Well here’s a horrible piece of crap posted at Jezebel. Callie Beusman looks down on the protests in support of Amina because Islamophobia and white and European and blah.

While it is unquestionably necessary, brave, and noble to stand with Amina (who is reportedly not free to move or speak safely), the protests were distressingly and distractingly Islamophobic. A photo from one of shows a white woman with crescent moons covering her nipples, wearing a fake beard, a unibrow penciled in with eyeliner, and a bath towel on her head. Another photo, highlighted on FEMEN’s Facebook page is of a topless woman protesting at a mosque in San Francisco (because, when you’re fighting the good fight of “TITS AGAINST ISLAMISM,” standing topless in front of any mosque anywhere will do) with the following caption:

TODAY IS AMINA TOPLESS JIHAD DAY. I was at the Islamic Mosque in San Francisco. Some Arab guy tried to grab my sign and pushed me in a violent way. My friend stopped him. MY BODY IS MY TEMPLE.

Callie Beusman is missing the point. Yes “some Arab guy” is not a helpful thing to say but then neither is “a white woman.”

Further down is a cartoon of a woman crawling out from under her burqa to light on fire the beard of a caricature of a Muslim man (or should I say “some Arab guy”?). In the comments, a woman posted a link to an Al Jazeera article about Muslim women counter-protesting the protest, as they rightfully feel that it was condescending and imperialistic in both tone and intent.

Well I “rightfully feel” that Carrie Beusman is being condescending herself, and that “imperialistic” is just stupid rhetoric.

The counter-protest, Muslimah Pride Day, calls for women to speak out for themselves on social media:

[P]lease post pictures of your beautiful selves, whether you wear hijaab, nikaab or not. This is an opportunity for Muslim women to get a say and show people that we have a voice too, that we come in many different shapes and sizes that we object to the way we are depicted in the west, we object to the way we are lumped in to one homogenous group without a voice of agency of our own.

FEMEN needs to recognize that Muslim women do in fact have agency, and the idea that Muslim women are helpless, passively indoctrinated by the alleged evils of Islam, and desperately need of Western feminist help is oppressive and orientalist. Patriarchy is not specific to Islam — although there are inarguably extreme and truly saddening examples of misogyny in the Muslim community, patriarchy is a global issue. Furthermore, feminism is not only a Western institution — to assume that Muslim women need someone to “speak for” them is insulting to all the grassroots political organizing and activism that Muslim feminists have done. It’s disturbing how a the rhetoric of “women’s liberation” has been co-opted to justify aggression, violence, and prejudice against Muslim communities. In what way is it appropriate to “rescue” women by indulging in and re-circulating essentializing, stereotyped, and offensive depictions of their culture?

How incredibly patronizing it is to assume that that is “their culture.” How patronizing and ignorant to assume that “Muslim women” are a monolith and all identify with the most harshly repressive and punitive elements in their “culture.” How ignorant to assume that all “Muslim women” adore the hijab and the niqab and rejoice to be urged to post pictures of themselves wearing them. How blinkered and parochial to disappear all liberal secular universalist rebellious Muslim women from the picture and side only with the most traditionalist and reactionary ones.

It’s what Maryam calls the racism of low expectations.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Guest post by Dan Bye in a comment on She said the s word.

Does everyone know the Mr Men series of children’s books, originally by Roger Hargreaves (since his death the franchise has been picked up by his son)?

There was a subsequent series of Little Miss books, which you could see as a response to accusations that the original series was too male-orientated. The accusation wasn’t without some substance, but if you compare the Mr Men characters with the Little Miss characters, you notice something very interesting.

Here’s the list of books, in case you don’t know them:

http://www.mrmen.com/en/books.html

Notice a few things (I’m generalising, but the stereotypes are there nonetheless).

First of all, the male characters seem to be grown-ups.   The Little Miss characters seem not to be, in general.

Secondly look at the way positive and negative characteristics are constructed.  Some are common, so you have Little Miss Chatterbox as well as Mr Chatterbox, and Little Miss Greedy as well as Mr Greedy.

You have Little Miss Bossy, Little Miss Fickle, Little Miss Brainy, Little Miss Contrary, Little Miss Dotty, Little Miss Giggles, Little Miss Princess, etc etc.    These are quite gender specific.  There’s no Mr Brainy, but there is Mr Clever.   Note the difference.

