by baldilocks

Yesterday at Hot Air, John Sexton posted a piece about a radio station’s cancellation of an appearance by public atheist Richard Dawkins. The station’s reason? They say they don’t support “hurtful/abusive speech” and are unwilling to give it a platform. Hurtful/abusive speech, in this case, is code for speech critical of Islam, which Dawkins has been offering of late.

His response to the cancellation:

I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?

I think we all know the answer to Dawkins’ rhetorical questions but this is a much more complicated situation than mere fear on the part of the broadcasters in question.

Sexton and others have referred to the radio station—KPFA—as a ‘Berkeley station.’ But that isn’t quite an accurate description of the station’s foundational aspects. Yes, it has always been located in Berkeley, but it isn’t a stand-alone station. It’s part of the Pacifica Foundation created in 1949 by pacifist Lewis Hill and is part of the foundation’s radio network.

Stations included in the network are KPFA, KPFB in San Francisco, KPFK in Los Angeles, WPFW in Washington D.C., WBAI in New York City, and KPFT in Houston. There are also dozens of affiliate and affiliate translator stations.

In short, Pacifica’s KPFA is the flagship of a fairly old progressive institution.

(Personal note: in the nineties, when I was a community college student, one of my professors advised us to listen to KPFK in order to hone our critical thinking skills. I took that advice and listened for years afterward. The professor’s advice was very useful, but probably not in the way that he intended. Listening to KPFK helped me discover that I was not a Leftist.)

Pacifica’s stations bill themselves as independently-operated by local broadcasters and as listener-sponsored. Both are true, but that last part is only half-true. These stations receive grants from sources like the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Institute and…the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. From the latter’s website:

CPB is a private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

CPB is the steward of the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting and the largest single source of funding for public radio, television, and related online and mobile services.

CPB’s mission is to ensure universal access to non-commercial, high-quality content and telecommunications services. It does so by distributing more than 70% of its funding to nearly 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations.

Emphasis mine.

(From what I recall of KPFK’s fund drives, the size of the grants depend on the size of the haul each station takes in during its fund drives.)

In other words, Pacifica stations are funded by voluntary donations from supporters, big-time left-leaning, one worlder foundations, and involuntary “donations” from American taxpayers – none of which has prevented the overarching Pacifica Foundation from having financial and personnel drama throughout its existence, but there you go.

Back to the Dawkins controversy: it’s clear why his appearance was cancelled. Oh, sure, Pacifica is afraid of getting blown up, but it’s more than that. Islam is the new Darling of the Left;  all the old flames: blacks, Spanish-speakers, women, homosexuals…and atheists…have been kicked to the curb and the new Darling must be protected at all costs.

And, to, once again, step out on the predict-the-future limb, the Organized Left is preparing for the day when Christ’s earthly Church here in America will be under the type of persecution similar to that of our brothers and sisters in the Middle East.

The Organized Left is merely picking a side, once again.

And, kudos to Dawkins for his lack of hypocrisy and for his bravery.

(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)

FORGOT TO ADD THIS:  Here’s a very interesting link about the life of Lewis Hill and the upbringing of his baby, Pacifica.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

UPDATE DTG: This story dovetales perfectly with a series of posts of mine from which concludes The common thread of the left is the destruction of Judeo Christian culture, standards belief and If you start from that position it all makes perfect sense.

Update 2: Instalance Thanks Glenn, well done Juliette


This blog is a venture in capitalism. If you like the work Juliette and our other Magnificent Seven writers do you can help finance them by picking up my new book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) prayer now available at Amazon

A portion of every sale will go to WQPH 89.3 Catholic Radio) or show your approval by Hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

and if you really want to help for the long term consider subscribing and get my book as a premium


Choose a Subscription level



And as I’ve said if you can’t spare the money I’ll happily accept your prayers.

Leonard: Should we talk to some of these women?

Howard: It’s way too early in the night for that. See, first we let the lawyers and the jocks thin the herd, and then we go after the weak and the old and the lame.

The Big Bang Theory The Hofstadter Isotope 2009

Janine Davis: Well, according to Ms. Jensen, you said that she was a slave to her biological urges and called her an egg salad sandwich. I don’t even know what that means, but I’m gonna go ahead and tell you you can’t say it.

Sheldon: Oh! I see the confusion here. No, no, Alex thought I was singling her out. No. I meant that all women are slaves to their biological urges, you know? Even you. You’re a slave.

The Big Bang Theory, The Egg Salad Equivalency 2013.

Ever since Erick Erickson wrote these comments

I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom, is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture. It’s the female who tames the male beast. One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer.

