A dialog

(At rise: on a dating web site) 

     JERKFACE 

So I like the tight top and strict teacher/librarian look- you should post more pics like that, they have an, ahem, immediate effect on me . I wouldn't mind getting in trouble with you... 

; ) 

     WOMAN WE WILL CALL "N"
     (ignores email) 

     (Four hours later) 

     JERKFACE
Too much too soon, perhaps? Just being honest!

     N
     (ignores email) 

     (Two days later) 

     JERKFACE 

We can talk on the phone if you like. Or in person. (i'm on the upper east side in the 80's.  

      N    

     (finally had enough) 

Why would I want to talk to you on the phone? So you can jerk off while imagining I'm some kind of librarian dominatrix? There are places all over town that will be happy to accomodate your fantasies. I have my own desires that don't match what you have to offer and since I'm NOT a prostitute, it's not happening. 

     JERKFACE
Your wish is my command. ;) 

      (attempts to establish sexting session) 

     N 

   [*BLOCK*]

Why don't I just quit this stupid thing? I've met exactly one attractive man here in five years and he moved to San Francisco.

            (The sound of teeth gnashing.)

          THE END 

Oh go have a cocktail, Mary Matalin

Krugman triumphant again - and he was majorly jet-lagged for this too.

Bitches is crazy part 2

We did a reading of my play DOWN BY THE BOATHOUSE, which is a response to TALLEY'S FOLLY and I resumed arguing about TF with the actor I mentioned in my original post "Bitches is Crazy" and he confirmed, unintentionally, that the basic premise of the play is exactly what I said it is: bitches is crazy.

The clincher was when we were discussing the moment in the play when Sally tells Matt to leave the boathouse. He refuses and then she screams for her brothers' help. He covers her mouth.

When I reminded the actor of this moment, he said that of course Matt had to do that because Jews in 1940s Missouri could be shot just for being Jews.

Putting aside whether or not that was true, that Jews were just being shot point-blank for being Jews in Missouri, I asked him if he thought that Sally wanted Matt to be killed. He said no. So I pointed out that Sally might have a better idea of what her brothers might do, seeing as how she actually knew them well and Matt did not, and she judged that they weren't going to simply execute Matt on the spot. And the actor said no, that doesn't matter, because she was too emotional at that time to make a good judgment, so Matt had to cover her mouth.

She was "emotional" because she asked Matt to leave the boathouse and he refused. And in the script she's no more emotional than he is.

But of course Matt had to take charge of the situation, because as I said in my original essay, while Sally may not be crazy, Sally is a woman, and bitches is crazy. And that's why you have to take control and show them what they're supposed to do.

And of course there's this in the script:

(Her last words are muffled by Matt's hand as he grabs her and holds her fast. She tries to speak over his lines.)

                     MATT

              (Grabbing her.)

Vilde chaya! you are a crazy woman! We could both be shot with that gun. People do not scream and yell and kick.

  (She stops struggling.)

People are blessed with the beautiful gift of reason and communication.

              (He starts to release her.)

                    SALLY
Cliffy!

                    MATT

               (Grabbing her again.)

How can such a thing happen? When they passed out logic everybody in the Ozarks went on a marshmallow roast. You are rational now?

(He releases her. She moves away. Matt stands where he can block her exit.)

Once you calm the bitch down and she becomes "rational" you block the door of the boathouse. To show how much you respect her, of course.

Naturally the actor refused to concede my point. He got mad when I pointed out that he believed that Matt understood the situation better than Sally herself did, even though it was Sally's property and Sally's brothers and Sally's neighborhood.

I'm sure to him it is such a natural inclination, to believe that the man is the rational one, even though he was the one who was behaving badly. That's what our culture says is the right way to think and this actor can't think himself out of that box. So really, it's pointless to argue - unlike Matt, you have to just walk away.

Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne and all the other "new atheists" need to start providing better evidence for their bigotry

I cited the Jackson Lears Nation essay on Sam Harris in my recent post about Harris in reference to his support for Bush administration activities. 

But I didn't read the entire piece carefully then and that was a mistake because it's a great article about what is wrong with Sam Harris. One thing I noticed is that Lears had a similar response to mine about Harris's blithe ignorance:

...But Harris is not interested in religious experience. He displays an astonishing lack of knowledge or even curiosity about the actual content of religious belief or practice, announcing that “most religions have merely canonized a few products of ancient ignorance and derangement and passed them down to us as though they were primordial truths.”  

Harris claims that Mormonism is less "objectively plausible" than "run-of-the-mill Christianity" because he can think of a few extra myths that the Mormons have related to the bodily resurrection of Jesus. My guess is that Harris is ignorant of the vast quantities of sheer implausibilities of even "run-of-the-mill" Christianity. According to Wikipedia his mother is Jewish and his father is a Quaker, which would explain it. But as Lears notes, Harris appears to have no interest in learning more. He knows one example and that's good enough.

I was raised Catholic by very devout parents and so have an extremely good sense of just how full of implausibilities Catholicism is - although I don't know if Harris considers the RC Church run of the mill or not. 

But not only that - I have done some abortion clinic defense work which means that I was toe-to-toe with both Catholics and Protestant fundamentalists and when I read Harris claiming that Mormonism was "objectively" less plausible I immediately thought of a likely source of Mormon-Christian disagreement: the myths surrounding Jesus' mother.

I confess I sometimes amused myself while doing clinic defense by discussing Mary's virginity with fundamentalists within earshot of Catholics or vice-versa. Christians are extremely concerned about the state of Mary's coochie. While they generally agree that Mary was a virgin when impregnated with Jesus, they vehemently disagree about her post-partum sexual practices. Catholics insist that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and one of her standard Catholic titles is "The Blessed Virgin Mary." And so if the fundamentalists heard the Catholics insisting on this perpetuity, or the Catholics heard the fundamentalists deny it - watch out! They'd be at each other for hours, sometimes, even forgetting why they were there, and as a result many young women that day went about their business free of crazy abuse. Good times.

I don't know a great deal about Mormonism but enough to be aware how excessively patriarchal it is, and I suspected that they were much less likely to consider Mary a goddess, as she virtually is in Catholicism. And so I looked it up and sure enough, it turns out that they have no myths concerning Mary's assumption into heaven.

If Harris actually thinks that he has a point to make in comparing religious implausibilities then he should do a thorough job of it, instead of just thinking of one example and declaring a winner.

But that's typical of Harris and his "New Atheist" crowd. Jerry Coyne, in a blog post denying that Sam Harris and the rest are anti-Islamist bigots stated: 

 Islam is a pernicious religion and its holy book, the Qur’an, is worse than any other sacred book I’ve read in terms of vilification of apostates or nonbelievers, threats of hell, and percentage of the text occupied by stuff that’s scary and threatening. 

He does not offer any justification for this statement. Just like Harris pushing the idea that Mormonism has more and/or more implausible beliefs than Christianity, Coyne can't be bothered to quantify this in any way.

Now in both cases, they might actually be right - but nobody, including them, can say so for sure. They merely have a hunch about something and can't be bothered to offer evidence, but they fully expect you to accept these claims on their say-so. 