Thirdly, some of the Mr Men embody *activity* -Mr Bump, Mr Tickle. They *do* things, and what they do defines them for the purpose of the book. There are few female equivalents – almost all are abstract personality factors. There’s Little Miss Somersault, I guess.

There was a point to this. Oh, yeah, stereotypes!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

So Sheryl Sandberg was on the Daily Show on Wednesday. Guess what she said. That women are held back by a lot of things…and one of them is stereotypes. Yes stereotypes. Omigod! Radfem alert! Somebody summon franc hoggle to fantasize about kicking her in the cunt!

But we’re also held back by stereotypes. Go to a playground and you’ll hear little girls called bossy! You don’t hear little boys called bossy, because we expect boys to be assertive and lead.

Oh oh oh! That’s crazy talk!! That’s the diametric opposite of skepticism!!! Where’s the evidence?! Where’s the peer-reviewed science?! Where’s the PhD in sociology?! Where are the three whole classes in Women’s Studies? That’s misandrist, and professional victim, and femistasi. Paula Kirby needs to talk to Sheryl Sandberg and set her straight.

And so we’re trying to change that. You know, rather than call our little girls bossy, we should say “my daughter has executive leadership skills.”

Cheers and applause.

Then Stewart suggests, hesitantly and as if it were a new thought, that a woman saying this kind of thing gets a slightly more heated reaction than a man would.

Stewart: Why do you think women are judged more harshly in these arenas?

Sandberg: So our stereotypes – and again, these are deep, these start in childhood – are that men should lead, men should speak up, men should have opinions.

Does that sound familiar at all? Just a tiny bit?

Women should nurture, help others, sit back. The National Retailers Association printed up T shirts, onesies, for babies – the boys’: smart like Daddy; the girls: pretty like Mommy. Not in the 1950s; two years ago.

And so, when women speak out, when women are successful, they are less liked, while when men speak out, they are better liked.

That sounds a little bit familiar too. Just a little bit. Goats. Excuse me, something in my throat. Goats, goats. So sorry – anyone got a cough drop? Goats, goats, goats.

Then she says we can change it, and we should, because if we can understand the stereotypes, they can change.

Yes! But in the process – we will hear a lot of shit from a lot of shitlords. A LOT.

Then Stewart hits a nail on the head -

It seemed easier to change the access to power than to change the cultural pressures that women face.

Exactly. Harriet Hall, Paula Kirby: please note. If Stewart can see that, why tf can’t you?

Sandberg tells a story of her friend Rachel who told her daughter, age 5, that women who succeed are less liked while men who succeed are more liked, and the daughter’s response was…”Well then Mommy I would just do less well at work.”

Change this please. Let’s do this thing.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Oh guess what! Thunderfoot has yet another video about why he hates feminism so much. It’s chapter 3 in this exciting series. What inspired this one? Richard Carrier’s talk at the American Atheists convention in Austin last weekend. I was at that talk. I thought it was damn good – but then I have reasons for thinking that, which Thunderfoot doesn’t share.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95LG9crl3yo

He starts with Richard talking about doing atheism and other things – which one would think needn’t be particularly contentious, because who wants to do nothing but atheism all the time always? But Thunderfoot claims it’s doing things the wrong way around, because

most sensible people start out as critical thinkers and because of that methodology that results in them becoming atheists.

So how does that make it “the wrong way around”? (Even assuming it’s true, which I doubt it is.) Here’s a fun fact: it’s possible to do critical thinking about god and the status quo, god and sexism, god and social issues.

Then he splices together a lot of instances of Richard saying “harassment” in a part of the talk. Well yes, he did, because that’s what he was talking about. Well, he shouldn’t have been, shouts Thunderfoot.

They really do make me feel that atheism’s primary problem isn’t sexual harassment creating a toxic environment, it’s professional victims creating a toxic environment. And also people like Carrier, who are absolute in their support that we should pander to these professional victims. I should remind you that this guy was actually invited to talk at this conference.

That’s their case – that’s what they’ve got. The problem is not sexual harassment, the problem is people who object to sexual harassment.

