Duck v Duct

Somewhen and somewhere back in the late, great 1950’s the US Government, in response to those silly and naïve fears festering amongst the populace regarding megadeaths by megatons of megabombs, dutifully, and with officious diligence, created he “Duck and Cover” program. Now here was a program with a purpose and, more importantly, a positive message: “you will survive, we promise!”

In order to convince everyone that the government really had their best interests at heart, and to prove the sagacity of cowering under a table or tablecloth and planting your head between your knees to kiss your ass goodbye, they dreamed up a cute little mascot, a Turtle by the name of Bert. And Bert the Turtle was very alert. When trouble threatened him he never … Sorry. The Heimweh, or nostalgia, for an era that is long gone (and mostly before my time) grabbed me by the, well, grabbed me somewhere.

My first experience with the lunacy of the D&C drill was in the first grade. 1968 to be exact. (For some reasons, as kindergarteners we were immune to this exercise in gullibility as I suppose it was thought that we lacked the maturity to comprehend the gravitas of these most solemn occasions -- we might have discovered the farce though.)

Anyway, we referred to these solemn occasions as “Retention Drills”. While we dozer, er learned, in our classrooms a very loud claxon would begin its groaning cacophony of six longish death-knell-like plaints – one for each foot under, I suppose. Upon hearing the sixth bell (…when he had opened the sixth seal, lo, there was a great earthquake…) we arose en masses, went to the cloakroom to get our jackets or coats and lined up, behind the teacher who would fearlessly lead us into battle, and proceeded to our assigned spots … along the inner walls of the hallway. (Mind you, we had a fallout shelter, but as that likely would have fallen in anyway, it didn’t much matter). Once we reached the wall we assumed the position as described above and put our coats or jackets over our heads – the poor bastards without either had only their bare arms to protect them – this, we were assured by the pedagogues assembled, would protect us from flying glass.

We were then to remain in the assumed position until the all-clear was sounded. Or, had this been a real emergency, for all eternity.

You see, our school was located less than a half-mile from a Naval Depot; a site far too important to the natural defense for those evil-communist-red-atheistic-materialistic-Russians-who-lurked-under-our-beds-everynight to ignore. After all, parts for ships, planes, nuclear-tipped missiles and all the stuff we needed to strike back at those evil-communist-red-atheistic-materialistic-Russian-blah-blah-blahs. Nope, Ivan simply could not leave that one alone.

After the Cold War ended, I heard that the depot had in fact been target for destruction by our-former-enemies-and-now-dearest-friends. A 3MT warhead it was assumed was to be the hammer of the godless. While we were all cowering under our coats…boom, three megatons; everything within 3 miles is vaporized and/or scorched and/or toasted in a big ball of thermal radiation (aka fire, heat, ouch, hot); everything with 5 miles is flattened, everything within 10 miles is showered with radiation…

Did I mention that the school was a half-mile away?

Fast forward twenty-three years to September 11, 2001. OK, really to the 12th, or 13th, or whenever it was the Dubya managed to find his cojones and resume the control of the presidency and the nation that Rudy Giulliani had so kindly safeguarded.

In the ensuing panic after the attacks, one of the geniuses at FEMA – probably that idiotic judge of thoroughbred Arabian horses who did a heck of a job later on mangling another disaster – decided that we would be safe from those crazy-Islamic-Arabic-heathen-evildoers-and-suiciders-who-lurk-on-every-web-pge-and-in-every-cell should they attempt to use biological, chemical, or nucular weapons on us, if we purchased duct tape and plastic sheeting and used those items to seal off a mid-sized room.

Three people suffocated in a room so prepared. Really. Fortunately, they weren’t in the school – just imagine the lawsuit.

NousEpirrhytos

Well, as expected I have found that Conservapedia should really be Fascistipedia. So far I have seen that one cannot say anything, and I mean anthing that might offend the Fasciti acting as sysops and il Duce, Andy Schlafly (brother of the great Roger, son of the doyenne of right wing harpies, Phyllis).

