was on the right track, but it wasn’t brains that killed my faith. It was curiosity. Articles like this can arouse that deadly curiosity, which leads, usually slowly but often inevitably, to embracing reality.

So bring it on, fundy leaders. Bring it on by the bucket-load, the truck load, the boxcar load. Because the more spew your spew the faster you’ll help purge your flock of thinking people, which is better for us, and ultimately, better for you, too.

After Standard & Poor downgraded the credit rating of the US, the government announced they were investigating S&P for “improper ratings.”

What a punk-ass move.

They claim the investigation started before the downgrade. I’m guessing that several months ago, somewhere in the bowels of the government, a conversation took place between a few government weasels.

Weasel #1: It’s likely S&P will downgrade our credit rating. We need to be ready for that.

Weasel #2: But how? They’re highly respected in the financial world.

Weasel #3: How about a Justice department investigation?

Weasel #2: Over what? All they’re doing is selling their opinion to willing customers. Even if we disagree, it’s not like they’ve done anything wrong.

Weasel #1: They don’t have to do anything wrong, they just have to be accused of doing something wrong. We’ll get started now, and if they don’t downgrade us we’ll back off. If they do, we’ll wait a couple of weeks and then announce we’ve been investigating them since before the downgrade.

Weasel #2 :But that’s so pathetically transparent. Americans are too stupid to fall for that.

In response Weasels #1 and #3 laughed so hard they peed a little.

This provides another tweak Smartenized people can apply to their bullshit meter. Adjust the creditably of an organization slightly upward if they’re the target of a government investigation.

It’s easier to learn from bad writing than from good writing. Good writers integrate the techniques of their craft so smoothly it’s often difficult to figure out exactly what they’ve done. It’s like enjoying a great dish prepared by a master chef – you know it’s delicious, but can’t quite figure out the ingredients or techniques he used. Bad writing, on the other hand, is easy to spot. Sloppy or incompetent techniques stick out like a sore thumb, reminding you “don’t do this.”

That last sentence, for instance. Cliche similes and metaphors snap discriminating readers out of the spell you’re casting. It taps them on the shoulder and whispers in their ear, “He’s not very good, is he?” Do it too often and that whisper becomes a shout.

The other day I started reading “The Jury Master”  by Robert Dugoni. The book was covered with blurbs praising it’s sharp writing and perfectly drawn chacacters.

The cliches started on page two.

“Steiner had a head of thinning silver hair, a smile that could melt butter…”

“The light flashed – blinding white that sent a lightning bolt of pain shooting from the base of his skull to a dagger point behind the eyes.” Wow, three Clichés in one sentence. That’s not easy to do.

“For the moment her steel-blue eyes…” Could we maybe get some eyes compared to a different kind of metal?  Might I suggest aluminum?

“The vein in his neck – the one that bulged when he became angry – protruded above the collar of his starched white shirt like a swollen river.” That one isn’t a cliche. It’s just really bad. When you visualize it the proportions are ridiculous to the point of being goofy.

“He buttoned his jacket and approached the jury, but they now refused to acknowledge him and left him standing at the railing like an unwelcome relative – hoping that if they ignored him long enough he would just go away.” The “unwelcome relative” is fine. (At least he didn’t mention a red-headed stepchild). He should have stopped right there, but instead he continues on and ruins it with yet another cliche.

“They fell like dominoes…”  Come on.

“Short of living in fear, barring our doors and windows and living in cages like animals…”

That was all in chapter one. When chapter two presented me with “like finding a needle in a haystack” and “He looked like a deer caught in headlights,” I lost all interest in reading any further.

While you’re writing, in the zone and the words are just pouring out, it’s easy to slap in a cliche, intending to fix it later. Later, while editing, it’s easy to miss it or even convince yourself that it’s not all that bad. If stopping to come up with a more clever comparison will interrupt your writing flow, just insert a note for the next edit. For instance, rather than writing “he stuck out like a sore thumb,” add “he {need metaphor – out of place}” and continue writing.  If you do use an offending phrase highlight it with a colored background, which makes it easy to find and impossible to ignore.  (I use yellow for things that need to be rewritten/replaced, and pink for things that need further research.)  Sometimes your bracketed description will provide the inspiration – either now or later – for something fresher, like “he stuck out like a hillbilly at a debutante ball.”

If you have trouble inventing good metaphors and similes, just leave them out entirely. They are an optional tool. You can write well without them. Personally, I like ’em, and they usually come to me like…like…something and, um…something else. I’ll have to go back and fix that later.

I’m not surprised that the federal government is telling us what kind of light bulbs we can use. There is no aspect of our lives too trivial for them to meddle in and no excuse too ludicrous for them to use as justification. It’s disheartening to see how many Americans United Statists think this is a good idea. What’s even more disheartening is that I’m not surprised by that either.

I have a few questions for such folks who might have stumbled across this blog. (I can’t imagine they’d be regular readers.) I’m familiar with your argument that Big Brother must look out for the well being of everyone and we must sacrifice freedoms to him when he, in his wisdom, decides that we must do X or stop doing Y for the “common good” and the “general welfare.” Enlighten me with your answers in the comments.