It’s possible, indeed easy, to think of situations in which that would be the case. It could always be the case that there is little or no X, and there are people saying there is a lot of X, and that makes a problem. But it isn’t the case that there is little or no sexual harassment among atheists. Phil Mason is just being a callous shit in pretending otherwise. That’s what he does.

The rest of the vid is frankly not very interesting, except for the part where he cites PZ’s “little harem of elite feminist whiners.” That’s a good one – every single word apart from “of” is a calculated insult.

Which is where we came in. Enough with the calculated insults already. To quote a friend, “debate or stfu.”

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I have a good idea. I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I truly think that people who run human rights agencies for governments ought to support human rights.

Cue fireworks! But that’s what I think. Call me a dangerous radical, but that’s what I think.

Not so the Brazilian House of Representatives, apparently.

A row has erupted in Brazil after the House of Representatives elected an evangelical politician with homophobic views to run the country’s Human Rights and Minority Commission.

Hmmyes you see that’s my point – I think that’s a bad fit.

Marco Feliciano has previously said AIDS is a gay cancer and that Africans are cursed.

The Latin America Bureau reports he stated: “Noah’s curse on his grandson, Canaan, lingers in Africa, therefore leading to all the hunger, diseases, ethnic wars.”

In another comment, he wrote that the “rot of homosexual feelings leads to hatred, crime, rejection”.

Is that the right kind of experience and training for a job running the country’s Human Rights and Minority Commission? I say no. I realize that sounds strange and unfamiliar, but nevertheless – I say no.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

You know Nate? He needs help getting to Women in Secularism 2. Any surplus will go to CFI.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/affording-the-hotel?c=home

If you want something specific from the conference, like a SurlyRamic if Amy’s selling them, some autographs, or anything else, just let me know when you donate and I’ll be sure to get that for you.

And maybe a guest post here, hmm?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Crommunist has a hilarious terrifying fantasy warning about what’s really been going on all this time…

One particularly funny tragic and blind passage at the beginning:

Up until now, my position on this kind of over-wrought conspiracy mongering has been fairly consistent: FTB is not the boogey-man; it’s a network of blogs that (mostly) existed before there was a network to begin with. Atheism+ isn’t ruining atheism; it’s a reaction to the fact that it was already ruined for a lot of people. Skepchick is not rounding up all male atheists to throw them into a witch’s cauldron of menses and liquid misandry.

At least so he thought. Read on.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Anthony Grayling was on the Colbert Report last night. Again! It was his second time. He was on the first time two years ago, right after he was on a book tour here for The Good Book. He came to Seattle on that tour and as long-time readers may remember, I had tea with him. It was a memorable afternoon. It was great to see him again at the AA event. The AAs loved him.

Amanda Knief (dedicated ED of American Atheists) was in the audience at the Colbert Report, and apparently she’s the one you can hearing whooping.

Now Stewart has to have Dave on. Has to. He keeps sniping at atheists, so it’s time to invite Dave.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I don’t have Richard Reed’s phone number (nor do I know that Richard Reed is the real name of that particular harasser), so in lieu of picking up the phone and giving him a jingle, I’ll do a post about his argument for the legitimacy of photoshopping pictures of people’s faces onto goats post.

Where I “harass” Barack Obama and Ophelia Benson

There is still a lot of talk in the skeptic community about “harassment”, and what constitutes it. Ophelia Benson claims that people photoshopping her constitutes harassment. In this post, I will show how ridiculous that idea is!

Here is a goat. Lets call him Clive:

Now, lets say for sake of argument that I want to mock Barack Obama. I could do that by putting his head on Clive and putting a crude message on the picture:

Now, according to Ophelia Benson, photoshopping constitutes harassment, so does the above image harass Barack Obama? I don’t think so!   Let’s apply the same thing to a picture of Ophelia:

Now, who would consider either of the above pictures to be “harassing” of Barack Obama or Ophelia Benson? Only the hypersensitive or the histrionic I guess!

 

So his argument is: it’s ok to photoshop Obama’s face onto a goat, therefore it’s ok to photoshop my face onto a goat.

It’s my view that there are some steps missing between his premise and his conclusion. I also have grave doubts about his premise.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Uh oh. Shut down the machinery. Blow the siren. Step away from the handle. Put your safety gear on.

