Cultural activism from the bench

I've heard numerous people, ranging from friends to bloggers and even the First Lady, express hope that Bush will appoint a woman to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor. I agree, but only to a point. This Associated Press article about state district judge Lauri Blake in Texas highlights exactly the kind of woman I don't want to see on the SCOTUS.

SHERMAN, Texas - A state district judge has ordered a 17-year-old drug offender barred from sex as a condition of her probation. Judge Lauri Blake made the ruling that bars the girl from having sex as long as she is living with her parents and attending school.

It is one of several unorthodox rulings Blake has imposed since she was elected 10 months ago in the 336th District Court covering Fannin and Grayson counties.

She has also prohibited tattoos, body piercings, earrings and clothing "associated with the drug culture" for those on probation.

Wonderful. I'm not holding my breath for a rousing cry of judicial activism from the Right. Remember: Judicial activisim isn't bad if it gets you what you want. Judge Blake apparently fancies herself protector of the culture. She abuses her judicial power to censor what she disapproves of, and in the process reveals her prejudices. Tattoos, body piercings, and -- God help us -- earrings? The indesputible signs of a drug addict!

I am of the opinion that a seventeen year old is probably getting to the age where she is old enough to make her own decisions regarding her sex life. Granted, she's still legally a minor, and she's still living with her parents. Perhaps a case can be made that her parents should be involved in the decision. Nonetheless, there is a huge difference between parents laying down the rule of the house and a judge restricting basic human rights as part of probation. As Orange said to me, it's similar to the judges who ordered women to get Norplant or go to jail. It smacks of the whole right-wing, control-women's-sexuality obsession.

I'd rather see a white man who supports women's rights on the Supreme Court instead of a woman who doesn't.

I can't get this out of my head

It's generally considered impolite to notice differences in race. I wouldn't point a guy out by saying, "It's that black guy over there!" That's probably why I think this is so funny:

http://users3.ev1.net/~rootstudio/fyadhaus/meatloafanhoochies.swf

That is all.

'Tis Talk Like A Pirate Day

Arrrrrr, matey! 'Tis International Talk Like A Pirate Day! In celebration, here are two jokes stolen (read: pirated) from One Good Thing.

A pirate walks into a bar, and he's wearing a big belt buckle in the shape of a ship steering wheel. The bartender says "Hey, I really like your belt buckle!" The pirate replies "Arrrrr...its drivin' me nuts!"

And the second:

Q: Whom did the pirate vote for in the Haitian election?
A: ARRRistide.

Q: Wait. Why did they let a pirate vote in the Haitian election?
A: Remember, the nation was taking its first halting steps toward democracy, and balloting procedures were rather chaotic. The pirate just slipped in somehow. Arrr.

Depending on how you count it, I suppose that was three. Arrrr.

Coming soon

Yesterday I was too tired to write coherently, and tonight I will have guests. I have several posts in the queue for this weekend: why I think it's important to talk about religion, a post about faith, and (if you're lucky!) some thoughts on our president.

For now, might I suggest this Harper's article? It has some good things to say:

The fact that the boom never came and Iraq continues to tremble under explosions of a very different sort should never be blamed on the absence of a plan. Rather, the blame rests with the plan itself, and the extraordinarily violent ideology upon which it is based.

Don't you dare

Both houses of the California legislature has passed a gay marriage bill today. Good news, right? No judicial activism here, just good ol' elected lawmakers makin' laws! What could possibly go wrong?

The legislation could be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has expressed an acceptance of gay marriages but said it's an issue that should be decided by voters or the courts.

"He will uphold whatever the court decides," spokeswoman Margita Thompson said Tuesday after the state Assembly approved the same-sex marriage measure, 41-35. -- Associated Press, via Yahoo! News

Uh, wha...? Oh wait, I see. If gay marriage is legalized through court decisions, that's judicial activism, but if elected officials pass the laws, the problem is rogue legislators. Yes, it's all so clear to me now. The strategy is this:

1. Find a potential hurdle


2. Rationalize until it can be used as a barrier

I weep for our nation to think that people can and will be taken in by this. When legislators make laws, the issue has been decided by voters. This is what it MEANS to be in a representative democracy. If you're going to veto one law because "the issue should be decided by voters," then you have to veto EVERY law for the same reason. If he vetos this law, Schwarzenegger will be rejecting a fundamental principle of our system of government.

