The New Kid

In addition to blogging about religion, politics, basketball, and all things Michigan, I am pleased to be able to fill the critical post of hula-hoop correspondent.
.
Okay, weird.

Amy, glad you’re here(not really but just roll w/ it). Now I can ask you several questions that I’ve asked several evangelicals before but have yet to receive an answer, stuff about cavemen and heaven, dinosaurs and saddles, Noah and the California Condor…stuff like that. Also, should I bring sun block to hell? Or does it make a diff. Thanx.

Cringe…….
.
OK, one quick note. Many commenters here take the posters to task for not covering what they think are the serious, important issues of the day. Please don’t rub their face in it.

I’m with Paul and Cinc (and Cliff, now that I think about it) in that, while I am as big a fan of hula hoops as the next guy, I’m a bigger fan of substance. So Amy . . . welcome, glad to have you, it’s always nice to meet new people, etc. etc. et al. Now, hows about a 500 word treatise on Rick Warren and Obama, and whether it’s a match made in heaven . . . or where Cinc is apparently going?

…another thing I’ve never gotten: Why all the reliance on the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament, and the reliance on it for all the gay hatred stuff? Because as I read it, the New Testament is God’s new covenant w/ Man. And does your belief in the Apocalypse and Israel’s role in it play a part in what I assume will be your one sided coverage* of Israel.
.
.
.
I assume because you were hired by Time after all.

Politico may have to update its list of the top ten scoops.

Oh, and Cinc: don’t you know that dinosaurs and cavemen didn’t exist? Those fossils were put here by the Sky Bully to confuse you . . . and apparently his plan worked! Bwa ha ha!

I didn’t know there was such a thing as a post-12-yr-old “passionate hula-hooper.”
-
And aw geez, people. It’s a lighthearted post. If there’s a string of these things, then fine, we’ll all complain. But that’s not the situation.

cincy–
.
It’s because the gospels are silent on homosexuality.
.
As for what i would like to see written about on this beat is the cultural divide between older and younger generation on most social issues. What will happen to the homophobic sects as the homophobic parishoners die off, to be replaced by people who have grown up with the gay guy in every real world cast?

I’m with Paul and Cinc as well. You don’t see AMC around anymore, do you? You may have noticed the world is blowing up?

And aw geez, people. It’s a lighthearted post. If there’s a string of these things, then fine, we’ll all complain. But that’s not the situation.
.
I suppose it’s an improvement over the ticked off pool that Obama snuck away from.

Ok, I take it back.

Believe it or not, I miss Ana. So Amy, in addition to providing reasoned, honest coverage of religion and politics in our culture, I also want you to change your name to Ana. Will you do this?

Key to hooping: transfer weight back and forth between front and back feet; don’t make a circular motion. Also, drink the blood of newborns for a month before competition.

Amy,
I also want you to work on getting the Swampland graphic changed. I’ll Photoshop a decent logo if ya want, just get rid of the Darth Obama, Leader of the Galatic Empire banner . . . it’s freaking me out.

Welcome, Amy!
†
Don’t let the boo-birds get you down. (If cincinnatus doesn’t improve his attitude, he better bring SPF 100!)
†
Seriously, though, thanks for the insights into Michelle Obama. I have also heard that she is one mean double-dutch enthusiast. Any truth to that?
†
Keep up the good works.
†
p.s. Are the hula hoops metaphors? Sometimes I don’t get all this “code” stuff.

C’mon you guys “you know… for kids!”

OT: I don’t want to leap to conclusions, here, but sometimes it seems like militant ignorance isn’t an effective strategy to deal with reality.
-
I bet Purity Balls are a huge success, though.

Amy gets introduced by KT and then “clarifies” in comments by saying “I’m an evangelical, not Catholic.” leaving people who are trying to take her seriously confused.
Then she posts an AMC-esque entry about hula-hoops.

“Those fossils were put here by the Sky Bully to confuse you . . . and apparently his plan worked!”
.
I’ve heard that fossils were put there by Satan to trick us as well, but yeah trickster God that he is, I could buy that. Also, every evangelical I’ve ever met(too many), thinks the Catholic Church is a cult…what say you Amy? Didn’t Klein post a story about that very thing here recently?

Hey, I was just trying to point out that a First Official Post that revolves around hula hooping is a little odd. Sorry if I missed out on the hula-hoop-humor fad.

And Amy, just for the record. Both you AND Michelle will have to get past Mary!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/phd9/2462538171/in/set-72157605145477127/

Elvis –
Yeah, a dad “taking charge of” his daughter’s virginity isn’t at all creepy . . . I bet those girls grow up to have very healthy, normal relationships.

*shudder*

Lizz Winstead, who had NEVER made me laugh, had a bit recently built around the Purity Rings. Except instead of the father giving the daughter a ring it was the mother hanging onto ceremonial balls that her son gave her.

Ok, I will make the joke. Amy’s first big post will be about how the dems aren’t doing enough about religion. She is concerned.
.
That said, welcome aboard Amy. Hope you have fun.

This post is a pathetic attempt on Ms. Sullivan’s part to make herself likable, so the foolishness and lies that are about to come will go down a little easier. It would help if it were actually in any way funny.

PNNTO -
That’s frickin’ HI-larious . . . luckily those Purity types haven’t, ya know, read Freud.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for abstinence and family values. I’m just not for weird, semi-pedophiliac dances. There’s a pretty bright line between “good parent” and “quasi-pederast” . . .

I’m guessing this isn’t commenter “Amy Sullivan” who threatened to do naughty things to fellow commenters before the Great Swampland Facelift. And while hula hoops are important, I wish someone on Swampland would tell me why the president-elect has been vacationing with nary a flag pin in sight.

