cognitive dissident

I received a request to answer this comment posted elsewhere:

I will vote for the Democrat's nominee in the general election. Period. I just think Obama is a long shot to win the general election. Yes, he has won more states than Clinton, but take a look at those states.

Republican States:
Alaska, N Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, S Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, N Carolina, Montana, S Dakota, W Virginia, Kentucky

That's 124 electoral votes pretty much in the bag for McCain.

Democrat States:
Delaware, Vermont, DC, Hawaii, Maine, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, Illinois

76 electoral votes pretty much in the bag for the Dem Obama.

Swing States:
Iowa, Wisconsin

17 electoral votes

For Clinton
Republican States
Nevada, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Indiana, Tennessee

That's 50 votes McCain will get anyway

Democrat States:
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, California

That's 159 electoral votes

Swing States:
Ohio, Florida

That's 52

So, while I realize that my logic isn't 100% perfect here, my point is that Obama is winning in Republican states where he doesn't have a chance!

And I think once the nomination is secured for him, the Republicans will rip him to shreds.

I consider Obama to be a stronger candidate against McCain in the general election, but I'll leave it to the experts to crunch the numbers. Some of the data supporting this opinion follows:

Survey USA estimates the electoral results, which show thatObama's electoral numbers are stronger than Clinton's (i.e., he's not a "long shot" at all):

Obama 280 / McCain 258

Clinton 276 / McCain 262

Gallup notes that Obama is stronger in both red and blue states (although not in purple ones) than Clinton:

Democratic front-runner Barack Obama has a four-point advantage over presumptive Republican nominee John McCain among registered voters residing in states that were competitive in the 2004 election. Obama has a comfortable lead in states John Kerry won comfortably in 2004, as does McCain in states George W. Bush won easily. [...] Hillary Clinton also leads McCain by the same 47% to 43% margin among purple-state voters. But she does not fare quite as well as Obama does in blue states, and she trails McCain by a slightly larger margin than Obama does in red states.

Pew shows that Obama does better than Clinton among every category of independent voters (except the 50+ group, which is a tie).

in addition to the difficult red/blue/purple guesstimates, there are a few factors not captured in these polls that are in Obama's favor:

1). a greater enthusiasm for Obama, especially among younger voters;

2). Obama's stronger fundraising ability (he didn't have to lend his campaign millions of dollars, as Clinton did, just to stay afloat); and

3). Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" has encouraged conservatives to vote for Clinton in the primaries. They did this to drag out the primary process in the hopes that the weaker candidate (Clinton) will be the Democratic nominee.

As far as Obama goes, of course the GOP will "rip him to shreds" when he becomes the nominee...that's what their kind of campaigning is all about. He has weaknesses, as we've seen in great detail over the past few months, but the Republicans won't go easy on Clinton if she gets nominated. Much like a group of monkeys with a hoard of feces, the GOP loathes her very name and has years of pent-up hatred to fling at her. (She'll find that their Swift-Boat-style attacks will be much tougher to deal with than that "sniper fire" in Bosnia.)

This tactical analysis doesn't include the genuine policy issues (his determination to "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq," and his pro-LGBT "moral imperative" remark, to name just two) that will serve to further differentiate Obama from John "just-like-Bush-only-moreso" McCain in the campaign.

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Some wingnuts are actually planning a protest against the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision that legalized contraception (h/t: Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage)...can you believe it?

Your protest is 43 years too late, and we are not going back to the early 1960s, fuck you very much.

"First they came for the birth control pills..."

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This passage from the late Mildred Loving's address (h/t: Andy at Towleroad) from last year's 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia (Wikipedia and FindLaw) is spectacular:

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Bravo, Mrs Loving...and RIP.

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 2:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Alterman, Eric. Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America (New York: Viking, 2008)

After reading a series of books (ranging from Paul Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal and Louis Hartz's The Liberal Tradition in America through David Barash's The L Word and Douglas Massey's Return of the L Word up to John McGowan's American Liberalism, Jumonville & Mattson's Liberalism for a New Century, and Paul Starr's Freedom's Power) on liberalism last December, I was looking forward to Alterman's Why We're Liberals for a fresh take on the subject. Unfortunately, despite the title, Alterman's book is less a straightforward explication of liberalism that a defense of it against conservative attacks. A more accurate title for the book might be Why We're Not the Traitorous, Unpatriotic, Immoral, Elitist Scum That the GOP Says We Are.

