The sad fall of Bora Zivkovic

Science geeks know Zivkovic as the head of blogging at Scientific American, as well as being a good sciencce bloger there, and in previous stops, himself. Many know him as the "blogfather," a term of endearment, or more, that he apparently encouraged.

So, too, did many of his charges as young bloggers. Young bloggers who apparently forgot that he was also their boss, and who maybe didn't stop to consider that a "term of endearment" can also be a tool of manipulation. After all, he supposedly is charming, and tries to give that impression on his blog's about page.

And that leads us to the stunning (but not quite shocking) story of problems of the now-former SciAm blogging chief. As in "sexual harassment" problems. Problems alleged my multiple women, which has led to his resigning as the "blogfather."

Several issues here. 

First, though the drinking smartly didn't go too far, in a couple of instances, alcohol at least lowered inhibitions. Per what I blogged about on this issue earlier this week, fortunately, the women in this case recognized the potential peril before getting too much in their cups. (Per that link, and other things, there's a sidebar or two near the bottom of this post.)

Second, on his Twitter feed, Bora says ... he's learning. How much slack do we cut him for being from pre-implosion Yugoslavia? While noting that he's spent the great majority of his adult life in the U.S.?

Not a lot, I'd say. In fact, due to things like him allegedly using the "sexual problems at home" line as a play for sexual sympathy, the "I'm learning," while possibly genuine, possibly is not. I just don't know. Especially if we don't know what he's learning. What he thinks he should learn. Etc.

Third. Bora is a good science writer. I hope he gets a new position. He could be a good mentor of younger science writers. But, I don't know that. As one of his accusers noted, in essence: Did Bora take young women science writers under his wing because he saw their potential, or was he "grooming"?

Fourth, I'm not totally disinterested in at least tangential issues related to this. I think Bora is a good science writer, and a good scientist. As a journalist overall? He buys too blankly into claims of Gnu Media gurus about how traditional journalism is dead without doing his own critical thought. I know that's in part because of where his financial bread is buttered, even though SciAm's ultimate parent owner is one of the largest "old media" companies in the world. But still.

And, while the journalistic ethics problem was at Scientific American the magazine, and not his online blogging stable, he doesn't recognize journalistic ethics problems when they arise. Re teh publication as a whole, there's been journalistic ethics with  an advertorial special section not labeled as such, with him not seeing that as a problem, Or here, a lack of critical thinking on claiming agriculture was invented for beer, and also use of wrong data. (These things go back to my previous paragraph; SciAm as well as Discover seem to be getting more and more social media focused.) I've not seen this spill over into what passes by his blogging radar screen yet, but...

I hope that whatever writing world is in his future, he's "learning" in this area, too.

And, per what else I said, let's hope young female science bloggers, without getting cynical, learn to be more skeptical as needed.

Finally, as promised, sidebars.

Allegedly, that's Atheism Plus darling Rebecca Watson
at left. (Link of photo implies no consent to all content.)

First sidebar. Bora, on his own Facebook timeline, recently had a picture of him with notorious Atheism Pluser/nth-wave feminist or something Rebecca Watson. (It's my blog, and I get to say "notorious" instead of "relatively well known" or anything else.) Given that, per what I mentioned above about a blog post of mine, a blog post on women being careful about drinking situations, and other things, like allegations of Bora's hug-friendliness, this picture has massive new irony levels.

(Since Bora's FB feed is not set to "public," even though I downloaded the pic, I can't post it here, as I describe in another blog post of mine about my stance on online privacy issues. So far, a brief Google Images search hasn't turned it up on a public venue.) 

Anyway, back to the irony of said picture, which was at a public "con" of some sort, one of the movement skepticism conferences or something.

That includes the fact that Watson herself has been accused of Sarah Palin-type winks, of having her own problems with drinking and intimate behavior, per the photo, and more. (There's another graphic, a screen capture of Watson's comments over the years about drinking and manipulativeness, at the blog link. And more on Gnu Atheism and the Atheism Plus submovement within it's issues on drinking and manipulativeness here.

That leads to sidebar two. And here, it's even clearer there are other dynamics at play among the nth-wave feminist crowd et al. Zvan rightfully notes, in the motorboat wake of this, that harassment can be done by women, too (I'm shocked to hear that out of her mouth) but, then goes on to do what is arguably "slut shaming." She'd surely call it that if someone else did it. It's also possibly a form of online bullying to keep non nth-ers in line. 