And don't even try to tell me that the problem is that 60% of the California voters don't support the law. Need I remind you that Bush the Younger held office without the popular vote? I didn't hear much screaming about it then, so let's not conveniently grow a conscience now, okay? I can just hear it. It has nothing to do with the gay, and everything to do with the process. Right. You're not fooling anybody. I'll tell you what. If the voters don't like the way their representatives are voting, they can do what we all do: Elect someone else.

Don't you dare veto that bill, Arnold. Not for that reason. Not while trying to look like a supporter of GLBT rights at the same time. Don't you dare.

Update: It looks like he is going to do it.

Update 2: I've learned a few things. First, the California state constitution says that voter referendums cannot be overridden by the legislature. Second, you may recall that in 2000, Proposition 22 was passed 61% to 38%. It states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

So I don't like it, but it looks like Arnold is right on this one. This is an unconstitutional measure that will have to be decided by the people or by the courts.

Shameful

We were dropped off near the airport and managed to catch a ride with the National Guard. The two young guardsmen apologized for the limited response of the Louisiana guards. They explained that a large section of their unit was in Iraq and that meant they were shorthanded and were unable to complete all the tasks they were assigned. -- Larry Bradshaw and Lorrie Beth Slonsky, Our Experiences

To anyone who is still willing to say that we did as well as we could have; to everyone still unwilling to take the blame all the way to the president: Stop it, all of you. Your credibility is gone.

Thanks to Bitch, Ph.D. for the link.

What religion has to say about Acts of God

The other day, Charles left a comment to my post on hurricane Katrina and how it relates to the philosophers of our day. Charles, a fellow Omaha blogger, is himself a philosopher. He's also Christian -- a Mormon. Though Rob cautions me that discussing religion with the religious is like trying to nail Jello to a wall, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Plus, there are many arguments in Charles' reply that I have never written about in this blog. At the risk of losing a reader and/or starting a firestorm, this seems like a good opportunity to rectify that situation. I have high hopes that my readers can understand the difference between a discussion of religion and a personal attack.

In his first comment, Charles suggests that some so-called "Acts of God" aren't really caused by God at all. He says that most natural disasters "are more often results of natural consequences." In reply, I challenged him to distinguish between the two. I'll take his response one piece at a time.

Your question is interesting and I'm not sure there is a solid answer. I know many different people would probably answer it in different ways.

I give Charles credit for admitting that there isn't an obvious answer. But having admitted that the answer isn't solid, I don't understand why he thinks someone should believe that any natural disaster is caused by God. For myself, the lack of solid evidence is damning to the hypothesis that any natural disaster is caused by God. In fact, it would be more damaging to God if he did cause natural disasters without supplying us with an objective means to distinguish between those of natural origins and those that are supernatural.

Charles is right when he observes that many people answer this question in different ways. That's why some groups believe that the hurricane is caused by our nation's recent actions in Israel, others see it as a punishment for abortion and/or Mardi Gras, and others still believe it to be a reaction to homosexuality. It would seem that there are as many interpretations of God's use of natural disasters as there are interpretations of God.

In fact, this suggests another, more general question. Why should I believe in Charles' god as opposed to, say, the god of Islam? Or the god of the Catholics? Or the Baptists? Or the Summarians? What evidence is there that makes one god more plausible than another? Once again, the answer is that there is no evidence. This lack of evidence is forces me to discard the God Hypothesis.

I would probably say that a true act of God would be something contrary to what we know about the world around us.

Then certainly no "Acts of God" are really acts of God. There is nothing about a hurricane, flood, earthquake, or tsunami -- or any other natural disaster -- that fits that criteria. There was a time when these phenomena were not understood. Then, it made a certain kind of sense to attribute them to a god. But certainly that time has long since past.

Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the notion that if we don't have an explanation for something, it makes sense to attribute it to a deity. Consider that at one time, we had no idea what caused earthquakes. Now we have developed models that give the probability of a given region experiencing an earthquake of a given magnitude over a given period of time. Our understanding of hurricanes is even better: we can predict with a high degree of accuracy the regions likely to be affected, and we can do it days in advance. Had we been happy with God as an explanation, we would never have developed the science to save lives.

If a person is going to insist that God is responsible for these natural disasters, the subtle implication is that it is wrong to try to study them. If God sends a hurricane as a punishment, we are contradicting his divine will by studying meterology. A god that has so little respect for the human lives it created is no god worth worshipping.

But it shouldn't be contradictory to something specifically outlined by God.

