text:
This is TELL ME MORE from NPR News. I'm Michel Martin. Coming up, we are recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month by speaking with the first Mexican-American woman to become a college or university president in the U.S. We'll hear her very interesting story in a few minutes.
But first, we turn to last night's presidential debate. An estimated 60 million Americans tuned in to watch the first face-off between President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
Today, pundits from across the political spectrum, as well as instant polls of viewers, indicate a consensus that Mr. Romney won last night's debate, but there's always the question of what that really means, so here to help us review the style and the substance, we have with us Mary Kate Cary, columnist and blogger for U.S. News and World Report. She's also a former speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush. Also with us once again, Paul Orzulak. He was a speechwriter for President Clinton, as well as Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 election, and he's a founding partner of the speechwriting firm West Wing Writers. They're both here with us once again in our Washington, D.C. studios.
Welcome back to you both. Thank you for joining us once again.
PAUL ORZULAK: Nice to be here, Michel.
MARY KATE CARY: Good to be here.
MARTIN: So I'm going to take this in two parts. First, I'm going to ask each of you which moment stood out most for each of you and then I'm going to ask you to break down each candidate's performance a little more. So let's take that in turn. Mary Kate, why don't you start? Which moment stood out for you?
CARY: I think the best part was when Mitt Romney was talking about bipartisanship. I think that really got through to people and that's what people are hungry to hear, that he's going to get Washington working again. It was a direct contrast to the president's response on it, which was, oh, you know, because sometimes you can't get people to work together. And I think that sort of summed up a lot of it.
It was a great night for Mitt Romney and throughout it he was the Mitt Romney we've all been waiting to see and he was a safe alternative now, which he wasn't a week ago. He was passionate, specific, smart, funny. He told stories that connected with people. Just across the board this was the beginning of the race last night.
MARTIN: OK. Paul Orzulak, what debate moment stood out for you?
ORZULAK: Well, the first five minutes, the first 10 minutes of the debate, I think, showed that Governor Romney was on his game. He came and he - his joke - he made a nice self-deprecating joke after the president recognized his wife for their 20th anniversary.
But the moment for me was when Jim Lehrer turned to the governor and asked if he - do you have any questions for the president? And he had a crisp, two minute response that really was a highlight of his program, went through his five points that he was running on before asking the question. It wasn't simply a question that was an attack, and this is the Mitt Romney that ran for governor in Massachusetts. This is not the man that we've seen on the campaign trail.
MARTIN: So it sounds like you agree. As a Democrat, you do agree that Mitt Romney - this was his night. Do you agree with that?
ORZULAK: It was a good night. I was hoping for Red Sox versus Yankees. I think we got Red Sox versus Yankees 2012 - the Red Sox, you know, far behind as they are.
MARTIN: Why don't you - why don't you pick up the thread there, Paul? So why don't you talk about President Obama? What did he do wrong from your perspective, or did he do - did he do anything wrong or was Mitt Romney just better?
ORZULAK: Well, I think Governor Romney was better prepared with attacks last night with a strong sense of what he wanted to land on the president and what he wanted to pin the president down on. The president - he left behind all the lines that he has on the campaign trail about Bain Capital, about the fact that Mitt Romney pioneered outsourcing, his 47 percent comment about 47 percent of the American people dependent on handouts.
So in that void, Governor Romney could define himself as a person of the moment and...
MARTIN: Let's play a clip that might speak to this perspective that you're just sort of describing here that actually both of you just described. This is a clip of the president talking about Mr. Romney or Governor Romney's tax proposal, and then we'll hear a little bit of Governor Romney's response. Here it is.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Governor Romney's proposal that he's been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military.
MITT ROMNEY: I'm not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That's not my plan. My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit.
MARTIN: So to your point, I mean the president wonky and Mitt Romney aggressive.
ORZULAK: Yes.
MARTIN: And still substantive enough.
ORZULAK: I think, you know, the playbook is that, during the primaries you run to the right. During the general election you run to the center. Governor Romney hasn't done that. He's run further to the right. Last night he sounded like the man that ran for governor of Massachusetts, but in truth his program is still far to the right of the American people.
I think the president succeeded last night in laying out a choice. There definitely is a choice. Next month we're going to spend talking about those differences, the fact that the governor is proposing $5 trillion in tax cuts that he doesn't pay for, that he does want to voucherize Medicare, and he does want to help the people at the top of the economic ladder more than the middle class, even though last night, if you were playing a debate drinking game last night, you probably got alcohol poisoning on the strength of Mitt Romney's mention of the middle class alone.
I mean that is not the man that he - that's not the program he's running on. That's not the person he's been on the campaign trail, but the fact is that his program is not going to change and his program is still out of step with what the American people want.
MARTIN: If you're just joining us, you're listening to TELL ME MORE from NPR News. We're talking about last night's presidential debate with two of our former presidential speechwriters, Mary Kate Cary, who worked with Republican administrations; Paul Orzulak, who worked with Democratic administrations.
Mary Kate, on the whole question of running back toward the center, one of the ways that Mitt Romney sort of pivoted back toward his roots is in re-embracing what is now called Obamacare, or his version of Obamacare. President Obama said it was the basis for the Affordable Care Act. So did Mitt Romney's Republican rivals during the primary.
He seemed to wrap his arms around it once again and I wanted to ask if - was he effective in doing that or does it look like another flip-flop, which is something that he's been accused of doing?
CARY: Oh, I thought it was the best answer he's given so far on Romneycare. I thought he came across as very reasonable, middle of the road, mainstream. I didn't hear any sort of far right language from him. He certainly didn't disavow Romneycare. I thought it was the best job he's done on health care reform of what his plan is going forward.
The other thing I liked...
MARTIN: How will that play with the Republican base? Because the conventional wisdom has been that that's one of the things that people have either praised or criticized him for, is being too solicitous of the Republican base, which in some ways is out of step with kind of the general voting audience. How do you think that'll - his performance will play?
CARY: Oh, he said several times last night that on day one he's repealing Obamacare and that he will replace it with what he thinks is a better plan and I thought he did a great job last night of laying out what that means and keeping the stuff people like and getting rid of the stuff that's hurting small business.
ORZULAK: Actually, I would disagree with that. I don't think he's laid out a single health care plan, other than saying, yes, I believe we shouldn't have preexisting conditions and I believe that we shouldn't burden small business. But in truth, his health care plan is just like his tax plan. It's trust me and I'll tell you after the election. Because we don't have anything from him that's...
MARTIN: Well, let me ask about what - because there's another - there are actually two other presidential debates. We can continue - I'm...
CARY: True.
MARTIN: ...assuming we will continue to hear about more of these issues. Paul, why is it - you mentioned this earlier and a number of other commentators, particularly Democrats, have pointed out that the president seemed to leave a lot on the table. He didn't bring up Governor Romney's so-called 47 percent video, which is being featured in campaign ads, for example. Why do you think he didn't?
ORZULAK: Well, I think he probably wanted to focus on policy last night. I - personally, I would have loved to have seen more of that because it's an honest representation of who the governor is, his own words, his own record. And, you know, the president chose not to get personal and focus on that last night and, you know, it's a decision that he made because I think he wanted to focus on policy.
At the end, the governor - you know, he doesn't drink alcohol, but I think he drinks Red Bulls because we certainly saw him as strong as he's ever been last night and...
CARY: He was no Jennifer Granholm though.
ORZULAK: He was no Jennifer - but you know, in truth, but...
MARTIN: Talking about rather her overheated performance at the Democratic convention, former...
CARY: She says she was not drinking Red Bull.
ORZULAK: Well, in truth, if you...
MARTIN: We'll take her word for it.
ORZULAK: If you look back at the nine elections between 1976 and 2008, there are only two years when the incumbent party candidate gained ground relative to the challenger in the first debate. These events are tailor made for the challengers and he does know how to prepare for these things and he did a really nice job last night. It was so clear that he had practiced so many of these responses. The great line he had about his five sons, which connected with me as a parent - that was clearly one that was ready to be deployed at some moment and he did it.
And he's running for president. The president's running the country. He's had a lot more time to prepare. He's been preparing for these in Vermont since June.
MARTIN: Mary Kate, what do you think?
CARY: My take on it as a speechwriter is that he has gotten too reliant on his teleprompter and so I think that explains why there were so many umming and awings last night from President Obama. I think he was trying to fix it by taking notes and that meant less eye contact, and the spiral began.
MARTIN: It seemed like he didn't want to be there.
CARY: And that was the overall takeaway. He looked annoyed. He didn't want to be there. He looked like he had better things he could be doing.
MARTIN: I have to ask about the moderator because the issue of who moderates this debate has become an issue this year in a way that it really has not been previously. I mean it had been discussed previously, but there was a lot of discussion from outside groups about the choice of moderators, all of whom are white. They are all, you know, veterans, but these are people, you know...
CARY: You have a woman for the first time in 20 years.
MARTIN: A woman for the first time in 20 years who's moderating the town hall debate...
CARY: Right.
MARTIN: ...where she basically gets to be a talk show host. No disrespect to talk show hosts. But she basically gets to hold the mic for the...
