liberté, égalité, trivialité

FYI: Men's Rights Activists are terrible people

2011-05-13T11:16:00.000-07:00

I'm starting something new today. Those of you on Twitter will be familiar with "Follow Friday." For those of you not on Twitter, well, I'll defer to The Oatmeal to explain.

I'm expanding on the idea, and will try to review a blog, podcast, or website that is worthy of your attention each week

For the inaugural edition, say hello to Man Boobz.

First, a bit of background as I bet there's a fair number of you unfamiliar with Man Boobz's bread-and-butter: the special breed of über-misogynist assholes known as the Men's Rights Movement or Men's Right's Activists.

Are you familiar with "Men's Rights Activists?" If not, consider yourself lucky, because finding a more hateful, self-pitying, angry, pathetic, priviledged, tactless, and self-contradictory no-need-to-parody group of human beings on this planet (I can't speak for any other planets) is difficult indeed. A good introduction can be found here. And an even better introduction is the frothing bile from the MRAs in the comments section at the same link. (Note: you'll have to manually expand a lot of comments, as the MRA hordes have systematically down-voted almost all rebutting conversation as "not helpful")

Essentially, Men's Rights Activists believe that our society is run and dominated by women, for women.

In MRA world, poor, put-upon men are helplessly manipulated by devious feminists. (Which is to say female supremacists. Which is to say all but a few women.) Women hate men and have only staved off eliminating them entirely to make sure someone provides them with a baby, thus ensuring a lifetime of child support payments which they can use for shoes.

In MRA world, all women are frigid sluts who refuse sex with every man they see ever, and paradoxically spread their legs for every man they ever see (with the notable exception of any Men's Rights Activist making the claim).

In MRA World, women are almost never victims of rape or spousal/partner abuse, but will gleefully lie about being raped on the off chance they could fuck-over a hapless dude. And they'll slaver at any stories of men being raped or beaten, which of course happens far more often to men than women.

In MRA World, not only have women collectively been given a position of authority over all men, but this is of course the opposite of how it should be: Women should be demure and subservient to men, catering to their every desire. MRAs will rarely admit this directly, but it shouldn't be too much trouble to get them to own up to it (I know I've been able to in my rather limited online interaction with them).

Though I've been aware of the Men's Rights Movement for a few years, its only in recent months that I've come to be fascinated by the movement. And by "fascinated" I mean "entertained." And by "entertained" I mean "horrified."

I'm occasionally involved in debates about all manner of irrationality and nonsense, from creationism, Teapartyism, and climate-change-denialism to homeopathy, alien abduction, and homophobia. But I have found few people as so unhinged, hateful, irrational, and jaw-droppingly awful as members of the Men's Rights Movement.

And that's where Man Boobz comes in. Man Boobz is the handiwork of David Futrelle, who tirelessly tracks the most outrageously misogynistic assholes the world has to offer and mercilessly mocks them to hilarious and/or depressing effect. How does David has the intestinal fortitude to read this kind of bullshit, day after day, I'll never know. Easy targets? You bet your ass they are, but it is nonetheless satisfying to see the bankrupt ideas of MRAs treated with exactly the type of response they deserve: outright mockery.

Okay, so this was less a review of MB as it was a chance to vent about MRAs, but if you want that chance more often, be sure to check out Man Boobz. I'd say "enjoy," but I don't think that's quite the right word here.

BREAKING NEWS: Jon Stewart exposes Fox News commentators as racist, hypocritical assholes

2011-05-12T10:11:00.000-07:00

And by news, I mean just another day. Still, an absolutely brilliant, funny, and quite depressing take-down of Fox's ginned-up outrage at the rapper Common. Watch both parts:

Part 1:

Part 2:

[via Balloon Juice]

Timehead

2011-05-03T06:33:00.000-07:00

So, it's not my intention to turn this into an all-Doctor-Who, all-the-time blog. But I haven't been inspired to write much lately, so you'll have to forgive me.

So I have a theory on the events of last week's episode that I want to share. It's incredibly spoilery, so if you haven't seen "The Impossible Astronaut" yet, please DO NOT READ ON. Seriously, it will hamper your enjoyment of the show if you read this before you see it.

