h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ah, here we go. New to this forum is Fragilis the Melodical, welcome once again. We also have a new article by him, on Agnosticism, and a new-old article by Twophlag entitled "Critical Rationalism." His article on God has been renovated as well, and the description on the homepage has been renovated to reflect this. I'm also pondering whether it posesses enough comic merit to move it to the Humor section, but I thought I might get other opinions first.

Old projects are still open: the Hymns of the FFFF is a collection of your favorite freethinker's song lyrics. The Hall of Records is our resource for books for the freethinker, so if you 've read a good one, post a review for the rest of us! And favorite jokes are at For Those of You Who Think Christianity is a Joke.

And on that note, I just ordered a copy of Dan Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith," which is an autobiographical account of the transition of a devout preacher to one of the most eloquent freethinkers today. I'll post a review when I'm done.

Last time at the Foundation, we had a rather interesting conversation going on which meandered around a bit, but basically addressed two common themes:

1) Why are we here at the FFFF, and what is our purpose?

2) What exactly is it about xtianity that has put a bug up our asses?

I return you now to your regularly scheduled discussion, already in progress.

First, I'm female. You can check my page if you like, and yes that's really a photo of me (in costume).

Second, here's the translation for my Latin.

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione
I'm not interested in a dopey religious cult

Another good one is this:

Unitam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant
May faulty logic undermine your entire philosophy

Third, I'll take a shot at Colonel Seller's questions.
1) I don't know why anyone else is here. I'm here because I enjoy the company, and I like to think a lot.
2) I don't really have a bug up my ass regarding Christianity. My boyfriend (an atheist) does. I do find it limiting, and this affects me as I am part of a society infected with a singular mass belief. For instance, Americans could be doing much more to get into space and to speed civil rights for gays and lesbians. But we are hopelessly backward on these issues because there is enormous political pressure against anything Christianity can't easily explain. What a shame.

Third, I think Lear will have a horrible time leaving "nothing at all" behind when he leaves. He is much more likely to leave "nothing much" or "nothing of importance." And like it or not, he will be judged by these leftovers. On the other hand, if you take the long view it is exceedingly difficult to leave anything behind. Archeologists can vouch for the fact that most of the remains they study were preserved accidentally. But I'm an eternal optimist, and so I like to imagine that you can help lots more people if you aren't confined to the ones alive when you are.

Finally, I'd like to comment more on Twophlag's article about God. I think it's incredibly improved by the use of headers. Now I feel I can nit-pick on details.
*I'm not sure Discordianism and Lillith warrant two headers. One would probably be fine.
* I have a feeling any Christian editor will still be very upset about the bit near the top where the Western concept of God has "capriciousness such that He cannot make up His mind whether He is in fact loving or wrathful." For many such believers, God is at once kind and cruel. For others, his motivations are beyond our comprehension. I don't know of any Christians who truly believe God can't make up his mind or keeps changing it.
* Everything looks very complete, except perhaps the lack of discussion about multitheistic religions. Greek, Nordic, and American Indian myths all include a pantheon of gods. Sometimes there is a top god, and sometimes not. There are some who would argue that some forms of Christianity (with father, son, holy ghost, Mary, and numerous saints and/or prophets) are multitheistic without admitting as such. There is also the argument that "God is mankind" is a broad form of multitheism, where the monotheistic version is the self-centered Satanistic approach of "I am God."

Brief, tedious, reply to the dog-end of the last #$%^* forum...

Aren't those early 'zealots' a key part of the formation of American culture and society? People like Thomas Paine (just an example that springs to mind off the top of my head) left this country because they couldn't get a decent hearing over here, in pre-modern England, and so they left for the 'New World' looking for somewhere to make use of their republican insights. (I use the word 'republican', of course, in the anti-royalist sense, rather than the George W Bush gun-lobby-supporting right-wing sense)...

This zealotry was not necessarily religious. It was, if I have my points correctly ordered, primarily a point of democratic - ie, political / social - rather than religious / spiritual principle. If they left England, it was simply because they had no opportunity to try to do what they wanted to do in a system still profoundly based on the old-fashioned Monarchical system. Quite frankly, I wish they *could* have made it work over here...

I'm just interested, but - what do you think America would look like today if those 'zealots' *had* been booted out 200 years ago? Pretty much the same? Or not? If radically different, how so?...