CARY: The undecided voters.
MARTIN: ...the voters.
CARY: Yeah.
MARTIN: So I wanted to ask just your opinion about this, if I may. How did he do? Jim Lehrer - this is his 12th presidential debate. He says it's going to be his last. He's already retired, really, from his...
CARY: Yeah.
MARTIN: ...primary post as a principal anchor of "The News Hour" on PBS. So Mary Kate, what do you think?
CARY: I had read that he had said in advance that he was already done with debates and that's why he's written this book on the history of debates that's coming out in the next few weeks. But then the debate commission called and he is of a generation that says when your country calls, you say yes. And he took it to mean that he couldn't say no.
I think that was probably against his better judgment and I assume this really is his last debate. I believe he's closing in on 80 years old and I think that showed a little bit last night. He certainly, to me, seemed very fair. I don't think he was biased or anything like that. The biggest problem is he seemed like he sort of lost control of the proceedings a little bit, but I didn't take it as a biased thing. I thought he was fair.
MARTIN: OK. Paul, what about you?
ORZULAK: I don't think anybody could have brought control to that debate last night because I think one of the governor's strategies was to take charge of that, to be strong, to talk over the moderator, to ask questions. It was - you know, it's a technique they perfected during the Republican primaries this year where a lot of the questions from moderators actually became the target of responses. Newt Gingrich in particular, but Governor Romney did it as well.
But you know, if you step back, even though it didn't serve the president as well last night from my perspective, I think Americans like to see less structure to those. They like to see...
CARY: Yeah.
ORZULAK: ...the candidates interact, ask each other questions.
CARY: I like the new format. Yeah.
ORZULAK: I like that. Rather than practiced answers to questions and then moving on...
CARY: A little more of a conversation.
ORZULAK: That's where you get those moments, and while it didn't - you know, it didn't serve the president as well last night as I would have hoped, it will the next debate.
MARTIN: Paul Orzulak is a former speechwriter for President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore's 2000 election campaign. He's a founding partner of the speechwriting firm West Wing Writers. Also joining us, Mary Kate Cary. She is a former speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush and currently she's a columnist and blogger for U.S. News and World Report. Thank you both so much for joining us once again.
CARY: Great to be here.
ORZULAK: Thanks, Michel. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
These hats are made from fleece.
⫸ Perfect for: fans, cold weather, costumes, or conventions. Very warm!
⫸ Size: Fits anyone age 5+, one size fits most. Circumference about 24-25 in.
⫸ Care instructions: I recommend hand wash but should be fine in machine wash cold.
All hats are made in a smoke-free, pet-free environment. All hats are made with a sewing machine. Patterns and designs are drawn, cut, and made by me.
▎Free shipping on orders over $35 (ground advantage shipping only) ▎
⫸ Shipping
USA - 2-3 days (possibly 5 days now)
⫸ Shipping Upgrades
Priority Mail - 2-3 days USA
Express Mail - 1-2 days USA

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Have an account?
Log in to check out faster.
Free shipping over $150 on all orders placed by August 1st
T shirt
Tank Tops
Couldn't load pickup availability
Officially Licensed Merchandise for Joshua Chapman at University of Alabama. Your order will be printed & made to order in 3-7 business days once you have placed your order!
Your new go to Hooded Sweatshirt. This staple sweatshirt is soft and lightweight, with the right amount of stretch. It's comfortable and flattering for all.It's comfortable and flattering for all.
• 50% airlume combed and ringspun cotton and 50% polyester • Heather Sport color is 60% combed and ring-spun cotton, 40% polyester •Slim Fit, Size Up if you want oversized! Size Chart:
Size Chart:
Please note that images on this are digital mockups and may not be 100% accurate. The final design size, placement, clothing cut may vary from the mock-ups. Additionally, colors may appear different due to monitor settings and digital printing technology. Thank you for understanding.Due to possible stock issues, similar alternative products may be used for t-shirts, crewnecks, hoodies.Every purchase is final sale. If you receive a product and there is a quality issue, please email us at email@example.com, and we will be able to help.
Want to purchase this product in bulk for your University Bookstore, Retail Store, or for Resale?
Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.com and we can get an order set up for you!


text:
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Is Religion Beneficial to Society?
This morning, February 25, in the Austin American-Statesman, there were two articles—one on the front page of the National section, and one on the front of the Local and State—that covered dangerous errors in sex education in our schools and legislation undermining the relationship between a woman and her doctor, which also noted that our governor has once again spoken out against medical research that researchers believe could yield beneficial medical results. Make no mistake, these initiatives are designed purely to resonate among religious constituents. Are there nonreligious people who might (and do) support these same measures? Yes, I'm sure there are. Would there be enough people motivated outside of religious initiatives to make these "issues" important to legislators? I highly doubt it. The reason they are "issues" is because they are religiously supported agendas. And religion means numbers.
I agree that religion is not in conflict with science—in any area where science is not in conflict with religion. However, as soon as science puts forward any assertion that does not correlate to religious claims, science comes under attack from religion, and bad things happen. The correspondent pointed out that Islamic nations long ago were among some of the most progressive thinkers in math and science. I have heard this, too. However, I wonder what sorts progressive thinking applied to apostates and heretics in these same ancient Islamic nations? Was a conversion to another religion (outside of Islam) taken in stride, do you think?
I don't claim that where religion doesn't conflict with X, religion will automatically oppose X. But where religion perceives that X opposes religion, X will be castigated by religious adherents—often violently and forcefully. We see it daily. And I am unaware of a time when it wasn't so.
For awhile, I've been mentioning to Matt that I would like to see a publication of the letters we get to the TV-List. I would devote a section to all the letters, like this latest, telling me that religion is benign or good for people for the most part. And I would follow that section with all the letters we get from adherents telling us that their religion is good, who after a few exchanges say that mass genocide, mass infanticide, suicide-mass-murder, rape, slavery and child sacrifice are all morally acceptable if, and only if, a god tells you to do these things.
I often hear the question "Name one benefit religion offers that could not be achieved secularly (without the lies and harm that comes with religion)." It's not a benefit, but I have found that you can get a person to say that "X is not moral in situation Y," and then turn around in only one or two exchanges and get them to say "X was moral in situation Y because there was an added caveat that god said to do it."
Religion can take a human being who is willing to condemn an action as immoral in a particular circumstance, and get them to say that same action is moral in that same circumstance, if a god says to do it. Now, there are certainly regimes that can get people to commit atrocities that aren't religious. But it would be hard to get someone who is not a sociopath to admit in a hypothetical that he'd be willing to slaughter children in droves if a charismatic leader asked him to do it, or that he would kill his own child at the request of some persuasive person. Might he do it for a person if the situation actually arose? Yes. He might. Is he likely to foresee and admit that a human could ever convince him to do it (without some form of immediate duress)? No.
Is a belief system that can take a person's moral reason and short-circuit that to "obey without question" a benign and harmless system? Aren't we describing a ticking time bomb? What stands between this person committing atrocities—but something to convince him it's what his god wants out of him? Is a person who says that killing children is right if god requests it, honestly that different than a person who actually kills children because he believes god requested it? Aren't they the same person, except that one is merely waiting for some cue?
I recall a particular letter from a father of a nine-month-old who wrote to say that even if his religion isn't true, what harm is it to raise his daughter in Christianity?
I asked him if he accepted the doctrines of hell and salvation. He did. I explained that in his paradigm, salvation requires a blanket condemnation of all human beings as imperfect for being who and what they are. Salvation and hell don't mean "imperfect" as in "nobody's perfect," but "imperfect" as in "You are so horribly and inherently flawed, that by rights you deserve eternal torture according to god, and as your Christian dad, I have to agree that's exactly what someone like you, my child, should get."
I asked him what he thought it would mean to a little girl to know that her father sees her as that sort of a horrible being—inherently flawed to the point of complete and total unacceptability?
Initially he attempted to argue god's love for us and how god wants us to go to heaven and not go to hell. But he couldn't really find a way to get around the fact that his doctrines meant that he had to say he thought his daughter was inherently flawed and that nothing intrinsic to her could ever be "good enough" to merit anything but eternal punishment. He finally grasped that if there were something she could do that would make her "good enough" to not merit an eternity of torture, then intervention by Jesus would be unnecessary—negating the doctrine of salvation through Jesus. And without someone like Jesus granting her god's "mercy" (mercy, meaning it's not what she really deserves, but what god gives her regardless of her undeserving nature), she was hopeless and despicable.
Most of us would normally have a hard time saying any of our worst recorded criminals should be, by rights, tortured for eternity. But even if we felt that way about a person, I would expect that their actions would have to be, in some regard, fairly heinous. Someone might want revenge on Hitler to the point of hoping for a merciless, vengeful eternity of torture. But an average child? Or even an average adult? It's hard to believe anyone would say that any of our friends and neighbors should be deserving of torture for ten minutes, let alone eternity?
I asked this dad what he would think of a neighbor who each day sat his own kids down and told them, "I think you are all such despicable children that you deserve nothing less than to be beaten without mercy, but since I love you so much, I won't do that to you, so long as you tell me how truly sorry you are that you're who and what you are—utterly unworthy."