Which is again a problem. How do we know what is specifically outlined by God? There is legitimate debate about that question even among Christians who agree that God exists. Even if God exists, there is no objective way of determining the answer to that question.

Flame on.

Updated for clarity

Joe.My.God.

This blog is so going on my blogroll. It's a great read -- especially if you're a guy like me who supports gay rights in principle but has never had the opportunity to be around the "gay culture." (I imagine there are as many "gay cultures" as there are gay people. Nonetheless, this blog gives one man's perspective. And Joe knows how to tell a good story.)

Might I suggest the Terrence series? You can find the first part here.

Hat tip to The Unapologetic Atheist for sending this my way.

A short list of aid that FEMA refused or held up

I keep reading various reports of aid offered to New Orleans that has been held up or refused all together. I finally decided to keep a list. I'll update this as I learn about more. If you know of anything I'm missing, leave it in the comments.

• A tax-funded, state-of-the-art medical team


• The USS Bataan


• Wal-mart trucks full of ice and water


• The water tankers from the US Forest Service


• A specially trained and self-sufficient relief team from Chicago


• A team of specially trained rescue workers from B.C., Canada


• The Red Cross


• Bush doesn't order search and rescue helicopters (via Kevin Drum)


• A citizen flotilla of 500+ rescue boats


• Amtrak's offer of trains to help evacuate victims


• Experienced firefighters


• The Coast Guard's fuel


• Morticians


• Electric generators


• First responders urged not to respond

The last six are thanks to Shakespeare's Sister. I don't remember where I picked up the rest of the links.

It's all about the oil

The Green Knight, discussing what hurricane Katrina tells us about our reliance on oil:

There is no example in history of a civilization being destroyed by terrorist gangs. None. But many civilizations have been destroyed by outstripping their resources and suddenly collapsing. It happened in Sumer, it happened to the Incas, it happened (some argue) to the Romans. There is no reason it can't happen to America.

This is almost certainly not the end, and I don't mean to suggest that it is. But it may be a foretaste. If we're smart, we'll learn the key lesson: we can no longer organize our lives around cheap plentiful oil. There is no cheap plentiful oil anymore.

Nonmonogamy and infidelity

In last Thursday's post on monogamy vs. nonmonogamy, I defined monogamy like this:

When I talk about monogamy, I'm talking about the practice of having only one sexual partner for a period of time. I'm not talking about the practice of marrying only one person at a time. I'll save that discusson for another day. For the purpose of this essay, let's assume that marriage is between exactly two consenting adults.

This is a decent definition of monogamy, but I think what is missing is a definition of nonmonogamy. For the purpose of this essay, when I talk about a nonmonogamous relationship, I mean a serious relationship in which all parties involved consent to having multiple sexual partners. I'm not talking about a relationship in which one partner has multiple sexual partners without the other's knowledge or consent. I'm also not talking about casual sex between several partners who do not have a long term commitment to each other. Also, according to the working definition, a person can be in a nonmonogamous relationship without actually having more than one sexual partner. One partner's permission to allow the other to have other sexual partners is all that is required for it to be considered nonmonogamous. This definition is especially important when discussing infidelity.

I said in last Thursday's post that non-monogamy is often associated with infidelity. I probably should have made that a stronger statement. Non-monogamy isn't just associated with infidelity, it is often mistaken for it. In actuality, they aren't the same thing. Though I implied as much in my last post on this topic, this deserves a more thorough discussion.

It's a testimony to just how deeply ingrained the idea of monogamy is that nonmonogamy is often mistakenly described as "permission to cheat." But that definition rests on a set of assumptions that don't apply to nonmonogamous relationships. It assumes that sleeping with more than one person at a time is always cheating, which in turn assumes that monogamy is the only valid way to structure a serious relationship. Nobody who is considering nonmonogamy is likely to agree with either of those assumptions.

That does not mean that there is no infidelity in nonmonogamous relationships. It is simply a matter of what one is unfaithful to. In most monogamous relationships, there is an assumed promise between both partners that each will have sex only with the other. With such an assumption, it is easy to see how sex becomes the focus of infidelity. But in a nonmonogamous relationship, both partners recognize that it is not the sex itself that is wrong, it is the broken promise. "Cheating" is anything that breaks a promise to one's significant other. Though it is true that without a promise of monogamy, sex with a multiple partners is not necessarily cheating, it is also true that monogamy is not the only promise that one can make in a relationship. For example, you could agree that sex with new partners is okay, but sex with an ex-spouse isn't. It could be that sex with people outside the relationship is okay only when using protection. One could promise to discuss any potential sexual partners before engaging in sex with them. Or it could be that it is okay to sleep with anyone you like as long as you inform your significant other of it soon after the event. In each of these scenarios, sex itself isn't considered cheating. But a broken promise is.