Alterman leans perhaps too heavily on his own book What Liberal Media? during parts of this book, although doing so may have been unavoidable when criticizing the media's shortcomings. He makes a valuable observation, however, that conservatives' perception of the media is rooted in the past:

It's a cliché that the media is biased in favor of liberals, but a profoundly outdated one. The accusation, while true thirty years ago, perhaps, has been overtaken by the growth of a massive conservative media establishment that, to a considerable degree, has not only displaced the old media but simultaneously transformed it (a process I described in What Liberal Media?). (p. 98)

Later, Alterman does the same with their small government/low taxes plank, noting that "somehow liberals still retain a reputation for fiscal responsibility based on actions taken more than forty years ago" (p. 123) and observing that liberals' mistakes in the 1960s "pale in comparison to the fiscal and economic nightmare that so-called conservatives have intentionally inflicted on the nation." (p. 299). The spendthrift nature of modern conservatism--particularly from Reagan through Bush II--is rather hard to ignore, though some true believers still make the attempt. Speaking of true believers, Alterman makes two errors at the beginning of his chapter on Christian nationalism:

In his book The Myth of the [sic] Separation, religious conservative David Barton argues that America's founders simply did not support the separation of church and state. (p. 196)

In the first place, apart from its prohibition against religious tests for public office in Article 6, and the First Amendment's refusal to allow the countenancing of an established religion "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," the U.S. Constitution makes no reference whatsoever to God. (pp. 196-7)

First, David Barton's book The Myth of Separation (1992) was superseded by Original Intent (2000), and--while his odiousness is apparently undimmed--it is more sporting to at least use the latter as a reference. Second, this sentence immediately precedes the signatures at the end of the Constitution:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

I've commented before on the pro forma nature of the phrase "in the Year of our Lord," but it is nonetheless present in the Constitution.

Alterman errs more severely in commenting about abortion that "I am hardly the first writer to note that if pro-choice advocates put as much energy into passing policies that sought to make abortions unnecessary--and did so explicitly under this rubric--they would find considerable common ground with religious Americans" (p. 219). While this common ground may in fact exist, redirecting the defense of abortion rights toward other endeavors would allow right-wing restrictions to be enacted without opposition, making abortion even more unavailable. A few pages later, Alterman notes that this is already the case:

While the rhetoric of Christian conservatives gives the impression that American is awash in abortions, the fact is, while in most places in the United States abortions are technically legal, they are nearly impossible to obtain. A mere 13 percent of counties in the nation now offer the service. This number can only decrease, as every one of the more than four hundred or so federal judges appointed by George W. Bush will seek to reduce it to zero. Even where abortions are available, getting one can be such an ordeal that it's difficult to imagine many women actually going through with the process. (p. 221)

Medicaid funding has for nearly thirty years restricted abortions for low-income women, and eleven states now restrict abortion coverage in insurance plans for public employees. Forty-three states require parental consent or notice before a minor obtains an abortion. Thirty-one states demand that women receive "counseling" before an abortion, and eighteen offer it only in a misleading and frequently inaccurate form designed to scare them into changing their minds. Six states insist that this "counseling" be provided in person, ensuring at least two visits to the clinic. In addition, over a dozen states have so-called TRAP laws, which force abortion doctors and clinics to adopt especially difficult regulations. (pp. 221-2)

His point that "Abortion rights won democratically will be far stronger and more stable than those secured only by what many consider to be judicial fiat, as they would be protected by the will of the majority and the politicians sent to defend them" (p. 223) is, again, an accurate one, but one wonders how such a war could be won if the pro-choice movement were to surrender all the battles along the way.

As good as Alterman's work is, the time spent debunking conservative misinformation is time no longer available for advancing our own ideology. If we liberals continue to be consumed with preventing conservatives from dragging us backward, we no longer have the energy to move our nation forward. These are the traps into which Alterman falls. In his conclusion, there is a beautiful passage that begins to actually explain Why We're Liberals, but it's too little, too late:

Liberalism is the natural political philosophy of our nation because it respects and encourages what is both good and great in all of us. It embraces freedom of thought rather than ideologically or theologically imposed certainty. It inspires the spirit of discovery in science and technology. It embraces the ideal of teamwork through its commitment to the common good, which allows us to make the best use of the wisdom of the many while at the same time respecting the sanctity of the rights and talents of the individual. (pp. 333-4)

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 10:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Foreign Policy / Prospect list of "The Top 100 Public Intellectuals" states that "the criteria to make the list could not be more simple:"

Candidates must be living and still active in public life. They must have shown distinction in their particular field as well as an ability to influence wider debate, often far beyond the borders of their own country.

