Grind it, baby!

I'm sorry to see that someone didn't find the humor in my entry yesterday about Conservapedia. Mean commenter make Beth cry. :*( It was suggested that instead of making fun of a "book," I focus on issues affecting our nation at the moment.

Exsqueeze me? Someone hasn't been paying attention in class! I write fairly often about issues, and in fact, I'd be willing to bet there are more than a few out there who wish I wouldn't write about issues quite so much! Oddly enough, one of my favorite issues, right up there at the top of the list, Number One with a bullet, Top of the Pops, it's got a great beat and you can dance to it, happens to be health care reform. I've written about it extensively here, I have not been shy about my opinion, and I've stated very clearly that I support health care reform.

Hey, I've got an idea, kids. I think it's great that people are concerned about things and would hope that they would spend at least a little time investigating the truth rather than simply spouting talking points like a mindless drone. So if you are interested in such things, yay for you! But here's an idea. Instead of spending your time hijacking the comment section of my blog in order to state your opinion, one that you would know, if you spent any amount of time here at all, that I am diametrically opposed to, how about you do your research, think about what you want to say...and write it on your own blog? [holding up a hand] I know, I know...it sounds crazy, but give me a chance. This would ensure that you can write as much as you want, as passionately as you want, and at the same time, you wouldn't be exhibiting what is widely considered to be incredibly rude blogging behavior. That's what I do, and although it may seem a little unconventional at first blush, it really does work pretty well. If I really disagree with another's point of view that they state on their blog, I don't leave them a long comment about it. I go write about it on my own blog. A novel approach, don't you think?

Nutwood Junction is not some sort of clearinghouse for personal axe-grinding. If you do happen to have an axe to grind, do your grinding at your own place.

Now, on to other things!

You know, something strange happened early this morning. I was happily snoozing when I heard a loud sound, almost as if a bomb had gone off. It startled me out of sleep, and as I struggled to think of what it might have been, I remembered that they were shooting a missile at the moon this morning as part of an experiment. Since our planet wasn't vaporized, I assumed that all had gone well, and the gravitational balance hadn't shifted and sent our planet careening into the sun. I went back to sleep.

When I got up a little bit later, the big news was that President Obama had received the Nobel Peace Prize, and then I knew what I had really heard.

That large boom was the sound of Glenn Beck's head exploding.

I've had more than one person write to me today saying that they wondered about my opinion on this, and who am I to disappoint?

Just as with the IOC decision about the 2016 Olympics, the predictable response from the right was that it was a travesty, it made a mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize, and that its prestige was tarnished by the choice of our President. Man, buy a new record, because that one is broken. We get it already...no matter what he does, or what good things happen, you're going to hate it because you want him to fail. Of course, that ignores the fact that the Nobel committee has the right to make the decision using whatever reasoning they wish to use. It's their prize to award, so why are they being second-guessed? How rude. It also ignores the fact that most nations and most people consider the Nobel a prestigious award, and most countries are proud of one of its citizens receiving it.

The Democratic National Committee issued this statement after the right responded as expected:

Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize—an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride—unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore—it’s an embarrassing label to claim.

Ouch, man.

I was surprised by this selection, too. Obviously, I'm a supporter of our President, and I think this is great, but he really hasn't been in office for long, so what was their reasoning? Alfred Nobel's wishes, as laid out in his 1895 will, were that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses." The members of the Committee said that their choice was an "early vote of confidence" in Obama. They praised the change in the mood around the world upon Obama's election, and appreciate his efforts to reduce the world's stock of nuclear arms; they feel his efforts to reach out to Muslim nations and to work with the world in combating climate change will make the world a better and safer place.

In short, I get the impression that they issued an unspoken challenge to our President: we like your ideas, and we want to see them implemented. We want to see you succeed.

It's too bad that more people here in our own country don't feel that way.

President Obama does indeed seem to be taking it as a challenge, and I hope this makes him even more resolved to get things done.