And, that leads to another "sad" observation. What Bora did was sad. What certain people are doing to "appropriate" that issue is at least equally sad.

To sum up:
1. I want more women science writers;
2. I want sexual harassment, manipulation, etc. of women to stop;
3. I want women to accept responsibility for what they can do in the way of "harm reduction" or whatever;
4. I want Bora to learn from this, to help No. 1, to help fight No. 2, and also, to become a better science blogger in terms of promoting better science content;
5. And, I want nth-wave feminists to stop acting like they have the final word on these issues. 

I also want Bora's replacement at SciAm to become a better promoter of better science content. A good one-third of blogging there in the past year or two has seemed like little more than social media oriented clickbait.

Abbott sued Obama, went home, and lost 2 out of 3

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has said he perceives his job as attorney general thusly:

During his tenure as Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott has developed a bit of a routine: "I go into the office," he told a GOP audience in San Angelo in Februrary, "I sue Barack Obama, and then I go home." It's a line he uses in virtually every speech he gives and it has the benefit of being basically true.

Doesn't like to talk about all the times he LOSES those suits.

Why? Because it happens a lot.

As in, it's happened again.

The Supreme Court has rejected hearing two of three lawsuits Texas, and other states, had filed against the Environmental Protection Agency over greenhouse gas emissions regulation:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Texas' challenge of federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources like power plants and factories, the court announced Tuesday. But it declined to hear the state's appeals of two other decisions, effectively upholding rules that limit such emissions from vehicles and maintaining the Environmental Protection Agency's assertion that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

Team Abbott and polluting deep pockets are trying to spin this as a "win." Even though it's clearly not:

David Spence, a professor of law and business at the University of Texas at Austin, said it wasn't likely that the Supreme Court would forbid the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources altogether. But the justices could say it must do so based on different standards, threatening the years of work that have gone into proposing the current rules for limiting emissions from power plants and other facilities.

"The worst that could happen is they make EPA go back and do things again," Spence said.

That said, this isn't new from our state's money-waster in chief (and Ted Cruz spawner).

Abbott lost some of this at appellete level back in July. This is his suit over the EPA taking over TCEQ's pollution permitting because the state simply refused to do any real regulating. This was lost at the D.C. Court of Appeals, and there's no chance SCOTUS will even want to hear it, let alone reverse. And yet, Texas' Head.Legal.Moron is talking about appealing.

Here's comment showing that Abbott isn't alone, or even close to it, in today's Texas GOP.:

Bryan Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, who has fiercely opposed the EPA’s rules, said it was ”remarkable” that the courts have repeatedly denied the state’s appeals. 

In response to the latest Circuit Court decision, Shaw issued a statement that claimed that ”the EPA has effectively re-written the Clean Air Act to impose its new standards, imposed severely restrictive timelines on the states to implement its new requirements, and then twisted the act to immediately impose its agenda on Texas.” 

No, what's "remarkable" is that you're dumb enough to believe this was winnable. And, the only re-writing has been done by your agency. What's more remarkable is that you and Suer-in-Chief aren't just dumb, you're childishly stubborn enough to hold y our breath and refuse to get this.

Once the appellate court slapped you down, you refused to take "no" for an answer. This is the same attitude that Cruz took to Washington.

And, this is an opening for Wendy Davis. Lets her come off as a fiscal conservative, someone who won't waste state money.

So, when will she start talking about it? I mean, we have to be talking about several million dollars.

Update, June 24, 2014: He's now lost to the EPA on greenhouse gas regulations, too.

#UK #UMass #Memphis hoops fans: A #Calipari joke for you

What's the difference between a calamari and a (John) Calipari?

One is tasty, inoffensive and has tentacles.

The other?

Has tentacles.

(rim shot)

Hey, don't blame me! The NCAA already said that twice.

Yeah, I know, "not personally implicated."

Anyway ...

Rock. Chalk. Jayhawk!

I know, I know. The University of Calipari is No. 1 in preseason polling, but, let's see.

Debt deal revitalizes the Catfood Commission; nothing "clean" here

Or, some sort of surrogate for it.

As part of the deal on the Senate's bill that ended the federal government shutdown and pushed back the debt ceiling limit, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed to fast track discussions on  what sure sounds like it will lead to "entitlement reforms:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor Wednesday that under his agreement with Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, the two leaders would name members to a bicameral budget conference committee “that will set our country on a long-term path to fiscal sustainability.” ...