I don't think there's a point to either of their arguments, whether they provide evidence or not. For Sam Harris to actually make some kind of accounting of all the beliefs of Mormons vs. Christians, weigh the relative "objective plausibility" of those beliefs and then tally the results is utterly pointless. Does it really matter that Christianity has a 30% "objective plausibility" rating while Mormonism has a 25% rating? Both faiths are exactly that - a reliance on the un-provable and un-testable - at the core. The rest is window-dressing. 

And what would be the point of Coyne counting up all the "scary and threatening" stuff in the Bible and the Qur'an and then determining a scary and threatening rating for each holy book?  Unless Coyne can prove that there is a direct connection between the "scary and threatening" rating of each book and the behavior of the books' adherents, what is the point? 

But if they argue that they aren't really bigots, just careful observers of evidence then let's have the evidence, not just vague assertions.

And it's not as if these assertions are merely an intellectual exercise - Harris proposed and Coyne defended the idea that there should be ethnicity-based profiling. Just as there is a implicit penalty for "driving while black" they want an explicit penalty for flying while swarthy.

I pointed out in my previous post that the New Atheists are all adherents of evolutionary psychology and so routinely discount the infrastructural basis for human behaviors. In other words, they believe that evolutionary psychology has rendered anthropology and sociology obsolete, thanks to the wonders of the "Darwinian algorithm." 

Well I was more right than I realized as the Lears article confirms:

He is especially offended by anthropology. Too often, he says, “the fire-lit scribblings of one or another dazzled ethnographer” have sanctioned some destructive practice (human sacrifice, female genital mutilation) by explaining its adaptive or social function. At their worst, ethnographers have created a cult of the noble savage that celebrates primitive cultures we should rightfully scorn. His scornfulness aside, Harris is not wrong about ethnographic sentimentality, but he thoroughly misunderstands cultural relativism. He seems to think it means cultivating a bland indifference to ethical questions rather than making a serious effort to understand ethical perspectives radically different from our own without abandoning our own... Nor is he aware of the pioneering work of Christine Walley on female genital mutilation in Africa. Walley illuminates the complex significance of the practice without ever expressing tolerance for it, and she uses cross-cultural understanding as a means of connecting with local African women seeking to put an end to it.

Anthropologist Marvin Harris counted evolutionary psychology, called sociobiology at the time, as an anthropological "research strategy" and proceeded to rip it to shreds in  his immortal Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. And in an email from him, which I unfortunately lost since, in 1997, Harris referred to evolutionary psychology as "biologizing inequality."

But unfortunately thanks to the popularity of the "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" book industry, it is sociobiology which has superseded postmodernism as the leading explanation of human cultural behavior, not cultural materialism. 

But it should come as no surprise that Sam Harris doesn't understand other cultures (or doesn't want to) -  Richard Dawkins doesn't understand women in his own culture - or doesn't want to - which is why, when skeptic blogger Rebecca Watson dared to express an opinion about something that happened to her, his response was to have a flaming hissyfit and to mock her for expressing discomfort about a situation because a. he, Richard Dawkins would never have been uncomfortable in that situation and b.  MUSLIM WOMEN ARE BEING ABUSED!

The evolutionary psychologist/New Atheist crowd think that any problems that women in the West have are most likely their own biological fault, as when ev-psych fan Lawrence Summers, while president of Harvard suggested that the primary reason women in the math and science fields had worse careers than men was because of their inferior math/science abilities. 

But they are greatly concerned about Muslim women. Apparently we live in a perfectly egalitarian, abuse-free world and only Muslim women are still oppressed by patriarchy.

Lears sums Sam Harris up at the end of his article:

...His self-confidence is surpassed only by his ignorance, and his writings are the best argument against a scientific morality—or at least one based on his positivist version of science and ex cathedra pronouncements on politics, ethics and the future of humanity. In The Moral Landscape he observes that people (presumably including scientists) often acquire beliefs about the world for emotional and social rather than cognitive reasons: “It is also true that the less competent a person is in a given domain, the more he will tend to overestimate his abilities. This often produces an ugly marriage of confidence and ignorance that is very difficult to correct for.” The description fits Harris all too aptly, as he wanders from neuroscience into ethics and politics. He may well be a fine neuroscientist. He might consider spending more time in his lab.

If there's something that's truly scary and threatening it's Harris' and Coyne's easy slide into evidence-free paranoia and ethnic targeting, while fancying themselves heroes of free-thinking rationality. They have clear authoritarian tendencies, and if they ever do triumph over religion their victory will best be expressed by those 20th century British philosophers The Who: Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Teleprompter obsession: Inanity or inSanity?

At first I resisted the idea that Obama's opponents were motivated by racism, but after four years of observing them, I finally realized that quite a lot of it really is racism. One of the factors provoking this better-late-than-never insight is because I work next to a guy who loves Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the book of racialist "science" The Bell Curve. I don't know this guy that well, but one of the first things I did learn about him was that The Bell Curve is like his Bible. And he hates hates hates Obama. He spends half the day in the office reading right-wing web sites.

All these sore-headed middle-aged white men just cannot believe that a black man could have done so well for himself when they themselves did not do nearly as well, in spite of all the advantages of being white. And so they believe that there MUST be a conspiracy afoot to make Barack Obama succeed. They think that his presidency is some kind of massive, unfair affirmative action conspiracy.

Understanding the fundamental racist basis for their hatred of Obama really helps to understand the weird things they obsess over, like Obama's use of a teleprompter. So many of us liberals thought that all you had to do to address the teleprompter issue is to point out that all politicians use a teleprompter, so it's no big deal that Obama does. And yet, this doesn't make them STFU about the teleprompter. For years I was baffled about the fact that they keep talking about it. I mean, didn't they hear the part where ALL politicians use it? Why doesn't that seem to make any difference to them?

Back in April Romney and Sean Hannity agreed that it was smart to use a teleprompter. (see link)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57413198-503544/mitt-romney-i

t-makes-sense-to-use-a-teleprompter/

And yet just a few days ago I got into a debate with a friend of a FB friend who was obsessed with Obama using a teleprompter.

Every president has used one since Eisenhower, and Mitt agrees it's a smart thing to do. And yet for some reason, the right-wing keeps going on and on about using a teleprompter. Back in March, R

obert Schesinger in USA Today calls their obsession "inane."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/03/20/obamas-teleprompter-the-gops-dumbest-attack

And it would be inane - silly and lacking any sense - unless you understood the real reason behind it.

And Rick Santorum provides the key in his criticism of Obama's use of the teleprompter:

See, I always believed that when you run for president of the United States, it should be illegal to read off a teleprompter," Santorum said at a Gulfport restaurant. "Because all you're doing is reading someone else's words to people.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/11/santorums-war-on-teleprompters/

"Reading someone else's words" - this is what they want to believe about Obama - not that he's using the teleprompter the way people use notes when they're making a speech, to help him remember his key points, etc. - they believe that a black person is incapable of writing good speeches - they believe a black person has to be told what to say. And liberals resist believing that this is what conservatives really believe because it seems insane. We don't want to believe racism this hard-core is still so prevalent.

But what other possible reason can they believe they are scoring points to mention Obama uses a teleprompter? Of course their "reasoning" is never stated aloud. They don't need to - those who already believe that about black people pick up on the dog whistle. The rest of us are baffled and call it "inane."

It's only inane if you can't hear the dog-whistle.  And that is what a goodly percentage of our opponents are really about. Any time they are saying some weird nonsense, and you can't understand why they think it matters, consider the dog-whistle.