You’ve been doing it wrong. All this time. It’s not 666. It’s 616.

Oh my god – well no wonder then! No wonder it didn’t work! No wonder we’re still here and not there. No wonder it never got airborne. No wonder the gell didn’t set. No wonder the plan never came to fruition. So that’s two thousand years down the crapper.

Ellen Aitken, a professor of early Christian history at McGill University, told Canada’s National Post, “This is a very nice piece to find. Scholars have argued for a long time over this, and it now seems that 616 was the original number of the beast.” But, if 616 is correct, according to Revelation 22:18, there’s now a lot of people that brought the Bible’s curses upon themselves, and those foolish enough to have repeated their false teachings.

It’s a very grim outlook for those people. Very grim indeed. I hope their passports are up to date.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I hate it when some one person thinks of something cool to do and then suddenly everybody starts doing it, and it’s not as cool any more. Like torching neighborhoods because “blasphemy.” It was awesome at first and now it’s just boring because all the bores are doing it.

In a renewed attack on minorities, a violent Muslim mob attacked a Christian locality in Gujranwala on Wednesday, damaging shops, houses and vehicles belonging to the local Christians following a clash between the youths of the two communities last night, Pakistan Today has learnt.

According to initial information, a group of Christian boys was snubbed by a local cleric for playing music on their cell phones while passing by a mosque on Tuesday evening.

“Our boys were passing the mosque when the prayer leader objected to their playing music on cell phones. The boys turned off the music at that moment but switched it on again after covering some distance. The cleric raised a clamour and accused the boys of showing disrespect to Islam…”

That’s not a bad new angle though, I have to admit. Playing music on cell phones near a mosque. Yes that’s quite decently petty and obsessive-compulsive and ludicrous as a pretext for trashing a neighborhood that people live in and stuff.

He said that around 2pm, a Muslim mob from the nearby Naroki village attacked the neighbourhood, ransacking shops, houses and around 5-7 vehicles parked on the road. “We saw a police mobile of the area’s checkpost parked in the vicinity but they did not intervene and let the mob damage our property,” he said, adding that the mob dispersed after local Christians took out their weapons and started firing in the air to deter them.

Ok ok ok but next time make up your own game. What about setting fire to everyone’s cats for example?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Oh lordy. An exchange on Facebook. (SIWOTI. I know. I know.)

I shared a link via Tarek Fatah, Muslim mob targets Christian locality in Gujranwala ‘for disrespecting Islam’.

Mr X: Do these people walk on their knuckles?

(Another friend posts a link to Buddhists target Sri Lanka’s Muslims.)

Mr X: The Buddhists are right to be concerned. Muslim men are savages.

(And he gives a link to Wikipedia.)

Ophelia Benson Oi! That’s WAY too general! And Buddhists in Sri Lanka have done their share of terrorizing and violence.

Mr X: Two wrongs don’t make a right.  If that list is too general for you how would you like me to make it more specific?
Are you aware of what Muslims are doing in Europe?

Ophelia Benson Yes, “Muslim men are savages” is way too general for me, thank you. See the “via” at the top? I found the link via a Muslim man. Tarek Fatah is no savage.

Mr X: I agree that Tarek Fatah is no savage but read the Koran regarding women’s rights and apostasy.
There’s the savagery.

Ophelia Benson I’m aware of the Koran. I posted the above link, after all! It doesn’t follow that your sweeping generalization is either true or a valuable thing to say.

Mr X: I think it is possible you don’t understand the gravity of the situation. Do you think we should revere the Koran and allow Sharia Law in the US and Canada? You have not addressed the Muslim situation in Europe. Here in Canada our politicians are becoming concerned about our home grown Muslim terrorists in Iraq.

I told him to go look me up on Google before saying that.

Mr X: So why are you defending Muslims? Even Tarek Fatah doesn’t do that.

Ophelia Benson Oh really? Try telling him “Muslim men are savages” and see how well that goes.

You seem not to understand. Have you never heard of the concept of a too-broad generalization before? I’m saying “Muslim men are savages” is much too broad a statement. Do you really not see why? You concede that Tarek Fatah is not a savage. Well that means your statement is not true.

Mr X: You do not seem to understand. Should I say that dogs are four legged animals I am correct.
It does not matter a jot that you have three legged dog.