There is an added benefit to discarding the automatic assumption that all relationships should be monogamous. It forces people to discuss what they expect from a relationship. How many relationships have been damaged because one partner believes flirting is okay, but another believes it is cheating? I'm willing to bet that this kind of mismatched expectation is more common than we usually think. How many cheaters have justified their infidelities by saying something isn't "technically" cheating? Is it okay to look at porn? How about personal ads? When does flirting cease to be flirting? All relationships, monogamous or otherwise, would benefit from a greater level of communication. Anywhere we can reduce the assumptions we make about how we should each live our lives will only facilitate this greater level of communication.

FEMA's decline

In this post on FEMA's response, I tried to explain how the attitude of Michael Brown, director of FEMA, contributed to the inadequate response to hurricane Katrina. Paul Krugman takes it a step further and says it far better than I did. Here's an excerpt:

Several recent news analyses on FEMA's sorry state have attributed the agency's decline to its inclusion in the Department of Homeland Security, whose prime concern is terrorism, not natural disasters. But that supposed change in focus misses a crucial part of the story.

For one thing, the undermining of FEMA began as soon as President Bush took office. Instead of choosing a professional with expertise in responses to disaster to head the agency, Mr. Bush appointed Joseph Allbaugh, a close political confidant. Mr. Allbaugh quickly began trying to scale back some of FEMA's preparedness programs.

You might have expected the administration to reconsider its hostility to emergency preparedness after 9/11 - after all, emergency management is as important in the aftermath of a terrorist attack as it is following a natural disaster. As many people have noticed, the failed response to Katrina shows that we are less ready to cope with a terrorist attack today than we were four years ago.

Read the whole thing here.

Supernatural Selection: Creationism's Latest Evolution

Here's a link for you.

I hereby appropriate the phrase "supernatural selection" for my own purposes.

On Spirituality

My friend Rob, the Unapologetic Atheist, lost a friend in a senseless tragedy in New Orleans. Having survived the hurricane, Rob's friend was shot and killed while defending his bait shop from looters.

As you can imagine, many of us expressed our condolences in the comments. Probably because it mentioned me by name, one comment in particular caught my eye. Rather than hijack Rob's comment thread, I thought I'd respond to it here instead. For context, this is what I wrote to Rob:

What a senseless loss. I truly feel for you.

Back when I was a Christian, there was a prayer that meant a lot to me. It was The Prayer of St. Francis:

Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
O, Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

I can't tell you the number of times I said that prayer and felt immediately better. When I became an atheist, this prayer took on a new and equally powerful meaning to me. How could I explain the very real transformations I had thought this prayer had provided without relying upon an external deity? I realized that the changes were coming from within myself.

I hope you can find in yourself something that helps you feel comfort. And if there is anything I can do, please let me know.

Joe Visionary responded to my comment. He wrote:

To Charlie and Rob and the many others who have turned away from God: religion has lost a lot with your moving on.

You all seem still to be deeply spiritual, even it you don't have a church.

Perhaps simply emulating Christ's love for His fellow man is the most important message anyway. That's what New Orleans needs now.

I'll admit my initial reaction to this wasn't very charitable. By calling Rob and I "deeply spiritual" and suggesting that we are emulating Christ's love, he implies that we are both Christians -- even though we think we're not. My gut reaction was to rail against this. I'm not spiritual, and I'm certainly not emulating Christ's love, I thought. Who needs that kind of backhanded compliment? It certainly didn't seem like the kind of thing someone who chose "the Unapologetic Atheist" as his moniker would want to hear having so recently lost a friend.

But as they say, it's the thought that counts. I don't think Joe was trying to insult us. I think it was intended as a compliment. I can't speak for Rob -- I'm don't have any idea how he took Joe's comment -- but for me, I will take it in the spirit intended. In fact, considering the vast differences in our respective philosophies, it is quite a compliment indeed.

Whether I consider myself spiritual or not depends a great deal on how you define spirituality. When I look at the stars and try to imagine the vast distances between, I'm filled with a sense of awe. When I think about the meaning I assign to my own life despite my belief that it has no intrinsic meaning, when I ponder the existence of morality despite the lack of any obvious source of absolute right and wrong, then I feel something that could be described as spiritual.