Hey I have an intriguing new idea...

...if we want roles for women over 40, instead of twisting the arms of male playwrights who clearly don't have interest in writing roles for women, especially women over 40, why don't we produce more plays by women, who tend to write more roles for women? What a radical concept!

When he was about to start writing dialogue, Mr. Stephens found himself in a meeting with the artistic director of the National Theater in London, Nicholas Hytner, who was lamenting the lack of new plays with major roles for actresses in their 40s and 50s. 

“I was silently furious with Nick, thinking you can’t impose a scheme on writers like that,” Mr. Stephens recalled during an interview this summer at the National, where he was rehearsing his new play, “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time.” 

“So I sat there and muttered in my head: ‘O.K., so what if the first scene of “Seth Regan” is not about Seth but instead it’s his wife asking her boss for time off because of a family problem? That would be’ ” — he paused for dramatic effect — “ ‘more interesting. And what if it’s Harper running into a young man who she finds herself flirting with, rather than Seth meeting a teenage girl? Much more interesting.’ ”

At the NYTimes...

time to support our president!

First, go donate to the Obama/Biden campaign. Click the logo.

Now watch these videos from these amazing black Americans that I just discovered tonight - I couldn't watch the debate because I don't have a TV so I watched these videos instead.

First it's W. Kamau Bell a stand-up comedian whom I just found out about thanks to, I have to admit, Jason Zinoman. Bell makes a really excellent point (plus it's funny) about the relative racism of the Tea Part in this video:



He also appeared in what looks like a great conference in 2010 called Facing Race 2010.

And thanks to following that link I discovered Melissa Harris-Perry (she was Melissa Harris-Lacewell when this video was made.) This woman has been all over MSNBC, how is it that I've never heard of her (or if I did, it didn't register)? This speech she gave at that conference is just absolutely mind-blowing in its sweet reason and insightfulness. It's an hour long so make sure you have enough time to watch this - she is a spell-binder and it will be very hard to stop in the middle:

Postmodern theory

I was a little nervous at the start of my first classical music theory class Tuesday night. The instructor Brian, while a very pleasant guy, gave us a heaping helping of John Cage and then a definition of music: "sound moving through time." This is a bunch of postmodern bullshit.

Postmodernism says that certain high-status individuals are in the position to redefine all the arts - theatre, music, painting, etc. any way they wish. And anybody who doesn't go along with the redefinition is old-fashioned or hostile to innovation, or basically a stupid slob.

That's why what Mac Wellman does, a rejection of theatre, is considered theater.

That's why paintings by Jackson Pollock are revered.

That's why music is defined as "sound moving through time."

Postmodernism denigrates skills, which take years to develop and which can be mastered by nobodies, and instead looks to impish mind-fuck conceptualism, which can only be promoted successfully by the very well-connected. The art acquires cachet through the importance of the people who created it - and their patrons. It's all about celebrity, finally. That's what Andy Warhol exploited in his work.

And as I've mentioned in my discussion of Mac Wellman's plays, another aspect of the elitism is the denigration of emotion. Because you certainly can't establish a hierarchy of good taste by appealing to what is common in all people - the same old stereotypical emotions - anger, lust, jealousy, anguish, affection, etc. Things that your gramma might relate to. Where's the cachet in enjoying something your gramma might relate to?

Or if you do appeal to emotion, you have to be extreme about it and shock and offend people. Which as I pointed out a few days ago, any oaf can do. But at least it will upset your gramma, thus proving it is the kewlest thing ever.

One of the really refreshing aspects of Tim Robbins' movie Cradle Will Rock is his disparagement of postmodernism and all its aspects. You can watch the entire movie - illegally I'm sure, here on Youtube.

At 1:27:00 we see Susan Sarandon, playing Mussolini's mistress Margherita Sarfatti, presenting a rich guy named Gray Mathers - who I assume is supposed to be a composite of various war profiteers - with Da Vinci's The Virgin and Child with St. Ann in exchange for helping to fund Mussolini's Ethiopian invasion. After Sarfatti makes him open the wrapped-up painting she says "you did not tell me what you feel... about the painting." He responds: "I love it, it's a masterpiece, it's a Da Vinci" and then he says, off-handedly, he'll just hang it over the fireplace.

Later on at 2:09:00 Mathers meets up with William Randolph Hearst and John D. Rockefeller, played amusingly by John Cusack. They are at a costume party dressed as French aristocracy (Robbins isn't always a master of subtlety.)

Rockefeller has just had Diego Rivera's mural destroyed because it contained an image of Lenin:

      Mathers
What in God's name were you expecting from a Communist? 

      Rockefeller
I wouldn't have had this problem with Picasso and Matisse. 

      Hearst
We control the future of art because we pay for the future of art. Appoint people to your museum boards who detest the Riveras of this world... 

Of course a handful of people saw this movie. Sigh.

Anyway back to my class - in spite of the unfortunate postmodern start, we got into some very useful stuff - he explained odd time signatures very well and even played two different versions of the Beatles "I'll Be Back" - one with 6/8 time, which Lennon complains he can't sing, and then the version they ultimately released, which was in 4/4 time.

I've delved into music theory a little in the past, but never studied it systematically. So I hadn't been aware of concepts like compound additive meter and hemiola. This is good stuff. I'm very glad I decided to take this course.

Nancy is in Love with the Colonel

Katha Pollitt is on Facebook promoting buying books for a grade school library in Pittsburgh through their Amazon wish list.

The title "The Little Piano Girl: The Story of Mary Lou Williams, Jazz Legend" looked intriguing - and I liked the look of the art - so I bought that one.

Then I started Googling Williams - she truly was a jazz legend and I had never heard of her. And she was even on Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. Thanks to Youtube I am giving myself a crash course on Mary Lou Williams, which is perfect timing - today I start a course in music theory.

Here's Williams playing her composition "Nancy is in Love with the Colonel" - enjoy!

New Yorker shout-out for the NEC

I happened upon this article on American newspapers in the New Yorker, by the Nation columnist Eric Alterman who writes:

It really was not until 1721, when the printer James Franklin launched the New England Courant, that any of Britain’s North American colonies saw what we might recognize today as a real newspaper. Franklin, Benjamin’s older brother, refused to adhere to customary licensing arrangements and constantly attacked the ruling powers of New England, thereby achieving both editorial independence and commercial success. He filled his paper with crusades (on everything from pirates to the power of Cotton and Increase Mather), literary essays by Addison and Steele, character sketches, and assorted philosophical ruminations.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/31/080331fa_fact_alterman#ixzz2809dbecB

Actually James Franklin didn't seem to have all that much commercial success if Isaacson is to be believed. But it was nice to see James Franklin get some recognition.

Ben vs. James

This is an excerpt from the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin dealing with Ben's apprenticeship to his brother James, which is the basis for my play BEN FRANKLIN DECLARES HIS INDEPENDENCE.

My brother had, in 1720 or 1721, begun to print a newspaper. It was the second that appeared in America, and was called the New England Courant. The only one before it was the Boston News-Letter. I remember his being dissuaded by some of his friends from the undertaking, as not likely to succeed, one newspaper being, in their judgment, enough for America. At this time (1771) there are not less than five-and-twenty. He went on, however, with the undertaking, and after having worked in composing the types and printing off the sheets, I was employed to carry the papers thro' the streets to the customers. 