I don't say there aren't or couldn't be secular systems that impact normal people's minds and thwart their reason and moral sense in this way. I don't say that nonreligious systems can't and haven't gotten good people to do bad things. What I'm saying is that I'd be hard pressed to get a human with a normally developed brain, who isn't already abusive or a sociopath, to say—in a purely hypothetical framework—that people ought to be tortured simply for being people—and for no other reason.
I have never met people who have told me that any historical or current genocide or mass infanticide was "morally right" for any reason other than "god commanded it." And I haven't just met a few of those. I've met many. And I'm still meeting them. And I can Google their responses to the Old Testament stories and find site after site attesting to the moral correctness of committing atrocities for the Christian god. And I can't stress strongly enough that these are not the Fred Phelps's of the world. These are good, tax-paying, loving, caring, generous people who work and live along side us all in every segment of our society. In fact, any Christian who accepts the Bible as true and god as good, must assert these actions are good in any situation where they are commanded by a god.
There is something unnerving about living in a society where the predominant religion is one that can make a standard, normal human assert that atrocities should never be committed—except when god says to commit them. And then recognizing that in this same society, most of my fellow citizens believe a god exists and in some way communicates or has communicated with them and/or others. And that they further believe that this god, according to their sacred texts, has righteously commanded such atrocities to be committed by his adherents.
Call me crazy?
31 comments:
Tracie: I apologize that this is OT, but I wanted to commend you on the 'jars of dice' analogy you used to open the last episode of The Atheist Experience TV show. I think it got a bit lost in the great Dillahunty-Slick debate, but I definitely think that the argument you're making is worth revisiting, perhaps the next time you co-host.
The insight that there are no criteria by which we can differentiate transcendent, non-material things that exist from non-existent things is a point I haven't seen anyone make before. It neatly sidesteps the argument that I usually see (which is that transcendent non-material things simply don't exist) which, in my opinion, proves far too much.
Anyway, great job, and I apologize for derailing this thread on comment #1. :)I live in the UK and the church of england is considered benign compared to many fundamentalist and conservatives christians.
They do, however, still believe in original sin which I consider to be one of the most immoral things going. So I still find myself venting my anger towards my more liberal christian friends!- Anonymous2/25/2009 10:15 AM
Hi Andrew:
>The insight that there are no criteria by which we can differentiate transcendent, non-material things that exist from non-existent things is a point I haven't seen anyone make before.
It's actually at the core of Sagan's "Dragon in My Garage" section of his book "Demon Haunted World." He puts it like this:
"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so."
And I do plan to do more with the dice model. It's highly flexible. You know that liberal Christians will say that their view is more nuanced. Which it is.
About the future of religion in general, I'm of two minds. On the one hand, it's an anachronism, and, for many of us, no longer serves the purposes for which it was developed. I'm hard-pressed to see how we can survive unless it goes by the wayside - with the possible exception of a vaguely-defined mysticism.
On the other hand, as Seneca said, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Unless we breed the fundie mindset out of the genome (which I would be in favor of doing), I don't know that we can keep them in line any other way. These are the people who keep telling us that without Christianity, they'd rape, pillage and plunder.I just read the previous post, containing the email from "J", who says that without a belief in God and postmortem consequences (why do the two always have to go together?), he'd "hurt anyone who pissed me off and kill anyone who did anything bad enough for me to want to kill them".
There you go. I guess we have to keep it.The existence of religion probably does offer certain benefits to society such as in-group cohesion or cooperation. The problem is that religion is like societal training wheels. Sure, it was useful organizing nomadic sheep herders and they probably benefited. But you'll never go mountain biking with training wheels. Religion had its place, but in modern times it is becoming more of a liability.
In context of the times, genocide was probably necessary to ensure the survival of the group. Harsh maybe, but reality. Nowadays, I think we can afford to take a step back and say that genocide is abhorrent.@tracieh
and has been involved in some worthy efforts.
Just once, I'd like to see a study done of the percentage of money donated to religious institutions and then see the percentage of that money which actually gets used for charitable purposes.
For example, one can make a reasonable argument for how beneficial Catholic Charities (The organization) is, and how they don't have any religious tests for administering the charity.
For the moment, allow me to agree that it is a fine charity and deserving of praise and donations. And, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is 100% efficient (in other words, 100% of the money donated goes to the actual charitable recipient. This is wholly unrealistic, but the math might work out better.)
Can we then take the total money donated to the Catholic Church, and use it as the denominator of the Charity/Total Donated, and come up with a percentage of how efficient this particular religion is at funding charitable works?
If we use those kind of numbers, include all charities across all religious denominations, and divide by all donations to any religious institution for any reason, people might get a better idea of how amazingly inefficient their charitable dollars are when they are sent to religious institutions.
Never mind how much of that money goes to suicide bombers in Iraq, or doctor murderers in the US. It will still be pitifully low.Awesome post Tracie. This is something I have been asking myself and dealing with lately. I called in to AE about a month ago to talk about my fundamentalist Christian friend. When I was trying to understand her beliefs I asked her a hypothetical question about whether she would kill innocent children if God commanded her to, and she said that yes she would. She's a sweet, kind, intelligent girl and it absolutely floored me that she said this. As a response I asked her how she is different from a jihadist other than she hasn't received a command to kill from God and that they have. Her best answer to that was "well they're not really talking to God". It makes me sick to my stomach to think that a friend that I hold so dear is willing, without any reservation, to commit murder. She is no longer willing to speak with me about her beliefs now which makes it even harder for me. I've had so many thoughts and feelings and discoveries that I wanted to share with her and since I can no longer do that, I started writing them to my blog. Link is below in case anyone is interested in how this situation has been developing and how I've been coping with it.
http://rootsspot.blogspot.com/The sad thing is that Tyler's friend could easily have said, "If I heard the voice of God telling me to murder children, I'd assume that I was losing my mind" - but that wouldn't occur to most of them. It seems more reasonable to them to say, "Why, yes, I'd murder children."
Again, we really need to start breeding this out of the genome.
And Tyler - if she thinks you're going to hell, she's not kind, and she isn't your friend.Sorry, I can't agree with breeding it out of the genome, as I wouldn't be here. I come from a semi-fundy background and my family is becoming more fundamental as the years go on. I am trying to counter this as much as I can, things like having them read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. Stuff that won't be totally offensive to them. So I can't agree with eugenics even when said tongue in cheek. :)
This was very good Tracie. I love the hypothetical and may use that myself someday.- Anonymous2/25/2009 3:44 PM
>he'd "hurt anyone who pissed me off and kill anyone who did anything bad enough for me to want to kill them".
This is what they say, but you have to remember this statement comes from a lifetime of being told that they are naturally depraved and that human minds are always only bent on evil. They're taught as children that they--and all people--are inherently bad and prone to do bad things; we can't, apparently, stop oursevlves, and so we need forgiveness.
I submit we can't judge this guy based on this statement if he is a Christian, because he had an upbringing that indoctrinated him into the idea that people can't control themselves and are bound to do harmful, awful things to one another. What if he _hadn't_ been taught that throughout his life? Without a religious upbringing, would he be insisting, still, that this is what he'd be like without god to keep him in line?
It's no different than people claiming that they'd have "no reason to live" without god—no purpose. The truth is that they never had an opportunity to try to have their own meaning and purpose. They can't imagine that a person can even do that without god because they've always been told god is the only meaning and purpose to their existence. "Living for god," right?
I don't think it's fair to take indoctrinated people and use their current paradigm of what anything would be like "without god" or, more accurately, without religion. Most of them who were raised in this "Christian Nation," aren't honestly capable of considering what they would be like without religion. They only consider what it would be like without if the only paradigm they've ever been taught was stripped away overnight. Seriously, how scary is that? They don't even realize that they're being robbed of living their lives by being told living for this institution is the only thing worth living for.
It's like Amish children learning through 8th grade and being cloistered on the farms and told about the wickedness of the outside world. Would it be any wonder that such a child would be terrified at the prospect of leaving? He would be utterly unprepared to cope with life outside what he'd been taught. And with fundamentalist Christianity, critical thinking skills are said to be "pride" and a "sin."
"Trust and Obey"--that's all you need to remember.
>I'm impressed that you manage to get them to admit that it would be moral if god commanded it. Most of the time I get responses like, "Oh he didn't command it, it's just a historical account!"
In this case, they are simply saying you can't trust that the Bible is true. This is not the person I'm describing. A Christian who does not accept Biblical inerrancy is not bound by the doctrines in their holy book. Basically they're believing what they like and tossing the doctrines they don't. They're making up their own religion as they go along, and don't have to subscribe to the Bible. This person has no logical reason to accept any of what's in the Bible. And they are usually just subscribing to whatever makes them feel warm and fuzzy. They aren't interested in making sense. And usually they aren't interested in a substantial dialogue.
>or "well, it was a different time then."
This would have to be established at the outset. In other words, you can ask: If two nations are at war, and one uses mass infanticide against the other—is that moral? If they say, "Yes, if it was done more than 500 years ago, I would say that makes it moral," then you're dealing with a moral relativist—which most Christians deny they are. I guess my question would be "How far away, chronologically, do we have to get from the Holocaust before that becomes a moral event?"