———-

OH MY GOD!!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Anything to declare?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

In Bangladesh, police have arrested three atheist bloggers for “defaming” Islam and Mo. This is at the behest of Islamists who want to impose their bullshit deference on the internet.

The arrest of the three, who were paraded in handcuffs at a news conference, followed pressure from Islamists who have organised a march from all over the country to the capital to demand the death penalty for atheist bloggers.

“They have hurt the religious feelings of the people by writing against different religions and their prophets and founders including the Prophet Mohammed,” said deputy commissioner of Dhaka police, Molla Nazrul Islam.

The three could face 10 years in jail if convicted under the country’s cyber laws which outlaw “defaming” a religion, Islam said.

Well the Islamists have hurt my secular feelings by imposing their baseless beliefs and pathetic slavishness on everyone within their reach.

Home Minister Muhiuddin Khan said the three arrested men were among 84 “atheist bloggers” named in a list handed over by an Islamist group to a government panel probing alleged blasphemy against Islam on the Internet.

“The arrests were made on primary information” and further investigation is underway, Khan said, adding the government would act toughly to prevent any attempt to upset “communal harmony” via the Internet.

Oh yes? Well Islam is a bossy domineering sexually warped abusive misogynist sack of shit. How’s that for blasphemy?

Meanwhile, a group of bloggers protested the overnight arrests of the three men and said their detention meant the government is caving in to pressure from Islamist groups.

“We demand their release. The future of Bangladesh is bleak if the freedom expression of the bloggers is curbed,” Fahmidul Haq, a blogger and Dhaka University professor, said at a news conference.

Haq said the lives of the 84 bloggers who were named in the list prepared by Islamists now were at risk.

Scores of bloggers held hands to form a human chain in Dhaka to protest the arrests while a popular blog site, Amarblog.com, said it was shutting down until the bloggers were freed “unconditionally”.

The Islamists don’t own Bangladesh. Never lose sight of that.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Because it’s too funny to blush unseen in a comment, Anthony K on the coming utopia when we will all pick up the phone, instead.

This is great!

Problem with Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vaxxerism? Give her a ringy-dingy.

Don’t like Pope Francis’ take on condoms, abortion, or same-sex marriage? Call him up and say ‘Ciao’.

Ken Ham’s creationism got you down? Chat him up over coffee.

Unless one subscribes to a Manichean worldview in which there are atheoskeptics to which such friendly benefit-of-the-doubting applies and everybody else to which it doesn’t, these policies spell the end of professional atheoskepticism, ostensibly to be replaced by a massive call centre.

“Hi, Judd Miller? This is Anthony K, calling on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Atheists and Skeptics. Yes, I’m calling in regard to a recent rally you held to preserve the white race from Jewish infiltration? Yes, I’m calling to correct a few misapprehensions you may be holding about Jews—*click*! Damn.  *Dials another number* Hi, Judith Miller, this is Anthony K, calling on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Atheists and Skeptics. Yes, how are you? I’m sorry if I caught you at dinner and over a decade too late, but I wanted to chat with you about how you were wrong with regard to the WMDs—*click*! Damn. *Dials another number* Hello, Gregory Millhearn? Yes, this is Anthony K calling on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Atheists and Skeptics. I understand you wrote a letter to the editor in the Podunk Star Tribune Herald about a link between high voltage power transmission lines and birth defects in the latest litter by your cat mittens? Yes, I’m giving you the courtesy of a telephone call to correct some misinformation…”

But I am curious: if the idea is to protect the church from public embarrassment at all costs, why not just phone up the Vatican and get a copy of their handbook?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Hey guess what the plane flew over yesterday evening?

It was well on in the flight, and the medical emergency was under control, and we’d drunk our orange juice and left Texas behind and the land had turned red and was pretty flattish and empty and a bit dull, and I looked out again and saw a river ahead, and as we got closer I could see gently sloping walls above the river, which is a common sight, but then as we got more closer I started to frown and squint and think “that’s actually a pretty deep canyon…wait a second…wait why couldn’t that be the grand one? How do we know that’s not THE GRAND CANYON?” Just as I thought it the captain came on and said “Hi folks, we’re just approaching an arm of the Grand Canyon.”