Normally, I don't call it that. That's partly because I don't believe in spirits any more than I believe in gods. But it's also because I used to be Catholic. I understand something of the nature of spirituality in the sense that they mean it -- or at least the way I meant it -- and I don't think it would be proper to describe what I am now as spiritual. I say this as a matter of respect. I recognize the differences between spiritual people and naturalists. Though it is always important to seek common ground, I think those differences can be important, too. I see no reason to blur the line unnecessarily.

Jesus, a tsunami, and a hurricane walk into a bar

Just the other day I was thinking about the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, in which an estimated 90,000 people died of the combined effects of a devastating earthquake, tsunami, and fires. It is said to have inspired Voltaire’s Candide, and it was a strong influence on the European Enlightenment. I was wondering, with several recent natural disasters on our nation’s collective minds, why aren’t we seeing more religious people resurrecting the question of evil?

Publius at Legal Fiction didn’t let me down. Here’s an excerpt of what he had to say about that:

Back in high school, I had a good analogy that I picked up from some Bible camp (I think) that I would use when I was challenged about this. Here it is – a man gathers a bunch of wood and brush that he plans on burning. Before he burns it, he sees that a bird is building its nest on the brush. Before it can be completed, the man destroys the nest. The bird tries again, and the man destroys it again until finally the bird builds it safely in the tree. The lesson of course is that our knowledge is incomplete and what we perceive as bad may actually be the best thing for us. It’s a variation (sort of) of Plato’s cave.

That was a comforting story, but now, at the ripe old age of 28, it seems like a strained attempt to provide meaning to meaningless acts of destruction. I mean, can you really defend the Holocaust with the argument that we simply don’t know how it fits into some larger and greater good? Can you defend the tsunami that way? And if so, what can’t you defend? After all, couldn’t God have prevented the bird from building the nest there in the first place? I guess I’m just saying that it’s hard to see why anyone would feel that God is particularly deserving of praise as they watch a poor Mississippi mother crying frantically on CNN that her sons are missing and repeating their names again and again in the hopes that someone out there might help – while the audience can only look on impotently in horror and tears.

In the end, I just wonder if it isn’t more comforting to think that we really are adrift in an amoral universe subject only to the purposeless shifting of tectonic plates and hurricane paths. Surely that is more comforting than thinking about a being who actively wills such destruction or allows it to happen.

Read the whole thing here.

And after thinking about it for a little while, I realized that there is one key difference between the natural disasters of 1755 and the natural disasters of today. In 1755, Portugal was a Catholic nation. Catholicism was in full swing, and everyone believed themselves to be doing God’s work. Presumably if an entire nation (with perhaps a few exceptions) already believes strongly in the same God, a disaster would be more likely to shake that faith. Contrast that to the United States, where the many fringe groups are free to believe that they, personally, were spared because of their holy righteousness.

Nonetheless, I am pleased to see that there are still some people that are willing to ask the difficult questions regardless of how unpopular the answers may be.

Send glue and swimsuits

Son: <concerned, serious voice> The alleys are supposed to keep the water out. But the alleys are broken, and the water is in.
Me: The levees? Yes, the levees are broken.
Son: Yes, the levees. <sudden inspiration> They need to glue them back together. Would that be a good idea?
Me: Well, I’m not sure about glue, but yes, they do need to fix the levees.
Son: I’m not sure how to fix them.
Me: I’m not sure either.
Son: <another inspiration> They need their swimsuits!
Me: <laughing> I think they just need to get out of the city for awhile. There are people trying to help them get out.
Son: But daddy, what if they run out of glue?

Perhaps glue and swimsuits aren’t the answer. A donation to the Red Cross would probably be better.

Outrageous

If you have found yourself wondering about the situation in New Orleans and how it could’ve possibly gotten so bad, I think you’ll find the director of FEMA’s recent comments to be insightful.

The director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency said Thursday those New Orleans residents who chose not to heed warnings to evacuate before Hurricane Katrina bear some responsibility for their fates.

Michael Brown also agreed with other public officials that the death toll in the city could reach into the thousands.

"Unfortunately, that's going to be attributable a lot to people who did not heed the advance warnings," Brown told CNN.

"I don't make judgments about why people chose not to leave but, you know, there was a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans," he said.