He had some ingenious men among his friends, who amus'd themselves by writing little pieces for this paper, which gain'd it credit and made it more in demand, and these gentlemen often visited us. Hearing their conversations, and their accounts of the approbation their papers were received with, I was excited to try my hand among them; but, being still a boy, and suspecting that my brother would object to printing anything of mine in his paper if he knew it to be mine, I contrived to disguise my hand, and, writing an anonymous paper, I put it in at night under the door of the printing-house. It was found in the morning, and communicated to his writing friends when they call'd in as usual. They read it, commented on it in my hearing, and I had the exquisite pleasure of finding it met with their approbation, and that, in their different guesses at the author, none were named but men of some character among us for learning and ingenuity. I suppose now that I was rather lucky in my judges, and that perhaps they were not really so very good ones as I then esteem'd them. 

Encourag'd, however, by this, I wrote and convey'd in the same way to the press several more papers which were equally approv'd; and I kept my secret till my small fund of sense for such performances was pretty well exhausted and then I discovered it, when I began to be considered a little more by my brother's acquaintance, and in a manner that did not quite please him, as he thought, probably with reason, that it tended to make me too vain. And, perhaps, this might be one occasion of the differences that we began to have about this time. Though a brother, he considered himself as my master, and me as his apprentice, and accordingly, expected the same services from me as he would from another, while I thought he demean'd me too much in some he requir'd of me, who from a brother expected more indulgence. Our disputes were often brought before our father, and I fancy I was either generally in the right, or else a better pleader, because the judgment was generally in my favor. But my brother was passionate, and had often beaten me, which I took extreamly amiss; and, thinking my apprenticeship very tedious, I was continually wishing for some opportunity of shortening it, which at length offered in a manner unexpected.[3] 

[3] I fancy his harsh and tyrannical treatment of me might be a means of impressing me with that aversion to arbitrary power that has stuck to me through my whole life. 

One of the pieces in our newspaper on some political point, which I have now forgotten, gave offense to the Assembly. He was taken up, censur'd, and imprison'd for a month, by the speaker's warrant, I suppose, because he would not discover his author. I too was taken up and examin'd before the council; but, tho' I did not give them any satisfaction, they content'd themselves with admonishing me, and dismissed me, considering me, perhaps, as an apprentice, who was bound to keep his master's secrets. 

During my brother's confinement, which I resented a good deal, notwithstanding our private differences, I had the management of the paper; and I made bold to give our rulers some rubs in it, which my brother took very kindly, while others began to consider me in an unfavorable light, as a young genius that had a turn for libelling and satyr. My brother's discharge was accompany'd with an order of the House (a very odd one), that "James Franklin should no longer print the paper called the New England Courant." 

There was a consultation held in our printing-house among his friends, what he should do in this case. Some proposed to evade the order by changing the name of the paper; but my brother, seeing inconveniences in that, it was finally concluded on as a better way, to let it be printed for the future under the name of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN; and to avoid the censure of the Assembly, that might fall on him as still printing it by his apprentice, the contrivance was that my old indenture should be return'd to me, with a full discharge on the back of it, to be shown on occasion, but to secure to him the benefit of my service, I was to sign new indentures for the remainder of the term, which were to be kept private. A very flimsy scheme it was; however, it was immediately executed, and the paper went on accordingly, under my name for several months. 

At length, a fresh difference arising between my brother and me, I took upon me to assert my freedom, presuming that he would not venture to produce the new indentures. It was not fair in me to take this advantage, and this I therefore reckon one of the first errata of my life; but the unfairness of it weighed little with me, when under the impressions of resentment for the blows his passion too often urged him to bestow upon me, though he was otherwise not an ill-natur'd man: perhaps I was too saucy and provoking.
When he found I would leave him, he took care to prevent my getting employment in any other printing-house of the town, by going round and speaking to every master, who accordingly refus'd to give me work. I then thought of going to New York, as the nearest place where there was a printer; and I was rather inclin'd to leave Boston when I reflected that I had already made myself a little obnoxious to the governing party, and, from the arbitrary proceedings of the Assembly in my brother's case, it was likely I might, if I stay'd, soon bring myself into scrapes; and farther, that my indiscrete disputations about religion began to make me pointed at with horror by good people as an infidel or atheist. I determin'd on the point, but my father now siding with my brother, I was sensible that, if I attempted to go openly, means would be used to prevent me. My friend Collins, therefore, undertook to manage a little for me. He agreed with the captain of a New York sloop for my passage, under the notion of my being a young acquaintance of his, that had got a naughty girl with child, whose friends would compel me to marry her, and therefore I could not appear or come away publicly. So I sold some of my books to raise a little money, was taken on board privately, and as we had a fair wind, in three days I found myself in New York, near 300 miles from home, a boy of but 17, without the least recommendation to, or knowledge of any person in the place, and with very little money in my pocket.

But as Walter Isaacson, the author of the biography Benjamin Franklin: An American Life notes:

...James was doomed by his brother's sharp pen to be remembered "for the blows his passion too often urged him to bestow upon me"...

...James deserved better. If Franklin learned an "aversion to arbitrary power" from him, it was not merely because of his tyrannical style but because he had set an example by challenging, with bravery and spunk, Boston's ruling elite. James was the first great fighter for an independent press in America, and he was the most important journalistic influence on his younger brother. 

He was also an important literarly influence. Silence Dogood might have been, in Benjamin's mind, modeled on Addison and Steele, but in fact she more closely resembled, in her down-home vernacular and common-touch perceptions, Abigail Afterwit, Jack Dulman, and the other pseudonymous characters that had been created for the Courant by James.

Well, duh

I don't think I've ever LOL'd at a theater review before, but I couldn't help it when I was reading Ben Brantley's review of Adam Rapp's THROUGH THE YELLOW HOUR:

As a doomsday scenario, much of “Yellow Hour” might have been written in the 1950s or even earlier. Of course then you wouldn’t have had the requisite Rapp foul language and effluvia, not to mention full-frontal nudity. When, toward the end, a character asks, “Should I take my clothes off?” your instinct is to cry out, “Well, duh.” For better or worse, Mr. Rapp remains true to form.

I guess Rapp should be grateful to Charles Isherwood for declaring that he would no longer be reviewing the work of Adam Rapp - that job has been given to top-dog NYTimes reviewer Brantley.  Although Brantley doesn't seem to like his work much more than Isherwood.  Brantley thinks that Rapp is unoriginal - 

(Rapp) tells stories with infectious enthusiasm. But he also, almost always, tells stories that you feel you’ve heard before.

Which reminds me of the review from 2006 from the Village Voice's Michael Feingold of Rapp's RED LIGHT WINTER when Feingold said: 

Despite my admiration for Adam Rapp's writing, I've stayed away from his plays the last few years - no easy task, given his prolific output - because they were starting to give me the locked-in feeling of a gifted artist endlessly circling round and round the same material, looking for someplace else to go but unceratin what direction to take next. In Rapp's case, this sense of imprisonment was particularly grueling because of the relentless sordidness in his work: characters always at the bottom of life, actions always the harshest and ugliest.