If you're still after a place to flee to, come one or two generations, I think the Scottish Highlands would probably do you a couple of (non-prejudiced) favours, as long as you take your livestock along with you... But leave the firearms - purleeease. We don't need them over here...


PS - Fragilis... With all due respect, the news is that neither of us will leave anything at all behind that anyone will speak of for longer than ten minutes or so. That's actually quite a humbling truth, and I suggest that any serious sceptic should try to get their heads around the notion, because it isn't going to go away...

Sorry about that Fragilis... didn't even realize I'd automatically assigned you a gender on such a small amount of acquaintance until you pointed it out.

Thomas Paine and his ilk were zealots of a sort, but not the religious type. In fact, most of the founding fathers were deists and masons, and they worked to keep religion out of the business of the country, a very sound decision. Their groundwork is probably all that has stopped this place from evolving into a total theocracy. It's interesting to note that the ideas of Paine, Adams, Jefferson, and all them came from Britain originally. The people had convinced themselves that they were the freest people in the world, though, and didn't see the need for true representation. One of the ironies of history is that the chief complaint of the colonies was that they were being taxed without adequate representation in Parliament. At that point in history, the average Londoner taxpayer had no more representation than the Bostonian.

The part about that that scares me is the fact that Americans are convinced that they are the freest people in the world. Meanwhile, we keep allowing our politicians to take them away, bit by bit, mostly under the guise of public safety. I've seen the direction this country is headed, and I don't like it. Luckily, the resistance forces are appearing on the scene, as the Reform, Libertarian, and Green parties are beginning to muster enough votes to make a difference. But now I'm *really* digressing...

Without the Puritans, I think that America might have drifted closer to the ideals of the deists and masons, as our founders did. They're both mostly harmless belief systems that are very conducive to things like tolerance and study. Civil rights would have been smoother issues. Red Scare would have been less scary. But then, zealotry may have been a necessary ingredient in the Cold War. It will take a greater historian than I to work out all the ramifications of that one.

Early Americans were actually pretty diverse. Some early Americans left their countries for political reasons, some for religious reasons, some for economic reasons, and some (like my relatives) were kicked out of their country for being criminals or were sold to America as slaves. A few were already there, but nobody cared for them much. What it comes down to is that the political and religious pilgrims were the most interested in maintaining order. Over time, they garnered the most social power. Anyone trying to get something political accomplished in America country-wide or colony-wide had to work it out with the religious forces as well, or everything would grind to a bit of a halt. Early American politics were a compromise between religious zealotry and political idealism. To an extent, this remains unchanged.

You know, I hate that phrase "with all due respect" because it usually means just the opposite. I will give the benefit of the doubt here, though. My father left rather a lot of people who miss him and his good deeds, so you'll have a hard time convincing me that people can't leave anything useful or interesting behind. For instance, he educated numerous children and adults (including me) about computers. Most of them were from economically depressed areas. Several are now computer professionals, and they have created a small oasis of wealth in a poverty-stricken Southern area. I got over a hundred consolation emails from people I didn't know who wanted to thank my father one last time. I'm still getting them over 6 months later. There's every indication that the knowledge he fought so hard for will trickle down through at least one more generation. That's not bad for a guy whose parents couldn't read.

Anyway, I'm not a skeptic. Not at all. I'm an eternal optimist. But instead of believing in any ridiculous outside force, I have generally good opinions about humanity, the future, and myself. I see no need to mystify this series of opinions.

Fragilis... I was basically just agreeing with your own comment that in the long view nothing gets left behind - so therefore in our modest capacity as limited creatures we should try to come to terms with this. Obviously, I appreciate that on the worldly level our actions make a difference, to ourselves and the people around us...


The interesting thing about figures such as Paine - and other such deists, masons, etc - is that they were drawn from the more humble sections of British society, rather than the aristocracy - as such, understandably, they were infused with the progressive anti-authoritarian spirit of the times. This was a period when people in Britain were finally beginning to question the Monarchist system and propose alternatives. But they couldn't translate it into action over here - interesting, I feel, that, in spite of the deep social changes happening in Britain at the time, they had to go all the way over to the 'New World' (ie, America) to have any chance of making any of this happen...

To quote CS above, 'At that point in history, the average Londoner taxpayer had no more representation than the Bostonian'. How true this is...