The ultimate deal may end up looking like the one that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., proposed last week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: “We could provide relief from the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act in exchange for structural reforms to entitlement programs.”

So, while the Democratic Party may have gotten a "clean" win in yesterday's votes, we the non-neoliberal people did not. Cue up the Catfood Commission theme music.

And, it will be harder for non-neoliberals to slow this down in the Senate:

“Probably the most important part of budget reconciliation is that a reconciliation bill can approve policy reforms with only 51 votes in the Senate,” said Loren Adler, the research director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. This fast-track process “could be critical in increasing the chances for tax reform” and reform of entitlement programs to succeed.

Wunderbar. 

That's even though the Gipper himself knew that entitlements (theoretically, per Al Gore's "lockbox") weren't connected to the deficit:



Beyond that, some economists say the deficit is being reduced too quickly right now.

Once more, second-guessing Cardinals and Matheny on Shelby Miller, and Mattingly on lefties

Oct 21: OK, somebody's now lying in St. Louis. The claim that Shelby Miller isn't under an innings limit has to be seen as bogus.

Cardinals officials have said that Miller, 23, is not in danger of eclipsing any innings limit they placed on his young shoulder and that he is not injured.

Uhh, yeah. right.

Yes, Lance Lynn won game 4 against the Dodgers, contra my desire to see Shelby Miller. That doesn't negate the issue of what the heck is Miller then doing on the roster at all, if the innings count is a real worry?

I mean, the Cards themselves discussed it this year, per Derrick Gould. at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which means, as manager has shown, like Stephen Strasburg, there was apparently some sort of "shutdown" talk, even if the Cards, unlike the Nationals, didn't do this loudly and publicly.. And, at 173.1, he's near that top edge of 180.

Assuming Miller is THAT gassed or the arm is that much of a worry, even if Cards' management said the innings limit was "flexible," then we're at more second-guessing in Game 5. Mike Matheny could have pinch-hit for Kelly in the top of the 5th — IF Miller were available for long relief. But, he apparently ain't. So, again, why's he on the roster? Even if you didn't want to start Jake Westbrook in Game 4, he still would have been available for long relief as needed.

I won't second-guess Matheny as much for pitching Edward Mujica, and to four batters, too. But, I will second-guess to the degree this demonstrates Miller is more than "gassed," basically. Again, pull him off the roster. (Hopefully, we get to the World Series and you finally realize you're fooling nobody.) And, given the Cards' nice but falling-short rally in the ninth, second guessing is in order, at some level.

At the same time, this is another opportunity to second-guess Don Mattingly, too. Knowing that the Cards have struggled against lefties all year, why is J.P. Howell the only lefty reliever on the Dodger roster this round?

Paco Rodriguez did a good job in limited opportunity this year as a reliever. Why ain't he there?

Meanwhile, with Game 5 in the Dodger bag, yes, the Cards could blow a 3-1 LCS lead the second year in a row.  True, the Birds have the pleasantly astounding Michael Wacha for Game 6 and Adam Wainwright for Game 7 if needed.

On the other hand, the Dodgers bring up Clayton Kershaw — not just the likely National League Cy Young winner, but a lefty — in Game 6. Followed by Hyun-jin Ryu, winner of Game 3, and a lefty, in Game 7 if we go there.

So, while I hope the Cards can win on Friday, or on Saturday, if not, none of this is in the bag.

#PZ, #FTB, #GnuAtheism, booze, assault, and privilege

Update, Oct. 16: At Slate, Emily Yoffe absolutely nails this issue of how young women need to take responsibility and stop getting so drunk in the first place, as part of reducing sexual assault.

And, before Gnus and Atheism Plusers flame me (or others, or Yoffe) here, on Twitter, or elsewhere, she has all the disclaimers about not blaming the victim, etc. She notes what I've said in other links, namely that:

1. Women metabolize alcohol differently and get drunk faster than men;
2. College sexual assaults usually aren't by strangers, but fellow students;

And goes beyond that to note:

1. Yes means yes and no means no aside, there's no bright line on how drunk is too drunk to influence consent;
2. A rape reported by someone who was drunk is harder to prosecute, for obvious memory reasons;
3. Rohypnol or other "spiking" of drinks isn't the problem; it's women getting this drunk, whether encouraged by a predatory male, as part of a party where both men and women drink to the point of loss of control, or a bit of both.