So in the six years, Rapp has gone from repeating himself so much that Feingold "stayed away from his plays" to Ben Brantley suggesting he's repeating cultural tropes.

This time around the Village Voice assigned the Rapp review to Alexis Solomon. She also seems to think it's derivative:

If you have some comfort with female nudity and have sat through at least one Sarah Kane play, there’s little here to shock, but plenty to provide welcome shudders and less-welcome eye-rolling.

Unfortunately she doesn't go into details about what makes it eye-rolling. Although I can imagine.

But really it doesn't matter - it's long-ago been determined that Adam Rapp is  brilliant and he will get as many chances as necessary to produce the same old dystopian, macho schtick again and again, because producers and audiences agree that the quality most necessary for An Important Play is portentousness. 

Well, duh.

---

I saw an article in the NYTimes today "Can Art Still Shock" which has an interview with Adam Rapp, which has the usual predictable macho bullshit:

I refuse to see theater simply as entertainment. It should challenge an audience and push them away from what TV generally gives them. And sometimes a good punch to the stomach or a kick to the shins can be a very good thing. The English playwright Howard Brenton once said, “Theater’s a real bear pit.” I believe in this very much.

Clearly Adam Rapp doesn't watch much television if he thinks that it is any less likely to "challenge" an audience than theater. But critics and writers at the NYTimes absolutely lap that shit up. And Rapp knows it which is why he gives them a physical assault as a metaphor for "good" theater.

The most amusing aspect is that they all seem to think it's such a huge accomplishment to shock and offend people.

Shocking and offending people is the easiest thing to do in the world, and because of this, there is an entire etiquette advice industry expressly designed to help people avoid it. And if you bother reading etiquette columns, like Dear Prudence or Dan Savage, you can see how shocking and offensive people are - often while trying their best not to be.

Any dim-witted oaf can shock and offend people.

And that's why it's so popular with most people in the art world. It's easy to do and as creatures of privilege they will never have to suffer the consequences of shocking and offending others.

And what that's about is displaying their high status in the human hierarchy. How boring and typical.

my daughter-out-law brings home the silver

My daughter-out-law participated in the hospital food version of Iron Chef and did well. And I think she was the only lady chef in this thing.

Merry Christmas Mr. Mather - Happy New Year to you - IN HELL!

The title of this post paraphrases an exchange between Mr. Potter and George Bailey in "It's a Wonderful Life." In case you are wondering. You can see the clip from the movie at the bottom of this post.

Here it is, finally, the anti-Christmas rant section of Cotton Mather's "Grace Defended" screed. And I gotta say, the Christians who did celebrate Christmas were having much more fun than I ever had at Christmas. According to Mather: "the Feast of Christs Nativity is spent in Revelling, Dicing, Carding, Masking, and in all Licentious Liberty, for the most part, as tho' it was some Heathen Feast, of Ceres, or Bacchus. "

Mather basically makes two points here. First, you shouldn't celebrate the birth of Jesus by whooping it up, and Second, they don't even know the exact date of Jesus's birthday. So they're not even whooping it up on the right day!

And of course Mather calls down the usual Thunder and Lighting on his congregation for wanting a holly jolly Christmas.

Mather doesn't only sneer at his own churchmen, though, he manages to get digs in against Muslims....

"Can you in your Conscience think, that our Holy Saviour is honored, by Mad Mirth, by long Eating, by hard Drinking, by lewd Gaming, by rude Revelling, by a Mass fit for none but a Saturn or a Bacchus, of the Night of a Mahometan Ramadan?

 ...and the Catholic Church 

"You will roar out the Words, which a late famous Protestant Apostate to the Popish Idolatry, did in unspeakable Horror of Conscience, Dy wital at those words, Heb. X 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God"

Popish Idolatry. I like that - I'll have to share it with my devoutly Catholic mother this Christmas. 

One more item of interest - Mather uses the word "wantonnize" - it's used in other sources from the period and before - including by Shakespeare - but sadly the word has since become extinct. 

9. I have one word more to speak, and I may the more freely speak it, inasmuch as the Cause of Godliness is Evidently Concerned in it. It is this, 'Tis an Evident Affront unto the Grace of God, for Men to make the Birth of our Holy Saviour, an Encouragement and Occasion for very Unholy Enormities. The Grace of God never Shone out more Gloriously, than in that occurance upon which an Angel flew from Heaven to tell us, Behold I bring you good Tidings of Great Joy: That unto you there is born this Day a Saviour. But if such an Angel were this day to Preach among you, do you think, He would not Thunder and Lighten Wonderfully against the Vicious practices, in which this Grace of God, and that Holy Saviour, is this Day Affronted by multitudes of Ungodly Men in the World! I do not now propose any matter of Doubtful Disputation, but One, wherein I shall have all godly Persons of whatever different Persuasions in other things, Concurring with me. I do not now dispute whether they who three or four hundred Years after the Birth of our Saviour first began the Festival of his Nativity (I say, first began, for Vessius himself confesses it was not kept in the first and second Century, and Chemistius truly says, Apud Vetistissimos nunquam Legatur!) did not mistake the Time of it. For they who say, Thou hast given this Son to be born this Day, know not what they say; The Day is concealed, yea, it is now beyond  Contestation proved, that not only the Month but also the very Year of it, has been Egregiously mistaken. *

---

*The late most accurate Professor of the Mathematics, in Cambridge has in his Exquisite work about the Chronology of the Bible, brought this Matter under such a Demonstration, that it is no longer to be disputed of the whole process of the Demonstration, is too large to be introduced here. But briefly: we are certain, that our Saviour was born before the Death of Herod, that horrible Tyrant, whom they call, The Great We have now discovered irrefutable Proofs, that this Monster Expired on the Twenty fifth of November, in the 4710 year of the Julian Period, which was three years and above a month, bfore the present Christian Era. Besides many other unquestionable Accounts, concerning the Date of Herods Reign, we have a most infallible one, in the Eclipse of the moon, which happened, as all agree on the Thirteenth of March before his Death. But this infallible Mark, he died in the 4710 year of the Julian Period which was the 4001 year of the World. And the Jewish Kalender has all along made the 25 day of November, an Holiday; Because on that Day Herod the King died. Now the Birth of our Savior must be, at least a Month before the Death of Herod And on the other side, we cannot allow very much more than a Month; because of the Time, which now Easily determined, for the Attendance of the Father John Baptist at the Temple The Opinon of Dr Lightfoot and Some others, who would place the Birth of our Saviour Two years before the Death of Herod, can by no means be now supported. It must unavoidably be the Same Year, But then, it could not possibly be after October Nor, do I know, why it should not be as many Learned men have judged, about the Time of the Feast of Tabernacles which was a glorous and elegant Figure of it The Conjecture, That October being really the Tenth Month to them who begin the Year in January, the Primitive Christians had a tradition of our Saviours being born on the 25 day of the Tenth Month; and this threw the first institutors of the present Holiday into the Error which has ever since been come upon, I Know no need of Paying any Respect unto it Upon the whole; It is now determined, that the Corinthian Era, the Computation whereof was first made by Dionysius Exiguus, between five and six hundred years after the Birth of our Saviour, has misreckoned above three years; insomuch that we are now truly intered into the Year of our Lord, 1716 And it is also determined, that the Birth of our Saviour was before the month of November, in which the Bloody Idumaean, who sought His Death, found his own.

