We are so screwed. Congress had to ask Bruce Schneier to come by and explain what the NSA is doing, because the NSA won’t tell Congress.

This morning, I spent an hour in a closed room with six members of Congress: Rep. Lofgren, Rep. Sensenbrenner, Rep. Scott, Rep. Goodlatte, Rep Thompson, and Rep. Amash. No staffers, no public: just them. Lofgren had asked me to brief her and a few Representatives on the NSA. She said that the NSA wasn’t forthcoming about their activities, and they wanted me — as someone with access to the Snowden documents — to explain to them what the NSA was doing. Of course, I’m not going to give details on the meeting, except to say that it was candid and interesting. And that it’s extremely freaky that Congress has such a difficult time getting information out of the NSA that they have to ask me. I really want oversight to work better in this country.

Will everyone sleep well tonight? You’ve always wondered what it’s like to live in a police state, we may be finding out.

A commenter left a link to this comic here; now we know what happens when you combine plumbing and philosophy.

Chainsawsuit

Good timing, too. On my to-do list for today is to pop off the trap for the bathroom sink — we think the satanic cat who is lurking in our house knocked something into it, clogging it hopelessly. Now I’m going to have to tell my wife I can’t do it, and I’ve got a good reason: existential dread.

And what does a mere obstructed pipe have to do with the Grand Scheme of the Cosmos, anyway?

Atheists Get Aggressive in Pushing Their Views
Newsmax.com
American Atheists, which celebrated its 50th anniversary last year, has started 2014 with an aggressive push, filing a legal challenge to the Ten Commandments displayed on Oklahoma state capitol grounds and taking out billboards in Utah targeting the ...

and more »

That is the title of a Slate article by Zack Kopplin. But actually it is much worse (see also NCSE’s take here). Here are the first 3 paragraphs of Kopplin’s article.... Matt Young http://www.mines.edu/~mmyoung

Xavier Di Petta and Kyle Cameron are 17 and 19 years old, and they’re making very good money out of Twitter. $44,000 a month? On Twitter? Tell me your one weird tip for doing this, please.

They met hustling on YouTube when they were 13 and 15, respectively, and they’ve been doing social media things together (off and on) since. They’ve built YouTube accounts, making money off advertising. They created Facebook pages such as "Long romantic walks to the fridge," which garnered more than 10 million Likes, and sold them off. More recently, Di Petta’s company, Swift Fox Labs, has hired a dozen employees, and can bring in, according to an Australian news story, 50,000 Australian dollars a month (or roughly 43,800 USD at current exchange rates). 

But @HistoryInPics may be the duo’s biggest creation. In the last three months, this account, which tweets photographs of the past with one-line descriptions, has added more than 500,000 followers to bring their total to 890,000 followers. (The account was only established in July of 2013.) If the trend line continues, they’ll hit a million followers next month.

OK, but how? They’ve got several twitter accounts that regularly post popular material, and they build up the stats and then sell them off. I don’t even understand the business of selling twitter accounts — doesn’t it mean that the personal nature of the account is completely missing?

It’s not just @HistoryInPics, either. They’re also behind @EarthPix, which has similarly staggering stats, and several comedy accounts that they’re in the process of selling that I agreed not to disclose. They’ve got at least five accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers and engagement metrics that any media company would kill for right now.

How do they do it? Once they had one account with some followers, they used it to promote other ones that could capitalize on trends they saw in social-media sharing. “We normally identify trends (or create them haha). We then turn them into a Twitter account,” Di Petta said in an IM conversation. “Share them on established pages, and after 50,000 – 100,000 followers they’ve gained enough momentum to become ‘viral’ without further promotion.”

Huh? I have 140,000 followers on twitter right now! Time to take over the world!

Except…as the story goes on, it becomes quite clear that the secret of their success is parasitism. They don’t actually create any content: they just monetize this abstract entity called ‘traffic’, and yes, they do create traffic. But the way they do it is to steal photographs taken by talented photographers and dump them at regular intervals on twitter without attribution, and most importantly, without paying their content creators. If they actually had to make micropayments to the people who provide the material that drives interest and builds the traffic they’re selling, their profits would take a nosedive.

They can’t even be bothered to acknowledge who created the images.