Here's an amazing photo of the sun. Just to fill some space in...

Pretty, eh?

Still here? Okay. So, the little girl who regenerates at the end: what's her deal. It's implied that she's Amy's daughter, as Amy sees a photograph of the two of them together. But is it that simple?

Well, yes. Kinda. I think she's the daughter of Amy and Rory, two regular humans.

But remember, Amy was abducted by the Silents and had been kept for "many days." It was never explained why. We know the Silents have been trying to replicate Timelord technology ("someone's attempt to build a TARDIS"), and now I think they're trying to replicate Timelord physiology as well. They abducted Amy to futz about with her fetus's DNA and experiment with regeneration.

We know the Silents have an interest in Amy's pregnancy (the one at the White House is very keen that she tell the Doctor about it), and we know they were keeping a very close eye on the little girl at the orphanage.

Experimentation with Timelord biology was foreshadowed by River saying that aliens would gladly tear the world apart to get a single cell from the Doctor's body. (Perhaps this is even why the Doctor engineered his own death and fiery funeral?)

Lastly, this fits right in with the outside-of-Doctor-Who cultural narrative of the Grey Aliens (whom the Silents are clearly meant to resemble) as abductors who experiment with human reproduction and hybridization.

I think there's a lot going for this one! Of course, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Goodbye, Elizabeth Sladen

2011-04-19T13:38:00.001-07:00

I was sad to hear just minutes ago that Elizabeth Sladen, who played Doctor Who's Sarah Jane Smith for a time spanning 38 years. So, so sad.

Having just reflected on the impact Doctor Who had on my childhood an hour ago, I'd be remiss to not remark on the impact she had on the show and on my life. Farewell, and you'll be missed.

Me and Doctor Who - a history

2011-04-19T11:11:00.000-07:00

I cannot tell you how excited I am for this year's premiere of Doctor Who. I think more excited than I ever have been since the show returned in 2005. And that's on the heels of last year, which I was pretty damn excited for.

But anything I can say about what I'm looking forward to has been said elsewhere. So other than noting that I am absolutely loving the bold new direction that Steven Moffat has pointed the show, and that from the little bits I've heard of what is to come (I've tried to shield myself from too many spoilers) we're in for an amazing journey this year, we'll leave it at that.

Can I just say that eight-year-old me couldn't be happier about the state of Doctor Who?

You see, I grew up with the show. I remember discovering the show early on in grade school (maybe 6 or 7 years old). And being a child Doctor Who fan in the United States in the eighties and nineties was a depressing experience. In Salt Lake, Doctor Who aired each evening at 5:00 on the local PBS channel (later, it was moved to Saturday night), and no one else I knew watched it. My friends, who were all Star Wars fans, had action figures and lunchboxes and books and pop cultural references to their favorite property. I had, well, a battered library-clearance-sale novelization of "The Five Doctors" and a tire pressure gauge that made a reasonable stand in for the sonic screwdriver. I was the 4th Doctor for Halloween one year, and absolutely no one knew who I was (I remember one kid being impressed with my "homeless guy" costume). Still I was getting to see the occasional brand-new episode just a few months after they aired in the UK for a while... and then when I was 9, the show was over.

In 1996, I was so excited when I heard that the BBC and Fox were collaborating on a revived series to air in the US right along side the X-Files. They were airing the pilot as a movie, and I couldn't wait! Then I saw it. I was crestfallen: It was crap. Even by mid-nineties Fox sci-fi shows standards. (I've rewatched it recently and it's not near as bad as I remembered, but it's still not, you know, good.) I still clung to the idea that the series would be picked up, but alas, it was not to be. Soon, the classic series stopped airing on the PBS affiliate, and it looked like all I had of my favorite show was my memories.

And then in 2005, the revived series returned to BBC screens and became a massive hit. Now, Who merchandise is readily available, from action figures of even third-tier forgettable characters (like Star Wars kid of yore had) to more adult-friendly (not in that way... without a little jiggery-pokery) goodies like a TARDIS USB-hub and a sonic screwdriver that works as a real screwdriver (to go along with my old tire gauge).

1988 me is awfully jealous of 2011 me.

Sabbath Police!