The Committee's choice of Obama is also obviously a reaction to eight years of President Bush. I'm not bashing the guy, I'm just stating fact. Our image as a global leader was severely damaged by our belligerent attitude and warmongering ways in the past few years. While it might seem paradoxical to award the Peace Prize to the leader of a nation which is fighting two wars—and some have criticized the choice for exactly that reason—these were not wars initiated by our current President. I think we can all certainly agree that we want to get the hell out of there, but once we have gotten ourselves into such a situation, getting out is not as easy...sort of like quicksand. However, President Obama has shown that he is willing to use diplomacy as much as possible before being forced to use military options. This is a positive step in our efforts to repair the damage that has been done.

Obama's election and foreign policy moves caused a dramatic improvement in the image of the U.S. around the world. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.

It is time for us to lead once again. The best leaders utilize compassion and diplomacy and teach by example; the worst merely bludgeon the enemy into submission. I am glad that President Obama sees the Nobel Committee's award to be the throwing down of the gauntlet that it is, and I am hopeful that he will meet the challenge. In fact, I hope he succeeds. I hope he succeeds beyond anyone's wildest imagination. In his doing so, our country and our planet will also succeed. Safer, peaceful, and cleaner. Why would anyone wish for anything else?

So how long do you think it’s going to take before “hilarious” pictures of Obama wearing the Nobel Peace Prize like a piece of bling start showing up on the Web? They’re probably already up. Again…boringly predictable.

The White House has announced that President Obama will give the $1.4 million dollar prize to charity.

Fright Right

After my discovery of Conservapedia (I know it's been around for a while, but it was new to me) yesterday, I've spent a few enjoyable hours exploring the site. I've gasped in astonishment, I've laughed with delight, and I've marveled at some of the unintentionally funny entries on various topics. It struck me as if the sites of Landover Baptist, The Onion, and America's Best Christian, Betty Bowers, were all rolled into one. And the best thing about it is that they really aren't trying to be funny!

Before I get deeper into this, let me reiterate that I don't hate conservatives. I have several in my family, and I love them dearly, although we disagree on a lot of things. That's okay. It's a big world, and finding common ground is important. I am highly bothered, however, by the distortion and ignoring of facts, especially in the field of science. What can I say? That is what I studied, so that is what I tend to focus on.

As I was exploring the site, I came across some random things that I really enjoyed, and a search for hot button topics turned up some other intriguing nuggets...like the entry on Barack Hussein Obama, which opens with the statement that he was "allegedly" born in Hawaii. Haha! I'm going to share a few with you, and don't be surprised if this becomes a running feature here. Some of this stuff is just way too much fun to not write about! I also noticed that access was sporadic at best; the site seems to crash frequently and with regularity. As I wrote on Facebook, if Conservapedia wants to reach the heathen liberals, it had best be getting some better servers!

One of my favorites popped up when I was checking random pages:

Waitress: A waitress is the female eqiuivalent [sic] of a waiter. Some extreme feminists and Liberals seeking to alter language and police thought wish to refer to both male and female table attendants in restaurants as waiters, as an expression of their desire to wipe all out distinctions between male and female. Some have even coined the "word" waitron to show their abhorrence of gender distinction!

The term server is now used as a "gender-neutral" term, though ironically this word derives from the gendered Latin servitor (masculine). The feminine term in Latin is servitrix.

Well, to be technically correct (which Conservapedia doesn't seem overly concerned with), it comes from the Latin root servire, which means to serve. As with many languages, there are different forms denoting gender, and in some languages, like German, nouns have gender, which is indicated by the article used before it: der Mann, die Frau, das Buch. What cracked me up about this was the fact that whoever wrote that entry seemed morally outraged that Liberals (note the capital L) seem poised to wipe out the distinction between genders! And then there's "waitron." Seriously? Have any of you ever heard one single person say, "Oh waitron...could I get a glass of water, please?" Where do they come up with this stuff? I posted this on Facebook, and some of the comments were hilarious, including words like vagenus, vagitron, and skank. Nicely done, Commenters!

