Forget Remembering Hypatia

I love reading about history, but I hate most historical fiction.

For me, fictionalizing history is justified only under three circumstances:

1. The book, story, or play is terrifically written, and great art in and of itself. It’s full of memorable characters, vivid scenes, and lip-smacking language. Examples: Shakespeare’s “History” and “Roman” plays, Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.
2. The fictional work is set in a past time as an excuse for the author to examine universal ideas. Examples: The Name of the Rose, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.
3. The fictional work shines a new light on allegedly “familiar” history. Examples: Gore Vidal’s “Narratives of Empire” series, Philip Kerr’s “Berlin Noir” trilogy, Doctorow’s Ragtime.

Obviously, there’s quite a bit of overlap among those categories. All the works I mentioned could easily fit into any of the three. I have no idea where to place T.H. White’s The Once and Future King, or Scott’s Ivanhoe, or even the spy novels of Alan Furst. But I like them.

Remembering Hypatia, on the other hand, is a book best forgotten. It’s written in such a lackluster fashion, by an author (Brian Trent) with a tin ear for language, no sense of drama, nary a deep thought, and, basically, a clear disrespect for the intelligent reader. I’m not going to justify my broad assertions with details here; I don’t have time to waste on that drivel. You can either trust me on this, or you can say “fuck you” and vote for four more years of the same illiterate Bush literary policies.

Now a word about the future of Nonbelieving Literati. I’ve tried to nurture this “club” for about a year and a half, and I’ve enjoyed doing so. We’ve had some interesting inter-blog discussions, and some of us have read books that we might not have otherwise picked up. But I’m unable – and unwilling – to continue being the energy source behind the scenes. It would be great if one of the members could take the initiative and choose the next book, bearing in mind that it should be a work of real literature that will have wide interest, rather than a simple atheist screed. If it were up to me, which it’s most definitely not, I’d pick Huckleberry Finn, the title character of which is a real free thinker whose ideas soar above those of so-called “civilized” society. But perhaps the new leader will have a better idea; I’m game to start reading anything, although I can’t promise I’ll finish it.

As far as No More Hornets is concerned, I will continue to post, but only sporadically. Economic exigencies have made it impossible for me to spend as much time writing for my own – and, I hope, your – entertainment. I, for one, have never needed any convincing to be an atheist, and I’m no longer interested in reading, writing, or commenting on poorly limned arguments against the existence of any gods. We’ve heard them all, dozens of times. The concept of gods is so stupid as to be beneath contempt; I’m tired of pretending to have rational “debates” with idiots who think there’s a higher power somewhere. My little blog is not going to convince the smug theo-thugs that they’re wrong. I’m hoping that my writing ability, however good or bad it may be, can be put to better use than spewing nonsense to flit around the ether.

Thanks for visiting here. I look forward to amusing you again soon.

A Cynic's Endorsement of Obama

I don’t mean to upstage Colin Powell or Warren Buffett or Matt Damon, but Barack Obama has now earned perhaps the most important endorsement of his political career. After a long and agonizing debate with myself, in which I’ve employed every dirty trick in the book to win me over, I’ve decided to end my campaign for the presidency. I’m releasing all my delegates as soon as I can find the key to their leg irons. In addition, I’ve decided to stop urging my readers to vote for a third-party candidate or, for those who can spell, to write in their own names. I hope that, like me, they’ll lend their support to Barack Obama.

I’m not completely happy about this decision. Obama strikes me as a spineless Machiavellian liar, not unlike almost every other person in Congress, particularly the current breed of Democrats who, for political expediency, chose not to try to impeach a pair of known dangerous criminals. As I’ve written here often, many of Obama’s ideas and policies make me gag. I’m disgusted by his intertwining of religion and politics, and I’m dead-set against faith-based initiatives, which he gleefully supports in flagrant disregard of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I’m still pissed off about his vote giving telecoms immunity against prosecutions for the spying they did on American citizens, acts which flout the Fourth Amendment. I’m frightened by his saber-rattling against Pakistan, an alleged “friend” of the United States, and his knee-jerk support, without any substantive explanation, of Georgia against Russia. I’m uncomfortable with his wishy-washy stands on abortion, gun control, and the death penalty. And I hate that he was one of the loudest voices in favor of the sucker-punch known as the “bailout.”