---

I do not now dispute, whether People do well to Observe such an Uninstituted Festival at all, or no. Good Men may love one another and may treat one another with a most Candid Charity, while he that Regardeth a Day, Regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that Regardeth not the Day, also shows his Regard unto the Lord, in his not Regarding of it. Tho' this I wil take leave to say; If the Churches of NEW ENGLAND preserve the Religion of the LORDS DAY, it will in the Day of Reformation that most come on, be judg'd no Dishonour to them, that they have harmoniz'd with their United Brethren in Scotland, in a Point for which the last of their peculiar Kings once applauded their Purity, even their not having a Yule observed among them What I am going to animadvert upon, is a thing, which there can be no doubt about. And there are some things that render it highly Seasonable, to dispense those Admonitions of God our Saviour, unto our Children, which I am not to pour down upon them. The famous Perkins long since complained; That the Feast of Christs Nativity is spent in Revelling, Dicing, Carding, Masking, and in all Licentious Liberty, for the most part, as tho' it was some Heathen Feast, of Ceres, or Bacchus. Yea, the zealous Martyr Latimer complained, That Men dishonour Christ more in the Twelve Days of Christmas, than in all the twelve Months of the Year besides. All the truly Religious People in the World, still make the Complaint with Lamentation. We also must Mourn in our Complaint, and make a Noise, upon it. My Concern is now, with our own Children; and for such as we must faithfully Admonish in our Ministry, as we shall answer the same unto GOD. Children, We lay the Charges of God upon you, That if any People take this Time, for any thing of a Riotous Tendency, you do not associate with them, in such Ungodliness. No, but let your Answer to those Children of holly be, The Grace of God in Sending us a Great Saviour calls for more Pious Acknowledgements. Let your Own Conscience be appeal'd unto, this Preacher which every one of you has in his own bosume, hearken'd to! Can you in your Conscience think, that our Holy Saviour is honored, by Mad Mirth, by long Eating, by hard Drinking, by lewd Gaming, by rude Revelling, by a Mass fit for none but a Saturn or a Bacchus, of the Night of a Mahometan Ramadan? You cannot possibly think so. At the Birth of our Saviour, we read, A Multitude of the Heavenly Host was heard Praising of God But shall it be said, That at the Birth of our Saviour, for which we owe as High Praises to God as they can do, We take the Time to Please the Hellish Legions, and to do Actions that have much more of Hell than of Heaven in them? I must faithfully tell you, This way of honouring the Blessed JESUS, who came to Redeem us from a Vain Conversation, received by Tradition from our Fathers, ' tis a practical Blasphemy upon Him, an High-handed Blasphemy upon Him. It is to outrage the Holy Son of God! It is to Expose your selves unto that Indignation of Heaven, which they who take the Name of the Lord our God in Vain, ly open unto. If you will yet go on, and will do Such Things, I forewarn you, That the Burning Wrath of God, will break forth among you All Persons, of any the least Godliness, will approve my Faithfulness, in what I have now Spoken; If any Man Dislike it, and REvile it, he only shows the Brand of an Ungodly Man, and a Contempt from from every Citizen of Zion, accordingly belongs unto him. 

Upon the Whole: The EXHORTATION that now calls upon us all, must be that, in Cor VI 1 We beseech you, that ye receive not the Grace of God in Vain Oh! Don't Wantonnize upon the Grace of God. But upon every instance of Grace, make that Reflection, What shall I render to the Lord? In short, Rember this Obligations to Holiness, You are still to Read Them, in all that is ever done by the Grace of God for a Sinful World. If GOD be Gracious, My Friend, they Inference from must always be thus, Then I must be Holy and my God, make me so! To Sin the more because of the Grace in our God, Verily, Tis the Foulest profanity, An attempt it is, to call in the God who is of Purer Eyes than to behold Evil, and cannot Look on Iniquity Tis the grossest Ingratitude Evil rendred for Good, in the most odious manner that ever was heard of Evil will never depart from the Doer of it And, What will ye do at the End thereof? Endless, Endless, Misery will be the End thereof! I must say unto you, It is the blackest Note of a Reprobate Mind, a Soul Forsaken of God! And it will pull down a Wrath unto the Uttermost. Sinner, if Grace it self becomes thy Foe, what Friend canst though have in Heaven or Earth? To Wantonnize upon it, is the way to make it so.
That Saying drawes on a CORROLLARY which my Discourse may do well to Lodge, in the Conclusion of it. If it be an Ungodly thing and a Dangerous, to turn the Grace of God into Wantonness, You must Look on it, as the Same thing, to turn the Wrath of God into Ridicule. The Truth is, These Two Things go together, They who do the One, do the Other too. O you that are yet in your Sins, Unbelievers, that have not mad eyour Flight by Faith unto the Only Saviour, You , you are they of whom it is said, Joh III 36 The Wrath of God abideth on them Certainly, You Ridicule that Wrath, or you could not continue in your Sins, You could not but be in Agony, for a Deliverance from the Wrath to come. You make light of that Wrath which throws down Rocks and whereby Mountains are overturned. An Anger, which O Lord who knows the Power of! Miserable Ones, yet walking in the Sinful Waves for with your own Hearts condemn you, Ways that have Destruction and Misery in them. Oh! Break free of your Sins, and Accept and Embrace the JESUS who would Save you from your Sins. Otherwise, you will anon feel the Wrath of God, but find the Force of it Irressistible, the weight of it Insupportable, the Tortures of it in your Wounded Spirit Intolerable. You will roar out the Words, which a late famous Protestant Apostate to the Popish Idolatry, did in unspeakable Horror of Conscience, Dy wital at those words, Heb. X 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God

Boxer don't knock me down

I was in the Pret a Manger down the block from my office and they were playing this and it blew my mind. I paid one of the guys at the counter a buck to go downstairs and see whose CD was playing. Now I'm listening to this song on a loop. I was attracted by the music but the lyrics are great too:

What a drag not to know how you are, or which of us got the raw deal.
I was a dagger but in whose heart?
I was the dirt beneath whose wheel?
Boxer, don't knock me down.
Writer, don't write me out.
Stranger, let's not stay estranged.
Lover, are we going separate ways?
And don't I get a say?
Hey, hey, hey.
What a drag not to know how you are.
What a drag not to know how you feel.
I tore the banner around your heart.
I tore the banner that said "ideal."
Today I'm thinking of you in a new way.

The band is Lovers and to my amazement they don't even have a Wiki page - I must remedy that soon.
 Here is their web site.

more Mather, less art

I took a longer than expected break from this Cotton Mather pamphlet but I feel I deserved it. But where were we - oh yes, Ungodly men, yadda yadda yadda. Now I know why nobody else has thought to transcribe this thing. *sigh*

On the positive side, after this installment I will finally be at the part of the pamphlet where Cotton Mather trashes Christmas, demonstrating that in spite of Bill O'Reilly's hysteria, the first "war on Christmas" was started by Christians.