My first warning of being blocked was for writing “rat’s behind” (yes, behind, not ass) and for saying “cold bucket of hamster spit”. Yes, I kid you not. Anyway, I got this warning from il Duce:

Please reread our rules. This is a clean site. That means users who sprinkle their words of wisdom with obscene references and epithets are blocked. I don't want to have to wade through litter and pollution to find whatever nuggets of insight may be there. This, of course, applies to our talk pages also.--Aschlafly 09:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT) for more see http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:NousEpirrhytos#Warning_of_Blocking

Then after this exchange, regarding the name of the Bible http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name , in which I noted things like

“The original meaning of biblos is indeed papyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"
BTW, the word was never Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. NousEpirrhytos 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed this: ...Greek Christians had called the Scriptures la Biblia... -- la is not a definite article in Greek, it only accurs in Romance languages as a shortening of the demonstative article illa. NousEpirrhytos 16:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT) “

and…

“Karajou, why do you assume I'm ignorant of Christian apologetics? I was raised in an evangelical church -- when I began to question many things that only received dogmatic answers I began to realise just how vapid that which they were trying to ram down my throat was. Since that time I have read score of books on all religions, and the more religions I've studied, the more I've seen the truth behind them -- the emperor is naked.
What is this hearsay of which you speak? Please, do elaborate rather than throwing cute terms around.
Now, when are you going to fix la to ta? Hey, if you want Con-pedia to be the laughing-stock of religion, feel free to leave it, but be aware that la is not a definite article either in Greek or Latin (a language bereft of a definite aticle). BTW, I would doubt Unger misheard the word -- if he knew Greek, he would have known the definite article off of the top of his head, and if he knew it not he was no true scholar of the NT. NousEpirrhytos 17:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
One other point: books on the Civil War, Babe Ruth, etc., have never been claimed to be infallible, so your analogy does not pass muster. NousEpirrhytos 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT) “

and…

Tell you what, I have a better question for both of you, Petrus and Nous: are you pushing your own religious beliefs on myself, this article, and this website? A simple yes or no will suffice. Karajou 20:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
When you explain precisely to what you refer when you say hearsay, I shall answer your question. To what specific instances do you refer? How is a charge of hearsay relevant here. What would be direct evidence? Is it not true that exegesis plays a large role in presenting "evidence" from the bible, and as exegesis relies on apologetic analysis and reconstruction is it not a form of hearsay. There are, of course, rhetorical question, but please do answer them if you wish this discussion to be of any value.
As to young earth creationism, I'm very well aware of the arguments put forth by proponents. However, in reading them critically, which is my modus legendi for all books, they simply fail scientifically and logically. The various explanations of "tired light" and "flood geology" (etc.) are too ludicrous to take seriously, violating, as they do, the laws of physics, geology and plate tectonics. Yes, I know of the argument that "god can do anything he wants", but said argument is really just a tautology.
BTW -- All ancient religions have their own creation story, what makes the bible's verson fact and the others mere myth? (rhetorical). NousEpirrhytos 06:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I incurred the wrath of Kakajuju for “attacks on the Bible...”, which, as anyone reading through the thread can see, I never did.

I was reprieved by ColinR with the note, “attacks were not made on the bible, only bible literalism, something this site doesn't explicity endorse as far as I can see/have been told by other sysops.)”

Then, good old Uncle Ed, Jackass Emeritus of Wikipedia noted, “reblock - should apologize before being reinstated” Yes, Eddie, for what? Besides, I couldn’t even if I wanted to, which I don’t, as the twits at Con-pedia have yet to mail a confirmation to my e-mail addy after 5 days (maybe I need to wait until the 6th for the big creation moment), nor can I edit even my own page. Like Duh.

Alas, it was an eye-opener while it lasted…certainly fodder for the press – especially given that it’s a wiki and is in the public domain.

Now the real fun begins.

Conservapedia, PT III -- Richard Nixon

Why Tricky Dicks, Batman, this must be the work of the Joker.

“Richard Milhous Nixon … was the 37th President of the Christian United States… He was the 36th Christian Vice President of the United States from 1953 to 1961, in the administration of Christian Dwight D. Eisenhower.” When did the name of the country change, and which one of my atheist compatriots kept the name change from me? (No wonder I’ve felt so dirty all these years).

Ah, but it gets better. Conservapedia notes that Nixon, “…lost his first presidential race to John F. Kennedy…” No "Christian" appellation here. Oh, I forgot, Kennedy was a Catholic.

Then there the factual clunker, which notes that Nixon “…was reelected in 1972 by a landslide, but had to resign the following year…” Uh, no, he resigned in 1974, August 9th, in fact. Unless 1973 was cancelled, “the following year” would be incorrect.

And the best (and most confusing): Nixon’s “Christian foreign policy as president was marked by détente with the atheistic Soviet Union…” Now, if you as a good Christian, sup with the atheist devil, doesn’t that consign your soul to the Infernal regions, stoking the sulfurous fires of Hell?

Conservapedia, PT II -- Xerxes the Great

Next up, a Conservapedia article on Xerxes the Great, who is described in a few meager lines: “King of Persia, r: 485–465 BC, chose the biblical Esther (Hadassah) as his wife. Depicted in the 2007 film 300 as being approximately 15 feet tall.” In fact, he’s simply referred to as Xerxes, no honorific -- how anti-Persian.