What this guy is saying is that rape isn't really "immoral" it's just currently socially unacceptable, but if it comes back into vogue, that's cool with him. If a Christian goes this route, he has a tough row to hoe to demonstrate there even is such a thing as "morality" beyond what your society condones/condemns.
I consider morality to be the individual sense of right and wrong, and the social morality, I tend to regard as mores. Or you can use "individual morality" and "social morality"--but it's important to keep them separate within discussions.
With god, you get into problems of Euthyphro Dilemma, though. And the idea of god authoring morality becomes problematic.
>In context of the times, genocide was probably necessary to ensure the survival of the group.
Actually, though, Hebrews didn't _always_ go genocidal in the stories. So, this doesn't seem to be the case. Sometimes they used genocide including infanticide. Sometimes they enslaved the people. Sometimes they killed certain segments of the population and enslaved others. Sometimes they even killed all the animals. And what would be the benefit to _not_ taking the livestock that you could actually use?
I'm guessing that the relative level of extremism was the result of whoever was in charge at the time—just as some political regimes are harsh today while others aren't. Or some areas may have a liberal leader who is replaced by a conservative leader or vice versa. We still compete for resources today, we just don't consider slavery and infanticide to be acceptable. I'm not sure it would ever be realistically "necessary" to slaughter on the level that was claimed in Old Testament Bible accounts. And I have to admit, I can't even say I know the accounts to be accurate. It's quite possible they were exaggerated for story telling impact. The "kill all the babies" theme seems to come up in a handful of tales, like a theme--but I don't know if any Biblical claim of such an event has ever been substantiated?
Ai Deng
>Depending on a particular doctrine, those connections may serve to improve or degenerate a society.
I agree. The problem with them, though, is that they're unstable connections. If I accept a god exists and can communicate with people, and that this god rules by fiat (everything he says is correct and should be executed), it only takes someone convincing me that god requires I commit atrocities for me to commit atrocities. And I will do it with a feeling of total justification.
I'm saying "religion" in this instance, but really I'm describing some very specific religious doctrines that aren't universal to all religions in this particular case. The point would be that if I can adherents of my religion to suspend reason to believe my claims, what _can't_ I get them to believe and do? Once I convince you that you cannot trust your own judgment—and that I speak for the god you can trust, your life is mine until you somehow snap out of it.
>I asked her a hypothetical question about whether she would kill innocent children if God commanded her to, and she said that yes she would. She's a sweet, kind, intelligent girl and it absolutely floored me that she said this.
THAT'S what I'm talkin' about! You are describing the exact exchange you can have again and again with otherwise sane Christians for as long as you want to keep talking to them. And I don't know of any other thing but god that will make a person say, if asked hypothetically with no strings attached, "Sure, I'd kill children if X asked me to." I agree that it is unbelievable to see that they will say it outright--sometimes without a moment's hesitation. But god is always right—so killing children becomes right if god says to do it. That's how "god" works in people's heads.
>As a response I asked her how she is different from a jihadist other than she hasn't received a command to kill from God and that they have. Her best answer to that was "well they're not really talking to God".
I could have told you this before you asked her. She'd "really" be killing for _god_, but they are killing because they're deluded about what they think god is (i.e., their god isn't the "real" god). So, they're not justified. It's only justified if you do it for the "real" god. And since her religion is the "real" one and theirs is "false"—they'd be terrorists, and she'd be a martyr. Funny, though, how that works both ways, right?
> It makes me sick to my stomach to think that a friend that I hold so dear is willing, without any reservation, to commit murder. She is no longer willing to speak with me about her beliefs now
The man telling me his daughter was wicked and deserving of torture stopped the correspondence as well after sending the note where he owned up to that. Just never wrote back. I don't know where that comes from. They tell you they'd kill babies for god, or despise their own child, and somehow _you_ become the person who needs to be avoided.
>The sad thing is that Tyler's friend could easily have said, "If I heard the voice of God telling me to murder children, I'd assume that I was losing my mind" - but that wouldn't occur to most of them. It seems more reasonable to them to say, "Why, yes, I'd murder children."
Actually they do say things like "god would never say that." But it's just too easy to point to all the times their god is described to have had people do these things in their own Bibles. Then you say, "You mean this god?"
The question becomes, if you were in the shoes of Abraham, and god asked you to sacrifice your own child as an offering—would you ask what sort of knife he wants you to use? Or would you say, "that's not god!"
Abraham was the righteous example of faith (as expressed in "Hebrews" in the _New_ Testament. Let me say that again--the NEW Testament) that followers of Yahweh are to emulate. Abraham didn't question. He obeyed, up to and including trying to murder his only child. Abraham knew god, according to the Bible, as intimately as anyone. And when god said, "kill your child for me," Abraham didn't say, "Whoa—that doesn't sound at all like the Yahweh I know! That's Satan or I'm losing my mind!" Abraham seemed to think this was absolutely Yahweh.
Isn't that odd? All these Christians saying Yahweh wouldn't do this—and Abraham, the father of the faith, seems to think this is utterly indicative of the sort of thing Yahweh would ask of a follower. He didn't hesitate for a moment to conclude "this is god, and I'm following god's orders."
And in the New Testament, in Hebrews, he's labeled as a man of great faith for whom this world was not worthy. He _is_ the model of faith that Christians should idolize as the type of faith a believer should emulate. The type of faith they should put in Jesus--the manifestation of Yahweh here on Earth. - Anonymous2/25/2009 3:53 PM
I also wanted to add a few things about the "I'd kill people if religion didn't keep me in check."
In a book I commented on on AE awhile back (wish I could recall the title now), the author talked about an experience he had in his youth. There was a police strike where he lived. He wanted to go out, but his parents insisted that would be insanity--that there would be mayhem in the streets. He told them that people wouldn't act that way. But as it got later, people began to go out and loot.
The author concluded that since we live an a very religious society, it seems that it is police presence and not god that keeps people from going nuts and commiting mayhem in the streets. Remove the police presence, and all the "bad" people seem to come out with utter disregard for god and hell.
People who are prone to criminal behavior are disuaded by the knowledge of cops being available, not of divine retribution.
Also, Christianity is a very codependent model. God reacts with righteous vengeance on many occasions. In fact, every time god gets mad, it's always "justified" because of someone else's behavior. If anything, it seems to be _god_ who can't control himself, not people. People are consistently blamed for god's lack of self-control in the books. And I wonder if that constant codependent model doesn't rub off on Christian children--the idea that they can make god mad or sad would, I should think, pretty well sink in as "other people are to blame for the things we feel."
And if I think that my anger is _your_ fault--why shouldn't I feel justified in abusing you? You deserve it--you made me mad--right?
Just a thought. What I find amusing is that some Christians, on the one hand, will say that under atheism nothing matters, but on the other hand if you sincerely convert to Christianity after committing the most heinous offenses imaginable, you get to go to heaven.
Sounds to me like nothing under Christianity matters, because it is the ultimate get out of jail free card. I can murder, steal, commit rape, emotionally abuse people, or whatever, but the moment I find myself in a situation where I am staring my limited mortality in the face, I can get religion and everything will be okay. The irony being that any of my victims who were not Christians will suffer in hell for an eternity in the afterlife.Tracie,
Without taking away anything from what you and Beamstalk are saying, I question to what extent it's cultural and environmental. There's a body of evidence now that suggests something I've suspected for many years - that there is a neurological basis for fundamentalism. There's a fellow in Florida who's been doing work on this; he feels it originates in the prefrontal lobes. Tracie, I'd suggest that childhood indoctrination may not be the whole story with "J", and Beamstalk, I'd suggest that you'd be here anyway, that you broke away from your fundie family because you aren't "genetically programmed" to be like them. In the same vein, I question how much good exposing them to other points of view really accomplishes.
And Tracie - yeah, I know all about the Akedah, the near-sacrifice of Isaac. You want rationalization? Try talking to an ultra-Orthodox Jew about it sometime.
The irony being that any of my victims who were not Christians will suffer in hell for an eternity in the afterlife.
The rationalization generally preferred is that God knows who will and won't accept him, and makes arrangements for them accordingly. If the victims died without accepting Jesus, it's because they wouldn't have accepted him if they'd lived. See how simple it is?Thanks for your long response Tracie.
> Actually they do say things like "god would never say that." But it's just too easy to point to all the times their god is described to have had people do these things in their own Bibles. Then you say, "You mean this god?"
Ironically enough, this is exactly what my friend initially responded with when I asked her if she would kill children. "Well God would never do that". I wish I knew at the time she said that about all the atrocities in the bible (I hadn't really read/studied it at this point). If I knew that, I would have pulled out the bible and gone right to a verse where God does the exact same thing. And once I did study the bible whenever I pointed her out to, for instance, 2 Kings 2:23-24 where God sends bears to kill 42 children for making fun of a bald man, she gets upset at me and never answers my questions about it, which makes me really frustrated.
I really wish that she would be willing to talk to me again. I would love for her to read your post Tracie and some of the comments people have made here.