But, in the total picture, I think that Obama is at a moral level so far above John McCain as to make it imperative that he win. For one thing, a world increasingly at odds with – and afraid of – America will breathe a sigh of relief if the “Country First” candidates fail. The McCain/Palin campaign, with its constant thuggish chant of “U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A.,” has been exploiting the worst crypto-fascist instincts in the jingoistic portion of our citizenry. And, while Obama’s overwhelming support among blacks is an indication of a kind of racism, it’s definitely not the same kind to which the Republicans have been playing. With its demonization of Obama, right-wing speechifying often sounds, to my ears anyway, like a veiled encouragement of lynch-mob mentality: He’s not one of us. They can throw hundreds of cute winks, adorable smiles, and thumbs-up gestures into that rhetoric; they can intone, over and over again, the falsely amiable my friends and the phonily homespun doggonit, youbetcha all they want; they still convey one message: He’s not one of us. The implication? Run him out of the neighborhood.

After eight years of monkey government, we clearly need a leader now. One of the best yardsticks we have for measuring a candidate’s ability to lead is the kind of campaign that he or she runs. McCain’s campaign seems as if it’s being conducted by people who have ADD; it lacks focus, and constantly shifts its tactics in reaction to the polls. Obama’s campaign, on the other hand, has stayed on-target since the first: It’s my time, now. That was the strategy when he announced his candidacy, and it hasn’t wavered. His people have been throwing around that extremely effective bullshit for almost two years, and it has resulted in unheard-of contributions – both from the usual favor-shoppers and the so-called “little guys.” A seeming nobody has successfully taken on the power brokers in both parties; can anyone doubt that he knows how to lead?

Normally, that kind of leadership, built on empty promises, would be chilling. Under usual circumstances, I’d look at it as potentially dangerous, the bedrock of a tyranny. But Obama’s calculatedly anti-divisive speeches have taken off some of the edge. With the exception of the Democrats’ usual bugbear, big business – and, of course, the obviously crooked and incompetent Bush administration – he singles out no group for scorn, blames no one for our two wars (three if you count the bogus “war on terror”), our economic fiasco, our catastrophic energy policies, and our infrastructure disasters. In America, big business can always take care of itself; it needs no help from presidents, or the congress, or my wallet. I don’t have to protect it through my vote. And the Bushies, as far as I’m concerned, should be brought to justice for their crimes against the state and humanity.

My final reason for throwing my admittedly trivial support behind Obama is the specter of a Sarah Palin presidency. John McCain’s age, in and of itself, doesn’t put me off. But, clearly, he has health issues; anyone who has watched his performances during the entire campaigning process can’t fail to be aware that he’s not as well as he should be. He dodders, hems and haws, spouts words that he has to weasel out of sometimes only hours later, exhibits an impatience that may well be generated by the slowly failing workings of his body. If he’s elected, and if he dies or becomes unable to perform the duties of his office (two possibilities that seem unnervingly likely to me), a proudly ignorant, unworldly, religious fundamentalist hockey mom will take over in the White House. She’ll bring her “go team” sports mindset with her. Everything she does will be filtered through her glib us-against-them vision. When issues arise that can’t be divided simplistically into two sides, she’ll do so anyway, and take one of them quicker than you can say “Joe Sixpack.” She wouldn’t be a president to inspire national trust at a time when we so badly need to feel that; she’d be a hometeam fanatic, rooting unreasonably for Americans who are “one of us.” I’m not – and neither are you. By definition, no freethinker is.

Do I agree with everything Obama says? Nope, not by a long shot. Do I believe that he’s honest? Hardly. Do I think that he’ll solve all our problems – or even most of them – in four years? Give me some credit for not being a moron.

But the alternative is so horrific, so unthinkable to me, that I will vote for him. I hope you will, too.

Solutions to Non-Existent Puzzles

1. The Hindu drank the chai, the Christian had the iced tea, the Wiccan purchased the pumpkin frappuccino, the Muslim ordered the nonpork vanilla latte, and the Jew asked for just a free glass of water. Therefore, it was the atheist who stole the caramel macchiato.


2. The two words are “numnuts” and “fuckwad.”


3. 666 [number of hypostases of God (3) x total number of episodes of Highway to Heaven (111) x number of brachiosauruses that Noah invited onto the ark (2)]


4. Graham, Robertson, and Warren are the liars.


5. Buchanan = c. (homosexual); George W. Bush = b. (moron); Jefferson = f. (atheist); Kennedy = a. (womanizer); Madison = e. (midget); Obama = d. (Muslim terrorist liberal)


6. SNEEZUS has a runny nose, PLEASUS is winking his left eye, TWEEZUS has no eyebrows, BREEZUS has unkempt hair, FREEZUS has an icicle hanging from his right earlobe, and CHEESUS is grinning. So, SQUEEZUS and JESUS are the two who are exactly the same.