“It would not be practical,” he said. “The majority of the photographers are deceased. Or hard to find who took the images.”

One writer took the time to track down the names of the photographers for a couple of the images they used: it took four minutes. I don’t think their profit margins are so thin that they can’t do that.

I can sort of see the temptation. Use Google’s image search, and it dumps thousands of images on any topic right into your lap, and some of them are so ubiquitous, have so many sources, that it’s hard to trace them back to the one original source. I’ve used ‘generic’ images myself, but I’ve been trying hard to include source information for most of them nowadays — all the Friday Cephalopods, for instance, get a link to the photographer or online source.

I guess I’m going to have to give up my idea of getting rich off my twitter account. All it contains are my words, rather than the art and information at high density produced by swarms of unsourced, talented people around the world. Darn it.

Atheist groups cater to a captive audience: Prisoners
Stevenspointjournal
So Zukor launched the Freethought Books Project, collecting books about atheism, humanism and science and sending them to interested prisoners. She estimates that since her first book drive in 2005, she has given out 2,300 books, magazines and ...

How to become an atheist?
Hibbing Daily Tribune
The title of this short message seems odd coming from a Christian pastor but there is an important truth here. In a recent issue of The Atlantic magazine (2013) Larry Alex Taunton, after conducting interviews with people who have become atheists ...

and more »

Nautilus Live

So don’t.

Atheist Soros funds evangelical-youth trips to Israel
WND.com
(Examiner) Despite being a known atheist, billionaire George Soros has taken quite an interest in Christian Evangelicals, as revealed yesterday on media mogul Glenn Beck's radio show by Pastor John Hagee, founder and national chairman of Christians ...

and more »

Christian News Network
Atheist Senator Ernie Chambers Tells Religious Organizations: 'PAY YOUR ...
Huffington Post
Bill LB675, which was introduced by the openly atheist lawmaker on Jan. 8, attempts to “gain more revenue, rather than less, by taking away churches' property tax exemptions,” according to Chambers' Statement of Intent. Although the measure will most ...
'Render unto Caesar': Atheist lawmaker targets Nebraska churches' property tax ...Raw Story
Nebraska's Atheist Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Revoke Church Property Tax ...Christian News Network
Atheist Nebraska senator proposes bill banning tax exemption for religious ...UPI.com (blog)
Examiner.com
all 54 news articles »

The problem with cable news, demonstrated in less than 30 seconds.

I have seen scientism, and it’s usually not us. The most blatant example recently was Pinker’s appalling essay in which he suggested that Hume could have used some instruction in molecular biology; I’ve seen people like Hawking and Krauss claim that philosophy is dead, killed by science. But usually the prominent atheists manage to step back from the brink and acknowledge that there is virtue to the humanities that is not dependent on science (but make no mistake, poetry is not a tool for generating new knowledge, but for communicating insights into human nature, which is fine and valuable — science is the tool we have for testing and verifying, and for acquiring new information about the universe).

Massimo Pigliucci has written a paper chastising the New Atheists for taking a turn towards scientism. But take note of my first paragraph: I’ve already given more specific examples of scientism than Pigliucci does in his entire paper. I’d also consider them illuminating: Krauss has retracted his sentiments, both Krauss and Hawking took a lot of flak for their weird ideas about philosophy (science is a branch of philosophy, so I found both rather discombobulating), and Pinker…well, I’d consider that the most damning evidence for a plague of scientism within atheism, that so many praised that blatant example of ahistorical and aphilosophical BS. Pinker isn’t even mentioned anywhere in the paper.

Pigliucci has picked his scientistic enemies: Dawkins, of course, and Harris and Stenger, adding just for the sake of completeness a couple of other scientists, me and Jerry Coyne, who also strongly criticizes the paper. Hitchens is dismissed as a mere polemicist, while Dennett, as a philosopher, causes some discomfort to his thesis, Pigliucci simply acknowledges that he can’t accuse him of scientism and moves on to his other targets.

But he can’t really defend his accusation against any of the others, either, and he doesn’t seem to care that there is a range of perspectives on philosophy even within his hand-picked sample. I consider myself to have a strong appreciation of philosophy and the humanities, and have even proposed to colleagues that a real liberal arts education ought to require learning some philosophy. Stenger’s work is full of history and philosophy; read God and the Atom, for instance, to see what I mean. I think Harris’s The Moral Landscape was all kinds of awful, but that he exercised some bad philosophy does not support his claim that the New Atheists reject it.