2011-03-22T06:52:00.000-07:00

From Main Street Plaza comes this lovely video perfectly summing up one reason I find religion in general and Mormonism in particular so utterly tiring.

As Chino at MSP points out, this "funny" video puts on display the "surveillance culture" at play in Mormonism. When I was growing up, I absolutely saw stuff like this happen. Even just a few years ago, my ex and I (not Mormon) were out shopping and ran into her sister (Mormon). She seemed strangely awkward and uncomfortable, and I couldn't figure out why. It's because she was caught shopping on Sunday. It's not like we cared, of course.

And it's dripping in "listen to the men, they know better" patriarchal bullshit.

Honestly, this video makes me sad. It seems to me that if you have a day set aside for "rest" that you may as well make the most of it. What's wrong with going out skateboarding or fishing? The argument I always heard against shopping was just that it enabled other people to work on Sunday. Not that that is without nonsense hypocrisy too: why does going to a video store to rent a movie enable others to violate the Sabbath, but watching it at home not, considering someone is helping get the electricity to your home.

Yep. Resurrecting this thing...

2011-03-19T08:59:00.001-07:00

So, about a year ago, I told anyone reading this to shove off and go to my new blog at Tumblr.

And now, I've decided to countermand that measure and bring back this one. I'll save you the long explanation of why, but there it is. I'll probably keep the Tumblr, but will mostly use it for sharing random shit like animated .gifs of baby wombats, which is what Tumblr is made for.

I expect to be posting more, and post with more substance than I did on the tumb. First off, I'm ~~stealing~~ inspired by a series of posts by Amy at Random Exposure to do some Listography lists. I know I just said more substance, but what are you gonna do?

O hai!

2010-05-27T09:39:00.000-07:00

I suppose I should mention that I'm moving this blog to http://porlob.tumblr.com

If you're using an RSS reader, click here to update your feed to the new address.

(and if you're NOT using an RSS reader, come on. It's 2010. Google Reader does the job just fine.)

I've been thinking of making a move for a long while now. I was going to do Wordpress, but decided Tumblr better meets my needs, which should mean more updates for you. Yay!

See you on the flipside!

Everybody Draw Muhammad Day

2010-05-20T08:56:00.000-07:00

The last few months have seen two grassroots stunt protests against Muslim extremism: Boobquake, and now Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.

If you follow me on Twitter (and if you don't, you should), you'll know that I was a bit hesitant to throw my full support behind Boobquake, despite the immense respect I have for Jen, the event's originator.

But as I thought about it, particularly after reading this persuasive post by Greta Christina, I found most of the criticisms of Boobquake to be nigh indistinguishable from the very sort of oppressive nonsense that Boobquake was in response too: e.g., women shouldn't wear revealing clothing because it will make men lose control.

So that brings up to Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, which is today! This event was started in response to the chilling effect over protests and riots over depictions of Muhhamad, the prophet of Islam. In particular, the decision by Comedy Central to censor an episode of South Park that depicted Muhammad out of fear of violent reprisal.

Again, I initially found it hard to throw my full support behind today: Comedy Central isn't a government, and it can therefore censor whatever it likes. It seemed, at first, more like "Everybody Needlessly Piss Off Muslims Day."

But then last week, Lars Vilks, one of the infamous Danish cartoonists, was attacked. This attack was caught on video (below). Then, Vilk's house was set on fire, and he was forced to go into hiding Vilks has since gone into hiding. So that he doesn't, you know, get murdered.

Over a cartoon. And not even a very good one. I'm reminded of Austin Dacey's stance on respect, and it's something I've tried to take to heart: all people are deserving of respect. It is paramount that we, especially humanists, respect people. But ideas are not deserving of respect. Ideas stand or fall on their own.

Not to overdo it on the video, but Rebecca Watson also helped win me over to EDMD.

And that's when I decided I'd participate in Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.

So, what did I do? I drew Muhammad, complete with a quote from the prophet himself:

Five Podcasts for Critical Thinkers

2010-05-14T08:35:00.000-07:00

I listen to a lot of podcasts. They keep me company on work road trips, help pass the time when I'm in the midst of drudgery.