Cinc –

DINGDINGDING . . . we have a winner of the “Make-me-laugh-out-loud-in-my-office-so-coworkers-think-I-forgot-my-medicine” award.

Hee hee hee . . .

OK, I see what you guys meant. What a monster Amy Sullivan is. And sneaky! See how she used hula hoops and attack Michelle Obama for her religious inconstancy WHILE simultaneously praising Cheney’s fundamentalist struggle against Satan.
.
I would have missed it if you guys hadn’t opened my eyes.

vastwastelander, didya notice they scrubbed that comment? Guess evangelicals think c@ck rings are evil. They’re not. I’m polishing mine right now!

Amy, you’ll obviously have more hoops to jump through here to be seen as credible and open minded.

Oh, cincy! You are too much.
†
Not even John McCain would joke about that.

Amy – welcome. I’m guessing you read Swampland from time to time, so you must know what you’re getting yourself into. I have yet to figure out the antipathy to you – presumably not simply that you’re religious, as we do occasionally have v. good discussions of religious/faith issues here, and the more the merrier.
.
I’m in the nonevangelical fairly left-leaning Episcopalian quadrant of the boxing ring.
.
I used to hula hoop when they were a fad in my long ago youth. Still have two of them hanging in the garage – a chartreuse and a bright orange. Could never bring myself to give them up.

“What a monster Amy Sullivan is. And sneaky! … I would have missed it if you guys hadn’t opened my eyes.”
.
Ha ha. She’s not a monster; she’s just a dishonest hack who refuses to adjust her opinions when they conflict with reality.

PNNTO: Amy gets introduced by KT and then “clarifies” in comments by saying “I’m an evangelical, not Catholic.” leaving people who are trying to take her seriously confused. Then she posts an AMC-esque entry about hula-hoops.
.
And, your point is?
.
As for serious questions about religion in America that I would love to see addressed by Ms. Sullivan. A few weeks ago I asked why is it that only people with an imaginary friend are suitable for higher office in America. Someone, I think it was kathy, took me to task for that phrasing and I revised it to: “why is it that only people with an invisible friend/leader are suitable for higher office in America.” Jay responded at point and said it is because most Americans also have an invisible friend, but I would like to hear Amy’s take. And it IS a serious question.

Kathy,
You can expect violators of Amy Sullivan’s First Two Commandments to be unruly:
†
“…less- or non-religious Democrats have two tasks. The first is to simply stop saying things that alienate or offend people of faith…The second job for non-religious Democrats is to stop taking the bait when conservatives try to distract them with fake issues like fights over the public display of the Ten Commandments or school prayer.”
†
Quit it, heathens! You’re making us all look bad.

“As for serious questions about religion in America that I would love to see addressed by Ms. Sullivan.”
.

Ms. Sullivan is not a serious thinker, so it’s pointless to ask her serious questions.

Why do athiests insist on offending people of faith?
†
I think that G.H.W.B. put it best: “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

Well the huge atheist caucus in the house (Pete Stark) vastly overrepresents secularists.

wvng – it wasn’t me who took you to task for that phrasing – unless you can find it and I can sort it out. In fact, I don’t really remember taking you to task for anything, as I generally agree with you.

Why do athiests insist on offending people of faith?
.
I haven’t read upthread. So if this is a repeat, I apologize.
.
The reason is not that they insist on offending people of faith. The reason is that people of faith get offended when their belief systems, belief systems that are held by a minority of humans (and, when you look at the details, a small minority of humans), are compared to belief systems the people of faith find ridiculous.
.
So, when atheists ask how your belief in the trinity, as expressed in the Nicean Creed is any more plausible than 70 houris awaiting Islamic martyrs or wiccan tree spirits, they get all offended.
.
Or when atheists pull out the sacred scripture of a particular creed and quote a passage that no person living in the 21st century could believe and asks “So, do you believe this? Do you believe that concubines are okay? Do you really believe that there was a Virgin Birth?” I don’t see how, in the abstract, this stuff is offensive. These are simple questions. They are the kinds of questions 8 year olds ask “What came before God? Is there a rock so big he can’t move it? Can you explain the ‘fully human, fully god, of one substance with the father’ thing to me again? It doesn’t make sense.”
.
One theme that runs through Dawkins’ work is just asking people whether they believe in the central tenets of their professed religion. When confronted with these questions, they get mad at Dawkins, “This isn’t the 19th century. These questions are irrelevant today.” But, in fact, they are. And pointing it out is, “offensive.
.
this would not be worthy of mention, (Nobody really gets upset about wiccans or zorastrians) except that people want to use the state to impose these false to fact beliefs on other people’s children. People want to impose litmus tests, involving requiring people to profess belief in these things that aren’t true as a condition of public office. the former is appalling. The latter is a violation of the constitution.
.

“And, your point is?”
.
I think I am dense wvng, was that snark for me or Amy? If for me I was trying to show that some people were trying to give Amy the benefit of the doubt/fresh slate/whatever. Tried to engage her on her playng field and it was for nada.
.
I guess she may be more MS than AMC.

Of course the question we should all ponder is why a belief in magic is so universal while a belief in a particular magic is so local and culturally dependent. I personally think that religion resembles language in that regard but at the end of the day, it’s merely a particular manifestation of our hive mentality.