7. God [Note: Other solutions may be possible.]


8. seven [one to notice that it’s dark, one to ask the Lord to show them the way to the light, one to collect donations to buy supplies for doing the Lord’s work, one to drive the truck that says “Jesus Loves You” to WalMart, one to preach the gospel to other shoppers, one to change the lightbulb, and one to shout “Hallelujah.”]


9. In order, from left to right: Deuteronomy, Revelation, Leviticus, 1 Chronicles, Casey at the Bat, 2 Chronicles, Bambi, and Wasilla


10. a. (none of the above)

Do Words Matter?

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

George W. Bush
The only thing we have to fear is ... you know ... being scared. In other words, don’t be scared.

Nancy Pelosi
I've said it before and I'll say it again. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, fear will be off the table.

Barack Obama
Well, so here’s. What I would say. The only thing we have to fear. Is four more years. Of the same. Failed. Uh. Economic policy. And fear. Uh. Itself.

John McCain
The point is, the only thing we have to fear, my friends, is — as I found out years ago in a prison cell — fear itself.

Joe Biden
When I walked through the streets of Scranton, a senior citizen, an ex-millworker named Bob Pastaverde, living on social security and a small pension, he stopped me and he asked, “Senator Biden,” he asked, “do we have anything to fear?” And I told him, “No, Bob, nothing. The only thing we have to fear, you and me, is, as my mother would say, God bless her, fear itself.”

Sarah Palin
With a team of mavericks like John McCain and me, and also the strong American workers in those small towns just like Wasilla all over this great country of ours, also, well, doggone it, the only thing we have to be afraid of is just plain ol’ bein’ afraid, youbetcha.

Questions for Obama – or His Cheerleaders

Although, I would never even consider voting for the intolerable and untenable McCain/Palin ticket, I’m finding it extremely difficult to work up any enthusiasm for – or trust in – Obama/Biden. I’m trying to do so, though, because I live in Florida, where my vote will matter much more than it would if I still lived in New York.

Yes, the Democrats’ platitudes are articulated better than the Republicans’, and, superficially, sound far more appealing. But even a cursory reading of the transcript of last night’s tea party (only an idiot would refer to it as a “debate”) demonstrates that Obama’s words are just as meaningless and empty as McCain’s.

So the following, organized by category, are some questions that I’d like to hear Barack Obama answer. I even invite any reader who's a member of the "We Love Obama" fan club to stand in as his proxy, as long as you can provide some cogent evidence that you're speaking for him. Please don't waste your time telling me how bad McCain would be; I already know that.

Economic Policy

• You’ve spoken a lot about wanting to “fix” our energy system. Can you tell us about five specific actions toward such an end that you would either take directly as president or push Congress to adopt? Can you give us an estimate of the cost of these actions, and give us particulars about where the money and manpower would come from? If any of these actions would require a degree of government administration and/or oversight, can you explain in detail how that would work?


• Same questions about fixing our health care system. Again, please be specific rather than speaking in generalities.


• Same questions about our educational system, with the same requirement for details.


• How, exactly, do you plan to prevent lobbyists from influencing government actions? What do you mean when you refer to “special interests,” and can you name any interests that aren’t special?


• You’ve said over and over again that you would cut taxes for the middle class, and raise taxes for those making more than $250,000. Are you talking about gross or net income, and how would you specially ensure that there isn’t a huge loophole disparity between those amounts? What kind of dollar figures are you talking about for those cuts and those raises, and what will be the end result in total revenues collected each year through federal taxes?

Constitutional Issues

• How will you go about deciding whom to appoint as a Supreme Court justice, should a vacancy occur. Without speaking in vagaries, what criteria will you use?
  


• Assuming that a pregnant woman is healthy both mentally and physically, at what point does her fetus’s potential future trump her right to choose? How would you justify, constitutionally, ever denying a woman the right to make decisions about processes occurring within her own body?
  


• Can you explain, exactly, how the faith-based initiatives you’d propose would work? Can you also explain how such initiatives would not conflict with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?


• You voted to give telecoms immunity from prosecution after they had colluded in spying on American citizens. Can you explain how you justify that vote? If your answer is related in any way to realpolitik, can you clarify why that should take precedence over the Fourth Amendment?