One item of note for this installment - he mentions Indian weed: 

"To be Slave unto the use of an Indian Weed, or any other Trifle, is beneath a Christian, who has Right Thoughts of Liberty"

6. 'Tis a thing of an Ungodly Aspect, for Men from such Liberties as are Lawful Ones, to Encourage themselves in taking such as are Unlawful Ones. There are Great Liberties, which the Grace of God has granted unto Christians, Especially now the Mosaic Yoke is taken off, by the Grace of a more Evangelical Dispensation Bu what sayes the Law of CHRIST? I Cor. VIII 9 But take heed, Lest by any means this Liberty of yours become a Stumbling Block, to them that are weak Minded it is (unreadable text) there is no Necessity of them. and no Commandment of God obliges to do them, we should think, Tis true, I may do this thing, But wont my doing of it, cause other People to sin against my Savior? In this Case we must forbear, Else we make a wrong use of our Liberty. Luther had an Holy Saying, Omnia Libera per Fidem, serva per Charstatem. O Redeemed People of God, This is a Case that calls for a more Frequent and Solemn Consideration, than it commonly finds among you! This the Grace of God is also Trampled on, When we run into an Excess in the use of Lawful Things. The Christian has from the Grace of God, A CHARTER, for  the whole Creation, I will show you my Charter. It runs in those Terms, I Tim. IV 4 Every Creature of God is Good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with Thanksgiving. Well, But the Precepts of GOD, and the Maxims of a Godly and Sober and Righteous Life, must set Bounds to us, in our using of our Charter. A Man may Eat any thing: But yet he may not be a Glutton. A Man may Drink what he will, But for all that, he must not be Drunk. To be Slave unto the use of an Indian Weed, or any other Trifle, is beneath a Christian, who has Right Thoughts of Liberty. He may use it, but not so, as to be in Pain, if he be not alwayes at it. Any Civil Modes of Apparel may be followed - but Vanity and Luxury in Apparel, Habits that are the Ensigns of a Foolish Minds, Immoderate and Exorbitant Gaieties, the Disciples of the Humble JESUS, must put off such things. Liberty is turned into Slavery, when it runs into Extravagances. I never Sin but I Enslave myself  

7. 'Tis a Branch of Ungodliness, for Men from the Relation they bear to the God of Heaven, to Encourage themselves in Miscarriages towards the Men on Earth, whom they stand Related to. The Grace of God bestows mighty Priviledges, on them, whom He raises unto the Relation of His People, and His Children But what says the Apostle? I Pet II. 16 As free, not using your Liberty, as a Cloke of Maliciousness, but as the Servants of God. Thro' the Grace of God, my Conscience is exempted from all Humane Empire None but the Great GOD can Command my Conscience, I may not Complement any Man thoug' he were a greater Tyrant than him at Versailles, with a Subjection of my Conscience unto him. For all that, I must make Conscience of Submitting to the Government, which is an Ordinance of God  Paul writing to the Romans, cautions them of this; That they should not on the score of their Christianity pretend an Exemption from the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate, in the Things for which God has Ordained him. So Nothing but the WORD of God, is to Order all things in the Church of God, Things are never done Decently there, but when done according to that Order. The Inventions of Men may not be imposed there, We are to Reject such Schismatical Impositions; the Imposers, however Liberal they are in bestowing the Term upon others, are to be look'd upon as the true Schismaticks. For all this, the Church is to Pray for all that are in Authority, and its People are to Lead Peaceful Lives in all Godliness and Honesty. In the Church, the Pastors must not Lord it over the Heritage. The People must have the Choice of their own Pastors: The Pastors must proceed with the Consent of the People in things of common concernment. This was the true State of Things in the Primitive Church, and so they continued for some hundreds of years, and until they were overwhelmed with the Usurpations of Antichrist. It is an Obstinacy little short of a Miraculous Inflection, which they discover, who will at this time of Day, Contradict things that are so notoriously demonstrated. Sacred and Precious Liberties! But now, you read Gal V 13 Brethren, Ye have been called unto Liberty, Only use not your Liberty for an occasion to the Flesh, but by Love Serve one another O dear Flocks of the Lord, You must not now forget that word, Obey them that have the Rule over you, and Watch for your Souls: nor forget that word; Let the Elders that Rule well be counted worthy of double Honour. Nor forget that word, Know them that are over you in the Lord, and Esteem them very highly in Love. The Grace of God should indeed cause Pastors and People, to be always loading One another with Tokens of Mutual Affection. In our Families, Humanity goes a great way and Christianity much further, in this, That a Servant becomes a Brother. But if the Servant shall now Despise his Master, Insult his Master, Disobey they Master, which the Fifth Commandment has bound him to, Let that Brother be beaten into better Matters, make him to know his Inferior Condition a little better. He Saucily Playes upon the Grace of God, and should be chastised for it.  

8. 'Tis a flaming Ungodliness when from the Gifts of God unto Men, their Sins against God, are encouraged, are furnished, are not (unreadable word). The Grace of God, grants Gifts unto Men, Oh, why should it be found, Unto the Rebellious! Ungodly Men, they make the Gifts of God unto them, only a Furniture(?) and a Nourishment for them, in carrying on Rebellions against Him. Unrighteous Ones, They fall into the Fault of Jeshurun; Deut XXXII 15. He waxe fat, and Kicked Have they any Wit? Fools have the keeping of it, They are only Wish to do Evil. Have they Health and Strength of Body? It only renders them the more Able and the more Eager to Commit Iniquity. Are they Beautiful? They are Proud of it. And with it, they Tempt the Simple ones, and those that are void of Understanding. Do Riches increase up on them? All goes to feed, the Lust of the Flesh, and the Lust of the Eye, and the Pride of Life. They do but the more put their Trust in Uncertain Riches God has little Honour from their Substance Are they put into Commissions or advanced into Stations and Places of some Dignity? It fills them with empty Conceits of themselves. They employ their Opportunities not so much to Do Good in the Word, as that they m ay be made Rich, and the Glory of their House increased. The XLVII. Chapter of Genesis, to me Exhibits and Example of such an Abused Advancement, which I must own, I cannot without Scandal and Sorrow, and Wonder  think upon. But how much imitated in our Later Ages? Marvellous Disingenuity! To fight afaisnt the Blessed God, with His Own Weapons, at such a rate! Thus to take His Coin, and His Wine and His Wool, and only Serve diverse Lusts with them! Thus to take His Talents and only Trade for the Devil with them! With such Ungodly Men, how Suitably, how Pungently may we use their Expostulations! Deut XXXII 6 Do ye thus Requite the Lord, O foolish People and Unwise. A Base Requital for the Grace of a Good God Oh! Blush and be Ashamed of it.

another short movie

I think this is the best of the NYCPlaywrights Play of the Month recordings I've done yet. It helps that I didn't record it outdoors I think. At this point this is probably the best my videos are going to get technically until I can invest in better equipment, get the actors to commit to more than two hours, and have a budget larger than $40.

But the most important thing is the acting and I think Tim and David did amazing work here. Tim can apparently cry at will, instantly. It was a bit disconcerting how he was able to do that.

The Daily Show: Chaos on Bullshit Mountain

I know in the past I've said that other segments of the Daily Show were the best ever: the superb Virginian Confederate History Month segment; the amazing Conservative Libertarian segment which spoofed Glenn Beck's paranoid insanity; and the immortal, priceless gospel-choir-backed fuck you to Fox News and Bernie Goldberg. But this - THIS - Chaos on Bullshit Mountain may truly be the greatest moment ever on the Daily Show - nay, on television, ever.

yin-yang cats for the equinox

My cats made this yin-yang-esque formation by themselves - the only thing I added was the black mousie, to balance out the white mousie. Pretty appropriate for the autumnal equinox, when night and day are evenly balanced.