The reason is not that they insist on offending people of faith.
.
Some do. I’ve seen atheists in other forums exclaim that every person of faith should be given a lethal injection, or that every person of faith should be made to wear helmets that generate magnetic fields in particular areas of their brains, to replicate religious emotions. Granted, these aren’t the most balanced of people (from what I can tell), but still.
.
It’s also offensive to posit that Christopher Hitchens, loathsome toad and drunken buffoon, can sweep away religious beliefs after a few seconds of atheist rhetoric.
.
And I realize a lot of this is in reaction to the Bible thumpers who demonize atheists (I’ve seen ‘em at my sister’s church) and the constant pressure to reform America into a more theocratic nation. But let’s not pretend all atheists are completely spite-free.

she’s just a dishonest hack who refuses to adjust her opinions when they conflict with reality.
_
I believe its called faith-based punditry.

It’s true, this atheist* is filled w/ spite and looking for a little payback for a mindset that I believe is largely responsible for our current predicament. So come on fundies….I take all comers.
.
*Atheist in the sense that I do not believe the god of Abraham exists, or is worthy of worshiping if he does, due to his loathsome character. That being said…I’m still less spiteful than the god of Abraham.

Well, unless Amy’s suggesting the Great Plastic Circle as a replacement for the cross I guess we can expect substantive posts from her sooner or later. If she wants to plaster Swampland with tales of human parthenogenesis in the guise of political news we’ll know it soon enough, and she surely knows what sort of reaction she can expect. Maybe she’ll do for IESVS·NAZARENVS·REX·IVDÆORVM what Michael Scherer did for John McCain.

Welcome Amy! Nolite les bastardes incarborundurum, OK?

(I hope I spelled that right…)

I want to be the modern Constantine for the Spaghetti Monster. I want to replace Jesus w/ Parmesan cheese.

“One theme that runs through Dawkins’ work is just asking people whether they believe in the central tenets of their professed religion.”

That would be because those things aren’t central; they are dogmatic appendages that only a small fraction of people consider central. Dawkins uses playground logic to sell books to fundamentalist atheists.

Of course the question we should all ponder is why a belief in magic is so universal
.
Dirks, it continues to deeply weird me out that we agree on so many unrelated things.
.
the strongest argument against the atheist is that belief in the supernatural is universal among humans, across time across place. What they believe in cannot reconciled, but the belief is universal.
.
This is true even in an environment where people hop into their fossil-fueled cars to attend young earth meetings. It is absolutely universal. There is very little that is universal. Music. Marriage [that is the regulation of who is responsible for children, and what constitutes rape]. And belief in the supernatural/denial of mortality. Nearly universal, only doubted by crazy people on the edge.
.

.
Know what I didn’t like about Sullivan’s prior posts? Because she starts out with the unwarranted and unsubstantiated assumption that Democrats have some kind of “God gap” whatever the hell that is, and then invariably proceeded to do the finger-wagging tut-tutting and tsk-tsking to all of us heathens. All this was posted by someone else, and she would never show up to defend her assumptions and/or listen to arguments against.
.
So I’m willing to give her chance, even do the tut-tutting thing as long as she interacts and we can get a discussion about it going.
.
How about it, Sullivan?
.

Cincinnatus: Read the Introduction to any (unabridged) bible: the new testament is for you and your friends, the old testament is for anybody you don’t like, or hate, or want to kill.

Holy Toledo folks, let’s at least give her the chance to foul up before jumping all over her. She can’t possibly be any worse than Cox — even talking about hula hoops is a step up from Cox’s inanity — and the fact that she’s got some religious beliefs means she might believe she has a soul, which puts her well ahead of your average “pundit,” who knows he or she sold their own soul long ago, and behaves accordingly.

Hey I don’t care about whether anybody is an atheist or a hard line evangelical, I am a Christian and I don’t mind saying so. I think that many hardline evangelicals think that every atheist is a devil worshipping baby killer but a lot of hardline atheists also think that every Christian is a delusional dumbass. In most cases neither descriptions are true. Just because I am a Christian doesn’t mean I think that people rode dinosaurs. And just because any of you are atheist doesn’t mean I think you are painting upside stars in your basement.
.
That being said the use of the term “magical” when talking about someone’s faith is just the same in my eyes of them using the word devil worshiper when referring to atheists. Tolerance is ALWAYS a two way street. I don’t really care all that much about people flaming each other over religion, I know what I believe, but it is amusing to see flame wars where both sides state that they are the victim.

Amy, Welcome to Swampland (officially).
Some advise…
If you can do the following:
- bring back preview
- dump pagination
- get rid of Carney and Murphy photos/bios
- change the “Swampland” title graphic
The commenters might just start believing in a higher power after all.

BTW
.
You know its bizarro world when Pat Buchanan is calling the Israeli response in Gaza “disproportionate”. Go figure.

Nah, Pat Buchanan hates Jews.

Also Dennis Kucinich says the UN should investigate Israel. At least one Dem isn’t willing to give them a blank check.
.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/kucinich-criticizes-israel-wants-u.n.-probe-2008-12-29.html

I might not really cotton to Amy’s ideas about religion — especially when her evangelical perspective gets my liberal politics all smeary — but already on this string today I’ve learned what “I.N.R.I” actually stands for (thanks, Flownover). All those childhood Sundays spent staring at that crucifix with that strange acronym on top… and now, years later, on Swampland I finally get the goods.

trifecta
.
I don’t doubt that but he also knows how strong of a political force they are too. And well hell he IS a Republican.

@sg,
One thing I will never do is apologize for using the word magical. I don’t mean it in any derogatory sense, but the Universe is too amazing, astonishing and awe inspiring in its actual real physical state to have its creation sullied by the need to anthropomorphise the Creator. Add the fact that I attend Church and consider myself Christian when asked makes my devout materialism even more odd.
But there you have it.