Foreign Policy

• What specific advantages in “the war on terror” do you think will be gained today by killing bin Laden? What specific advantages will be gained by capturing him and not killing him? Are there any other persons whom you would like to kill or capture? Why or why not?


• Which countries do you currently consider America’s friends? Explain. Which countries would you like to bring into America’s circle of friends, and how would you do that? Explain. Which countries are most dangerous today to America, and how would you make them less dangerous? Using specific details, please explain that answer as well.
  


• How do you envision an Iraqi democracy working? Can you support your ideas with examples drawn from Iraqi history, culture, or religious beliefs.


• The Palestinians democratically empowered Hamas. Is that OK with you? Why or why not? Should the United States be more committed to worldwide democracy or worldwide freedom? Can you elaborate on the distinction between democracy and freedom?


• Do you believe that all Jews worldwide are represented by Israel? If so, how? If not, then given that Israel is a quasi-theocratic state and not representative of an entire ethnic or religious group, how can you justify using the loaded phrases “never again” and “Holocaust” in statements supporting that country?


• Do you agree that many of the problems in the 21st century world are caused by religious extremists? Why or why not? In what way are the beliefs of religious extremists different from the beliefs of other theists? What steps would you take to curb religious extremism around the world and in our own country?

Other Relevant Matters

• Using as an example at least 25 votes during your years in the Senate, in what ways have you personally stood up to the Bush Administration? What was your own reasoning for casting those votes? Again, using as an example at least 10 votes during your years in the Senate, in what ways have you personally stood up to the majority of your own party? What was your own reasoning for casting those votes?


• Under what circumstances would it be all right for a president to lie to, or mislead, the American public? If you answer “never,” then under what circumstances would it be all right for a presidential candidate to lie to, or mislead, the American public? If again you answer “never,” then can you explain your pro-FISA vote and your decision to bow out of the public campaign financing system, both of which you'd promised not to do.


• As president, will you represent atheists as well as theists? If you agree to get advice from, and/or speak privately to, religious leaders, will you also seek advice from, and/or speak privately to, avowed atheists? Have you consulted on public policy with any representatives of atheist groups, or appeared at any atheist functions? If so, with whom, where, and when? What was your rationale for agreeing to appear at a public circus sponsored by Saddleback Church and hosted by its pastor, Rick Warren?


• Whom are you thinking about for various cabinet and advisory positions, and whom are you considering for your presidential staff? Again, without speaking in vagaries, what criteria will you use to select these men and women?


• Under what circumstances should a president seek evidence from experts rather than consulting opinion polls? Do you think the majority of the American people have ever held "wrong" opinions? What opinions are those, and why, in your view, were they wrong?
  

Those are 20 straight-talk opportunities. I’d be satisfied if Obama addressed himself to any four of these items — a mere 20% — in the next month. But I’ll bet he won’t. Any takers?

Sarah Palin Haiku

Sarah’s running against the Democrat’s highfalutin eloquence by speakin’ in homespun haikus.

Maureen Dowd, "Sarah's Pompom Palaver"
The New York Times, October 5, 2008

So nice ta meetcha.
I heard a lot aboutcha.
Can I call ya “Joe”?

Are things bad or good?
I went to a soccer game
to find out from moms.

You know what I heard?
Fear about their investments.
“Goshdarnit,” I said.

Did I mention yet:
John McCain is a mav’rick.
I’m a mav’rick, too.

I’m from Wasilla,
in middle America!
It's right near Russia.

Some of my best friends
Are homos or Democrats.
Don’t let ‘em marry.

Global warming’s bad,
but don’t blame Americans.
It's Roe v. Wade's fault.

Corruption, darn it.
I saw that in the paper.
Don’t ask me which one.

Our third-grade students
are the strongest in the world.
Too bad they can’t vote.

Two years ago, there,
John McCain sounded a bell.
What a mav’rick, hey?

He carries that bell,
ringin’ it real loud for change
wherever he goes.

May I say something
more about bells and taxes?
Is that all right, Gwen?

If I had a bell,
I would never ring it for
Ahmadinejad!

And we must make sure
Eye-ran doesn't get a bell,
'cause they're not mav'ricks.

As for Israel?
I won’t second-guess my friends.
Jesus will do that.

Gen'ral Petraeus.
Have you ever heard of him?
Well, I have also.

I’ll say it again:
We are a team of mav’ricks.
I’m from Wasilla!

Just remember that.
Youbetcha, America.
Say it ain’t so, Joe.