If you both (A) consider yourself a critical thinker, skeptic, or [fill in preferred label here] and (B) listen to podcasts, there is likely no need for me to mention shows like The Skeptics Guide to the Universe or Skepticality. Though if you don't listen to those, subscribe to those as well :)

Instead, I wanted to share a few show I listen to with a slightly less-general focus than SGU and Skepticality. Some of these might not even call themselves science or critical-thought podcasts, favoring comedy, politics, or human insight. But the hosts of all of these shows consistently apply skepticism and critical thought to their subject matter.

So, presented in no particular order...

RH Reality Cast
Website • iTunes

RH Reality Cast is produced by RH Reality Check, a web resource for reproductive health, and hosted by Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte, one of my Favorite People on all of the Internets. Each week, Amanda cuts through the nonsense and addresses the real issues surrounding reproductive health, healthcare, and abortion. It is unabashedly political and unabashedly liberal, which suits me just fine.

Curiosity Aroused
Website • iTunes

This fledgling podcast so far only has six episodes under its belt, but it has swiftly risen near to the top of my favorites. Rebecca Waston, cohost of SGU and another of my Favorite People on All of the Internets, hosts Curiosity Aroused. Each episode aims to bring a critical eye to a single topic, from mainstay skeptical issues, like why vaccination is a good idea, to less obvious ones, like addressing myths about dogs.

Curiosity Aroused "feels" very different to most skeptical podcasts, in that it doesn't assume it's preaching to the choir. Rather, each episode starts with Rebecca channeling Ira Glass with an introduction or anecdote about the topic at hand. Then, contributors (many of them, Skepchicks) present one or more stories on that topic.

I really can't say enough good about this one. I love it. I'd put it right along side Radiolab, which considering that it doesn't have the weight of NPR behind it, is impressive. Oh, and speaking of Radiolab...

Radiolab
Website • iTunes

It's a travesty that Radiolab, out of WNYC, does not air on my local NPR station. Luckily, it's available as a podcast. Think of it like This American Life, except that each week, the theme is a topic within science. It's really difficult for me to capture what listening to Radiolab is like in type, but can't recommend it highly enough. your best bet is to just listen to an episode, and you'll be hooked immediately. Might I recommend the Parasites or the Earworms (songs, not parasites in this case) episode? Fascinating stuff.

Reasonable Doubts
Website • iTunes

There are a lot of podcasts on atheism (I've even been a guest on one), but this one is the best in my opinion. I look forward, especially, to the "counter apologetics" segment, where the very knowledgeable hosts dissect an argument from well-known religious apologists (*cough* William Lane Craig *cough*) and, I think, ably show their arguments to be less than compelling.

Sundays Supplement
Website • iTunes

Iszi Lawrence and Simon Dunn are two British comedians who, well...

Each week, we get out fingers inky so you don't have to. We put two of Britain's newspapers head-to-head to see which has the best supplements. So... find out which paper you should've bought, last Sunday.

Yep. It's a show about people reading the newspaper. Riveting, right? But check it out. I guarantee that you will be entertained. I eagerly await the newest SunnySup every week. Hilarious! And what's more, it occasionally features interviews (or guest hosts) like the aforementioned Rebecca Watson or Richard Wiseman. Have you ever wondered what would happen to a kitten if you put it in the Large Hadron Collider and proceeded to accelerate it to near the speed of light? Well, Iszi asks LHC physicist Brian Cox and finds out once and for all.

________________________________________

Now, get to listening!

I tried to highlight shows here that may not fit into the usual norm of "critical thinking" podcasts (though I suppose Reasonable Doubts does. But I already wrote the damn text, so it stays). Am I missing something amazing? Tell me in the comments below!

Geeks Who Drink

2010-05-12T11:57:00.000-07:00

Every Wednesday for about the last month, Piper Down, my favorite local pub (this, in part, due to its close proximity to my domicile) , has been host to Geeks Who Drink, Utah's first regular pub quiz.

If you're not familiar with a pub quiz, we form up into a team of 6 players, and compete against a barful of know-it-alls for supremacy over all and a $50 gift card.

And it's a whole lot of fun.