Rather like Time's "Person of the Year," then, there is no merit qualification; "distinction" and "influence" are value-neutral. Thus, the administration's error-prone neocons (or the "public intellectuals" whose pronouncements give their ideology the gloss of respectability) would be just as eligible for this list as real historians, economists, and political scientists (such as Jacques Barzun, Eric Foner, Thomas Frank, George Lakoff, Lewis Lapham, Bill Moyers, and Juliet Schor, none of whom made the list).

The criticism from HTML Mencken at Sadly, No! is brutal, but not inaccurately so: "Many of the 'intellectuals' are actually something between 'stupid' and 'clueless fucktard stupid.'" He names a few names, and then concludes:

See, it's not just that political scientists and pundits are shamelessly over-represented; it's not even that contributors to Foriegn Policy [sic] seem to be "intellectuals" by definition (and thus "earn" inclusion to the list); it's that "intellectualism," for the list-makers, seems to often mean, "the capacity to fuck-up hugely and be praised for it."

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 11:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today is Free Comic Book Day:

Free Comic Book Day is a single day when participating comic book shops across North America and around the world give away comic books absolutely free to anyone who comes into their stores.

Go to the FCBD store locator to find a participating retailer; visit them to receive one of these comic books, which are reviewed here by Douglas (Reading Comics) Wolk.

On the way home, you could stop by a movie theatre to see Iron Man, which is already garnering some solid reviews (check out Gizmodo for an example). It appears to be a banner year for comic-book movies, with The Incredible Hulk (13 June), Hellboy II (11 July), and The Dark Knight (18 July) on the way. ComicBookMovie has more news about big-screen comic-book stories, but remember two things: the movies wouldn't exist without the comic books, and there is a lot more to the comics medium than superheroes.

Visit your local retailer to find out more.

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 8:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I mentioned a few weeks ago that McCain was overheard (by three reporters) dropping the c-bomb on his wife; he's finally been asked about it, but not by the media...they're still having a love affair with their alleged "maverick." Here is a transcript of a Wednesday town hall Q&A, along with the video.

Q. Is it true that you called your wife a (expletive)?

McCain: Now, now. You don't want to... Um, you know that's the great thing about town hall meetings, sir, but we really don't, there's people here who don't respect that kind of language. So I'll move on to the next questioner in the back.

McCain is concerned about "that kind of language" when it might affect his public image, but he had no problems with it when he was insulting his wife. I guess that's how he earned the nickname "McNasty." In an echo of Bush, when he was questioned in 1999 about his cocaine use, McCain did not deny the charge.

Iowa Politics notes that McCain's questioner, a Baptist minister, "was escorted from Sen. John McCain's town hall meeting by Des Moines police and members of the Secret Service...[h]e was not charged in the incident."

Free speech is not free, especially for citizens who dare to ask the questions that the media so studiously avoid.

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 1:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks in part to the Protect SMU Petition, the United Methodist Church has resolved to "prevent leasing, selling, or otherwise participating in or supporting the presidential library for George W. Bush at Southern Methodist University:"

We should support separation of church and state and if the Bush library goes on the SMU campus or property it will appear to the country and the world as an endorsement of that president by the United Methodist Church.

Maybe Bush's good buddy Prince Abdullah can scare up a replacement site in Saudi Arabia...you know, just as a little favor from one theocratic-minded authoritarian oilman to another.

(White House photo by David Bohrer)

"I don't like all the big words in them books, anyhow...so I'm thinkin' about a theme park instead of a library. Mr. Toad's Extraordinary Rendition Ride can go over here, with the Country Brush-Clearing Jamboree over there. Down this way, we can put the Pecos Bush Café and the Iraqland Shootin' Arcade..."

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 2:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The complete lack of comprehension--and introspection--in the Bush White House apparently knows no bounds. Dubya proclaimed today to be "Law Day" (h/t: David Kurtz at TalkingPointsMemo), and he declared that:

The theme of this year's Law Day, "The Rule of Law: Foundation for Communities of Opportunity and Equity," recognizes the fundamental role that the rule of law plays in preserving liberty in our Nation and in all free societies. We pay tribute to the men and women in America's legal community. Through hard work and dedication to the rule of law, members of the judiciary and the legal profession help secure the rights of individuals, bring justice to our communities, and reinforce the proud traditions that make America a beacon of light for the world.

