Becky Wegner Rommel’s other videos:

So……like I said:

After her weird, weep/screaming rant went “viral” (and she became “Internet-Famous”), Becky tried to scrub her online presence.

That never works — especially if you link all of your “online” activities together.  Actually, it doesn’t even work THEN, because you’re pretty much guaranteed that stuff will not stay “gone”, even if you delete the original copies/post.

That’s right: the stuff will inevitably be “mirrored” — whether via screen–captures, re-uploading the “offending” content itself, or whatever.  Quite frankly (unless Becky can figure out how to release the DMCA-hounds on literally everyone with an Internet connection, on the entire planet, she will NEVER be able to live that video down.

Same goes for the (equally weepy and incoherent) video she filmed in her car, during a thunderstorm.  Same goes for the (equally weepy and incoherent) anti-addiction video involving the dead mouse in the box-trap.

The horrifying thing is: Becky seems to be both:

  1. (Comparatively) harmless
  2. Barely hanging by a thread (psychologically-speaking)

There’s something genuinely worrisome about the fact that the three remaining videos all culminate in the same sort of weep/screaming meltdowns.  This isn’t just religious “zeal” — there is a genuinely desperate and tortured quality to her.  The fact that she gets emotionally overwrought to the point where she can barely speak coherently indicates that there is something severely “off”.

The horrifying thing is: nobody gives a shit.  The fact that she went all “Chris Crocker” (Leave Britney alooooooone!) was enough to provoke the “feeding-frenzy”.   the “comment” section on her three remaining Youtube videos have turned into just about what you’d expect — Becky pretending to herself that her status as a laughing-stock is the equivalent of being thrown to the lions, etc.

I honestly feel bad for her.   The sheer number of “reaction” videos/impersonations (by drag-queens and others) etc. is……unfortunate.  To be honest, a fair amount of  that verges dangerously close to “cyber-bullying”.

(To be fair: she cast the first stone…..so she shouldn’t whine about the “blow-back”.

But, still…   None of us know that much of her “back-story”.  I don’t know if she (like Tammy Faye Baker) grew up in some weird “Fundie” subculture or other (although she does drop some hints during the “addiction” video about her family situation having been pretty horrible).

I DO get the feeling that she probably didn’t think her weep/screaming meltdown would go “viral”, and turn her into a Drag-queen’s dream.

This is why I don’t use the acronym “IRL” (“In Real Life”): EVERYTHING happens in “real life” — including your “online” presence.

Having said that, there are a few things she could do by way of “damage-control”:

  1. Stop attempting to “engage” with people via the “Comments” section on Youtube.
  2. Disable comments on her videos.
  3. Upload a more coherent and reasonable explanation of her “beliefs”, without all the confronational “I don’t care whether you like me or not!” snark and condescension.

I’m actually surprised that 4chan/”Anonymous” etc. haven’t declared her to be a “LOLcow”, and “swarmed” her.   They do that, fairly frequently.

 

Becky Wegner Rommel: “Christian” time-bomb

Occasionally, I get to rummaging around on Youtube for various reasons.

Youtube is truly amazing.  In among genuinely useful/valuable/informative resources, there is vast amounts of — stuff like THIS:

This woman is Becky Wegner Rommel, and quite frankly, she has managed to single-handedly to more to drive people away from Christianity than Richard Dawkins could ever hope for.

Several reasons:

  1. She’s hypocritical:   I find it amusing when “Christians” invoke “Old Testament” prohibitions (for example, whichever parts of Leviticus they want to cherry-pick, while ignoring the rest).I’m pretty sure Miss Wegner Rommel does not attempt to follow Kashrut (the “kosher” dietary laws).   Nor does she give two liquidy shits about the prohibition against tattooing (at least judged by the following photo🙂

Now, here’s the thing: Arguably, she could just hand-wave the above objections away by invoking “Supersessionism” — the (convenient) Christian doctrinal position which states that the 613 mitzvot are “no longer binding”, due to the “atoning blood” etc.

I say this is “convenient” because it — at least superficially — contradicts Matt. 5:18 (“not one jot or tittle”….etc.)

So, yeah:  Becky is a hypocritical weirdo weep-screaming into at her cell-phone, who manages to be completely ignorant of her own “beliefs”.

That would be bad enough.

The problem is: she’s a die-hard fan of Joyce Meyer

Now, I have no problem with Joyce Meyer.  However, some people do, given that “literalists” typically cherry-pick stuff like THIS so as to not have to bother rationally arguing against female clergy.