Welcome aboard Amy keep your helmet and flak jacket close by and you will be fine.

i’ve got to second sgwhite here (about use of magical etc). i grew up in to as close of a fundy cult as you can get, which i have long since rejected, but i still can’t understand, for the life of me, why those who cry foul whenever they see fundys acting like it’s a binary world (with us/against us, pro “life”/pro choice, etc). for those of us who are more educated (i.e. progressives/democrats) haven’t we learned that it’s important to let things play out rather than throwing ad hominems or relying on illogical syllogisms (evangelists are ALL evil, amy’s an evangelist… ergo amy is evil). i know, i know amy’s posted here before but good gawd people, have some patience before you demand on a nice little progressive/incredibly secular echo chamber

Young Turks interviewing Daniel Levy only for those interested in learning some sh*t.

http://www.theyoungturks.com/

The terms “evangelical” and “catholic” are by no means mutually exclusive – see
.
http://www.evangelicalcatholic.com/
.
Evangelical Catholicism is in fact all the rage at mainline Protestant seminaries these days, not least because it can be made to mean whatever you want it to mean when discussing ecumenism.
.
Cincy, I think your idea is great. Can I be Eusebius? I promise to be really, really, disgustingly obsequeous, and I look good in a stola. We can have a schism over shaved vs. flaked parmesan.

Paul D
.
I really don’t expect anyone to apologize for anything they do or say. I was just pointing out that if they do characterize someone’s faith as magical then that person by all rights can and should demonize them back for being an atheist. Actually I would prefer people say exactly what they feel, just as long as they don’t try to play the victim roll when somebody goes back at them.

role that is

Orthodoxy: the original fundamentalism. Accept no substitutes!

deathbypapers, I think it has something to do w/ being punched in the face for a decade and not havin’ it anymore. It might also have to do w/ the fact that the fundies/evangelists are at the forefront of the ‘know nothing’ mindset that has lead us to disaster. It might also have something to do w/ being told over and over again(with lots of concern), by people like Amy, that the progressives, whose political philosophy is much closer to Christ’s teachings than the GOP, are the ones who need reach out, bend over and take it up the wazoo to please the fundies. That being said, here’s an interview Amy gave to Salon. She comes off pretty well overall, except for the aforementioned concerns.
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/02/26/amy_sullivan/
.
So okay Time, you hired a self described ‘liberal’…it had to be a fundie? Couldn’t do it without hedging your bets?
.
Monotheism = War

Friar, shaved Parmesan is blasphemy. I want to kill you.

PNNTO #43, that was sheer joy at the progression you put together at #19. Made me laugh out loud.
.
ditto what jay #42 said so eloquently: this would not be worthy of mention, (Nobody really gets upset about wiccans or zorastrians) except that people want to use the state to impose these false to fact beliefs on other people’s children. People want to impose litmus tests, involving requiring people to profess belief in these things that aren’t true as a condition of public office. the former is appalling. The latter is a violation of the constitution.
.
Speaking of “false to fact beliefs”, here’s another serious, religiously driven topic for Amy to consider considering: ABSTINENCE PROGRAMS STILL DON’T WORK

Cinci, that would be a direct violation of the Eight I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts. I’m ashamed of you.

You’re really risking a close encounter with His Noodly Appendage. Take hold of yourself, man!

Oh, wait, Cincy – I was the one suggesting a schism.
.
Die, you flaked fiend, and take your pasta-crudescent minions with you to Heck!!!

Shaved? Flaked? What happened to grated. I’m probably a lowlife for preferring it, but so be it.

wvng
.
I think the larger part to that study wasn’t that abstinence programs don’t work. I mean hell who thinks they really did? But its the fact that the teens that took the “virginity pledge” ended up having a higher probability of engaging in unprotected sex. That proves that abstinence only programs aren’t just stupid, they are also dangerous. And I would love to see the day where one of those kids who ends up with a serious STD (hopefully not AIDS though) who sues the ignorant sons of biotches who taught and promoted said abstinence only programs.

“Grated” would put you more on the shaved side, which means you’re welcome in my church, but Cincy’s trying to kill you.

I forgive you your insolence and blasphemy Friar…as long as you’re wearing the right hat. It’s about the hats. It’s the one thing we have in common w/ Catholics.
.
Another link to an Amy Sullivan interview:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/24/ST2008022402257.html
“It is hard to overcome decades of suspicion, much of it richly earned by leaders of the religious right who used faith in the cause of a political power grab and in the name of intolerance and fear.”
.
Know how else they earned that suspicion Amy? The Inquisition. I’m actually feeling a little bad for going after her without more research…people around here know how loathe I am to start throwing fire bombs willy nilly.

Shaved, flaked, grated ?!! Pfah !! A good parmesan should be taken in chunks ! Accompanied with a loaf of freshly baked (San Francisco) sour dough (or ‘peasant’ or French style) bread, some fruit (I’m partial to Red Delicious and Cameo, grapes and cherries), and a high quality red wine. Anything less is shaker cheese.

@sg,
There’s a very simple line I can draw. If you don’t believe in the reality of evolution, if you object to the phrase ‘big bang’, and if you think that you have the right to interfere with the science education of my neighbor’s children as a result of your problem with these concepts than you deserve significantly more contempt than what is conveyed by the phrase ‘believing in magic’.
.
There are things that can be subject to belief, interpretation, balance and faith. There are other things that are just plain true. Confusion on this point is one of the biggest ills inflicting our political discourse at this point in history. I won’t sit idly by while ignorance is embraced as a virtue.

Chunks are RIGHT OUT. Infidels! Your choices are shaved or flaked! You are either for the truth or anti-shaved! You must not equivocate!

All that the virginity pledge stuff did was increase an@l sex amongst teenagers. You fundies couldn’t have thought this crap up 20 years ago when I was a teenager? I HATE YOU SO MUCH!!!!!!!!