Now first, Xerxes is only possibly the Ahasuerus mentioned in the Books of Esther and Ezra, nothing definitive there folks. Second, Xerxes was far more important than (maybe) just being the hubby of Esther. He was the son of Darius the Great and grandson of Cyrus the Great; he suppressed revolts in Egypt and Babylon; he brought Egypt under tight control; he invaded Greece, won the Battle of Thermopylae, and then because of his own impatience and misplaced trust in Themistocles lost to the Greeks at Salamis; hell, he even sent one of his military commanders, Sataspes, on a mission to circumnavigate Africa. .

15 foot tall hubby of Esther indeed – but maybe, in the righteous world, that’s all that really matters.

Conservapedia, PT I -- Dinosaurs

Andy Schlafly, son of the doyenne of shrill right-wing Harpies, Phyllis Schlafly, and member of the “elite” Eagle Forum has started a Wiki project named Conservapedia (clever, no?). This Wiki product claims to counter the evil left-wing bias of Wikipedia (I haven’t seen the bias myself, but I’m one of them damned BHL’s).

On its main page, Conservapedia proclaims that it is “A conservative encyclopedia you can trust” – as opposed, I guess to a conservative encyclopedia (whatever that word combo means) that you can’t trust.

Conservapedia then proclaims that it “has over 3,800 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics…” Keenly interested in the righteous ramblings of the ranting right, I decided to have a look-see (after praying to Athena to protect me from inanity). I clicked on “random page” and was taken to “Dinosaur”. In the first sentence I was greeted by this factoid of wisdom, “The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Latin for "terrible lizard". Uh no, Andy, it’s from Greek. Latin would have been lacerta terribilis.

In the next paragraph we are greeted by the following, “Most scientists believe that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (except for birds, which many scientists consider to be descended from early therapod dinosaurs).” Yes, that is how long ago dinosaurs lived, but there is no “except for birds”. That they are descendants of the dinosaurs is likely true, but that has no bearing on the extinction of dinosaurs. We are descendants of the Australopithecines, but they are extinct. Our existence has no bearing on their lack of same.

Then there is the snidely dismissive, “They [scientists] claim the fossil evidence supports their beliefs.” Beliefs? Uh, no Andy. You might want to study up on Paleontology.

I could go on with the mistakes in this short but terrible article (dinolect?), but, that would be, like, really mean and shrewish in a right-wing Harpy kind-of way.

Bwa-ha-ha.

THE BIG ONE: I couldn't resist bringing up this older version -- note Jesus riding a dinosaur (no doubt on his way to Jerusalem to meet with the Guv'nor (but where are the plalm leaves? Oh, yeah, the dino ate them. ROFL)).

Next up: another Conservapedia article gets shredded.

Beware Norse Design

Ah, intelligent design is all the rage -- gutting science curricula, making up proofs to fit the stories of a bunch of wandering nomads from an entirely different culture, pretending religion and the ooky-spooky supernatural Omniomnis are science. Bah!

But what of the Norse, my beloved ancestors? Check this out:

http://thepaincomics.com/weekly041229.htm

Of Breasts and Boobs, Part II

On Saturday February 17, 2007, Leigh Bellini's 6-month-old son Enzo had the nerve to get hungry while the family shopped at the Berkshire Mall in Wyomissing, PA. As Enzo is breast-fed, his mother settled down on a bench beneath a tree and began to feed little Enzo. Within minutes, Mall security approached her and demanded that she cover her son (and his source of food) with a blanket. She refused. The situation escalated when these rent-a-cops advised that it would be best if she she fed their son in a public restroom or the car. When they refused, the rent-a-coppers threatened to call the police and have the couple and their son physically removed from the mall.

Of course, the mall's management said there's no policy against public breastfeeding at the Mall, and that security behaved inappropriately. But, y'know, I really have to wonder what kind of "secret" policy they have. More accurate, it turns out, would have been to state that the mall has no policy period, which is every bit as dangerous a having a policy banning public breast-feeding. Of course, "the matter is being investigated". But what will be the policy for violating a non-policy? No free donuts for the rent-a-coppers for a month?

In any case, the following week-end about 50 mothers gathered to breast-feed in public at the mall. Needless to say, nothing happened -- apparently there is power in numbers.

On another note: in response to the above events, countless mothers with MySpace accounts began putting up pictures of themselves breastfeeding their children. Note that none of these pictures were exercises in public nudity, and as I explained previously it takes a sick mind to assume that breast-feeding exists as a means of sexual titillation. Obviously, the powers-that-be at MySpace have sick minds: they deleted the images, saying they were sexually stimulating and obscene. One can only hope that by the time baby Enzo grows up, society has grown up as well.