Sometimes my eye hurts
from all this winkin’ I do.
Mav’rickin’ is hard.

Lend Me Your Earmarks: A Quiz

The 451-page bailout bill is loaded with earmarks. Earmarks are governmental gifts, either through the direct dispersal of funds or the granting of tax exemptions. Even our simplest bills are chock full of these little presents to companies, states, and groups of people.

In a more honest country, the insertion of earmarks would be seen for what it is: blackmail. A senator or representative says to his or her colleagues: “Gee, I’d really like to vote for the bill authorizing the funds needed to explode that asteroid hurtling towards Earth. But, golly, I can’t do so unless you let my friends in the toilet bowl industry get a tax break on their kids’ Halloween costumes.”

All of our congresspeople claim to despise earmarks. But the extortion continues. Why?

I think it's because references to earmarks permeate our culture. In the following quiz, for example, I’ve isolated ten products, services, places, or groups for whom earmarks were sneakily entered into the bailout bill. Your job is to correctly identify the earmark recipient in each quote. As an extra help, I’ve given the source of each item, plus the page number on which the earmark appears in the bill. (Warning: not all the earmarks in the bill are referred to in the exact same words I’ve used.)

Just one answer per comment, please. And no more than two answers in total per commenter.

1. Bring me my earmarks of desire!
   (William Blake – p. 300. Sec. 503)


2. If such as came for earmark, sir, went home shorn,
   Where is the wrong I did them?
   (Robert Browning – p. 295, Sec. 325)


3. De Camptown earmark five miles long
   Oh doo dah day.
   (Stephen Foster – p. 290, Sec. 317)


4. There’s nought, no doubt, so much the spirit calms
   As earmark and true religion.
   (George Gordon, Lord Byron – p. 279, Sec. 308)


5. No one ever went broke in earmark underestimating the intelligence of the public.
   (Elsa Maxwell – p. 298, Sec. 502)


6. In a cavern, in a canyon,
   Excavating for a earmark
   (Traditional – p. 280, Sec. 310 & 311)


7. The earmark [2 words] is miles away,
   And the day is loud with voices speaking
   (Edna St. Vincent Millay – p. 289, Sec. 316)


8. I could never tell for sure whether I was in America or Earmark.
   (Paul Theroux – p. 279, Sec. 309)


9. One little, two little, three little earmarks
   (Traditional Children’s Song – p. 288, Sec. 314 & 315)


10. She stood in tears among the alien earmark
    (John Keats – p. 182, Sec. 202)

I'm hoping you don't bail out on this quiz. So, I'm promising all correct answerers a tax exemption — as soon as I'm elected to Congress.

[Update (as of 10/06/08, 1:15 p.m. EDT): Fictional Treats from the Federal Treasury for — Gareth McCaughan (#1); DB (#3); yinyang (#4); yunshui (#5); Chicken Girl (#6); yinyang (#8); 1minionsopinion (#9); Gareth McCaughan (#10)]

Not-So-Live Blogging the Debate

9:00 p.m.
Jim Lehrer greets the audience and explains the rules of the debate. Basically, he will ask questions and the candidates will then be free to talk about anything they choose in response. They lose points if they actually refer to the question posed. Obama and McCain step to their respective podiums. Jim Lehrer calls out “Hey, Exterminator, where are you?” The Exterminator enters with a mouthful of Good ‘n’ Plenty and says “Mffff mfffnfm mffn.”

9:01 p.m.:
Lehrer asks about the financial recovery plan. Both Obama and McCain are for and against it. The Exterminator pledges to help Main Street through this crisis, and also gives a shout-out to Elm Street, Oak Street, and Chestnut Drive. He reaches into his back pocket, pulls out his wallet, and shows the audience its contents: $5.67 and a snapshot of his cat who died in 1983. When asked to explain, he offers to split his funds with the American people and urges Obama and McCain to show “What’s in your wallet?” When neither of the other candidates take him up on his magnanimous offer, he looks at Lehrer through a piece of Saran Wrap and says “I’m for transparency.”

9:07 p.m.:
Lehrer urges the candidates to talk to one another about the recovery plan. Obama pulls up a chair and begins to chat with McCain, who rudely takes a phone call on his cell. The Exterminator tells a few jokes to himself and laughs uproariously.

9:13 p.m.:
Jim Lehrer asks the candidates if there are any “fundamental” differences between them on their reactions to the bailout plan. McCain points out that Obama is black, and Obama retaliates by stating that McCain is old. Then they trade made-up figures. The Exterminator demonstrates conclusively that he’s the only one on stage who’s wearing a Bugs Bunny tie.