So, click the link and read, please.

Because, as expected, a possible nth-wave feminist has now done the flaming, on Talking Points Memo (ugh), with me saying she's a possible nth-wave feminist by a look at her blog. Or that she writes that everyday gender inequality could cause the next war. Or, the name of that just-linked URL.
 

That said, to my original post:

There's two types of drunkenness: Literal and metaphorical.

And, good critical thinkers, whether they prefer the term "skeptic" for themselves, are fine with "critical thinker," or something else, should be wary of both.

However, in the latest brouhaha over actual or alleged sexual assault, sexual harassment, and/or general sexism launched by the clique and claque, or rather, cadre of Gnu Atheism (since P.Z. Myers, the grand poohbah of Gnu Atheism outrage on the march, prefers that term, which went out of date with Chairman Mao), it appears we have both in play.

P.Z. upped the ante on this by throwing out what he called a live hand grenade.

Well, the title of his blog post is disingenuous as best.

And, it's strange how that word, in the "spirit of charity," keeps coming up.

He says: "What Do You Do When Someone Pulls the Pin and Hands You a Grenade?"

Well, first, one asks if it's a real grenade, and a live one.

P.Z. would tut-tut back, in the War on Terra "ticking time bomb" converted to Gnu Atheism, "there's no time for that!"

Well, then one asks, or should ask, if one is a critical thinker and has a modicum of self-reflectiveness do you have the right metaphor?

Probably not. Especially when you double down on anonymity.

Here's why, from Der Gruppenführer's own words:

It’s been a few years, so no law agency is going to do anything about it now; she reported it to an organization at the time, and it was dismissed. Swept under the rug. Ignored. I can imagine her sense of futility. She’s also afraid that the person who assaulted her before could try to hurt her again.

We're not told why it was dismissed. We're not told why this person didn't go to legal officials, and I'm going to tackle that more in a minute.

What does this sound like, though? Oh, maybe the National Enquirer, as Al Stefanelli reminds us that the potential libel not only applies to the overarching claim, but details of how it allegedly happened. Don't worry, PZ; Ophelia Benson, of the lovely Butterflies and Bull--, has your back. (And, if he's right about PZ doing this in part for blog hits, Do Not Follow is a simple way to stop that.)

And now, Shermer's lawyer's thrown the grenade back. And, PZ's gone scrambling to PopeHat lead blogger Ken White for possible legal protection, even though White agrees with many others and thinks PZ is a fundamentalist atheist moron.

(Update, Aug. 20: Greta Christina gives me another laugh-my-ass off moment, claiming this is NOT an "anonymous complaint," then implies that PZ is Woodward and Bernstein! This ignores that Woodward, at least, eventually became a whore to power and was worried about Mark Felt coming out as Deep Throat in part because of how much potential he had to show how Woodward, or Woodstein, "skated the edge" on truthfulness in details, and occasionally in big picture, at times.)

Given the whole situation, to be honest? I hope PZ's wrong, and Shermer sues his ass off. He's being disingenuous about having "no choice." Maybe we'll get about 10-20 dueling suits and countersuits over these allegations before we're all done.

Unfortunately, Shermer's lawyer, in throwing the grenade back, seems to have kind of neutered it first. The likelihood of an actual suit is slim at this point. Of course, it's arguable Shermer has more to lose by suing than he does by accepting any legalistically narrow apology.

But, there's now a legal fund for Shermer! Set up by an outside party, but Shermer knows and approves.

And, if he follows through with a suit, the fact that PZ did multiple rewrites could blow up in his face, essentially leaving him testifying against himself.

In essence, it's like the Gnu Atheists are drunk on power. Mix in one apparently legitimate claim about sexual harassment and now, any years-old claim is fair game.

But, the booze of inflated self-empowerment is not all that's at stake here.

Allegedly, that's Atheism Plus darling Rebecca Watson
at left. (Link of photo implies no consent to all content.)

There's the literal booze, too. Indeed, it appears that the Atheism Plusers may actually have no problems drinking to excess at various cons, then, possibly (who knows) leaving it to others in attendance to make judgments if their flirting or worse means anything, if they've had too much to drink to give consent to sexual activity or not, and more.

In short, reverse victimization.

With that said, just as this post expanded off a previous one, and because my initial contretemps with Stephanie Zvan started over the apparently alcohol-fueled sexual interaction between Julian Assange and two women in Sweden, with that case being closed then re-opened, it's about time to start a new blog post off of this one.