> And Tyler - if she thinks you're going to hell, she's not kind, and she isn't your friend.
That would be a tough pill to swallow, since most of the people I know are in fact believers. If all of these people are not really my friends, then I have very few friends indeed. I'm not saying I agree nor disagree with you. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately but still haven't really figured out how I feel about the idea that many of my friends and associates likely think that I deserve to be tortured for eternity.tracieh,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think I should have been more specific with what I meant by 'connections'. I'm referring to social and business connections. That is, organized religion provides an environment where these connections can be made. Of course, the extent to which connections can be made and the overall quality of the connection is dependent on the attitudes of the individuals participating.
According to, can I call it, conservative social belief (perhaps this is not the correct term), it is preferable that an individual meet a mate at church rather than at a bar. Why is this? Obviously because bars are often seen to be filled with wolves and vixens, whose interests are not aligned with healthy family development. On the other hand, churches are viewed to be suitable environments for family development, where individuals are often taught to be shedding their personal desires for a higher purpose. One thing is certainly true, when a person gets outs of school and into the working world, there are far fewer opportunities for building new social relationships. I'm not saying that there aren't opportunities, for example a person could join a club, just that there is nothing quite like the opportunities one finds to meet new people while attending school. So individuals attending church often find it as a place to socially converse, where they might not otherwise have that opportunity.
Understand that I am not in any way trying to be an advocate for religion, I would just like to discuss what the real advantages or disadvantages are.Great post!
I've met with one argument that I haven't seen here. One guy I was debating said that religion clearly must have some advantages because all of the great empires of the past were religious and none of them were atheist. The concept of religion clearly prevailed.
I told him that up until some point of history all of the great empires employed torture, corporal punishment and capital punishment and up until another point of history all the previous empires held women in inferior status compared to the men. Maybe those things, just as well as religion, provided some kind of an advantage to the societies but the question is whether they are still advantageous now.
Maybe you would (or already did) answer that differently. I just thought I should mention the argument here.- Anonymous2/27/2009 10:25 AM
I don't doubt that there could be a predisposition to certain allures that fundamentalism may offer. But I wouldn't say it's as simply as people being predisposed to religion. I generally compare it to any compulsive abuse of a beneficial evolutionary trait. An example would be compulsive eating. Eating is a good thing, generally speaking. But if a person is driven to eat _too much_, it can become detrimental. And this applies to quite a lot of things. Hygiene is a good thing, but if I'm washing my hands to the point my skin is being destroyed, that's not a good thing anymore.
"Religion" is a blanket system that does offer lots of things that make humans comfortable. If we don't know what causes X, that's disturbing because not understanding causes can lead to bad decisions. So, if we _think_ we know what causes X, that is more comforting that realizing we _don't_ know what causes X. This is certainly not the only "benefit" religion would offer to a mind that has evolved within this universe. But it is certainly a good example. It offers "in group" cohesion. That gives us that sense of "tribe" that social animals gravitate toward. It appeals, in other words, I agree, to the mind. And the mind is a brain function and product of genetics. Agreed again. So, while I would say that we might have genetic traits that predispose us to some of the things religion offers. I wouldn't say a person is genetically predisposed to religion.
And I'm not saying that's exactly what you're actually promoting. But I am trying to make my own stance clear. From a biological perspective, I can see how religion entrances people's brains. And it makes sense that some people would be predisposed to gravitate _more_ toward social cohesion than other people, or more toward desiring "certainty" than others—just as other people might gravitate more toward food than others. I heard it once said: Genes load the gun, environment pulls the trigger. I think that as a broad and general rule, this applies.
>she gets upset at me and never answers my questions about it
I just find it funny that she gets upset with _you_--as if you're responsible for the content of her Bible. But yes, I've seen this response as well. I account for this as a product of her own frustration that she's not convincing you. Apologetics is the "art" of convincing others you are right whether or not you are right. Matt often says that verification only matters if you care whether or not what you believe is actually likely to be true. And this is correct. If you don't care about whether or not a particular believe is likely true, you don't bother to verify. If you tell me you were out late last night, I accept that model, even while I know I have no idea it's true or not—because I don't _care_ if it's true or not. You say it's what you did. I don't care, so for all intents and purposes I will go on with the model that you were out late last night. I don't "believe" you in the sense that I take what you're saying as "true," but I do not care if it's true or not—so I just use the info for what it is—which is pretty much "nothing" to me.
Apologists try to talk god into existence. It's a set of ideas that are meant to go something like this:
"You believe X don't you? And Y makes sense, right? And…"
And at the end, "god must exist." The problem is that often we think things are reasonable or correct, UNTIL they fail to correlate to reality. So, building a "correct" idea off other ideas that I assume are correct is a good way to create what I personally consider as a reasonable assumption—but I cannot, if I'm honest, put it forward as "true." I can only say, "It makes sense to me. But I don't really know if it's correct, since I haven't verified it."
You end up with what you personally evaluate as a good idea, but it cannot be honestly said to be true.
If I work my way to such a conclusion, and I want to know if the conclusion is true, my next step should be to verify. However, the next step of the apologist is to _not_ verify, and then go on to try and convince others that my "good idea" should be accepted by them as a "good idea" as well—and whether or not it's true is irrelevant in this model.
So, for a believer to hit someone who asks for verification or who says, "I don't agree this is a good (valid) idea," is problematic. They aren't really interested in discussing whether or not the belief is _true_--which is what you're asking her to consider. They only care if it makes sense to them. And they derive comfort from the reality that it makes sense to them. And your insistence on investigating whether or not it's actually true is a sign that you're not "getting it." It's not about whether or not it's true. It's just about you hearing it and saying "I agree, that's a good idea." The more people who agree, the better it makes her feel. And someone mucking up the pyramid scheme by asking, "But shouldn't we find out if it's likely true or not before we go off on a campaign to convince everyone to believe it?" is just a wrench in the works.
Ai Deng:
You are right that in addition to the comfort of cohesive in-group, religious affiliation offers practical networking. I would add that our drive for in-group exists because of the same type of practical benefits whether you are a businessman in a community or a wolf in a pack of wolves in the wild. So, I agree.
>On the other hand, churches are viewed to be suitable environments for family development,
And to some real extent, they have cornered the market on this as "the only game in town." I think that the rise in UU and Humanist groups will challenge this in coming years. And I wish I could live to be about 200 so I could see what happens.
>when a person gets outs of school and into the working world, there are far fewer opportunities for building new social relationships.
I think this is exactly what I wrote before I read it. So, I would agree with this (and the rest of how you put it forward).
I don't know. And I'm short on time. It looks like the link you sent is an atheist critique of something? So, I'm _assuming_(?) this is an issue that has been addressed in other atheist forums and you're just wondering if this blog has as well? Since we have multiple contributors, I can't say without going back through archives…? Sorry I'm not more helpful.
>One guy I was debating said that religion clearly must have some advantages because all of the great empires of the past were religious and none of them were atheist. The concept of religion clearly prevailed.
Recently I pointed out that crime, violence, disease and birth defects exist in all societies, but I don't know what benefits they offer.
The reply was that religion is macro to society while the things I listed are micro—basically if crime pervaded society like religion, it would destroy it. And I bowed to that hypothetical.
However, you brought up inequality—the status of women specifically; but slavery would fit into this as well. And I see you are right. There are societies that thrive where some segments are subjugated as inherently inferior or where slavery—even brutal slavery—is employed. And it doesn't collapse the culture. Would I argue then that these things should be considered fine, because they exist and can exist as macro parts of a society that survives or even thrives? Your reply was better than mine, I have to say.
But my ultimate response was that religion is based on falsehoods and has the inherent attribute of being unstable. In other words, he mentioned that Islam was in effect in the Middle East at a time when there was huge scientific and mathematical discovery. But look at it now. It's the same religion and the holy manual hasn't changed, but what happened?
If a leader came to power who inspired people to say, "Whatever he says, I will do, without question," I would be nervous. What if the leader seemed to be honestly benevolent and trying to do good for the majority of people? Then is there nothing to fear? I submit there is always something to fear in any system that can command absolute and unquestioning loyalty from people. While it's good, it's great. But all it takes is for the driver to take the road of malevolence, and an entire social mob becomes a monster committing atrocities against other people and one another.
I can't support _any_ system that, at it's core, asks people to accept it's doctrines "on faith"—thus circumventing any/all critical thinking and becoming a potential threat to everyone.
I'm not a card-carrying Humanist and I don't attend UU. But I would rather see people taking those paths than the paths of supernatural religion, because nothing about UU or Humanism requires or requests that anyone believe things that require them to stop thinking. The benefits religion offers aren't only available through religion. They are benefits that can be derived from secular sources. The problem is that no secular source has ever rivaled religion for this seat in society. Now that this is happening, wouldn't it be preferable to have something that offered all the same social benefits that didn't ask society to put itself at risk by demanding absolute, unquestioning loyalty to _whatever_ it commands? Tracie,
I agree with you about the social benefits, mutual reinforcement, etc. What I'm arguing for is a neurological predisposition to fundamentalism. The religious impulse is another matter.