Remember, folks: Joyce Meyer is not merely some “submissive Christian woman” writing “motivational” fluff for housewives.  Instead, she has authored a bunch of books, and has what can only rationally be described as a television ministry.

Now, don’t get me wrong:  I don’t give a shit about any of that.   I don’t give a shit how many tattoos Becky has.  Nor do I give a shit about whether or not Becky ate bacon and drank a glass of milk at breakfast.

I DO give a shit about a (mentally ill?) woman who claims to be a “Christian” who would obviously rather weep/scream garbled bullshit at the world-at-large, instead of working on her own bullshit, first:

 

Matthew 7:5: You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Quite frankly, Becky Wegner Rommel (and others like her) exemplify exactly the kind of batshit insane, hypocritical idiocy which makes Christianity look stupid.

I mean, seriously: this chick is Dana Carvey’s “church lady” character, incarnate.

Of course, this woman (who has attempted — clumsily — to “scrub” her online presence by deleting videos — which never works, by the way) ALSO has a Youtube video where she gets “emotional” over a dead mouse in a box-trap, because she reads idiosyncratic symbolism relating to “addictions” into it.

This woman obviously has serious problems.   Tragically, her half-assed stab at theocracy backfired.

To be honest, I respect Pamela Raintree infinitely more than I will ever respect someone like Becky Wegner Rommel.  Pamela Raintree is a “transwoman” who faced down  an anti-LGBT legislator in Louisiana, by bringing a stone to a public hearing, and flat-out DARING him to stone her to death.  (Hint: he failed to do so, AND withdrew the bill).

Seriously:  whatever you claim to “believe” on LGBT (or any other) topics: isn’t it  infinitely more important to work on your own bullshit, first, rather than going all “Westboro Baptist” on everybody else?

 

Odd experiences are odd:

Some while back, I happened to mention to some friends, that I personally find the “snake-handler” variants of “Fundie” Protestantism to be outright creepy.

Interestingly, the friend in question admitted something which I would frankly never have expected him to admit (or even know):

He made two statements which, at face-value, flatly contradict one another:

  1. He stated that the practice of snake-handling derives from a “misunderstanding” of some particular verses in the biblical book of Mark.
  2. He then also acknowledge the fact that Biblical scholars have found that the particular verse(s) being “misunderstood” are absent from early versions of “Mark.  In other words, they were inserted into the text, at some point.

Now, the reason I found this (rather trivial) admission to be surprising: many (most?) christians implicitly — or explicitly — operate on the premise of “inerrency”.   Implicitly (or explicitly), they treat “The Bible” the way they would treat most other books: as a monolithic, unified “whole”, which was “written” by a specific set of (known) authors.  (Some “Fundies” go even further, and claim that the putative “authors” of the Bible were nothing more than “Pens of God”).

I understand where this tendency comes from:  to many, the fact that a document they have been trained to view as “Sacred scripture” has been altered over time (IE: books added, removed,  “verses” added, etc.) would probably be shattering.   The text itself is supposed to be “timeless”, and (implicitly) the only genuinely important document in human history — to the point where the more “literalist” types go to extreme lengths of self-inflicted stupidity trying to “rationalize” whether or not hares do/do not “chew the cud”, and/or whether the “days” mentioned in the Genesis narrative were “really” 7, 24-hour periods, or billions of years.  (“Young Earth” Creationists vs. geology).

Quite frankly, the fact that their “Sacred Scriptures” have been tampered with over time (for a myriad of exceedingly “worldly” reasons), should give anyone claiming to “believe” in those texts at least a moment of trepidation.

For instance: pretty much every form of Christianity from before the Protestant “Reformation” includes something like 11 additional “books”, in their biblical canon.  For some reason(s), the Protestant “reformers” trimmed “the Bible”.

Of course, given the fact that pretty much every variant of “Christianity” considers every other variant at least somewhat “heretical” (and — at best — conceals that uncomfortable fact under a thin veneer of “ecumenical” unity), these kind of discussions don’t come up, very often — except possibly among the more intellectual clergy.  The “simple faith”-type “Believers” are usually blissfully ignorant of such issues.   (A great example of this: any sort of “KJV-only” psychosis. 🙂

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

This is also why I regard certain questions as innately idiotic, and unworthy of any response save bemused laughter:

One such question is whether or not we can “trust” the Bible.  (This is typically only asked by Fundie/Literalist protestants, as far as I can determine.)