With that in mind, let's note that many of the current over the transom allegations include drinking to near, or well past, excess.

And, here's the ultimate. I didn't know that Atheism Plus women were so physically or mentally weak. Apparently, they're incapable of refraining from drinking more alcohol if some man pours it in a glass.

So, let's put it simply.
 

If you're starting to get drunk, and about to enter a "situation,"  fucking drinking for the night. And watch your future consumption. Any good skeptic, critical thinker or intelligent person by another name should know this. And should know, per Assange's case and more, that booze always adds to the "he said, she said" issue on assault claims, because ...

If you've had too much, you can't fucking remember. You can't remember whether a "yes" eventually became a "no" or you're backwardly projecting a regret. Or, in cases of alcohol and sex, just like alcohol and drunk driving, if it does lead to something potentially criminal, then there's sidebar issues of trying to minimize how much you drank to try to spiffy up how reliable your memory should be regarded.

And, this is not a "blame the woman" issue, namely that one issue involves no women and no straight sexuality. It applies to straight women, gay women, straight men and gay men. (Although I'm sure any thinking along this line IS considered "blame the victim" at Freethought Blogs.)

Beyond that, there's sociological research that indicates women tend to underestimate the effects booze will have on lowering their sexual impulse control and leading to casual sex. 

And, then, watch this video.



Start at about the 12-minute mark, where a college woman has drunk but consensual sex with a man. She then goes back to her place, texts him to ask if he has a condom, then goes back and has more sex, despite attempts of friends to stop her. She then "cried wolf" the next day claiming lack of memory. The college eventually took no action, saying, in essence, she was too drunk to even know at the time whether or not she was in a state of being able to consent, and the man was too drunk to know that she was that drunk. Tavris goes on to note that the type of feminism that, even in the light of text messages, undercut the claim of "I couldn't help stop drinking," is not the type of feminism she believes in.
I also noted the issue of "why didn't this person go to legal officials?"

First, someone may object that harassment, unlike assault, is not a crime. Not true.

Laws, and the details of them, vary from state to state, but harassment can indeed be a crime, and even before it rises to the level of stalking. (And, since Stephanie Zvan's falsely accused me of that, let me state that as a newspaper editor, I have some actual knowledge of the issue.)

Beyond that, harassment is certainly a matter of civil tort lawsuit.

And, that leads me to the nth-wave feminism of Zvan, Greta Christina, and others like them, most of them under a new movement of Atheism Plus, who felt that good old Gnu Atheism wasn't confrontational enough on enough different issues.

If you're about actually self-empowering women, then why aren't you, instead of making semi-anonymous to fully anonymous allegations over the transom, encouraging any actually harassed women to sue? And certainly, why aren't you encouraging them to file criminal charges if possible?

And, all of this applies in spades to sexual assault.

Women's first step has to be reporting sexual assaults to the police. If we're going to talk about female empowerment, in the case of sexual assault, society's first step has to be supporting them doing that, not being brave about anonymous allegations being made in public.

Meanwhile, let's note that not all sexual harassment, or sexual assault is by a man on a woman. The reverse is the minority, but women do harass or even assault men, both sexually and otherwise. Of course, a Greta Christina doesn't want to talk about this, but I can't say that, because I'm blocked on her blog.

There's also gay and lesbian assault and harassment.

As a newspaper editor, I have reported, off police report and arrest lists, women assaulting men. (I'm now talking non-sexual physical assault.) Yes, it's still a lot less common than men assaulting women, but it does happen. The idea, let alone spoken claim, that women can never do such things is more than "reverse sexism," It's simply sexism, period, and like all sexism, perpetuates stereotypes about both sexes, not just one.

Beyond that is the Manichean issue. You either fully accept the nth-wave feminist stance or you're an enemy. And, wirth anybody who dares present a more nuanced picture, they're labeled as men's righters or worse.

That's not to say that such people aren't out there, and it's certainly not to condone them. However, it's not fair to lump everybody in such a group.

But, when you're drunk on trying to claim scalps, you don't care about fairness.

Meanwhile, I'm beginning to think nobody there has a conception of what libel is, in its actual legal sense. I thought Ed Brayton knew better, but he either doesn't, or, as he showed with Block Bot, doesn't care.