9:16 p.m.:
Lehrer reminds the candidates that there’s a fiscal disaster happening and asks them what programs they would be willing to give up if they’re elected. The Exterminator unhesitatingly vows to stop spending the taxpayer’s money on repeats of The King of Queens. Obama says he’s willing to give up some programs, and then proves it by rattling off a string of initiatives that will apparently be paid for only by the richest 5% of Americans. McCain promises to cut wasteful spending, and immediately calls his real estate broker to put Obama’s and the Exterminator’s houses on the market.

9:40 p.m.:
The economic portion of the debate is over. Both Obama and McCain rush to get in touch with their accountants. The Exterminator bends over to pick up a dime he dropped. Lehrer polls the audience to see which candidate should be given the Miss Congeniality award, and McCain loses.

9:41 p.m.:
Lehrer asks the candidates about the “lessons of Iraq.” McCain praises the surge and sings “You Light Up My Life” to David Petreus. Obama wonders why we haven’t yet killed bin Laden, and carefully avoids saying “Osama.” The Exterminator calls for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from the United States.

9:44 p.m.:
McCain raises a number of points and Obama responds by praising Joe Biden and the surge. McCain and Obama get into an argument about the difference between strategy and tactics, and Lehrer suggests that they play a game of chess while millions of Americans watch. The Exterminator counts his money again.

9:48 p.m.:
Lehrer asks about Afghanistan, so the candidates retire briefly to watch a screening of The Man Who Would Be King. Obama talks smack about Pakistan and worries about the exploding flower trade in that part of the world. McCain reviews the entire history of the region, and pronounces “Waziristan” correctly. He also urges Obama to keep his mouth shut about U.S. plans to invade Pakistan. The Exterminator does a pretty good Sean Connery impression, but can’t seem to master Michael Caine.

9:55 p.m.:
McCain points out that he voted against James K. Polk’s war with Mexico. Then both McCain and Obama show off their jewelry. The Exterminator explains why bracelets give him a rash.

9:56 p.m.:
Lehrer tells the candidates that they’ve both wasted exactly the same amount of time, but laughingly chastises them for taking too long not to answer the questions. The Exterminator wonders aloud whether that’s a strategy or a tactic.

9:58 p.m.:
Obama and McCain are both worried about an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, and they both enunciate “nuclear” perfectly to distinguish themselves from George Bush. The Exterminator suggests that we start calling the country “Persia” again, and fuck ‘em if they don’t like it. McCain would not sit down at the table with Ahmadinejad. Obama, on the other hand is willing to send someone to sit down at a different table with a different person, but acknowledges that he doesn’t expect anyone to serve matzo ball soup. The Exterminator reserves judgment until he sees what the meal is, and hints that he might be willing to eat standing up.

10:09 p.m.:
McCain and Obama argue about what Henry Kissinger said when he was drunk the other night. The Exterminator amuses no one by speaking in a thick German accent.

10:16 p.m.:
Lehrer asks the candidates about Russia. All of them know where it is. The Exterminator volunteers that he once read The Brothers Karamazov and has eaten borscht many times. Henry Kissinger calls Lehrer and asks him to come over for some caviar and infused vodka after the debates.

10:22 p.m.:
For the 147th time, Obama says that McCain is absolutely right about everything and then calls him a liar. McCain accuses Obama of not understanding anything, and to be fair, demonstrates his own lack of understanding. The Exterminator tallies his change one more time.

10:27 p.m.:
Obama informs America that his father was from Kenya. McCain reminds viewers of his own history: apparently, he was once a P.O.W. The Exterminator tells a long, pointless anecdote about Nanny.

10:30 p.m.:
Obama and McCain hug their wives. The Exterminator searches the audience in vain for Mrs. Ex, who has fled the premises in embarrassment after noticing that her husband’s fly was open throughout the entire debate. Lehrer calls Kissinger to accept his invitation, but only on condition that Ahmadinejad will not be there.

A Comment Thread from Hamlet's Blog

Confused said ...
I don’t really get what you’re asking here. To be WHAT? Or not to be WHAT?

Englishteacher said ...
I hate to be a punctuation nazi, Hamlet, but if you’re asking a question, it should end in a question mark.

Sirsleepsalot said ...
Are you saying that dying and sleeping are THE SAME THING???? Sheesh!