As I said, there's a doctor in FL who's been doing some research in that area - brains scans of fundies vs. sane people. He feels it originates in the prefrontal cortex. The best article I saw about it last year is no longer online, but if you're interested, email me and I'll send it to you.I'm in a conversation with a religious person and would like to back up my claim that even today atrocities are being done in the name of religion.
Do you have recent examples of (preferably Christian, but anything will do, like 9/11) a quote in scripture and corresponding behavior? Someone actually stoning a child or similar?A relative of mine is currently in hospital, a Protestant one. Consequently they have a lot of what I first took to be Bibles lying around.
When I looked a bit closer, they seemed to me very thin for Bibles. Well, I was right, they were the NT only (no dishonesty, the title was open about it).
No surprise that so many people have no idea what the whole Bible actually contains. An no surprise that they would present NT-only versions at places where a lot of ignorant non-Christians in states of intense boredom will come along.
Central rule of advertising: don't talk about the disadvantages of your product unless you absolutely have to.Benedikt,
Nigerian witch hunts. Superstitious people convinced by evangelical missionaries and backed by (very rich) native preachers, self-proclaimed witch hunters and Holy Scripture that some children need to be wrapped in barbed wires et on fire in gasoline-filled car tires, or hacked with machetes. The lucky children are those who just get cast out into the wilderness to starve or get eaten and escape to be found by aid workers.
Articles about this should mention the corresponding verses occasionally.
I think this week a Christian father stabbed his son for disagreeing with him, right at a church.
Parents murdering their children because they are supposedly possessed. Note that several fathers have thrown their child from a bridge, probably not coincidentally resembling Jesus driving the possessed pigs off a cliff.Ai Deng: According to, can I call it, conservative social belief (perhaps this is not the correct term), it is preferable that an individual meet a mate at church rather than at a bar.
And I think, conservative or otherwise, practical and common social beliefs would tell us that both bar and church are inferior to locations that are centered around some sort of interest. In this country, religious affiliations tend to be inherited rather than chosen, and so a church is really a gathering of people who have no reason to be together other than a common label. Contrast this with, say, a book club or a bowling league or a pottery class, where everyone involved is there because of a common interest or hobby. Despite the protestations of Paula Abdul, I think we're more likely to find long-term partners among people with similar interests, and one is less likely to find such people in churches or bars than in other settings (unless one's particular interests are religion or drinking).
This is, of course, why college (as you mention) is so great for social networking: lots of opportunity to associate with people who have common interests, from other people in your classes and study groups to people in the abundant and omnipresent clubs.
And I think this largely proves the point. Yes, religion provides a social benefit, but secular society does it better.Tom Foss,
I think your right, I shouldn't call it 'conservative social belief', it should be something more like 'traditional social belief'. You made an argument that common interests within a group are precursory to a more efficient social network, and that since people often do not choose their church/religion, the church/religion is not as good a place to meet people. Given these conditions, I'd have to agree, and perhaps this can be supported by higher levels of divorce among the religious as opposed to atheists.- Anonymous3/02/2009 9:52 AM
Thanks for clarifying the distinction. I do see that fundamentalism is different than religion. I'd have to say the mechanism would probably work similarly. But you are right they're not the same thing. In fact "black and white" thinking is a sign of codependence. It is a state of thought development we all pass through when we're younger. As we get older we outgrow it—but not if we have experienced any sort of trauma or stress at an early age that prevents our mental development. The idea is that a small child must be taught not to touch a stove—in all cases, because a child is not capable of understanding how to determine when the stove is "on" or "off." And until he's old enough to make that distinction, it's unsafe to give him an impression that it's anything but "bad" to touch the stove. So, we tell him the stove is "hot" and will "burn you" and "don't touch." Later, we expect the child will be able to grasp more complex concepts about when the stove is safe to touch.
PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.
This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.


text:
Asteras Paradise
Small resort with junior suites (incl. hydro-massage), family apartments and standard rooms. Featuring large swimming pool, big gardens, tennis court, mini golf, playground, billiard, gym, sauna and more. Full wedding services and event hosting. Pets welcome. Located 10min. by car from Naoussa and various beaches.
+30 22840 52623 | Asteras


text:
There's been a controversy in the computing world when discussing what was early computer invented.
For years, the accepted pioneer on the digital age was the ENIAC, short for Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer, perhaps because account associated with the development was one worthy for tabloids and television.
As World War II was creating any close, the Army had run in short supply of mathematicians and were willing to recruit women. Six women were accepted to work on "Project PX" at the University of Pennsylvania's Moore School of Electrical Engineering, under John Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert. The women's job were to program firing tables and ballistic trajectories using ENIAC. Their work laid the groundwork for advancement. The completed machine was unveiled on Feb. 14, 1946 at the University of Pennsylvania. Within the armed forces had funded the price almost $500,000. It occupied about 1,800 square feet and used about 18,000 vacuum tubes, weighing almost 50 a whole lot. It is widely considered how to patent a product idea function as first computer invented, considering its highly functional status through the late 1950s.
However, its "first" status was challenged in court when Rand Corp. bought the ENIAC patent and started charging royalties. Honeywell Inc. refused to pay and challenged the patent in 1968. It was learned that Mauchly, one of the many leaders of the Project PX in the University of Pennsylvania, had seen early prototype of a system being built at the Iowa State College called the Atanasoff-Berry Computer.
Professor John Vincent Atanasoff and InventHelp Stories graduate student Cliff Berry began development along at the ABC in 1937 and it always been developed until 1942 at the Iowa State College (now Iowa State University). Eventually, it could solve equations containing 29 variables.
In 1973, U.S. Federal Judge Earl R. Larson released his decision that the ENIAC patent by Mauchly and Eckert was invalid along with the ABC was the first computer invented. However, the ABC was never fully functional, so the favorite opinion to this day has the ENIAC as the first electronic computing device. The Smithsonian Institute's Museum of American History in Washington displays most of the things remains of the ENIAC, alongside waste the ABC.
However, there's another twist to this tale. The most straightforward computer is a digital device designed to just accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations and display the results. Germany's Konrad Zuse created what was fundamentally the first programmable calculator in the mid-1930s in his parent's living room. Zuse's Z1 had 64-word memory and a clock speed of 1 Hz. Programming the the Z1 required the user to insert tape suitable punch tape reader and InventHelp patent services then receive his results via a punch tape dispenser – making it possibly the first computer invented.


text:
Montezuma, New Mexico
235 Students
Aged 17-19 years
UWC-USA was originally founded as the Armand Hammer United World College of the American West by Armand Hammer at the request of Prince Charles, then the President of UWC. Hammer chose the Montezuma, New Mexico location in the American Southwest, because of its remarkable beauty, proximity to immense wilderness areas in Northern New Mexico, and an architecturally compelling site within a historic region of the United States.
Please enter some content for your news story here.
Three Unique Features
- Community Service – Students perform over 17,000 hours of community service each year in soup kitchens, at the local residential mental hospital, and in local schools. San Miguel County, where Montezuma is located, has one of the highest poverty rates in the country.
- Wilderness – The Wilderness program is comprised of extensive backpacking, hiking, and backcountry camping.
- Bartos Institute – The Bartos Institute for the Constructive Engagement of Conflict is an endowed array of programs dedicated to fostering conflict resolution and cross-cultural skills.
In the Classroom
UWC-USA offers the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (IBDP) curriculum. Alongside standard courses, the College offers Mandarin, German, Social and Cultural Anthropology, Sports exercise and health science, Music, Theater Arts, Dance.
Outside the Classroom
At UWC-USA, the Creativity, Activity, and Service (CAS) program is divided into three components: Wilderness, Community Engagement, and The Bartos Institute for Constructive Engagement of Conflict.
All students participate in a minimum of two overnight Wilderness trips. In addition to backpacking, students may choose to take part in winter camping, snowshoeing, or cross-country skiing. All students learn day-hike basics as well as wilderness first aid and CPR. Students can opt to take a Wilderness First Aid certification course.
As part of the Community Engagement Program, students have renovated an old church building, transforming it into a vibrant community center, built homes for families who wouldn't have a house otherwise, help run the local homeless shelter, tutor elementary school children, and work at the local mental health hospital. Additionally, students serve their own campus through participation in work crews.
The initiatives of the Bartos Institute for Constructive Engagement of Conflict aim to equip young people with theoretical and practical lenses with which to constructively engage with personal, interpersonal, and community level conflicts.
All first-year students participate in each component during their first semester. In their second year, students choose one area to gain mastery in the component that best suits their individual learning goals.
Short Courses
At the Global Leadership Forum (GLF), the College challenges participants to step out of their comfort zones. Through supportive education and deliberate community engagement, the course aims to harness the energy and power that youth have. Through the GLF experience, participants find themselves emancipated from the idea that they cannot do anything about the problems in their community.
Campus and Facilities
The 200-acre campus is anchored by the famous Montezuma Castle. Built in 1881 as a luxury hotel and completely refurbished in 2001, the Castle includes dorm rooms, classrooms, offices, and the Dining Hall. Other facilities include:
- Six dormitories, named after the world's highest peaks. Each dorm houses 25-40 students.