And look who he leaves off: Susan Jacoby, David Silverman, Hemant Mehta, Greta Christina, Ibn Warriq, Ophelia Benson. And worse, he has to explicitly deny that AC Grayling is a New Atheist! The impression I get is that what he has done is not find prominent New Atheists who endorse scientism, but prominent New Atheists who also happen to be trained as scientists, and then clumsily elided “is a scientist” into “is practicing scientism,” while also glossing over the existence of philosophers in our clan. We have a word for this: cherry-picking. It’s not a compliment.

Then he tries to define New Atheism, mentioning that nothing in it is actually “new” (a point that I think all of the New Atheists have made repeatedly! It’s a stupid name we got stuck with by a journalist writing in Wired). Here’s his definition.

Rather, it seems to me that two characteristics stand out as defining New Atheism apart from what I refer to as classical Atheism, one extrinsic, the other intrinsic. The extrinsic character of the New Atheism is to be found in the indisputably popular character of the movement. All books produced by the chief New Atheists mentioned above have been worldwide best sellers, in the case of Dawkins’s God Delusion, for instance, remaining for a whopping 51 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list. While previous volumes criticizing religion had received wide popular reception (especially the classic critique of Christianity by Bertrand Russell), nothing like that had happened before in the annals of Western literature. The search for the reasons explaining such an unprecedented level of popularity is best left to sociologists, and at any rate is not really relevant to my aims here. It is likely, though, that the New Atheism qua popular movement is a direct result of the complex effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We have seen that the first book in the series, by Sam Harris, was written explicitly in reaction to those events, and I suspect that careful sociological analysis will reveal that that is also what accounts for Harris et al.’s success.

The second reason is intrinsic, and close to the core of my argument in this paper: the New Atheism approach to criticizing religion relies much more forcefully on science than on philosophy. Indeed, a good number of New Atheists (the notable exception being, of course, Daniel Dennett) is on record explicitly belittling philosophy as a source of knowledge or insight. Dawkins says that the “God hypothesis” should be treated as a falsifiable scientific hypothesis; Stenger explicitly—in the very subtitle of his book—states that “Science shows that God does not exist” (my emphasis); and Harris later on writes a whole book in which he pointedly ignores two and a half millennia of moral philosophy in an attempt to convince his readers that moral questions are best answered by science (more on this below). All of these are, to my way of seeing things, standard examples of scientism. Scientism here is defined as a totalizing attitude that regards science as the ultimate standard and arbiter of all interesting questions; or alternatively that seeks to expand the very definition and scope of science to encompass all aspects of human knowledge and understanding.

So he’s got two criteria: 1) We’re popular. That’s an accusation that has me stumped; would we be more respectable if nobody liked us at all? 2) We’re scientists and take a scientific approach. Well, we’re not all scientists, and what’s wrong with looking at an issue using evidence and reason? Why shouldn’t we reject ideas that might be pretty to some people, but contradict reality? It’s not as if we can’t appreciate beauty or justice, entirely non-scientific ideas, unless they’re also counter-factual. Beauty and justice are best when they aren’t wrapped around lies and nonsense!

I’m going to start replying to these broad-brush accusations of scientism with my own accusations of philosophism. It seems to me we’ve got a plague of people who resent the success of atheism and respond by belittling it with trite claims of it being “bad theology” or “naive philosophy”. I’m about to be served with a big plumbing bill for a frozen pipe — I wonder if I can get a discount if I argue that those two guys with the big toolboxes were insufficiently appreciative of the philosophy of flowing water, and are unwarrantedly popular with homeowners this time of year. Damn plumbists.