Hamlet said ...
@sleepsy:
No, I’m just saying that in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffel’d off this mortal coil must give us pause. Dying and sleeping are alike, but clearly they’re not the same. You wake up from sleeping but you don’t wake up from dying.

Sirsleepsalot said ...
Unless you die IN YOUR SLEEP!!!! LOL.

happy dane said ...
i do’nt think you shoud worry so much about being nobel in the mind. you sound like a graet princ. just go with what feels rite :)

Scienceprude said ...
We don’t sleep or dream when we’re dead. Learn some biology, jerkoff.

Horatio said ...
IMHO, this whole “to be or not to be” thing sounds like a big whine. Are you crazy, or are you just making believe?

Hamlet said ...
What ho, Horatio! LTNS! Listen, how strange or odd I bear myself — as I perchance hereafter shall think meet to put an antic disposition on — don’t ask me about it, OK?

Rich3 said ...
I know this is a little off-topic, but does anybody have a horse for sale?

Grumble Bunny said ...
Great post! You’re soooo right! Fortune IS outrageous! The guy up the street won the lottery twice and I never won it at all! How is that fair?!!!!!

Zeen0f0Be said ...
Anybody who goes to an undiscovered country doesn’t deserve to return from its “bourn,” as you put it. I’m willing to bet that you haven’t even seen all of Denmark, but you’re in a big hurry to go elsewhere and spend good kroner in other places. How about supporting our workers here?

Hamlet said ...
@ Zee:
A friend of mine thinks that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I don’t necessarily agree with him, but I also don’t mind picking up decent products from foreign manufacturers once in a while.

Wide Awake said ...
I have read your blog and find it both entertaining and informative. If you have problems waking up with that fresh and rested feeling, click the link below to learn about the personal benefits of YawnAway™.

Zeen0f0be said ...
@ Hammy:
Yeah, try buying some of that poisoned toothpaste in Sweden.

Hamlet said ...
@ Zee:
Well, the Swedes say the same thing about stuff made here. They clepe us drunkards, and with swinish phrase soil our addition.

Englishteacher said ...
Sorry to nitpick again, H, but, honestly, who says “clepe” any more? What are you, like 50 years old?

Grumble Bunny said ...
Hamlet, I’m reading more of your fantastic post and you’re soooo right again! How’s this for the proud man’s contumely?! My brother is a English teacher and he keeps correcting my grammer! Between you and I, I could care less!!!!!!

Trollonius said ...
Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that conscience makes cowards of us all? I’ve got a conscience, and I’m not afraid of anything. I think you’re just talking out of your behind.

Zeen0f0be said ...
@Hammy, you said: Well, the Swedes say the same thing about stuff made here.
Is that why they keep crossing our borders illegally to look for better toothpaste? Get your facts straight.

Hamlet said ...
@Zee:
Well, I do have my facts straight. You can read any magazine and find out how corrupt Denmark is. This three years I have took note of it: the age is grown so picked that the toe of the peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier he galls his kibe.

Englishteacher said ...
I don’t mean to be a pain, H, but it’s not “I have took note of it.” It’s “I have taken note of it.” When using the present perfect tense, “have” should always be followed by the past participle. Also, did you realize that the antecendents are unclear for both “he” and “his”?

Grumble Bunny said ...
Hamlet, this is the best post you’ve ever written! And you’re soooo right about the insolence of offices! Yesterday, I made a simple mistake and filed an email from Rosencrantz in the Guildenstern folder! My boss called me a rogue and peasant &#^%*! Now that’s insolent!!!!!

happy dane said ...
did you decide what to do yet? i know its nun of my busness but heres my too sense. i think you shoud “be” :)

Hamlet said ...
I’m cutting off all comments on this post. Sorry, you guys, but the rest is silence.

Haven't I Read This Somewhere Before?

Having been a denizen of the Atheosphere for nearly two years, I’ve learned a lot of things. Some of those things I’ve been told over and over and over, as if I’m in the dumb class. But I finally think I understand them now.

I’ve also accumulated a shitload of old posts which I’d like to urge my newer readers to check out. You'll find that the ideas expressed in them, as is so often the case with posts written in the Atheosphere, are all completely original. I know you won’t want to miss any of the great things I’ve written. (Sorry, but I haven’t yet completed my promised posting of all my high school compositions.)

So here’s a list of stuff I’ve learned, along with the titles of relevant posts of mine that you might have missed.