Bristol Palin Baby Son Tripp Born
.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20245389,00.html

. . . and Gunny wins the thread.

Paul D
.
Like I said even if you out and out hated all people of faith (and I know you don’t) it wouldn’t bother me one iota as long as you were willing to allow the other side to express their hatred of you (not that they have any).
.
I would point out that the Big Bang theory is just as magical of a concept as is God creating everything in 6 days and resting on the 7th. I know this because my Christian father taught all manner of advanced science in school including physics. Doesn’t mean its wrong but it doesn’t really mean its right either. There is a fine line that people walk when criticizing fundy opposition to the teaching of science. And the minute its crossed it gives fundis amunition to fire back. I could go into a lot of regressive thought right now like how do we know gravity is gravity when the theory and concept was based on a numerical equation and man invented numbers and math but rather than going that route (especially since I DO believe in gravity) I will just leave it there. Moral to the story, everybody’s theories are somebody else’s magic.

Yes…but me gottum GOOD magic!

Cincinnatus, it appears you had hard experience with narrow-minded folks claiming to be followers of Jesus. That’s too bad. For it seems to have driven you into the orthodoxy of disbelief.
.
Not every Christian believes in the literal truth of the Bible. Not every evangelical hates those who don’t believe as they do. Non-believers can – and do – fall into as rigid a fundamentalism as any member of the Moral Majority.
.
Belief in God is, by definition, a matter of faith – the substance of things unseen and all that. It is no more magic than your belief that God doesn’t exist. It’s simply a matter of faith.

I believe in the Big Bang theory, I wish my S/O did.
Thank you, please tip your servers.

If its any help in understanding where I’m coming from, Man did NOT invent numbers and math. That the universe is describable by mathematical equasions IS a property of the Universe itself and is one of the reasons it’s so awe inspiring as I mentioned upthread.

“All that the virginity pledge stuff did”
.
My johnson and I had this discuss years ago. I was throughly convinced it was a good idea and then the plane landed at Clark Air Force Base.

Gunny, is there any chance this is going to lead to an anecdote about Cubi Point?

Friar-Cheaper to pay a bar fine.

We’re a long way from hula hoops, that’s for sure.

“We’re a long way from hula hoops”
.
Chicken soup out of chicken…feathers, Friar.

We’re a long way from hula hoops, that’s for sure.
.
Yes sir.

We’re a long way from hula hoops, that’s for sure.
.
Thank the deity of your choice.

The Philippines is the Magical Kingdom.

“Peace, Love, Drugs, and Randy California!”
.

.
Not quite off topic.

I’d make a joke about hula hoops and purity c@ck rings and the size of my johnson, but it would be crass. It appears Amy made a cursory attempt at reining in the blue humor around here by scrubbing my initial c@ck ring joke, but it appears you guys beat her down w/ your constant juvenile humor and she’s given up. Nice going guys.

Girls have their hula hoops and us guys have our johnsons. What a magical world we live in.

gunny, that’s a magic we can believe in.

“Girls have their hula hoops and us guys have our johnsons.”
Whatre you? Jackie the Joke Man?

Man did NOT invent numbers and math.
.
I have wavered between the constructionists and the platonists. But I have come down on the side of the platonists. This is, indeed, the strongest argument for the supernatural. The cosmologists’ stories are unsatisfying. The physicists have three mutually exclusive models in operation at the moment.
.
But those stories and models are a great deal more complete than the magical stories, and raise the possibility of progress. The magical stories do not show progress, and have no path toward completion.
.
But nobody who thinks about stuff like this can fail to notice that 1) people invariably believe in the supernatural and 2) the natural explanations of reality are incomplete and unsatisfying. There’s also been remarkably little progress on resolving this unsatisfying incompleteness in the last 25 years or so, since the unification of the three non-gravitational forces.

Hey, check out this dumb beyatch defending the Barack the Magical Negro song
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/29/tamron-hall-magic-negro/
.
Buhahahahahaha. I can’t stop laughing at how dumb white conservatives are who simply don’t get why this sh!t isn’t funny.
.
Tamron Hall represented by the way.

Whatre you? Jackie the Joke Man?
.
I take it you want to go back to talking about cheese. No problem. Go ahead hoss.

I want to apologize to Amy Sullivan for much of the commentary here, these people clearly have no class.
.
You can probably understand how hard it must be for someone whose girth is such that I must substitute a hula hoop for a purity c@ck ring, to fit themselves into a theater seat and be comfortable. However I must see Benjamin Button so I will endeavor to do just that, and so I am off. The rest of you….clean up your act. It’s unbecoming to hear adults speak in such a manner.
.
String theory = magical progress

I thought he was upset because his Big Bang joke only brought polite snickers.

From sg’s link-
KATE OBENSHAIN: I’m defending Rush Limbaugh.
.
Psst don’t bother Kate, I don’t think Rush is into girls.

…before someone compares me to Artie Lang or something, I’d prefer the great Bill Hicks:

.
Outtie

Well, you give this bunch a choice between (1) an earnest dialogue about obscurantism and (2) cheese and genitalia jokes, and our answer is, generally, “Sure!”

genitalia jokes are funny or sure?

Is this thread going to peter out?

Or sure funny….