I wish I could work out where Puritanism comes into the picture. I have a feeling it may be a little difficult to separate it from the rest of what was happening at the time - but I'm afraid I'm no Historian either...

I'm just coming out of the Twilight Zone here in London, so perhaps I should resist the temptation to digress too far from theological concerns. But I wouldn't mind hearing more about the Green / Libertarian movements in America. Aren't such movements inevitably stymied by the basic impossibility of getting around the two-party systems we have in Britain and America? So realistically if we are interested in using words like 'resistance' we presumably have to look outside of the mainstream to, erm, that old notion of 'We the People'.

help...

I am looking for an excuse to leave a bookmark. Shoot.

From my experience, the credit card companies and telemarketers don't forget dead folk for several years.

P-CB,
-jb

Sorry for the confusion, Lear. I thought we were arguing. Now I see we were merely agreeing vehemently. I did visit your page, BTW, and found it very interesting. I will have to stop by again tomorrow for a closer look.

jbliqemp, you're so very right. My mother will have to move to stop getting junk mail in my father's name.

Every once in a while I get back to this question: At what point have you done enough? At what point is the balancing tally of your life high enough to relax and take it easy? Would it be enough to be remembered by 20 people 5 years after you are gone? By 100 people 20 years later? By 1000 people 100 years later? If I wish to leave something interesting behind when I go, must I toil until I can work no more and still have but a slim chance of success?

I guess it matters to me more because I see humanity's future as the only legacy any of us is likely to have. If we wish to leave an indelible mark, we must weave something of ourselves into the future where we can not go.

Suddenly, I understand how so many utterly desperate-sounding religions were created. Perhaps somebody had a late-night panic attack while reviewing their useless life and decided to take the cheating man's path to fame. How bizarre to think that many religions might have been created by selfish, calculating agnostics and atheists.

Either this thought is a sign that I should get more sleep lately, or it is a sign that I should regularly get less. Any opinions?

Just jumping into the fray here:

As to the comment several posts up about Americans not realizing how eroded their cherished "freedom" has become, Imust emphaticly agree. I remember several years ago on an Independance Day, watching the fireworks with my best pal and realizing that as I looked around me, at the neighborhood we were walking in, I could not see a single thing at all that Government was not involved in one way or another. The American government is even involved in how I wipe my ass (that is, tax on the toilet paper, and I'm sure countless regulations on how it is manufactured).

I beleive it would be beneficial for every American to spend a month or two living abroad. Especially in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Amsterdam makes America look like a police state. (Perhaps the contrast *REVEALS* this?) It just gets me when I hear these conservatives proudly boasting with puffed chests about the USA beign "the greatest country on god's green earth" I always wonder how many other countries have they been to as anything other than a tourist?

You know I didn't realize until just now how big the FFFF seems to have gotten. We should attempt a hostile takeover of H2G2 Christians

Thanks for your comments Fragilis. Nice costume by the way. I'm going to try and reply to some of them but if I make no sense, it is because it is 5 am in the morning following Canada Day, which I celebrated in the national capital. I am currently attempting to purge a variety of mind altering toxins from my system.

1> I see your point (thanks all for recommending the use of headers, I didn't realize in rewriting the piece how long the thing had gotten) but I think I will leave them seperate for now... I'm more or less a closet Discordian so I suppose I'm simply allowing my own prejudices to influence the piece. Hail Eris.