- The Old Stone Hotel, built in 1878. It is now used for classrooms, the library, and administrative offices.
- The Edith Lansing Field House, a sports complex that includes indoor basketball courts, squash courts, a dance studio, a weight room, and cardio equipment.
- The Kluge Arts Center, which includes an auditorium, art studios, and music studios.
- The Dwan Light Sanctuary, a spectacular circular building featuring 12 large prisms in the apses and ceiling that spread rainbows throughout the space.
Geographic Setting
UWC-USA is located at the edge of the Pecos Wilderness in the foothills of the Sangre de Cristo mountain range. The area enjoys an average of 300 sunny days a year, and, while it snows in the winter, the climate is generally mild.
Students can apply through their UWC national committee or through the UWC Global Selection Programme. For more information about UWC-USA, visit the website.
Contact Details


text:
Our friends at On Point had a fascinating discussion today with the author of a new book about ninjas.
Here's what Sam Gale Rosen, On Point's producer, told us:
"We spoke to John Man, author and historian, about his new history of ninjas: Ninja: 1,000 Years of the Shadow Warrior. Real ninjas apparently didn't quite match the picture that has been painted in popular culture. No nunchucks, no throwing stars, and it was more about spycraft than fancy footwork."
"There are shuriken, the throwing stars," Man told On Point. "But even these are contentious. I asked lots of questions about these: How did you actually use them? They're terrific things to use, I expect you've thrown one, a lot of people have them. They go into wood with a very satisfying clunk, and they look extremely dangerous, and they have these star-shaped blades. But when you think about it: How do you carry them? How do you whip them out in dark? Supposedly they were sometimes poisoned, but I'm not sure how you'd risk using them if they actually had poisoned tips and poisoned blades. I couldn't get to the bottom of this."
We'll leave it at that and let you listen to the rest of the conversation if you're interested.
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
cond_init(3c) [v7 man page]
cond_init(3C) Standard C Library Functions cond_init(3C) NAME
cond_init, cond_wait, cond_timedwait, cond_reltimedwait, cond_signal, cond_broadcast, cond_destroy - condition variables SYNOPSIS
cc -mt [ flag... ] file... [ library... ] #include <thread.h> #include <synch.h> int cond_init(cond_t *cvp, int type, void *arg); int cond_wait(cond_t *cvp, mutex_t *mp); int cond_timedwait(cond_t *cvp, mutex_t *mp, timestruc_t *abstime); int cond_reltimedwait(cond_t *cvp, mutex_t *mp, timestruc_t *reltime); int cond_signal(cond_t *cvp); int cond_broadcast(cond_t *cvp); int cond_destroy(cond_t *cvp); DESCRIPTION
Initialize Condition variables and mutexes should be global. Condition variables that are allocated in writable memory can synchronize threads among processes if they are shared by the cooperating processes (see mmap(2)) and are initialized for this purpose. The scope of a condition variable is either intra-process or inter-process. This is dependent upon whether the argument is passed implic- itly or explicitly to the initialization of that condition variable. A condition variable does not need to be explicitly initialized. A condition variable is initialized with all zeros, by default, and its scope is set to within the calling process. For inter-process syn- chronization, a condition variable must be initialized once, and only once, before use. A condition variable must not be simultaneously initialized by multiple threads or re-initialized while in use by other threads. Attributes of condition variables can be set to the default or customized at initialization. The cond_init() function initializes the condition variable pointed to by cvp. A condition variable can have several different types of behavior, specified by type. No current type uses arg although a future type may specify additional behavior parameters with arg. The type argument c take one of the following values: USYNC_THREAD The condition variable can synchronize threads only in this process. This is the default. USYNC_PROCESS The condition variable can synchronize threads in this process and other processes. Only one process should initialize the condition variable. The object initialized with this attribute must be allocated in memory shared between processes, either in System V shared memory (see shmop(2)) or in memory mapped to a file (see mmap(2)). It is illegal to initialize the object this way and to not allocate it in such shared memory. Initializing condition variables can also be accomplished by allocating in zeroed memory, in which case, a type of USYNC_THREAD is assumed. If default condition variable attributes are used, statically allocated condition variables can be initialized by the macro DEFAULTCV. Default condition variable initialization (intra-process): cond_t cvp; cond_init(&cvp, NULL, NULL); /*initialize condition variable with default*/ or cond_init(&cvp, USYNC_THREAD, NULL); or cond_t cond = DEFAULTCV; Customized condition variable initialization (inter-process): cond_init(&cvp, USYNC_PROCESS, NULL); /* initialize cv with inter-process scope */ Condition Wait The condition wait interface allows a thread to wait for a condition and atomically release the associated mutex that it needs to hold to check the condition. The thread waits for another thread to make the condition true and that thread's resulting call to signal and wakeup the waiting thread. The cond_wait() function atomically releases the mutex pointed to by mp and causes the calling thread to block on the condition variable pointed to by cvp. The blocked thread may be awakened by cond_signal(), cond_broadcast(), or when interrupted by delivery of a UNIX signal or a fork(). The cond_wait(), cond_timedwait(), and cond_reltimedwait() functions always return with the mutex locked and owned by the calling thread even when returning an error, except when the mutex is of USYNC_PROCESS_ROBUST type and has been left irrecoverable by the mutex's last owner. The cond_wait(), cond_timedwait(), and cond_reltimedwait() functions return the appropriate error value if they fail to internally reacquire the mutex. Condition Signaling A condition signal allows a thread to unblock a single thread waiting on the condition variable, whereas a condition broadcast allows a thread to unblock all threads waiting on the condition variable. The cond_signal() function unblocks one thread that is blocked on the condition variable pointed to by cvp. The cond_broadcast() function unblocks all threads that are blocked on the condition variable pointed to by cvp. If no threads are blocked on the condition variable, then cond_signal() and cond_broadcast() have no effect. Both functions should be called under the protection of the same mutex that is used with the condition variable being signaled. Otherwise, the condition variable may be signaled between the test of the associated condition and blocking in cond_wait(). This can cause an infinite wait. Destroy The condition destroy functions destroy any state, but not the space, associated with the condition variable. The cond_destroy() function destroys any state associated with the condition variable pointed to by cvp. The space for storing the condi- tion variable is not freed. RETURN VALUES
Upon successful completion, these functions return 0. Otherwise, a non-zero value is returned to indicate the error. ERRORS
The cond_timedwait() and cond_reltimedwait() functions will fail if: ETIME The time specified by abstime or reltime has passed. These functions may fail if: EFAULT The cond, attr, cvp, arg, abstime, or mutex argument points to an illegal address. EINVAL Invalid argument. For cond_init(), type is not a recognized type. For cond_timedwait(), the number of nanoseconds is greater than or equal to 1,000,000,000. ELOCKUNMAPPED The last owner of this mutex unmapped the mutex while holding the mutex. This mutex is now owned by the caller. See the description of the mutex_lock() function on the mutex_init(3C) manual page. ENOTRECOVERABLE The mutex pointed to by mp is protecting the state that has been left irrecoverable when the mutex's last owner was not able to clean up the state. The mutex has not been acquired. See the description of the mutex_lock() function on the mutex_init(3C) manual page. EOWNERDEAD The last owner of the mutex pointed to by mp died while holding the mutex. The mutex has been acquired. See the description of the mutex_lock() function on the mutex_init(3C) manual page. The cond_wait() function may fail if: EINTR Interrupted. The calling thread was awakened by the delivery of a UNIX signal. EXAMPLES
Example 1: Use cond_wait() in a loop to test some condition. The cond_wait() functin is normally used in a loop testing some condition, as follows: (void) mutex_lock(mp); while (cond == FALSE) { (void) cond_wait(cvp, mp); } (void) mutex_unlock(mp); Example 2: Use cond_timedwait() in a loop to test some condition. The cond_timedwait() function is normally used in a loop testing some condition. It uses an absolute timeout value as follows: timestruc_t to; ... (void) mutex_lock(mp); to.tv_sec = time(NULL) + TIMEOUT; to.tv_nsec = 0; while (cond == FALSE) { err = cond_timedwait(cvp, mp, &to); if (err == ETIME) { /* timeout, do something */ break; } } (void) mutex_unlock(mp); Example 3: Use cond_reltimedwait() in a loop to test some condition. The cond_reltimedwait() function is normally used in a loop testing in some condition. It uses a relative timeout value as follows: timestruc_t to; ... (void) mutex_lock(mp); while (cond == FALSE) { to.tv_sec = TIMEOUT; to.tv_nsec = 0; err = cond_reltimedwait(cvp, mp, &to); if (err == ETIME) { /* timeout, do something */ break; } } (void) mutex_unlock(mp); ATTRIBUTES
See attributes(5) for descriptions of the following attributes: +-----------------------------+-----------------------------+ | ATTRIBUTE TYPE | ATTRIBUTE VALUE | +-----------------------------+-----------------------------+ |MT-Level |MT-Safe | +-----------------------------+-----------------------------+ SEE ALSO
fork(2), mmap(2), setitimer(2), shmop(2), mutex_init(3C), signal(3C), attributes(5), condition(5), mutex(5), standards(5) NOTES
The only policy currently supported is SCHED_OTHER. In Solaris, under the SCHED_OTHER policy, there is no established order in which threads are unblocked. If more than one thread is blocked on a condition variable, the order in which threads are unblocked is determined by the scheduling pol- icy. When each thread, unblocked as a result of a cond_signal() or cond_broadcast(), returns from its call to cond_wait() or cond_timed- wait() , the thread owns the mutex with which it called cond_wait(), cond_timedwait(), or cond_reltimedwait(). The thread(s) that are unblocked compete for the mutex according to the scheduling policy and as if each had called mutex_lock(3C). When cond_wait() returns the value of the condition is indeterminate and must be reevaluated. The cond_timedwait() and cond_reltimedwait() functions are similar to cond_wait(), except that the calling thread will not wait for the condition to become true past the absolute time specified by abstime or the relative time specified by reltime. Note that cond_timedwait() or cond_reltimedwait() might continue to block as it trys to reacquire the mutex pointed to by mp, which may be locked by another thread. If either cond_timedwait() or cond_reltimedwait() returns because of a timeout, it returns the error value ETIME. SunOS 5.10 20 Feb 2004 cond_init(3C)


text:
Have your eye on this one?