Quite frankly, that’s a stupid question.  The real issue is:

Can you “trust” the “Council of Trent?”   The “Second Council of Constantinople?”   The “translation team” behind any number of post-KJV English “Translations” (any/all of which your particular Denomination probably hates with the white-hot passion reserved for a “Satanic counterfeit”), etc.?

So, yeah.  I totally “get” the attraction of “Simple Faith” (IE: ignorance/apathy/lack of “critical thinking” skills), etc.  “Simple Faith” allows for the comforting delusion that your fellow “Christians” actually “believe” whatever it is you claim to “believe”.  It also allows the “believer” to ignore the fact that 99% of “Christians” are — in some fashion — “heretical”, with respect to your prefferred Denominational subculture.

(Of course, this is where “creeds” come in handy, in that they stipulate a more-or-less cohesive set of “bullet-points” upon which “believers” can then claim to “agree” — even if they may or may not be talking “past” one another, as mentioned in an earlier post.)

(Also note: when I use the term “ignorance”, I do not — always  — mean anything “pejorative”.  I am (almost) entirely “ignorant” in regard to the language of Esperanto.  I could “correct” this (by attempting to learn more about it) — if I saw any merit in doing so.

There is only one sense in which “ignorance” pisses me off: when the ignorant become arrogant.  (For example: the KJV-only “fundie” scumbags affiliated with Westboro “Baptist” church.)  Wannabe theocrats are bad enough.  Wannabe-theocrats who are almost totally ignorant of the historical development of the “belief”-system they want to impose on the rest of humankind AT GUNPOINT are genuinely horrifying.

“Sectarian” slaughter really pisses me off.

 

 

 

 

Whatever they split at Los Alamos, it definitely wasn’t an “atom”:

atom (n.) Look up atom at Dictionary.com
late 15c., as a hypothetical indivisible body, the building block of the universe, from Latin atomus (especially in Lucretius) “indivisible particle,” from Greek atomos “uncut, unhewn; indivisible,” from a- “not” + tomos “a cutting,” from temnein “to cut” (see tome). An ancient term of philosophical speculation (in Leucippus, Democritus), revived 1805 by British chemist John Dalton. In late classical and medieval use also a unit of time, 22,560 to the hour. Atom bomb is from 1945 as both a noun and a verb; compare atomic.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atom

Of course, defenders of the modern (mis)use of the term “atom” will point to the notion of “semantic change” — essentially, the Alice in Wonderland (Orwellian?)  notion that if a large enough group (mis)uses a specific word in a specific way, that trumps etymology/whatever context the term was initially ‘stolen” from, etc.

This has always bothered me: the notion of (mis)using terms to refer to what is essentially an antonym (the self-evident absurdity of “splitting” the “un-splittable”, etc.)

Don’t misunderstand me:  I get why this happens: people (mis)use words in whichever way they were initially indoctrinated to (mis)use them.  Thus, we get the “periodical table of elements” (ignoring the fact that the notion of “elements” was originated to refer to four specific — well, you can’t even call them “substances”.  Earth/air/Fire/Water — which modern physics classify as follows:

“Earth” is essentially a “catch-all” term for any number of geological -related stuff: rocks/dirt, etc.

“Air” is a “mxture”

Water is a “compound”.

Fire is a “chemical reaction”

I bring this up because it is directly related to my earlier post about how people in “religious” discussions failing to explicitly define their terms at the outset.

Now, I understand that such notions as “splitting the atom” and talking about the “Sub-atomic” etc. are entrenched to the point where the only thing that would change current practice would the the onset of a future dark-age.  I get it.

I just can’t help wondering why the (mis)use of the term “atom” to refer to something which is neither “indivisible” NOR even “elementary” (in Democritus’ sense of the term) doesn’t bother physicists.

 

Destroying a couch sucks

Actually, I (mostly) hate furniture:

Quite frankly, if I was still “single”, I would not have 90% of the furniture cluttering our house — and definitely none of the “knick-knacks”.

I have nothing against those who enjoy such things (my wife, for example).  However, much of that “enjoyment” comes from fulfilling social expectations which are decidedly non-utililitarian.   I understand desks, storage shelves etc. — but deliberately cluttering your walls with photos in easily-damaged frames?  That will never make any sense to me:  Digitize them (assuming that they were “analog-native” photos in the first place).  Then you can print ’em out at any size desired.  (There are even companies specializing in that sort of thing — blown-up portraits or whatever, that you can hang on your wall etc.)