W00t! Bucket list. I’ve always wanted to see that. Debbie Goddard and I were just talking about window geekery and wanting to fly over the Grand Canyon, on Saturday. Done!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Secular Woman also has a response to “An Open Letter to the Secular Community.”

Today, the leaders of several prominent secular organizations published a document titled “An Open Letter to the Secular Community.” Our name is not attached, and our members may be wondering why Secular Woman declined to endorse this document. As a secular organization, our mission is to amplify the voice, presence and influence of non-religious women. We recognize that part of our mission takes place in online communities. Although promoting better online communication is a worthy goal, we reject the current statement’s conception of civil discourse because we feel that it gives equal voice to the sexist ideas and beliefs that have been perpetuated as differing “interpretations” of feminism.

So let’s take a look at the open letter.

There’s a section for bullet points saying how to do things better.

• Go offline before going online: pick up the phone.
When you hear that an organization or member of our community is doing something that you think is wrong or bad for the community, call and talk with them, find out what they are actually doing and why they are doing it.  If you don’t have a phone number, send a private email and arrange a time to talk.  So much of the time there’s more to the story, and talking to another person on the other side of the issue can help us more fully understand the situation.  Plus, a phone call makes it easier for people who are making mistakes to change course, because they aren’t on the defensive as they would be after being called out publicly.

I wonder why they say when you “hear that”…Could it be in order to create the impression that hearsay and personal conversation are the only two sources of information? Often we know perfectly well that “an organization or member of our community is doing something that you think is wrong or bad” because it was done in writing, in a public place, and you have read the writing.

So that’s the first thing. It’s not alway gossip; often it’s in writing.

Second thing – if it is in writing, why should we “pick up the phone”? Not to mention the fact that we don’t all know each other personally. If we see a banker or a CEO “doing something that you think is wrong or bad” we don’t “pick up the phone”; we blog or tweet or set up a petition.

This is insider talk, boss talk, top down talk – “heads” talk. “We always have our reasons, little people, so if we do something you don’t like, be sure it’s for a reason, and call us or email us to arrange a chat but don’t ever go public with it, because We know what we’re doing and you are nobody in particular.”

On the other hand – there is this:

Unfortunately, the discussion of these issues has suffered from the same problems that plague online discussion in general—although arguably to a greater extent.  Some blogs and comments actually exhibit hatred, including rape threats and insults denigrating women. Hatred has no place in our movement. We unequivocally and unreservedly condemn those who resort to communicating in such a vile and despicable manner.

So that’s a start.

Update: Rebecca has a post. Dana has a post.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Wow, I’m amazed. I read some bit of promotional/informational bumf about Austin that was part of the hotel room furniture, and goggled at the bit that said Austin is #14 among US cities in population. What?! thought I. That can’t be right. There are too many other bigger cities in the way – Seattle being one.

But you know what? I’m wrong. I have a vague memory of Seattle being at about 17 or 19, but now I think about it that was probably decades ago. Anyway sure enough, as of 2010 (the last census) Austin is at 14; Seattle is at 23.

That still feels surprising. Austin’s downtown is weirdly diffuse, vertical only in spots. It has these shiny new condo towers but they’re all isolated. I went past all the super-tall ones west of Congress Avenue yesterday and they are bizarre – they sprout up in a nowhere-land, as if built after a bombing raid. No shops and fellow condos next door, but empty lots and the back of the power station.

And the airport is tiny. Ok, so I managed to figure that out…Seattle is in a very urbanized county, and maybe Austin isn’t, or maybe SeaTac is a hub and Austin isn’t, or maybe both. Anyway – thus we learn that my talent for seat of the pants demographics-estimation is nil.

I was surprised by a lot of the cities in the top 20. San Antonio! Jacksonville! Indianapolis!! (Indianapolis?! Seriously? How did that happen? Not St Louis or Minneapolis or Cleveland, but Indianapolis. Dang. I had no idea.)

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Also there’s this:

Why the American Secular Census didn’t sign ‘An Open Letter to the Secular Community’

More later, but see what you think in the meantime. (Dang everything was busy while I was busy-elsewhere. How can I catch up if people won’t suspend activity while I’m otherwise engaged?! I ask you.)

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)