2> Fortunately I have been in reasonably close touch with the editor during the last two revisions of this piece because he indicated that he wanted it to go in very badly (he even jumped it up the queue, heh). There were comments made at one point about the offensiveness of the piece which I have attempted to tone down. Then again I consider it an insult to my own intelligence to be asked to consider the notion of damning humankind to eternal torment because of their shortcomings to be an example of 'mercy' or 'love', which is what I seem to come up against every time I discuss theological matters with a Christ-worshipper. If that's their view of love, no wonder the Christian religion's track record of turning the other cheek has been so lousy. So in a way, while I am in this case mocking their cherished belief system, I feel that I do so in reaction to the mockery of my faculties of reason presented by proponents of this view.
3> I considered attempting to tackle various pantheistic models of divinity, but realized that I don't know enough about many of them to say anything that would come across as knowledgeable or funny. Moreover, this piece (I had to remind myself) is intended to focus on the concept of God, as opposed to being a discussion of world religions (there is a difference in my view). Being that this was the case, and that I had dealt briefly with the notion of pantheistic systems in my discussion of eastern theology, I felt that it would probably be counterproductive to simply include more examples of it.
By the way, I LOVE pointing out to a right-thinking Christ Worshipper that his belief system is tritheistic. It makes them blow up. Try it.
As far as the 'thou art God' thing, I wanted to leave the piece on that note because I rather felt that it hits nearest the mark of whatever the hell 'god' is, but this starts getting into my rather elaborate views of reality and ontology and is probably best not discussed here. Suffice to say that I think that life itself represents the universe attempting to observe, measure, and define its own existence, I am that I am. Turning this notion around and declaring 'I am God' is almost as much fun in an argument as pointing out that Christians are tritheists. (Or try: I don't need Jesus, I AM Jesus. That's right, I'm back. Kneel.)

Stuff and Bookmarks...

(zealotry in the UK) I got approached on the street recently by some christian, who, as he was randomly walking along, invited me to a church service. Odd. I also got a free copy of the Book of Mormon from some random guy on the street, which was nice. Now, if only the Discordians would give out theirs in the same way...

I tend to invoke Chaos Theory and say that whatever you do will have massive implications a while down the line. Mighty trees from little acorns grow, and all that. Everything makes a difference, and enough ripples cause tsunamis.

I'm fortunate, as a scientist, in that there's a fighting chance I'll be able to give my name to some random law, theory, algorithm, technique, or so forth. Science is large enough that there's plenty of place for obscure things to be named inappropriately. Anybody writing a book of any sort will have the pleasure of having that kept around as long as we have a species. And on the tiniest scale, DejaNews never forgets, and neither does h2g2.

So I'm confident that some vague memory of me will survive for as long as the species does, which is nice. Of course, in the long run, the universe dies a heat death, or undergoes a big crunch, and it all becomes pointless - but that's longer term than even I care to look...

I think passing out free copies of Principia Discordia would be an outstanding idea. And since the book isn't copyrighted (in fact, it *encourages* plagiarism), there's nothing stopping us but the price of printing.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Founding Fathers weren't wealthy. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both owned vast plantations in Virginia. The Adamses both had large farms in Massachusetts. Ben Franklin made a mint off his inventions and publications. Thomas Paine's background I am uncertain of, but it generally took a man of means to acquire literacy and the time to write in those days. But the people who were creating the original stir in England were by no means paupers themselves.

I tie Puritanism into just about every fundamentalist movement in the US, although I must admit that I do this without any significant research. I think the Southern Baptists are the direct lineal descendants of the Puritans, as will be clear to anyone remotely familiar with the tenets of both groups. The Presbyterians aren't that far off, either, and this was the most common religion during the 19th century, if Twain is to be believed. Basically, anyone with fire and brimstone in their dogma in the US got it from the Puritans. Calvinism has some of it, but Calvinism never gained much influence here. The most influential, fundamentalist protestant faiths found in the US are unique to here, and I think that a bit of digging can connect them all to those original Puritans.

During the Second Continental Congress in 1776, it became apparent that the ability of the colonies to work together was going to be critical. The most influential groups were the Bostonians and the Virginians, the Bostonians because they had long been the mouthpiece for rebellion (Paine, Sam Adams, John Adams, Boston Tea Party, Boston Massacre, etc.) and the Virginians because they were the wealth and power of the nation at the time. The Massachusetts people were rather religious, the Virginians were very secular. The Bostonians required freedom for all, the Virginians required freedom for not quite all. (this isn't entirely true... the Virginians were willing to give up slavery, but the delegations from South Carolina and Georgia wouldn't, and the Virginians argued in favor of the compromise) US wouldn't have a history if the two hadn't been able to compromise on all their differences, but over the course of that history those compromises have fallen apart, and are responsible for most of the ugliness of that story.

And on to modern times...