CarShop Certified*
- Lifetime Engine Guarantee
- 6 Month or 6K Mile warranty
- No Dings, Dents or Scratches
- Lifetime Engine Guarantee
- 6 Month or 6K Mile Warranty
- No Dings, Dents or Scratches
- 5-day Money Back Guarantee
- 109-Point Mechanical Inspection
See Monthly Payments
View CalculatorDetails
- Sport Utility
- 41,589
- Automatic
- Attitude Black
- Brown
- 6 Cylinders 3.5L
- 20 City / 27 Hwy
Features & Specs
- Navigation System
- Leather Seats
- Sunroof / Moonroof
- Panoramic Roof
- Third Row Seating
- Oversized Wheels (20-inch+)
- 4 Doors
- Android Auto
- Apple Car Play
- Auto Climate Control
- Automatic Headlights
- Aux Jack ipod/mp3
- Blind Spot Monitor
- Blue Tooth
- Braking Assist
- Cargo Shade
- Collision Avoidance
- Cruise Control
- Foglights
- Heated Mirrors
- Heated Seats
- Lane Departure Warning
- Lane Keep Assist
- Manual Folding Rear Seats
- Memory Package (Seat)
- Power Door Locks
- Power Driver Seat
- Power Mirrors
- Power Passenger Seat
- Power Windows
- Push Button Start
- Rear Camera
- Rear Defroster
- Rear Heated Seats
- Rear Parking Sensors
Financing / Calculator
At CarShop, we're all about no hassle — even when it comes to dealing with lenders on your car loan. We will work to get you the best possible financing, saving you money (and legwork). Apply online below or calculate your monthly payment:
Trade In
We approach trade-ins and car-buying the CarShop way — with honesty, integrity and complete transparency in how we assess the value of your car. Free estimates provided by Kelley Blue Book. Actual offers require a physical inspection and may vary based on vehicle condition, vehicle history, demand, and wholesale market conditions.
Values provided by Kelley Blue Book
CarShop Certified cars have passed our rigorous 109-point inspection and come with warranties better than other used cars, and many new cars.
- Lifetime Engine Guarantee: We cover your engine for as long as you own your car, provided you keep up regular oil changes and routine maintenance. Click here for details. FREE with every CarShop Certified vehicle we sell.
- 6 Month / 6,000 Mile Warranty: Covers absolutely everything, right down to wiper blades. Giving you plenty of time to make sure everything's perfect. FREE with every CarShop Certified vehicle we sell.
- There are a variety of optional Allstate® Vehicle Protection products that are also available. Learn more
Request Video Walkaround
Want to see more of this vehicle? You can request a Video Walkaround and an associate will provide a custom video tour of the vehicle just for you. Please include any special requests in the comments.
Delivery / Curbside Pickup
Get a vehicle and practice Social Distancing at the same time. Contact us for more information regarding availability of Curbside Pickup and Home Delivery in your area.
Our Values
- We believe in maximizing satisfaction, not profits.
- We believe in sharing. Sharing our expertise with customers who want it, sharing our good fortune with the community, and sharing smiles as often as possible.
- We believe in innovation. A Lifetime Engine Guarantee. Home Delivery. You won't find them a lot of other places.
- We believe we will do better as a company if we vigilantly attempt to do better by others.
- We believe in impartiality — not favoring one car model over another or favoring car customers with greater knowledge over those with less.
- We believe that, at heart, all business is personal, and hold ourselves to the highest level of ethical and moral conduct.
*Descriptions, guarantees and warranties refer only to vehicles marked "CarShop Certified" and sold only at CarShop store locations.
It is the customer's sole responsibility to verify the existence and condition of any equipment listed. Neither CarShop nor the website provider is responsible for misprints on prices or equipment. It is the customer's sole responsibility to verify the accuracy of the prices with the dealer, including the pricing for all added accessories.
All advertised prices exclude government fees and taxes, any finance charges, any dealer document processing charge, any electronic filing charge, and any emission testing charge. All advertised prices expire at midnight on the day of posting.
Some of our used vehicles may be subject to unrepaired safety recalls. Visit this link to check for unrepaired recalls by VIN: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls


text:
World Tourism Organization: International tourists in January fell by more than 80% year-on-year, and there may be a significant rebound in the second half of the year
Date: 2021-04-08
After bidding farewell to the difficult 2020, the global tourism industry suffered another setback at the beginning of 2021. The United Nations World Tourism Organization released the latest issue of the "World Tourism Barometer" on the 31st. It pointed out that in January this year, the number of global international tourists fell by 87% year-on-year due to factors such as countries' tightening borders and tourism policies in response to the epidemic. The promotion and distribution of the new crown vaccine have been slower than expected, which has further delayed the recovery of the tourism industry.
According to the World Tourism Organization, as the Asia-Pacific region continues to maintain the highest level of travel restrictions, the number of international arrivals in January fell the most, reaching 96%; arrivals from Europe and Africa both fell by 85%, while the Middle East fell by 84%. Following the improvement in performance in the last quarter of last year, the number of international tourists to the Americas also dropped by nearly 80% in January.
The World Tourism Organization said that 32% of global tourist destinations were still completely closed to international tourists in early February this year. It is expected that the global tourism industry will still face challenges in the first few months of 2021. Based on current trends, the agency expects that the number of international tourists in the first quarter of 2021 will decrease by approximately 85% compared to the same period in 2019.
Looking forward to the later stage, the World Tourism Organization believes that with the popularization of vaccination, the removal of major travel restrictions, and the European plan to launch the new crown "digital green certificate" and other favorable factors, international travel may rebound significantly in the second half of this year, but it is expected to remain Will be lower than the level before the 2019 epidemic.


text:
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Anything relating to pets and animals: Interesting and bizarre animal news and pet news. Pet related information, animal related web sites, stories about pets and wild animals. Humor,photos, and videos of animals and pets. Useful and unusual pet products, merchandise and pet supplies.


text:
Length, mm | 5000 |
Thickness, mm | 40 |
Width, mm | 1200 |
Mark | HELL |
Delivery terms
Delivery is made by prefabricated vehicles (delivery to 2 or more customers is allowed).
For additional loading points (bases) surcharge: for 20 ton vehicles — from 25,000 to 50,000 tenge; for 9 ton — 25 000 tenge for 5 ton — 18000 tenge; for 1.5 ton — 10000 tenge
For additional unloading points (located nearby) 8700 tenge for 20 tons. and 10000 tenge. for the rest.
For additional unloading points (different addresses) for 20 tons. - 35000 tenge, for 9 tons. - 25000 tenge, for 5 tons. - 20,000 tenge, for 1.5 tons. - 12000 tenge.
For each hour of downtime at the client for more than 3 hours, an additional payment of 10,000 tenge is made.
Additional payment for positions: starting from the 5th position - 2000 tenge. for each
If there is a sheet in the order (cold-copy, stainless or galvanized), grid in the cards, corrugated board, as well as when loading from several bases, payment is made at the full rate for the type of machine with the appropriate parameters.
Delivery by cars with a carrying capacity of up to 5 tons, a board of 6 meters is possible no further than 500 km., up to 9 tons, a board of 6 — 8 meters and 1.5 tons, a board of 4 meters is possible no further than 100 km.
Delivery of oversized cargo is carried out at an individual rate (the cost is to be specified in the delivery department).
Payment terms
In ACRA Holding LLP, you can pay in any convenient way for you, up to 1000 MCI in cash to the Cashier at any of the sales offices of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Russia, over 1000 MCI by non-cash payment method, by transferring funds, according to the invoice for payment .
Government organizations, when providing a full package of documents, have the opportunity to allocate a credit line for up to 30 days.
Our details
Our details of ACRA Holding LLP
Current account in tenge: KZ38914002203KZ00D1E strong>
Current account in rubles KZ88914002203RU004TB
SB JSC Sberbank Almaty, SPF №BC Ken Dala
General Director: Razumov N.S.