@cinncinatus, not sure if you’re still on this thread as it has apparently “petered out.” i’d be hesitant to blame evangelicals for all that has gone one the past few years. it seems to me that many liberals/progressives are mistakenly conflating evangelicals with neo-cons. Can you really blame evangelicals for the war in Iraq, our stance regarding Palestine, the fiascos in Pakistan/India/Afganistan, our mistreatment of our allies, the love affair of the Bush administration with big business? I think you need to meet a few more evangelicals before you tar them with that big of a brush. not all of them (though there def are some) support all of these things, in fact i know a few evangelicals that support none of these things. Also (sorry don’t know how to do breaks with this crazy system), i think its time that we (liberals, progressives etc) actually live our ethos of the marketplace of ideas. i really don’t think people are talking about “taking it up the wazoo” from the fundies. i think we just need to stop making the “illogical syllogisms” i discussed in an earlier post. lets LISTEN to people before we villify them. as educated people we should know that just because someone self-identifies as something doesn’t make them that, and we shouldn’t make prima facie (sp) judgments. let’s inject some civility into our discourse on evangelicalism. treating it like the plague is only harming our political, moral and ethical capital.

You know. I have a few years on my opponent.
.

114 comments! The natives smell new meat!

Amy, what one earth possessed you to join Swampland? There are no souls to save here! This is a demonic landscape filled with posters who have no souls, some without morals and a few with no ethical compass. Swampland is not fit for man nor beast. It is the circle Dante never dared to speak of. This is where angels go to die. Didn’t you notice the “Forbidden” sign at the beginning of the path? Or the sign after that which said “All hope abandon ye who enter here”? And you had to climb over the barricades and through the barbed wire just to get here! You are either very brave or foolish(See Michael Scherer).

Nice first post on Hula Hoops. This is a subject that should have been covered during the election, maybe even offered up as a talent contest for the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. I know seeing them hula hoop would have sure helped me select the next President! Please continue to entertain us, it makes us lazy and less dangerous.

Welcome to your new home Amy!

Oh gunny, so cruel. Thanks for the walk down memory lane!
.
You are on a roll tonight, my friend.

You wanna be an evangelical, fine. You wanna make your first “official” blog post a silly piece of puff, okay. Takes all types. But let me tell you, sister, as another native Michigander (who went to the right schools), your time in Ann Arbor is a blasphemy for which I cannot grant absolution.

Well at least you have a large commenting audience. Sure they may not care for you but hey it’s a start!

religion… DOAN WANT

Welcome Amy! Remember, that in Swampland you can do no right.

As for the religious discussion , as an atheist, I assume that most here are what Dawkins has called “tooth fairy agnostics” in that they can’t disprove the tooth fairy and he/she may exist, but it’s unlikely. I’ll give the same credence to god. it’s possible, but highly unlikely.

As for why atheists tend to be a bit more combative when the subject comes up… when was the last time an atheist knocked on your door trying to convert you? On average I get about 5 per week not counting the neighbors who are always trying to “save” me. even if they aren’t your sect you can say “I already believe” but we have to either lie, (which believe it or not most of us don’t like, heathens or not) find an excuse or defend our beliefs. It’s not a happy thing. So when confronted with it and even more so on an anonomys forum like the internet yeah, we’ll be abrasive! I don’t find that out of line considering I spend about an hour a week fending off evangelicals.

erm… yeah. Welcome Amy!

wow – an hour a week fending off evangelicals? Where do you live? I get about 2 visits a year from Mormons, (who I politely decline to engage with) and that’s it.

I’m in super religious Orange County, CA. Apparently my soul is in high demand here.

And I should say it’s only an hour because I answer the door and talk to them as I’m of the mind that discussion is good. I could probably get away with less if I was passive.

Though I’ve gotta say the time I invited the mormons that came by to help me change my oil was the shortest time I’ve ever spent with someone trying to convert me. I find that a tad ironic as the whole helping man thing is supposedly doctrine.

nickel – last year I was standing guard down the street over a downed electric wire just at school closing time (it actually turned out to be a downed telephone wire), when 2 Mormons I had earlier in the day declined to talk to came by and offered to take over for me. I thought that was downright neighborly.

It’s interesting that there is nothing in them that was true. From the AP:

“The reality in the White House is — if you look at the most senior staff — you’re seeing people who aren’t personally religious and have no particular affection for people who are religious-right leaders,” Kuo said.

“In the political affairs shop in particular, you saw a lot of people who just rolled their eyes at … basically every religious-right leader that was out there, because they just found them annoying and insufferable. These guys were pains in the butt who had to be accommodated.”

Jayackroyd, the only exception would the US justice department. Mr. Ashcroft would be a good example followed down stream by Legal scholar Monica Goodling, who never met a law she couldn’t break.

The older I get the more convinced I am that we really don’t know nearly as much as we pretend we do, whether in science or religion, or anything else. Nobody knows what tomorrow may bring – scientist or priest. And we are afraid of it. So we make up theories or myths or stories, and predict from them as best we can, and, when our predictions are proved wrong (as they inevitably will be) if we are an honest scientist or priest, we admit we don’t know everything, and don’t let our pride make us try to force facts to fit our preferred reality.
.
After all, we’ve seen from the last eight years how well the alternative works.

@billiecat
The problem as I see it is that science is very successful at describing inanimate systems and the basic structure of matter. It’s when people think that the same approach can hope to ‘explain’ animal and human behavior that we get into areas where the reach of science far exceeds its grasp. I say that even though I’m frequently amazed at the explanatory power of evolutionary psychology.

I say that even though I’m frequently amazed at the explanatory power of evolutionary psychology.
.
Was that sarcasm? I’m astounded at the stories they spin, but not in a good way. There’s very little science going on there.
.
If you were serious, what were you thinking of?

Congratualtions.
We disagree!
While I’m sure there are many areas where that crew is all wet, when I’m trying to figure out mysteries of why people kill over religion, hate people they don’t even know and insist on collecting in huge cities when there’s empty land all over the place, the fact that we are evolved social creatures and are driven by some of the same logic that joins termites and bees, helps me make sense of things I would otherwise find inexplicable.