If BB can take away our right to decide something this minor, this trivial, how can you possibly stand against him on bigger issues? If the federal government is wise enough to make decisions this small for us then they must be wise enough to decide much larger issues. Since they’ve decided that the general welfare is best served by limiting marriage to men and women only, who are we to question them? Their TSA “porn or molestation” choice is obviously borne of their deep concern for our safety and their genius at providing it, so when our six year old is being fondled shouldn’t we just smile and say “thank you, Big Brother?” Police busting down doors of homes and shooting the pets and people inside because someone might be growing a forbidden plant should be celebrated, not vilified, because they are doing it for the common good.

The counter argument that we must pick and choose among BBs policies and decide which to support and which to fight and/or ignore is a cop out. Besides, we can’t. It doesn’t matter if you’re growing a forbidden plant or selling a forbidden light bulb. The same men with the same guns will put you in the same cages. You don’t get to pick and choose. Nation of laws, and all that.

Here’s my bottom line.  I am not smart enough to tell you how to light your house, which intoxicants you should choose or reject, or what you should do with your genitals. Those decisions should be yours and yours alone. You are not smart enough to make those decisions for me either. Even if one of us were smart enough it would be morally wrong for one of us to make those decisions for the other – and extraordinarily wrong when we enforced those decisions at the point of a gun.

Washington DC is not smarter than either of us. Or any of us. They have shown us and time again that they are idiots. Not just kinda dumb, “aw grandpa, what did you do this time” dumb, but blatant, mouth-breathing, drooling idiots. With guns. And cages. If you don’t want them pointing those guns at you, and/or tossing you in cages (either literally or figuratively) then you need to fight against all of their unnecessary intrusions into our lives, not just those you happen to disagree with. Then, and only then, can you discard the moniker of United Statist and call yourself an American.

I’m noticing that more and more United Statists exhibit a complete lack of imagination on a more and more subjects. Not just a weak imagination, not a stifled barely functioning imagination, but no trace of imagination at all.

To experience this first-hand try discussing atheism with a hard core fundamentalist. They’ll insist atheists don’t actually exist. They are too wrapped up in their belief to even imagine the possibility anyone could think differently. This results in logic contortions that would be fun to watch if they weren’t so pathetic. They’ll insist that atheists are their own gods, that there are no atheists in foxholes, that atheists really believe in god and are pretending they don’t so they can do nasty things, and/or that they have other gods like sex, money, or drugs or (shudder) science. They have no more ability to imagine atheism than a dachshund has to imagine long division.

The dearth of imagination shouldn’t surprise us. Public education isn’t about instilling a love of learning and fostering imagination – it’s about squishing every child into identical boxes. “Hurry up and get into your box, Johnny, we don’t want any child left behind!” The minority of teachers who encourage imagination can’t counter the forced conformity kids experience in every other class.

Much of corporate America continues this process. A few years ago I worked at a store that used the horribly tiresome phrase “think outside the box” endlessly, especially in the goofy training videos new hires were forced to watch. We were then handed a very thick manual of store policies that had to be adhered to religiously. “Do anything even slightly out of line with anything in this book and we’ll write you up, but don’t forget to think outside the box!”

We see this in political discussions too. People are so invested in the right/left false dichotomy they can’t imagine anything else. They’ll never vote anything other than Democrat or Republican because they can’t imagine anyone else winning, and can’t imagine voting for a dark horse just because they want to. And they’ve been so carefuly coddled and groomed by Big Brother they can’t fathom life without him.

Here are a few examples I’ve experienced recently.

When I suggested the EEOC was one of many government agencies we could eliminate completely, a woman insisted that if it weren’t for them she would never, never ever, be able to get a job. The idea that she could cultivate skills or abilities that would make her valuable to an employer was beyond her imagination. And with that kind of attitude she was probably right. Her lack of imagination would make her a pretty useless employee except for drone-style jobs that could be done by a less bitchy robot.

I posted the question “What would happen if all public schools were suddenly closed?” I wasn’t saying we should do this, but rather wondering what ideas people would come up with if we did it. Would guilds and apprenticeships become popular? Perhaps old folks would create impromptu classrooms in their homes for neighborhood kids.  Maybe neighborhoods would get together and open their own local school, staffing it with volunteers and charging just enough tuition to pay a few good teachers. I was sure I was just scratching the surface and people would come up with lots of other great ideas.

Silly me.  Instead of ideas or speculation I got lectures on how public education was important to our democracy. (It seemed impolite to point out we are actually a republic, not a democracy.) I was informed I didn’t care about children, and told I was an idiot and/or evil for even suggesting such a thing. Some people used it as an excuse to bash libertarians. I explained, again, that I wasn’t saying we should do away with public schools, but proposing a thought experiment about how people would deal with things if we did. It didn’t matter. The responses continued to be imagination free.  They contained no ideas, only invective.

I like to offer solutions to problems, even if they’re long-shots that have no hope of ever being implemented, but I have no idea how to counter this. People with no imagination tend to stand in one spot, unable to imagine going forward or back, and they elect officials just like themselves.  Trying to force someone to grow an imagination is as pointless as trying to get them to grow a brain, and I’m wondering if I should just treat them the way I treat stupid people.

Because I’m having a hard time distinguishing between the two.  Both “qualities” seem to be as intertwined as a caduceus. Both have the same symptoms. I suspect they may be the same thing but it’s possible I’m just imagining that.

That would be Ex-cop Jason Faulk, of Portland. You can’t get into his record, so don’t even try. And if you google his name, all you’ll find is this article that says the record of him having sex on the job with an autistic woman who called the cops for help is sealed. You can’t find out about it.

Once again, that’s Jason Faulk, of Portland.