Slate Magazine (blog)
This Former Pastor Is Going to Spend a Year Doubting God. Great Idea!
Slate Magazine (blog)
I'm usually not a fan of the ever-breakable New Year's resolution. But when former Seventh-day Adventist pastor Ryan Bell resolved to take a year off from his beliefs in order to explore atheism, I was intrigued. Back on New Year's Eve, the ordained ...

and more »

Slate Magazine (blog)
This Former Pastor Is Going to Spend a Year Doubting God. Great Idea!
Slate Magazine (blog)
I'm usually not a fan of the ever-breakable New Year's resolution. But when former Seventh-day Adventist pastor Ryan Bell resolved to take a year off from his beliefs in order to explore atheism, I was intrigued. Back on New Year's Eve, the ordained ...

and more »

I think they ripped it off from a theology textbook, simply changing the name of the mystery in question: You Can't Prove There's No Cannibal Rat Ship.

Except, of course, there is a possibility that the Cannibal Rat Ship exists, and there are at least verifiable records that a ship called the Lyubov Orlova once existed. The theologians don’t even have that much of a glimmering of likelihood.

Those weirdos in the Twin Cities have remade David Lynch’s Dune. It’s a vast improvement on the original, but the bar was set very low.

Opposing Views
'Render unto Caesar': Atheist lawmaker targets Nebraska churches' property tax ...
Raw Story
Ernie Chambers, who may be the highest-ranking openly atheist politician in the country, introduced a bill that would eliminate a state property tax exemption for those organizations. Chambers, an independent, submitted the bill, LB675, as simply a ...
Atheist Senator Ernie Chambers Tells Religious Organizations: 'PAY YOUR ...Huffington Post
Atheist Nebraska senator proposes bill banning tax exemption for religious ...UPI.com (blog)
Neb. bill would end church property tax exemptionsWestport-News

all 10 news articles »

I have been harassed by Dennis Markuze/David Mabus for going on 20 years, and I have an imposing collection of filters in my email to block him. At the peak of his mania, he was dunning me with 20-30 emails a day, all repetitive, all totally nuts, and he was sending death threats and other attempts to intimidate me…which were remarkably ineffective, since everything he wrote was twisted and bizarre.

Now he’s found a way to get past my filters: he had a friend write to me!

Written on Behalf of Dennis Markuze by an old friend. Here he presents his SIDE and I think you will agree that he is right!

“I was never approached to offer me my side of the story. Here are the FACTS not the faulty information fed to you by a gang of atheists and drama producing police. Hopefully you can do an article taking my side. I am a odd character, a unique individual, who has been turned into a media monster for my strange ideas, BUT I’M RIGHT!

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

On November 16, 2012, I was arrested in my own house for being on a chat room and apparently harassing Tim Farley. He tweaked and twisted my words to make them appear threatening because he knew that for me to be simply on the Internet was a crime. He reported me to the police and made fraudulent and out of context remarks on what I said. He took harmless banter and converted it into hostile hate speech. Overnight the police got a search warrant and raided my house, seizing property. Again, simply being on the internet was enough. No threats were made and no violent acts committed. He suffered no injury. He suffered no financial loss. He suffered no loss in credibility. But I have suffered all these things and more. I have no history of violence in my past. I’m a writer who engages in debate with the power of words not force of arms. I debate, sometimes hotly, with skeptics and atheists to disprove their ideas. Farley doesn’t like what I have to say about him and his organization, the James Randi Foundation. He wants to silence my right to state my ideas on religion and politics, and he and his gang have called the police whenever they suspect I’m on the Internet. All they want to do is deprive me of my freedom so as to discredit my ideas. I am being ganged up on, bullied, and marked by atheists and skeptics, and even the media is taking their side, not once asking for my side of the story. True, some of my words may be rude or tasteless such as, “I will crush you,” or, “I will be rid of you etc.” My actual ideas center upon the utter waste of intelligence used in the ideology of atheism and the importance of peace and disarmament for the planet, and the terrible costs of war. My real words can be found here not the broken fragments they produce to use as lies to condemn me:

Please spend the time to read, watch, and hear what I have to say here:

http://storify.com/deltoidmachine/how-we-won-the-james-randi-dollar-1-000-000-parano

Dennis Markuze
Montreal
January, 21, 2014″

His “old friend” is now also blocked. And no, I am not convinced. That he is having a lucid moment (and good for him, maybe he’s getting better) does not offset tens of thousands of obsessive, ridiculous emails.

Here’s one he sent as [email protected]:

I have you by the BALLS…

Dumb, right? “Harmless banter”, you think? He sent that to all of my students in my classes that term.