Yes, the third parties are experiencing great difficulty in the two-party system. Part of it is the media, who give little or no attention to them (although Jesse Ventura and Ross Perot have done wonders for getting media attention to Reform). Part of it too is the American psyche. They seem to think that a third-party vote is a wasted vote, and they do one of two things: 1) vote for the major party candidate who they consider to be a lesser of two evils, 2) refuse to vote at all, thus silencing their voice of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. All the major changes in domestic government throughout US history have come about through the emergence of a third party, which never commanded a majority, but commanded enough support that the major parties had to bend to their will. If only those dissatisfied people would get off their butts and render a protest vote, things will change. Even if they vote for Mickey Mouse for president, it sends a message that none of their other options were palatable.

Colonel Sellers, registered Libertarian.

Here in London I often find myself having to negotiate the perils of religious proselytising. In the central areas especially, it's difficult to avoid being accosted by some group of Bible-thumping terrorists in places like Leicester Square, or around the King's Cross area, on a Sunday afternoon. And good old Hyde Park Corner - that once-characterful public forum for the harmless eccentric to discourse freely on more or less any subject attacking his / her imagination - seems unfortunately to have become dominated by a free for all of miscellaneous (fairly well-established, I suspect) religious interests. That was my impression the last time I ventured over there, anyhow.

I'm not above stopping to argue the toss with one or two of these folks every once in a while - well, it passes a few moments in the void... But maybe I'm wrong to encourage them - to have a reasonable debate perhaps implies that one considers them to have some legitimacy, a valid point to make somewhere along the line. Best just to ignore perhaps...


Thank you for the comment about my homepage, by the way, Fragilis. Actually, I've let it get a little rusty recently - much of that stuff could do with a bit of tidying up. Naturally, you're welcome to visit anytime, leave comments, suggestions, insults, etc...

In the US, talking to the canvassing religions fanatics only encourages them. If you argue with them and they feel the conversation didn't change you, they renew their vigor because they have been reminded of what they are purportedly fighting against. If they leave with the illusion that they have changed you, they will feel encouraged to continue. Either way, you've basically convinced the fanatic to bother more people.

Twophlag has basically negated all my nit-picky comments, so I now wholeheartedly support the article on God.

I have a few days off for the American Independence Day. I'm going to drive West today to see how far I get before I find an interesting place to stop. I may be back tonight, or I might not return until Wednesday. I'll certainly catch up on the discussion when I return. Ta!

I posted that one above before the history lesson came on, otherwise I would have held on a little longer and replied to that as well.


re : third parties... We have the same problem in Britain, where people really only take the two main parties seriously and regard all other political interests either as single-issue groups or raving loonies (which some of them are, to be fair). Many countries on the European continent use some form of proportional representation and recent experiments with PR in local elections in Britain seem to indicate that this would be a logical way of helping to change the psyche of the electorate. For example, in London we recently elected an assembly consisting of a number of Green members - their first seats ever anywhere in British politics. I agree there's no hope of changing people's minds unless they have the will and knowledge to try to do it for themselves. But if the system itself is creaky and not conducive to pluralism that would seem also to benefit from a change...


Thomas Paine's background was humble. He had little formal education, leaving school to start work at 13. His father was a corset-maker, and Paine briefly tried without success to follow him in this line of work. But he doesn't really seem to have had any fixed occupation in England - in fact, his life sounds like a rather grim catalogue of failure until he took the plunge and crossed the Atlantic. He was, I think, politically active before he left, and it must have been the connections he made through this activity that saved him from a life of obscurity. For example, he seems to have known Benjamin Franklin before he left - in fact, the Encyclopaedia Britannica tells me Paine actually sailed on Franklin's recommendation. But he was already well into his late thirties by the time he made this move. And he was never a rich man, even in America...


Now I'll read the rest of that immense posting. Live a little, learn a little...

Well I never. You leave the place for a day, and *woops*, you just about are able to follow what is going on.

There are following themes I would like to coment on :

1. What would the world look like, if the indians...
2. Which surounding nurtures Christian zeolousity?
3. What rubbish to think the american democracy is the best!
4. The Germans and british monarchy.
5. Democracy in Germany - working, but what good does that meen?

1. What would the world look like, if the indians...

The problem lies in the question. What would have been if you could have chosen the maidenname of my mother as a familyname like you can since the 1980ies in Germany and I wouln´t be outed by my sirname as being foreign and evocing oohs and ahs by anyone I meet here? It just doesn´t figure (*Engländer smiling at the phrase "doesn´t figure (chuckle, snnngh, lol)*
We cannot follow through all the possebilities life offers. But we do have the chance to make dicisions what might happen now. I could stop writing (I won´t have if you read this)

2. Which surounding nurtures Christian zeolousity?

I believe, that the best surounding is the libertarian and an atmosphere in which everybody is allowed to do what he likes. This is abolutly true for the US of A. Dieter Kronzucker, one of THE german correspondants on America said in an radiointerview: "America is the country, in which anything is possible, and the opposite of that at the same time."