Bush goes on to note that:

Nearly 800 years ago, the Magna Carta placed the authority of government under the rule of law; centuries later, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution marked tremendous advances in the march of liberty. These documents established enduring principles that guide modern democracies.

The irony, it burns...

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

PZ Myers channels the Rude Pundit in his take on the National Day of Prayer:

Fuck the National Day of Prayer.

I can scarcely believe my country is officially pandering to such willful stupidity -- elevating evangelical kooks to positions of prestige, trumpeting the virtues of sectarian religion, and actually crediting the successes of America to the fact that a subset of deluded, demented fools sit on their asses and beg an invisible man to protect us and help us kill people in foreign countries. What a waste, and what an encouragement of further waste.

I left a comment on his suggestion to ""Fuck the National Day of Prayer:"

I'd be tempted to, but I find the demand for missionary-position-only-with-the-lights-off far too restrictive...

;-)

update (11:55am):
Tristero writes at Hullabalo:

Well, I say Fuck the National Day of Prayer but use a condom. These people are diseased degenerates so be careful, ok?

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The mendacity of global-warming deniers is something I've mentioned before (here, here, here, and here, for example), and there is a nascent outcry from the scientific community over the misrepresentation of their work and misuse of their good names. A widely-circulated list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" put out by the right-wing junk-science Heartland Institute turns out to be full of hot air (h/t: Plutonium Page at Daily Kos). DeSmogBlog emailed 122 of the allegedly skeptical scientists, 45 of whom have already responded with words like this:

"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."

"I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."

"Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"

"I am very shocked to see my name in the list... the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist.

"Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research."

I just love seeing shameless pseudo-scholars get bitch-slapped in public; I just want to get a bucket of popcorn and sit back to watch the fireworks begin...

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 9:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I mentioned a few days ago, tomorrow is atheists' answer to the National Day of Prayer: the National Day of Reason. Here are a few posts I've seen discussing the day:

John Loftus posts a list of suggestions at Debunking Christianity

NoGodBlog reports on a NYC blood drive

Rebecca at Skepchick offers prizes for blood donors

Stardust at God Is for Suckers! posts this AU press release that quotes Madison and Jefferson

vjack has a great post at Atheist Revolution featuring these classic words from Robert Ingersoll:

"Hands that help are better than lips that pray."

Let's get out there and do our part to help; the Pharisees of the Religious Right have the market cornered on showy displays of piety, so there's still plenty of work to be done.

update (11:28pm):
Frederick Clarkson gives us the history behind the Nation Day of Prayer at Talk 2 Action

Buffy plugs NDoR at Gaytheist Agenda

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 4:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In an all-too-appropriate prelude to tomorrow's fifth anniversary of "mission accomplished," spin-zone host Bill O'Reilly claimed--on the air and with a straight face--that:

"We didn't invade Iraq."

This is why we liberals often call his channel "Faux News:" It's little more than unfair and imbalanced opinion packaged as real journalism.

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 2:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've long marveled at the Christianists' tendency to misrepresent any criticism of their agenda as "persecution" despite their religion's solid majority among both the American electorate and the governing class. Elizabeth Castelli's piece on "Persecution Complexes" has the best definition that I've seen of this tactic:

"...a broader and growing trend in political discourse as it emerges from certain branches of right-wing political Christianity [that] mobilizes the language of religious persecution to shut down political debate and critique by characterizing any position not in alignment with this politicized version of Christianity as an example of antireligious bigotry and persecution."

It's a long article, but Castelli does great work analyzing the Justice Sunday/"War on Christians"/Battle Cry mentality. Understanding the "massive movement that sees itself as victimized minority" is no less important now than it was at the height of the Religious Right's ability to set our national agenda. Now that their influence is waning--and their control of the levers of power is diminishing--they may become ever more desperate.

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 3:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The BBC reported that the manufacturer of those "Free Tibet" flags is a factory in...China (h/t: Annika Carlson at Campus Progress):

The factory in Guangdong had been completing overseas orders for the flag of the Tibetan government-in-exile. Workers said they thought they were just making colourful flags and did not realise their meaning.

[...]

Thousands of flags had already been packed for shipping. Police believe that some may already have been sent overseas, and could appear in Hong Kong during the Olympic torch relay there this week.