And, should a Michael Shermer or anybody else ever sue, Ed, you'd be liable, because in the past, you promised more top-down control.

And, for a blog site that was explicitly formed in part for commercial reasons, that's not a good attitude to have.

That said?

As I said above, none of this is a "blame the woman" issue, namely that one issue involves no women and no straight sexuality. First, drinking aside, it applies to straight women, gay women, straight men and gay men. And yes, straight men vis-a-vis gay women can be, if in the minority of the times, harassed, propositioned, and more.

That said, nth-wave feminists and Atheist Plusers like to trot out the word "privilege." As in white males have a "privilege" that, in today's world, means their stances and statements deserve an extra level of scrutiny.

To that I say: Check your own "privilege" in calling "privilege"; your mileage may vary. Overuse of this word is like sticking your fingers in your ears. It's also often invoked in defense of privilege itself.

That includes:
1. the suggestion that your statements are worthy of a lower standard of scrutiny — unskeptical;
2. The suggestion that questioning No. 1, or whether you are exercising privilege yourself is antifeminist — unskeptical
3. The suggestion that the degree of broader support for your claim should not be questioned — unskeptical.

Back to the privilege issue. This is where privilege conflicts with privilege at times.

And, as far as getting fucking drunk? As I said, that's metaphorical as well as literal. That includes not getting drunk on power trips. And, overuse of the word "privilege" has the potential to become one of those.

None of this is to suggest that legitimate problems don't deserve legitimate investigation.

But this is ridiculous.

At the same time, to look at the accused? If you have been disciplined for harassment, or assault, and you claim that things are being overstated? All you have to do is give the present or previous employer a legal waiver to open the files.

True, that risk a further escalation of s/he said, s/he said. But, if what you did is relatively not that bad compared to the allegations, it seems like a fairly low risk.

That also said, in the future, if you have even one ounce of bad record in the past, and it occurred due to one reason?

I suggest to you, too:

Stop getting fucking drunk!

I mean, use common sense, everybody.

You're jet-lagged, up late, and eating crappy or overly rich conventioneering food, since a lot of these incidents, if one-offs, appear to be at a "con." So, you're tired, loggy, and alcohol-vulnerable anyway.

It's called Coke Zero. Or iced tea. Or plain old water. Give it a shot.

And, this isn't something new. Secular Organizations for Sobriety, the first organized non-12-step alternative to AA, is under CFI's wing. It has, or did at the time of this, non-alcoholic as well as alcoholic board members. Well, at one annual meeting, there was enough wine on the table that it's likely at least one non-alcoholic (putatively) surely got tipsy.

Per my first pull quote, being a skeptic, or an atheist, also is no guarantor that you won't become a full-on alcoholic, or at least, an alcohol abuser in the borderlands. Nor, per halo effects and whatnot, will it guarantee that, if you have a drinking problem, you won't go into denial about it.

Next, to look at the defenders of the institutions involved? Is it just possible that there's at least some fire behind the smoke? Hell, yes. Neither CFI or JREF, nor their founders James Randi and Paul Kurtz, are anywhere near immune from the halo effect, founder's syndrome, or other issues. In fact, both Randi and Kurtz have personally illustrated that.

I'm sorry, but, while I see Gnu Atheists in general and Atheist Plusers in particular as nutbars, and fundamentalist-like ones, nonetheless, there's issues of "tolerance" of such things in the past in both organizations. And, with Randi with Carlos and Kurtz with Al Seckel, there's non-sexuality issues of less than critical thinking, and less than critical-thinking fueled behavior.

As I said earlier this week, I have no doubt CFI needs to clean house in some way. JREF probably does too.

Finally, a thought or two otherwise, as I get ready to detach from this all again.

Gnu Atheism, Atheism Plus, Professional Skepticism, and many individual participants? Are we all getting a bit puffed up, not so much over this issue per se, or not only it, but alleged societal importance and many other things?

(Hell, for that matter, I probably puff up how astounding my insights are and how much anybody is going to listen to them.)

I came to both atheism and skepticism without the help of any outside group, or any conventions. I also came to more liberal and humanistic political thought the same way. I accept that skeptical groups, and atheist ones, have had some value in things like battling creationism in public schools, where a concerted effort has been needed.

But, organized atheism's probably changed very little otherwise, and organized skepticism hasn't done a lot more.

And, deliberately using a sexual word in an acceptable metaphorical way: Isn't there some incestuousness in all of this?