3. What rubbish to think the american democracy is the best!

I just can´t believe it! How can you say a country is a good democracy, if the chap who raises the most funds can get president (if he´s lucky and "god" and the media are with him?) There is a big problem in the way the american judiciary is organized. Just look at the film with Henry Fonda, the one where he´s the goody and gets the grand jury to vote for acquittal. That says all for me...

4. The Germans and british monarchy.

This is just the little fun corner. I believe most german women from 50 years onward would love a german monarchy. Their all up to date what Queeny and co are up to. I always make shure not to speak about the subjekt, as they allways know more than I do. (So, God shave the queen, I am very likely to believe that is possible...)

5. Democracy in Germany - working, but what good does that meen?

We´ve got five parties in parliament in Germany, and the Green party is koalitionpartner to the social-democrats. I had a little go at local politics last year, and I had to learn, that personal interests are the main thing in anything political, evan on a low scale. Of course there is always the one or other person who will do all according to their personal belief, but the main aspect of politics is compromise and never realy hurting anybody. Instead of a feudal system we´ve got a complicated system of people who are members of this board and that council, and who take a private interest in this, through that they know such and such, who then again is a good friend of so and so, who has a certain need of tanks in, lets say there and there. So forget democracy. I personaly predict the upshot of an anarchy-system and the breakdown of the world that we know (which on the other hand sounds"needlesly mesianic).

And beeing a true bread european, I do not believe in the eec, just as I do not know if there is a god or not...

*Engländer takes the glass of water to clear his throught*

Any questions? Yes, please?

TG, if the US goes all to hell after elections, what can I look forward to as a new Canadian citizen?

Englander: God shave the Queen? Odd social commentary, interesting pun, or typo? Don't take me seriously... Just having fun.

America isn't a democracy. It's a Democratic Republic. Just like a Constitutional Monarchy without Executive Branch tenure. If Americans continue to sacrifice rights to the government, we will soon be *fascist* or have ourselves a nice new *oligarchy* or *theocracy*. Corporations will be all for the dominance of the masses; oppressed people make the best, most mindless slaves.

P-CB
-jb

We had a Democratic Republic in Germany up till 10 Years ago. I believe historicaly speaking that term is already given away.

What I ask myself, if people like Gates believe they´re gods, and are able to take over goverment. The adoration the "selfmade man" (and funnily enough not the selfmade women) gets in America is sometimes unbelieveble.

This leaves me back with the idea, that you can try and keep the missuse of power at bay through democracy, but if you know how the whole thing works, you can have the same kind of machiavellian benifits, as in a feudal system, can´t you.

*Engländer looking at his homebrew beer coming along nicely, just waiting for it to get finished*

I'm sure Gates believes he is above the law, based on his reactions to the anti-trust suit. But at least his abuses have been brought to a halt, and now perhaps superior programming will have a chance to flourish.

And the answer to your question about Machiavellian democracy is yes. It is absolutely impossible to create a form of government that people can't and won't exploit. Democracy is a lesser of all evils, though, because it creates a system of checks and balances that allows people like Gates to be brought to heel, eventually. How many governments could have cleansed themselves of a Nixon adminstration so cleanly and peacefully? Now if we could only do the same with the current one, but I digress.

And as for reverence of the self-made man, I think there is something deserving of respect in that. A person manages to crawl out of the gutter and build an economic empire, that requires finesse, dedication, intelligence, and a significant amount of luck. The compelling part is that it could happen to anyone... including you. Worshipping royals is stupid, because you can never join them. But anyone can, through a brilliant idea or an accident of luck, become wealthy and famous. That concept is known as "The American Dream," and it is this idea which fuels the world's largest economy. Not too shabby for a silly pipe-dream.

nah, selfmade women get on the frontpage of magazines and newspapers - there just aren't as many of them...

(Eg - ask yourself which boo.com company boss you've seen in the papers. Is it the geeky male one, or the goodlooking female one?)