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Groves, Eric. The Anti-War Quote Book (Philadelphia: Quirk Books, 2008)

Eric Groves has put together a nice little book, featuring anti-war writings from Homer to the present and discussing the cost of war over the full course of human history. I appreciate the varied typography of the quotations and the overall design of the book, along with some photographs and several posters from Anti-War Posters, but the distressed/grunge look doesn't feel appropriate for some quotations.

Groves adequately identifies the quote's authors (name, years of birth and death, and brief description of their place in history), but managed to nonetheless trigger my pet peeve: He omits dates and published sources for the quotes themselves. Is it really so difficult to source a quote? Even something as brief as the book's--or speech's--title and year would be better than nothing. Particularly for authors whose lives spanned much of the twentieth century--such as Bertrand Russell--it would be helpful to know whether a particular quote was made in reference to a particular conflict, or to war in the abstract.

After finishing the book, I returned to Groves' words from the introduction:

"We cannot afford war any more.

The costs are too enormous. History's greatest philosophers, educators, politicians, scientists, artists, clergy, and soldiers have argued this point for more than four thousand years.

Will we listen?" (p. 7)

Sadly, after reading the breadth of his selected words from some of the brightest lights of civilization, one is tempted to conclude that we--or, at least, our governments--will not listen. It is to the optimists that we must turn, then, to alleviate our despair at our species' sporadic inhumanity toward each other. Thus, my Quote of the Day is from Anne Frank:

"I see the world gradually being turned into a wilderness, I hear the ever approaching thunder, which will destroy us too. I can feel the sufferings of millions and yet, if I look up into the heavens, I think that it will all come right, that this cruelty too will end, and that peace and tranquility will return again." (p. 151)

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 1:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Jim Downey over at UTI found some unexpected secularism online, and quoted a commenter from elsewhere. These two sentences are the heart of the quote, each of which would make a great Demotivators-style poster:

Is it more righteous to live a moral life because you're a coward and fear Hell, or to live a righteous life because you feel it is the right thing to do? Pharisees need an external moral compass because they lack an internal moral compass.

Multicultural morality, as I mentioned in this post, can give an atheist's conscience a more solid foundation than that of a fundie bible-thumper. It does takes more effort, though, as does everything that isn't packaged and pre-assembled. Evaluating the sum of human wisdom is a work beyond any single lifetime, because learning is more time-intensive than mindless regurgitation.

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Next Thursday (May 1st) is commonly known as the "National Day of Prayer," but NoGodBlog points out that it is also the date of the atheist BLOOD (Benefiting Lives of Others Donations) campaign. If you can't donate blood (and many people cannot do so, for various reasons) then do something else. As I mentioned last year, that day is also the National Day of Reason:

The goal of this effort is to celebrate reason - a concept all Americans can support - and to raise public awareness about the persistent threat to religious liberty posed by government intrusion into the private sphere of worship.

The Day of Reason also exists to inspire the secular community to be visible and active on this day to set the right example for how to effect positive change. Local organizations might use "Day of Reason" to label their events, or they might choose labels such as Day of Action, Day of Service, or Rational Day of Care. The important message is to provide a positive, useful, constitutional alternative to the exclusionary National Day of Prayer.

If you're an out atheist, it might be a great opportunity to do some consciousness-raising work.

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A new blog/news aggregator named The Atheist Spot (h/t: vjack at Atheist Revolution) is aiming to be the Digg/Furl/Technorati/whatever for the atheist community. It could be a very useful service, especially for those Netizens like myself whose RSS readers are already straining to keep up with the burgeoning atheist blogosphere.

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 2:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Will Layman of PopMatters enthuses over disappearing "smooth jazz" radio stations, writings that "I come to bury smooth jazz, not to praise it... [...] ...its ongoing demise is a hopeful sign for our civilization." He defines the genre better than any other writer I've seen:

Smooth Jazz, then, can be understood as an embrace of clean edges, a rejection of the analog sensibility that sits at the root of all the great American music, whether Delta blues, improvised jazz, or rebellious rock 'n' roll. Smooth Jazz sought to be pleasant and shining and sweet and easy. Like soul music without the sex, like jazz without a pulse of urgency, like rock without the essential roll, Smooth Jazz was an answer without a question.

I would have called smooth jazz "crap without a toilet," but I'm glad to see this soulless pseudo-music finally getting flushed.

share this post: del.icio.us digg FaceBook Furl Google Bookmark ma.gnolia Newsvine reddit Stumble Upon Technorati
Posted by cognitivedissident at 1:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)