Then there was the entry on "liberal style." (The picture above, of a “socialist brain,” actually appeared on the Conservapedia site. While captioned as a satiric representation, it seemed a little out of place on a site that purports to be an encyclopedic reference.) I'd like to think I have a sense of style, but the Conservapedia take on it seemed to be more about behavior than style. It was a lengthy list of infractions, so I'll pick and choose some of my favorites of the liberal style characteristics, with my commentary in red:

• A never-ending need for attention (e.g., Hollywood types and politicians Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
  • Yes, those Hollywood types...can you believe they want attention? You'd think that they thrive on publicity or something. ::rolling eyes::
• A high word-to-substance ratio, as in using many words to say little of substance (e.g., Obama and the 90/10 rule here)
  • There's that wordiness again. Should we start leaving out adjectives, prepositions, what have you? Would that help?
• Feign offense as a way to silence criticism, or censor prayer and conservative viewpoints (e.g., ACLU)
  • Yes, every complaint levied uses feigned criticism; that's where the Hollywood types come in...ACTING!
• Pretend to know more than he does; Isaac Newton admitted that he knew almost nothing, yet a liberal pretends to know much (e.g., Al Gore)
  • I object to the use of "he" in this! This is gender specific, and I am feigning deep offense! Hey, was Sir Isaac a conservative?
• Demands answers to questions, but after receiving answers then the liberal himself tries to avoid answering similar questions
  • We're sneaky that way, in demanding answers.
• Refuses to admit the truth in debate, even if a conservative compromises in a conciliatory manner
  • Sometimes there is no compromise. Sorry.
• Like to use the phrase "reflects poorly on the site" when talking about the liberal articles on Conservapedia
  • Considering that I only learned of this site yesterday, I don't think you're all that high on our radar, Conservapedia. This seems rather self-serving.
• A lack of originality and a predominance of copying and imitating
  • Huh?
• Call something disliked a "conspiracy theory," but don't use that term against wacky liberal theories like global warming
  • Oh, that wacky global warming!
• Respond with "sigh" when presented with repeated examples of harm caused by liberal culture, yet persist in denying the harm despite overwhelming evidence
  • ::sigh:: (How could I resist?)
• Thinking in terms of what someone likes or doesn't like, or has or doesn't have, or belongs or doesn't belong
  • Again, I say Huh? Setting aside the twisted grammar...isn't that kind of how you think in order to determine if there is a problem? I.e., 45 million Americans don't have health care; I don't like it; and such a travesty does not belong in our country, so let's see what we can do to fix that. Is that what they're talking about here?
• Insistence on talking more and having the last word in a discussion or debate, or last wordism
  • Nuh-uh.
• An obsession with and exaggeration of artificial scarcity, such as wealth, rather than focusing on creating more
  • "Artificial" scarcity? I wonder what the roughly 13% of the US population, over 39 million people, who are living in poverty would have to say about that "artificial" scarcity?
• Calling conservative free speech "hate" speech
  • Only when it's hateful.
• Preference for obscenity and profanity
  • Fuck, yeah!
• Over-reliance on mockery
  • You mean like this entry? Fair enough.
• Believing that conservatives will fail, and refusing to accept when they succeed, as when George W. Bush won in 2000
  • And then proceeded to fail for the next eight years.
• Using hyperbole instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people's emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason
  • I think this is the most outrageous thing I've ever heard! I am deeply offended, and I don't know how I can go on.
• Often long-winded and verbose, and in debates liberals often consume more than their fair share of the alloted [sic] time, leaving less time for the other side
  • I think we've addressed this already. Why do you keep bringing it up?
• Dismissing legitimate criticism as "a joke"
  • Hey, I can't help it that some of this makes me laugh.
• Denying something widely known to be true but difficult to prove, such as observing that men are far more likely to work in gas stations than women.
  • ...Wha...? See the item above.
• Using non sequiturs in argument, such as responding to the point [snip] that liberals over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy by citing an example of conservatives' observing liberal hypocrisy. But their example does not help their argument. Quite the contrary, use of that example tends to prove that liberals do over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy (relativism). Think about that.
  • Okay, I will....
  • I'm done. Now what?
• Inability or unwillingness to differentiate between genuine conservative arguments and parodies of conservative arguments
  • Um...I'm not among the group who thinks that Stephen Colbert really is a conservative. Just sayin'.