I’ll also note that your hesitation to refer to it as science probably has a lot of justification. That doesn’t mean I don’t expertience ‘aha’ moments when I read Pinker

As far as that goes, sure. The observation that people’s behavior evolved in bands of 100-200 related hunter-gatherers (presumably with exogamy) is a valuable one, and can lend insight. But the just-so stories that purport to explain modern human behavior by speculating about their basis in these groups are not really well-supported, are suspiciously facile, and often seem to be less than universal in their application.
.
There are a few universal elements of human behavior–marriage, belief in the supernatural as a causal element for otherwise inexplicable phenomena, music, territorial conflict among them. I have yet to hear authoritative explanations for any of these phenomena, other than the last, which correspond to territorial conflict among other species.
.
In my case, How the Mind Works is filled with outraged marginal notations and post-it flags on dozens of pages.

billiecat, well said.
–
I’m always amazed – in a bad way – by the ability of evolutionary psychologists to argue that absolutely everything reinforces their worldview; It’s normal in science to encounter data that’s difficult to interpret and which leads to new hypotheses, but that never seems to happen to evolutionary psychologists. I’d love to do an experiment/trick where eminent evolutionary psychologists were divided into two groups, both of which were given conflicting data to interpret. I would bet a lot of money that both groups would “spin” the data in terms of evolutionary psychology.
–
That said, I’m sure that many behaviors and cognitive processes can be largely explained in evolutionary terms. I even advance evolutionary explanations myself. But a lot of evolutionary psychology is essentially PR for a particular branch of psychology.

I’ll just say that I like where string theory and m theory are leading. I like the idea of living in a multidimensional multiverse. And I really like the idea that like Richard Feynman’s Sum Over Histories, we can be in more than one place at a time, and that perhaps an iteration of us exists in each of the universes living out all our possible paths in this life. I guess I just like the idea that I get another shot at this.
.
BTW, Benjamin Button is flawed but truly beautiful film.

that perhaps an iteration of us exists in each of the universes living out all our possible paths in this life…

I like to take that one step further and suggest that the history that each of us actually experiences is the one representing the best possible personal outcome. Lending all new meaning to the phrase, “Things can always get worse”

Rose–
.
This is why I say this isn’t proper science. There are some sociobiological results that are soundly based. The genetic make up of EO Wilson’s ants does explain why workers behave apparently altruistically. Robert Trivers once noted that there should exist an ungulate species that bears more does then bucks when resources are scarce. People looked, and there was in fact such a species. That’s science. Form a hypothesis, generate a testable implication, confirm with a test.
.
Likewise, it is certain that behavior can be inherited. Fruit fly studies have shown a number of inherited behaviors, some of them associated (like being an early or a late riser) with genes people share with fruit flies.
.
But that complex behaviors that exist within a species that has culture as well as inheritance (culture is not uniquely human, BTW) are very difficult to associate with any particular genetic sequence, and so evolutionary stories should be regarded with suspicion.
.
Even for physical human characteristics that are clearly inherited, it’s often hard to tell a clear story. My favorite is the unique (among mammals, to my knowledge) human trait of concealed ovulation. There are a number of reasons why this is something you would not expect to arise, so it clearly has to have selective benefit.
.
In The Third Chimpanzee, Jared Diamond lists no fewer than 6 competing explanations for why this trait evolved, explanations that reflect the politics of the theorizer as much as the available facts.
.
Personally, I find the cuckoldry story the most persuasive–that is human females benefit if they can get a resource-rich, but unattractive male to help raise the child of an attractive male. Why this is uniquely human is related to the extreme length of time before human offspring can function independently. But there is no evidence for that view. It’s just a story.

Just to be clear, Feynman was talking about photons, not universes. Personally, I’m partial to Lee Smolin’s evolutionary universe idea. it’s a pretty neat explanation for the anthropic principle.

I went to dig up some evidence for the cuckoldry hypothesis. (I had read that the rates are higher than most people think.)
.
Cecil Adams say the evidence is not strong.
.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=8308

Even for physical human characteristics that are clearly inherited, it’s often hard to tell a clear story. My favorite is the unique (among mammals, to my knowledge) human trait of concealed ovulation. There are a number of reasons why this is something you would not expect to arise, so it clearly has to have selective benefit.
–
True. Although in a small hunter-gatherer society ovulation would be less concealed than in contemporary western society (i.e. menstruation would be more public). It would be interesting to compare societies – some of which still exist – that mark or segregate menstruating women with roughly similar societies that don’t publicly distinguish menstruating women to see if there are differing cuckoldry rates. Also, re the Adams article, I’d guess that cuckoldry rates are sharply declining. Women have careers and child support laws now. And increased access to abortion would also be a factor.
–
I haven’t read the Third Chimpanzee (I’m a student so I only have time for assigned reading and news!) so I don’t know if this is one of the 6 theories, but I wonder if concealed ovulation is also a protective mechanism against rape, which besides being awful is also a threat to the reproductive systems and leaves women with children that are unsupported by their fathers.

Isn’t it easier to beleive that concealed ovulation simply leads to more frequent intercourse, less violent competition for fertile females and more cohesive family units – sort of what the doctor ordered for a close knit community of reasonably cooperative primetes?

Paul Dirks, it also may lead to more restrictions on women’s freedom of movement and association. So more violence and conflict within a family in return for less violence and conflict between families.
–
Also I suppose there is a more feminist interpretation: concealed ovulation may make women less vulnerable and therefore more able to take risks in finding food, protecting territory, etc. If suddenly ovulation stopped being concealed, I’d be a lot more reluctant to walk around in a borderline neighborhood.