Of course! It’s all so obvious to me now! The hundred thousand or so people who stayed should’ve just gotten in their cars and driven somewhere else. Yeah, Greyhound had suspended operations in New Orleans on Saturday. But so what? If they didn’t have a car, perhaps they should have considered simply chartering a private jet to leave. You know, I’ve always been suspicious of people who don’t own cars. They’re probably some kind of hippie tree-hugger environmentalist liberals. They had it coming.

I’m outraged by the blatant disdain Brown exhibits for the people he is charged with helping. He can’t seem to fathom a world where people just don’t have the money to leave. He doesn’t understand that there are people in nursing homes who have nobody to take care of them. He doesn’t understand that many of these people had nowhere else to go.

Sure, if Brown had nowhere else to go, he probably could’ve just lived in a motel, but for how long? Days? Weeks? Months? And at what cost? Let’s say a family did just up and leave. What now? Do you suppose the Astrodome is taking just anybody who shows up at the door and says, Hey, I was in New Orleans last Saturday, but now I don’t have a home? Or do you think that they’re probably only taking the people who come from officially sanctioned channels? Staying in New Orleans was an implicit acknowledgment that they were likely to need financial help in the coming days. And now they have to put up with Brown’s attitude of disdain, too.

Months ago, I wrote that sometimes economic class is mistaken for intelligence. Brown’s comments are a disappointing example of this. I expect more from the department of our government whose job it is to handle disasters. I expect them to treat disaster victims like human beings who are worthy of help. Is it so much to ask that the federal agencies tasked with distributing welfare aren’t composed of people who feel contempt for the welfare system?

With those kind of people in charge, is it any wonder that relief was slow in coming?

Hat tip to Orange for pointing me in the direction of John Scalzi’s post on this topic.

Update: Pam's post at the Big Brass Blog confirms that the Astrodome is indeed only accepting refugees from the official relief effort.

Friday blogrolling

This list has gotten pretty long. Whoops! In alphabetical order:

Avant Game. Honestly? I'm just keeping my eye on this one, but I do find them intriguing. I could use an RSS reader, but I'm old fashioned and like to actually click through and see the blog. I tend to use ye olde links to remember who I like to visit. So they're on the list.

Gone Feral. I found this through Orange Tangerine. She hasn't posted in a little while due to a recent move, which just goes to show you how long it has been since I read it. As an introductary post, might I suggest Turdgate '05?

Jonna's Blog. This is my sister, the one whose adoption story I wrote about a little while back. I kept thinking that she really wasn't going to continue blogging, but considering the fact that she's been more consistant than I have these past few weeks, I'd say that was hardly a fair assessment.

Mona's Barbaric Yawp. Mona is a regular commentor around here. I don't even know how to describe her blog. I did like her description of feature creep in software development, which can be found here. You will also find lots of posts and discussions like Poems About Teen Testosterone. Would that I were half as entertaining!


Rationally Speaking has been on the blogroll since I started this, but it is worth noting that Massimo Pigliucci has switched from a monthly column format to an honest to Max blog.


I've been meaning to add Suburban Misfit since July when she posted this about running into a long lost friend on MySpace. Something similar happened to me almost immediate after she wrote about that, and I was able to adapt the graceful way she handled her situation to fit my particular circumstances.

I hope there's something new here for you to read! I'm working on about three different posts right now, but they won't be up tonight. That's because tonight is a poker party at Fransesco's with some local computer nerds. Hopefully tomorrow I'll have some more thoughts on monogamy for you.

By the way, what the is that Flag option at the top bar that blogger adds to everything doing there? There is something about it that just isn't sitting right with me. Any opinions on that?

For the record

Modern, Cool Nerd
60 % Nerd, 73% Geek, 34% Dork

For The Record:

A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia.
A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one.
A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions.
You scored better than half in Nerd and Geek, earning you the title of: Modern, Cool Nerd.

Nerds didn't use to be cool, but in the 90's that all changed. It used to be that, if you were a computer expert, you had to wear plaid or a pocket protector or suspenders or something that announced to the world that you couldn't quite fit in. Not anymore. Now, the intelligent and geeky have eked out for themselves a modicum of respect at the very least, and "geek is chic." The Modern, Cool Nerd is intelligent, knowledgable and always the person to call in a crisis (needing computer advice/an arcane bit of trivia knowledge). They are the one you want as your lifeline in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (or the one up there, winning the million bucks)!

Take the quiz. (Like you haven't already.)