I think my absolute favorite thing, though, was the Lenski Dialogue. This was my favorite because it dealt with Microbiology. Professor Richard Lenski and his associates conducted a 20-year study on mutations in the E. coli bacterium. You read that right—20 years of research on a single project. When Lenski posted it on Conservapedia, Andy Schlafly questioned his data (despite having no training in Microbiology) and an exchange of letters ensued. (Lenski's research proved a significant mutation in the bacterium, which has definite implications on evolution, something to which Schlafly gives no credence.) To give Conservapedia credit, they have also posted the four letters that were exchanged; the Wikipedia article provides background and further discussion of the incident. If you read nothing else, at least read the letters. Dr. Lenski's letter is one of the single best scientific smackdowns I think I've ever seen—and I am not being hyperbolic.

What bothers me most about this Conservapedia site is that it doesn't even pretend to be comprehensive or rational in its entries. A respected professor with years of research experience is subjected to the rather rude questioning of someone (Schlafly) whose self-listed qualifications include "teacher of pre-college students." Would that be high school? Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it does not constitute the qualifications or knowledge necessary to interpret complex laboratory data and methods.

Conservapedia is only marginally about facts. It is primarily about political ideology…an encyclopedia in sheep's clothing.

Stay tuned for more entries about fascinating things like waitrons.

Yea verily, time for a rewrite

I posted a story about this on Facebook earlier today, and now I'm seeing more "buzz" about the project, so it's definitely blogworthy. Besides, I find it funny.

Did you know that there is a conservative alternative (a conservaternative?) to Wikipedia? That's right, Conservapedia was founded in 2006 by Andy Schlafly, AKA Son of Phyllis (she who is known as the Great Slayer of the Equal Rights Amendment, effectively shooting herself in the foot), because he felt that Wikipedia showed a "liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias." I look forward to spending a little more time at Conservapedia and seeing their interesting interpretations of history and the world around us. I really wish there will be an entry about dinosaur wranglin', but I hate to get my hopes up.

Here's the deal. The folks at Conservapedia have decided to work on a new, conservative interpretation of the bible, because they feel that it's just too goldarn liberal. This Conservative Bible Project calls for a new translation using the following guidelines. (I was only going to pick a few, but they're just all too good—I can't leave any of them out!) Open up the good book and let that conservative light shine!

• Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
• Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
• Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
• Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
• Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
• Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
• Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
• Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
• Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
• Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Some of my favorite parts are how they want to dump "gender exclusive" language--way to carry on the fine tradition of your mom's self-directed misogyny, Andy! Then there's getting rid of outdated terms like "peace," and we have got to stop using nasty words like "comrade" and "laborer" and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") because such “socialistic” words "improperly encourages the 'social justice' movement among Christians." *gasp* NO! Social justice must be stopped! Oh, and let's see...let's ditch the adulteress story, because that whole "let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone" crap has gotten waaaay too many of us in trouble lately! And let's be sure to put in stuff about the Free Market—in parable form, of course—to show that Jesus would have been against the stimulus package. Then there's the "liberal wordiness" to contend with.

Okay, I'll cop to that last one.

[gales of laughter] Oh. My. God. The more I read about this, the funnier it gets. I have to laugh about it, otherwise the sheer arrogance of these people in thinking that it is in any way appropriate to put their own conservative political spin on the bible might just make my head explode. Granted, human bias has shaped the bible ever since the first scribes started writing stuff down. It's impossible for even the best journalist or reporter to completely keep their own biases out of a story, and I'd say that's been happening since the beginning of reporters, including those who "reported" on events in the bible. Subsequent translations would include further biases. But to try to parse it in political terms like liberal and conservative is just the height of idiocy and arrogance to me.

Hey, Andy Schlafly, what would Jesus do? I bet he'd call you an asshole, tell you to mind your own business, and advise you strongly to stop politicizing his message of love and compassion to all.

At least that's my wordy liberal take on it.