• All atheists are always rational. When an atheist forms an opinion about anything, he or she weighs the facts carefully. That’s why we all walk around with scales in our pockets. If challenged, we atheists can even provide irrefutable evidence for our preferences in politics, sports, pop culture, and cuisine. (See my previous post: “French-Cut Canned Stringbeans Are Creationist Bullshit.”)


• Everything important in life can be subjected to the scientific method. Great music, art, and literature can’t be analyzed or proven, so atheists don’t need to know anything about those subjects. Sorry, but the beginning of the universe affects us much more than some trivial Beethoven tune, Monet sculpture, or Shakespeare novel. Being educated about history is commendable, but only insofar as we can use our knowledge to disprove religious interpretations of past events. (See my previous post: “Ancient Mesopotamia was not a Christian nation.”)


• Electing Democrats will change America for the better. Here’s the proof: Republicans will not change America for the better. That’s why Barack Obama has stronger qualifications to be president than those of any other person who has ever lived, except, perhaps, for Abraham Lincoln. I say “perhaps” because we can’t know for sure; Lincoln’s looks were never judged by the women of “The View.” (See my previous post: “Whoopi and Joy Go Ga-ga Over Abe’s Beard ... but Elisabeth Hates His Wart.”)


• It’s crucial for us atheists to keep reminding one another that creationism is not only stupid, but a big lie. If we don’t keep telling each other about this, some of us will forget, and start believing in Genesis. (See my previous post: “Creationism is Creationist Bullshit.”)


• Any atheist who criticizes other atheists about anything is not a true atheist. He or she hurts the cause. (See my previous post: “The Cause Says Ouch.”)


• If elected vice president, Sarah Palin will bide her time until John McCain dies (or is killed by her secret minions), and then turn the country into a theocracy. It’s fair to judge her by her church affiliation, which is obviously a strong indication of her beliefs. But woe betide theocrats under an Obama/Biden administration. The Democrats’ god-pushing is merely for political expediency; those secularists who are sharp enough to read their minds know that both Obama and Biden are totally commited to separation of church and state. It’s unfair to each of them to judge him by his church affiliation, which is obviously no indication of his beliefs. In any case, Obama’s and Biden’s personal beliefs can be easily distinguished from their non-personal ones. (See my previous post: “Personal Beliefs Are Clearly Different from Just Plain Ol’ Beliefs.”)


• Anything that’s written or video-ed from a freethinking point of view is extremely interesting, and must be passed along to as many other freethinkers as possible. (See my previous post: “You’re an Idiot if You Don’t Watch This.”)


• No one ever blogs just for the hell of it. We’re all on a mission to spread only the most credible information, and to refute ridiculous claims perpetrated by those who don’t agree with us. There’s something noble and important about that, even though most of us are way too humble to come right out and say so. Instead, we keep trying to change the mind of that poor, wishy-washy “one person in a thousand” who reads every single blog every single day. (See my previous post: “One Person in a Thousand Now Hates French-Cut Canned Stringbeans and Creationism.”)


• Most skeptics have great senses of humor. Spelling “the” as “teh” is the height of wit. Any picture of Jesus, Mohammad, or John McCain is also hilarious. But poking fun at other skeptics is frowned on, because we’re all in “this” together and should be respectful of one another. Otherwise, we hurt the cause. (See my previous post: “It’s Not Funny When the Cause Says Ouch.”)


• People who read and/or write liberal blogs are extremely well-informed about current events. If they also watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, their political acumen is unquestionable. When you read the same fact on more than one progressive blog, it must be true, so you can feel free to repeat it without seeking out any corroborating evidence. (See my previous post: “You’ll Never Guess What I Heard.”)


• The only reasons that an atheist blogger might choose not to publish new posts are (1) he has died or is gravely ill; (2) worse, he has suddenly started believing in a god, or (3) worst of all, his computer has broken down. In any case, no one will ever read his blog again unless he publishes a long post explaining why he’d spent more than 72 hours without stating his opinion of (1) creationism, (2) Sarah Palin, or (3) French-cut canned stringbeans. (See my forthcoming post: “Creationism, Sarah Palin, and French-Cut Canned Stringbeans Are Responsible for the Current Fiscal Crisis.”)


• Lurkers are the blue-collar workers of the Internet, waiting to hear the most intelligent argument to help them decide whom to support. They’re the impulse shoppers in the free market of ideas. Atheists and theists know that it’s worthwhile debating one another because you never know whose mind you might change. (See my previous post: “Are You There Lurkers? It’s Me, Exterminator.”)

Lurkers and others are invited to comment.