Autumn Equinox - 9:49 AM

Congenial friend it has been too long.
Abbreviated by December snow;
All but forgotten come vernal bird song;
And buried live by your glamazon foe
With her promises of endless leisure
And picnics and seashores and barbecues,
Society, recreation, pleasure
And all mockery else of we who lose,
Who don't have or can't afford vacations,
Office-work Summers, too dreary to tell,
Days shit-sandwiched between subway stations
That blast like the seventh level of Hell.
Air-conditioned frostbite to heatstroke grief
Bless you Autumn for your temperate relief.

Why Sam Harris is a second-rate thinker, at best

I'm taking a temporary break from examining the ravings of Cotton Mather to examine the ravings of one of the heroes of the so-called "New Atheist" movement, Sam Harris.

To be a "New" Atheist you can't just disbelieve in deities and magic and all other varieties of woo. You have to be xenophobic too.

The New Atheists are so xenophobic, they actually privilege Christianity over other religions. Previously my go-to example was Richard Dawkins' statement in his book The God Delusion:

"There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse."

But as of September 19, 2012, Sam Harris has provided me with a much more stunning example:

 The spectrum between rational belief and self-serving delusion has some obvious increments: It is one thing to believe that Jesus existed and was probably a remarkable human being. It is another to accept, as most Christians do, that he was physically resurrected and will return to earth to judge the living and the dead. It is yet another leap of faith too far to imagine, as all good Mormons must, that he will work his cosmic magic from the hallowed ground of Jackson County, Missouri. 

That final, provincial detail matters. It makes Mormonism objectively less plausible than run-of-the-mill Christianity—as does the related claim that Jesus visited the “Nephites” in America at some point after his resurrection. The moment one adds seer stones, sacred underpants, the planet Kolob, and a secret handshake required to win admittance into the highest heaven, Mormonism stands revealed for what it is: the religious equivalent of rhythmic gymnastics.

He literally states that "Mormonism (is) objectively less plausible" than Christianity.  From which we can infer that Sam Harris believes that one set of myths is "objectively" more plausible than another.

Sam Harris actually thinks that because Mormons have additional myths related to the physical resurrection of Jesus, it makes Mormonism less believable than Christianity.

Harris must have only a vague acquaintance with the many and varied myths associated with Christianity, so if he wants to play "which religion is more implausible" I'm ready to go:

• Mormons don't believe that Jesus' mother Mary was assumed into Heaven on her death. They think she just died like anybody else. 

So chalk one up for Mormons on the "more plausible" side.

Clearly this way lies madness. This is not atheism. This is bullshit disguised as atheism in the defense of xenophobia.

Previously I thought that New Atheists pulled the "Christianity is better" line exclusively against Islam. But here we see that Christianity is also claimed better than Mormonism.

So what does Mormonism and Islam have in common? They're less familiar to the New Atheists than Christianity. Because fundamentally, the New Atheists are conservatives, even if only Christopher Hitchens was obvious about it.

Harris claims to be a liberal in the post I link to:

I am no fan of Romney’s, and I would find the prospect of his presidency risible if it were not so depressing, but he did accurately detect the first bleats of fear in the Obama administration’s reaction to this crisis. Romney got the timing of events wrong—confusing, as many did, a statement made by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo for an official government response to the murder of Americans in Libya. But the truth is that the White House struck the same note of apology, disavowing the offending speech while claiming to protect free speech in principle. It may seem a small detail, given the heat of the moment—but so is a quivering lip.

His view of the United States governments' standard diplomatic response to an international crisis is that it's appeasement - a view indistinguishable from that of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

To truly understand the New Atheist paranoid, xenophobic view of adherents of non Judeo-Christianity, consider Harris's statement in the same article I link to:

Some percentage of the world’s Muslims—Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty? It’s not yet clear—is demanding that all non-Muslims conform to the strictures of Islamic law.

Harris has no idea what percentage of the world's Muslims (there are 1.5 billion of them) are making this demand. He throws out as high as 50% but he has nothing to go on. But that doesn't stop him from making the convenient assumption that it is a significant, worrisome percentage.

There are fanatics in every religion. But it is the New Atheist party line to suggest that Islam is more likely to produce religious fanaticism. And their reason is very different from the one given by most anthropologists or sociologists: the socio-economic conditions in the parts of the world that happen to have a high percentage of Muslims.

No, the New Atheists actually believe that it is the mythology of Islam itself that produces violence.

You only need to have the most basic grasp of the history of Christianity to know that it was responsible for holy wars, burning witches, and the Inquisition.

And if you have any grasp of the foundations of logic it would occur to you: Christians believe in the "more plausible" doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Jesus just as much now as they did in the days of the Inquisition. And the raging homicidal Jehovah is, to this very day, in the Old Testament, advising his people on the best way to treat slaves; and wiping out entire cities. And so since the mythologies haven't changed, they can't have had any effect on the change in behavior of their believers.

It's not the mythologies that religious people believe in that make them violent. To paraphrase Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign - it's the socio-economy, stupid.

I would go so far as to suggest that evolutionary psychology is to blame for the Neo-con New Atheists's inability to admit to the socio-economic factors that control human behavior. Dawkins is a leading proponent of evolutionary psychology and Harris appears to believe in evolutionary ethics, although I have yet to link him to "evolutionary psychology" specifically. But a faith in what was once called sociobiology seems to be just as much a part of being a New Atheist as xenophobia. That's why, although Hitchens never actually bothered to learn the basics of the evolutionary psychology system, he argued, half-assed, that women were essentially not funny thanks to evolution.

Although evolutionary psychology proponents give lip service to nurture, in fact they are utterly reflexive about attributing everything to nature. As David Buller demonstrated when he pointed out that David Buss was claiming that female sexual slavery was an example of female sexual preference.

Although EPs sometimes claim that religion itself is an adaptation, that doesn't help much when you are claiming that some religions produce more virtuous behavior than others. And since EPs reflexively discount historical and socio-economic conditions as an explanation for human behavior, what do they have left to explain current events?

The term is "idealism." They don't examine the complex social conditions, they fall back on what the ideologies say.

For an important comparison of the competing explanation of the way human societies work, see R. Brian Ferguson's "Materialist, cultural and biological theories on why Yanomami make war." (the link will download a PDF) Although it's important to understand that while the New Atheists fall into the biological camp when it comes to explaining Yanomami warfare, they fall into the "cultural" camp - a better term is "idealist" - when it comes to explaining religions. They look at what the culture claims about itself, not the socio-economic infrastructure that shaped the culture. And Ferguson, Marvin Harris and I fall into the "materialist" camp, sometimes known as cultural materialism.

But whether EP is to blame or not, there is no excuse for someone who apparently makes a living as a public atheist intellectual to display such astoundingly shoddy thinking when it comes to the relative "plausibility" of religions.

And it's truly embarrassing to me as an atheist for Sam Harris to be touted as some kind of intellectual superstar of atheism. He's a second-rate thinker, at best.

Excellent article in The Nation about how Sam Harris, in addition to Hitchens, made common cause with the Bush administration.