At any rate: 5+ years ago (back in PA) we spent what I considered an inordinate amount on a new couch.  Subsequently, it was (somewhat) damaged during the move here, and sustained more damage afterward.  Then someone gave us another couch which “fit” better with the layout of the house.

So, I get stuck with the oh-so-enjoyable task of destroying a couch which initially cost some ridiculous amount 5 years ago, and which I am now required to smash to bits, so that the trash guys will remove it.

That depresses me.  I honestly have no “aesthetic” sense, when it comes to furniture.  I barely understand the “need” for a dedicated “bedroom” (given that it is entirely possible to sleep on the “living room” couch.  Moreover, mattresses are so damnably expensive that it bobbles the mind exactly why people even bother…..)

Ah well, I’m weird.   Anyway: my “tools” consist of:

  1. A sledgehammer
  2. A “Claw”-hammer
  3. A flat, metal “pry-bar”
  4. long-nose pliers (Not sure if they qualify as “needle”, or not).

In essence, the project consists of “separating” the wood/cardboard(!!!!)/fabric etc. from the underlying metal.  Hopefully a guy we know will be able to disassemble the metal.  The wood/fabric etc. is acceptable for trash-disposal.

Anyway…the project sucks.    It seems far too easy (given the overall flimsiness and shit-tastic “construction” of most modern “consumer-grade” goods) to “accidentally” damage/destroy things easily enough.  How in hell can it be so difficult to destroy a couch on purpose?

Frustrating…..intensely……annoying! 😦

Short wave listening is much improved:

So, recently my wife and I had a bit of a discussion with our cable company, about a malfunctioning cable-modem.  Plus, we changed a few things about our account, for various other reasons.

Upshot: we now have a different model of cable-modem.  Result?  RADICALLY improved short-wave listening experience.  WAY lower noise-floor (due to much better shielding on cable-modem device).

Impressive, to the point that I am now actively interested in getting more “into” both short-wave listening AND Ham radio (previously, the noise-issues were disheartening to the point where I was…..discouraged as to whether I would ever solve them adequately.

Laissez-fairytales:

One of the most glaringly stupid things about Objectivists and Libertarians is their complete unwillingness to admit that the fact that their preferred socioeconomic system  has never actually existed.

For example: the 19th century U.S. was not some sort of Laissez-faire utopia:  A very specific subset of white males were permitted to to damn near anything to anyone else — including most other “Whites”.

Here’s just a short list of those who were systematically precluded from participating in the (supposedly) laissez-faire utopia of the 19th century U.S.:

  1. ANYONE who was female
  2. ALL non-whites (especially anyone presumed to have “one drop” of “Negro” blood).
  3. So-called “American Indians” (Hint: Ayn Rand didn’t give two liquidy shits about what “civilized” (IE: WHITE) settlers did to “savages” — look it up.)
  4. The vast majority of those we would now consider “White” (Anyone not a “WASP”, essentially).

Here’s a simple rule of thumb:  even if someone can get away with self-designating as “White” today (2016): if there’s an “ethnic” or “religious” slur related to their ancestral “homeland”, they were not full participants in the “capitalist” 19th century:

(Ie: wops, kikes, niggers, Polacks, etc.)

The truly ironic thing about the Objectivist movement in particular is the sheer preponderance of folks with Jewish ancestry — the Brandens (real names: Blumenthal/Weidman), Peikoff, “Ayn Rand”, herself (Real name: Rosenbaum):

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN (AT BEST) “SECOND-CLASS” CITIZENS during the 19th century.

Time for a Rand quote (because the stupid bitch did occasionally have a few semi-valid things to say:

Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.” Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/evasion.html

I can’t even begin to comprehend the level of “evasion” required to blank-out the fact that — during that oh-so-utopian 19th century — “Ayn Rand” would have been systematically precluded from access to that ‘capitalist’ utopia:

Think about it:

Ayn Rand was:

  1. Female (do a web search for “gender roles”)
  2. A Jew (her family wasn’t particularly religious, and she herself was an atheist — but she would still have been considered a “kike”, nonetheless).

So, yeah…..Ayn Rand was historically illiterate.  So are her followers.

Delusional bullshit would be excusable except when those perpetrating it claim that “rationality” is their primary virtue.  Mythologizing the 19th-century U.S. as a utopia of “rugged individualism” is a lot of things (corrupt, vicious, delusional etc.) — but it damned sure isn’t “rational”.