Or how about this one, from [email protected]?

you have NOTHING TO DO WITH CRITICAL THINKING join the socialist faith
how about you keep this one up as a TESTIMONY FOR THE TRUTH
rich millionaires with their heads up the arses
I think this qualifies as a DOS attack… for RATS IN A TRAP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wHs0vM3gRTA
you can thank RANDI
now for some SYMBOLIC TWO-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS!
on the TIMELINE
0 min 33 sec – Randi in the RED SHIRT – signifying the *bl..dy deed* that is about to happen
1min 18 sec – Banachek talks about respect for the claimant and then they mock “these kind” of people in the final part
3 min 20 sec – the test of the power bracelet that increases a person’s energy and balance. Notice our challenge is all about POWER & BALANCE, proving the existence of a HIGHER POWER
5 min 15 sec TEST BEGINS. Skeptics one by one stand in CRUCIFIXION POSE
1 hr 10 min 21 sec Test is ended in failure
1 hr 10 min 30 sec request is made to make change in the PROTOCOL
1 hr 10 min 51 sec Applause is made by all those who wanted him to fail from the very beginning
1 hr 25 min 39 sec Now they talk about the Nightline clip that was filmed in Manhattan, also the scene of the 9/11 event
1hr 28 min 42 sec – They talk about make-shift tests. They think that because no one can win the prize that psychic phenomena does not exist
1 hr 29 min 45 sec Banachek says “the majority of *these* people.’” A contemptuous reference that occurs repeatedly
1 hr 31 min 53 sec The reference to envelopes. Remember the 911 in Angel’s envelope!
1 hr 37 min 11 sec Swiss says he is not worried about a paranormal event happening. Little does he know what is actually taking place
1 hr 39 min 50 sec The mocking of SPIRITS!
1 hr 40 min 27 sec Reference made to the TERROR of witnessing a supernatural event, i.e, the blood leaving the face
1 hr 41 min 15 sec Reference to “these people”
1 hr 41 min 40 sec Belief in the supernatural is claimed to be a psychological defence mechanism to cope with reality. Swiss talks about how desperate the psychics become when debunked. Little does he know what is happening to the skeptics!
1 hr 42 min 11 sec WHEN PROPHECY SUCCEEDS! KABOOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gHbYJfwFgOU
which WORLD-VIEW will not exist, sh*thead?
____________
5000 whining atheists vs the Great Prophet
how the divine pen of Michel Nostradamus crushed the international atheist movement
http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=34862
________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s3lwG4MytSI
one applicant right here…
get the POINT, Randi….
__________________________

for lies on top of lies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbmXpNEFipE

do you think you can threaten my right to FREE SPEECH?
what if I told you that I am not who you think I am….
Not Dennis Markuze – but a FAN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvatDdOWcLw
you’re not the center of the universe!
____________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yRpSNIOwA4
a dishonest liar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruQFh_TkPto
WHINE WHINE WHINE
________________________
Best Clips on Atheist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V6B9D1S4xQ – JUST A TINY SMIDGEN OF A GAP! JUST A TINY SMIDGEN OF A GAP!
______________________________

a vitally important essay dealing with the new age of madness that poses as ENLIGHTENMENT!
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm
they speak for those who cannot speak…
_____________________
outside the doors of the Loto Quebec Building
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wwWr-zwUHqA
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/1967/violence.htm

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/1967/questions-answers.htm

That’s what he calls a debate. He sent me dozens of copies of that one week; in addition, he sent that same incoherent screed to my university’s department of admissions, to the chancellor, to every single faculty member on my campus. And that’s not an exceptional email; that’s pretty much the tone and content of every single goddamn rant he’s ever sent me.

And now he thinks a single paragraph in which he whimpers that he was just stating his ideas will somehow make me forget decades of spam and lies and babbling nonsense and harassment of not just myself, but of my students and colleagues? It was persistent spam under a parade of fake email addresses.

Harmless banter. Fuck you, Dennis Markuze, never send me another email, and don’t have your asshole friends act as your proxy, either.

In case you’re baffled, here’s a guide to courteous conversation and GLAAD’s style guide. It’s not hard. Try not to break the conventions, now that you know what they are.