I’ve had this post in my dying to get out but a lot of things got in the way, but now that we have this story from Robert Stacy McCain that he had some fun with along with this post by PZ Myers (who usually doesn’t get a link from me) both talking about a man who is…

deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and a Research Fellow with the non-profit educational organization the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry,”

Now if these posts are correct I can certainly understand the complaints and the reactions about this fellow who is apparently …

“a predator who collects girls … [who] are chubby, shy, lonely, and insecure.”

He sounds like a regular pre-Bernadette Howard Wolowitz

Howard: You can modify it to calculate our chances of having sex by changing the formula to use the number of single women in Los Angeles, the number of those who might find us attractive, and what I call the Wolowitz Coefficient.

Raj: The Wolowitz Coefficient?

Howard: Neediness times dress size squared.

but while all these Big Bang Theory quotes are fun it leads to an interesting question.

As a Roman Catholic I can certainly see why this man’s behavior is not right. If I was the husband of Karen Stoltznow I might be inclined to rash action as would, hopefully any husband with character.

What I don’t understand are the objections from the atheist/skeptic community to this behavior.

I can hear the shouts now: “DaTechGuy, that’s an offensive remark!  Are you suggesting that the atheist/skeptic community has no standards of behavior?”

That sounds like a fair point, after all the atheist/skeptics I know are people who have proper standards of behavior that to a large degree would be indistinguishable from a religious person. You’d like them…

…but hear me out:

We have been told for many years that man is simply just another animal, not created in the image of God with a soul and an eternal destiny that we can either embrace or reject.

If this is true, if man is just an evolved creature, than the way people such as the “gentleman” in question are simply the end result of the current evolutionary process and any attempt to change or modify it is simply unnatural because this is just how humanity has evolved.

So if men deforest an area for wealth or hunt species to extinction, if a man gathers wealth to the deterrent of others, beat or rob a person to obtain their possessions. If a married man decides to go off and get laid at a conference or Amanda Bynes decides on self-destructive behavior, if humanity makes war on each other all of these are perfectly natural evolved behaviors.

It’s what humans DO.

To question this fellow atheistic skeptic decision to use his position to attempt to score on vulnerable women as “wrong”, or “inappropriate” or “unnatural” is just like being Rick Warren making the case against Gay Marriage:

I’m naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. And why should I reign in my natural impulses? And you say well because I have natural impulses toward the same sex I shouldn’t have to reign them in. Well I disagree.

How DARE you impose a cultural paradigm on this natural evolutionary behavior

So while I as a Christian gentleman can certainly understand the objections Ms. Stollznow and can see why Rebecca Watson might give this advice to men at atheist conferences:

[Women complained to Watson they didn’t want to attend atheist events] because they felt uncomfortable in a room full of men. They told me about how they were hit on constantly and it drove them away. I didn’t fully get it at the time, because I didn’t mind getting hit on. But I acknowledged their right to feel that way and I started suggesting to the men that maybe they relax a little and not try to get in the pants of every woman who walks through the door. Maybe they could wait for her to make the first move, just in case.

I don’t see why THEY as believers in evolution and skeptics should object if such conferences are:

a Sausage Festival, and atheist guys are lonely desperate creeps with poor social skills whose only interest in women is sexual.

After all humanity in general and males in particular have evolved this way and if you object you must simply an anti-science religious fanatic trying to impose your own version of how mankind sorry humankind should be on the world.

Isn’t “predator who collects girls” a natural step in our Evolutionary Path? As Lady Gaga sang

Don’t hide yourself in regret
Just love yourself and you’re set
I’m on the right track, baby
I was born this way

Or am I missing something?

*********************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

The weekly paycheck sits at $72 a full $233 shy of my $305 goal.

Now this post is very late by my standards as I hit the sack much later than normal and crashed on the couch when I got home.

Hopefully it is not enough to dissuade you from considering kicking in to this week’s paycheck. I’m a solid dozen $20 tip jar hits away from that paycheck to keep the mortgage paid.

Be part of that dozen hit datipjar below.

.

Warner Todd Huston has an interesting article that I’d like to say caught me by surprise:

Isn’t Islam just as “dangerous” to the world as Christianity in these Atheist’s minds? It has to be for them to be consistent.

Yet, again. Here they are. Supporting a religion.

Ah, but what is the main difference here? Isn’t it obvious? Islam is the PC favored ideology, the one the far left has invested its energies into protecting and militant atheists have joined the left’s gambit in the hopes that Christianity can be further undermined. Because, after all, militant atheists have only one enemy: Christianity.

Not being an Atheist I don’t know what Atheists think. The one’s I’ve met have not had much good to say about Islam, but it’s my thought that a lot of the most prominent Atheists come from Christian culture and are naturally more hostile to what they are rebelling against.

Or it could also be a question of fear of Islam, a-la south park and Molly Norris, but I’ll let my atheist readers comment one way or the other.