I guess we’re helping to prove Jayack’s point. We can go back and forth with fascinating specualtion providing hours of entertainment – but its not science.

Visible menstruation is evidence of infertility. An interesting side issue this raises is that women who live together tend to synchronize, which is another thing you have to tell a plausible but unprovable story to explain.
.
The explanations all, IIRC, turn on variations on keeping the male around providing resources, and not impregnating other females.
.
I’ll see if I can find the explanations on the web. The only name I remember being cited was primate expert Sarah Hrdy. And, of course, as with all my most interesting books, I’ve lent it to someone.

Also, re the Adams article, I’d guess that cuckoldry rates are sharply declining. Women have careers and child support laws now. And increased access to abortion would also be a factor.

.
This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. The argument is not that women intentionally and consciously seek to cuckold their mates. The argument is trying to explain the selection benefit of concealed ovulation. The question is not “Why does the trophy wife try to have the pool boy get her pregnant?” but “why she does she want to have sex with the pool boy?” These are base, physical attractions, often acted on in ways that are clearly irrational. It’s generally stupid for the trophy wife to have sex with the pool boy. And she knows it, even while she is engaging in it.
.
The longer story is that there are two male strategies, call them broadcast and nurture. The first is to have sex with as many women as possible, and hope that many of the offspring that reach adulthood. The second is to provide care and support for a one female, and any offspring. (Mark Twain summarized this idea by saying that while some people say not to put all your eggs in one basket, he rather prefers to put them in one basket, and then watch that basket.)
.
Concealed ovulation could be a simple counter to this strategy. The broadcasting male doesn’t know when a potential mate is fertile, so the energy expenditure is more likely to be wasted. (That’s one of the six arguments.) However, to be a successful broadcaster–for a female to forgo the support during child rearing–the male must be especially desirable. that is, it’s worth acquiring the genetic equivalent of a particularly long tailed peacock, or the owner of a particularly attractive bower, even if you have to raise the child without support.
.
The cuckolding version of this story is that a still better strategy is to acquire the broadcaster’s attractive genes, and then have a nurturer raise the offspring. The cuckolding business is not intentional (if it were, the female would benefit from knowing her fertility status), but the female is simply attracted to the broadcaster. Females who are attracted to broadcasters, and also bond with nurturers would have a selection advantage.
.
Note the downside to this strategy. If the nurturer discovers that he is not the father of the child, then there is a good chance that he will kill either the woman, the child or both. It is much riskier without concealed ovulation.
.
I’m remembering some of the other arguments. At least one turns on the idea that always being sexually receptive provides greater access to meat from hunts. In this case, the point is not the concealment of ovulation per se, but the resulting permanent state of receptivity.
.
(Oh, and on the earlier menstruation point. One of the reasons that this kind of backward reasoning is difficult is there is a tendency to assume that the way people are now is the way they always have been. In point of fact, women today are likely to menstruate much more regularly than they did during these evolutionary times. More time spent pregnant, more time spent breastfeeding, more periods of resource scarcity, later menses all lead to shorter periods of menstruation than today. Likewise. much of what is regarded as universal among people is, IMO, more dependent on the (rather recent) culture of sedentary agriculture than on human genetics. The existence of a priestly class and a warrior class is among these.)
.
Another way to put this is that people are polygamous, and they are polygamous in the ways chimps are, rather than the ways gorillas or ungulates are. Concealed ovulation plays a role in the management of human polygamy,but it is unclear what that role is. Note also that this is not evopsycho talk. We are talking not about complex behaviors, but the evolution of a physical characteristic, and the potential benefit it confers.
.
To ramble on for one more paragraph, anticipating the claim that people are not now polygamous in this society, that’s simply false. Serial polygamy is still polygamy, for one thing. People report on the order of four sexual partners in their lives, at the point the survey is taken, on average. (And, no, men can’t have more partners than women, even though women tend to report lower numbers. I always assume men and women disagree about what “sex with that woman” is when they answer these surveys.)
.
Oh, and I left something out. Males can (and do) engage in mixed strategies, either over time (young men sowing their oats [which is, I believe, the source for the term, as broadcast is a method of sowing]) or at a given time. A particularly good time to engage in broadcast strategies is while the primary mate is pregnant. Also, the tendency may be to broadcast successfully while young, and at peak virility. Again, the idea is NOT that females are intentionally trying to get pregnant by chasing younger men. The idea is that young, virile men are more attractive as sexual partners, because there is selection benefit to women feeling that way.
.
As Paul said about reading Pinker, if you think about these reproductive strategies, any number of little ahas! will occur to you. Be wary of them. We are not hunter-gatherers.

Ok, I am late to the party, but I’ve been on vacation, feasting at the trough of pork and sugar known as Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania.
.
Welcome. Amy. I think you sound like an interesting person and a lovely addition of Swampland. A bit about me:
.
Unitarian-Universalist, raised ELCA before hula hoops were invented. Our UU minister is also Harvard Div (late 90s), so I know that means you are a first-class intellect with a kick-a$$ education in all things religious. I teach popular culture at a major university (according to U.S. News & World Report, anyway) and take it very seriously, as should we all. Swamplanders who disagree will be severely beaten with my eventually-to-be-published book on the origins and cultural significance of pink and blue baby clothes.

Oh, and before I go back to my rasher of Amish bacon, could I insert a plea from my admittedly odd location at the intersection of popular culture and politics and ask the fourth estate to find a synonym for the word “taint” asap? I am getting very tired of hearing about Blago’s perineum. Everyone under 25 is laughing at you.

[...] I have one regret about my time here, it’s that the First Lady never responded to my challenge for a Hoop-Off. I’d like to think that she was intimidated by tales of my hula-hooping prowess. But it seems [...]