Each night, GWD presents 8 rounds, each round with 8 questions on a given topic. The topics range from straightforward ones like... Actually, scratch that: there are no straight-forward ones. Nearly every round is some off-the-wall topic like "Minor Star Wars character, or STD medication?" or "name the movie based on these clips of Al Pacino screaming." Hats off to the mysterious quiz writers who come up with these crazy nonsense categories each week.

If you're in SLC, be sure to come to Geeks Who Drink and join in on the fun, though don't expect to win, as that's our team's purview. We took 1st the last two weeks and we don't plan on breaking our stride. That's right: I'm boasting. How unhumble of me.

If you're not in Utah, check out geekswhodrink.com to see if they're in your area as well!

Fun with Data #1: The Decemberists

2010-05-11T10:34:00.000-07:00

No one has mastered the art of storytelling in song more than the Decemberists. From operatic epics like The Tain and The Hazards of Love to sea shanties like "The Mariner's Revenge Song", Colin Meloy and the Decemberists' moody tales of half-remembered evenings in San Francisco and Victorian-era ne'er-do-wells are gorgeous and intriguing.

I discovered the Decemberists completely by accident. I saw Castaways and Cutouts in a record store. Liking the cover art and knowing that I could trust just that about anything released by the Kill Rock Stars label would be excellent, I bought it having never heard their music or even their name before.

At first, it didn't grab me. I found Colin Meloy's voice a bit off-putting, listened to it once and forgot about it. But somewhere in the back of my mind, it got me. A few weeks later, I had the melody to "Grace Cathedral Hill" (still one of my all-time favorite songs) in my head. I dug into my collection and popped C&C back into my CD player. This time, they grabbed me. And they never let go.

Okay, enough with the personal anecdote. This post is called "Fun with data"... So where is the data?

One thing fans of the Decemberists know that there are some common themes in the various tales. Just how common are these themes? Well, I decided to find out, and conducted an exhaustive search of the Decemberists' songs. Here's what I found:

Songs included are the 66 songs from the five full albums, 5 Songs and The Tain. "Past" indicates a song that identifiably takes place at least 20 years prior to the present day. "Death", "Drowning", and "Murder" are not mutually exclusive, and a single incident may be counted among all three (see: "The Rake"). Full data available for peer review prior to publication in a major academic journal. As it surely will be. Right? ... Right?

Am I still alive?

2010-05-10T09:35:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone! Have you been wondering where I have been? Whether I'm still alive?

Well, I've god good news: I'm delighted to announce that, yes, I am indeed still alive.

"But Patrick," you say, "we miss your long screeds about why you don't understand religious moderates. And your interesting-if-a-tad-egocentric personal history series. And your in-depth analysis of off-hand pseudoscientific comments made by your coworkers. And your tales of sex toy discussions within earshot of important religious leaders. And your endless vitriol towards Glenn Beck [exhibit A, B, C, D]. And don't forget your movie reviews! Why don't you ever blog any more???"

I hate to let down my throng of, surely, countless fans. So I hereby commit to writing at least one post every day for the next thirty days. Not all of them will be amazing. I might just post a link to YouTube video (like this one). But I'm planning on a part 5 of my personal history series and finally putting down on paper (er, you know what I mean) some ideas I've had rolling around in my head for some time.

See you tomorrow!

ZOMG! OBAMA IS teh ANTiCHRIST SO BELIVE IN JESUS nOW!!!1!!1

2010-04-10T07:32:00.000-07:00

[via Main Street Plaza]
So, when I first started watching this video below, I immediately wanted to take it apart, to demolish it point by point... But you know what? It's Saturday morning, and my time could better be spent attacking the last remnants of the datura bushes in my front yard.

Luckily, Jon Adams at the USU SHAFT blog does a brilliant job of addressing why this video, made by a Mormon, is indicative of recent shifts in Mormon perspective, which historically hasn't been so fire-and-brimstone end-timesy. And why this shift may be in part driven by Glenn Beck. Check out his excellent post.

The stupid flows fast and free here...

One nation, indivisible

2010-03-30T07:24:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, I get annoyed at some atheists and atheist groups that seem to spend an inordinate amount time on, for instance, getting "in God we trust" off of American currency or "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I agree with the sentiment, of course: such language is inherently exclusionary, unnecessary, and in my view unconstitutional. But I wonder sometimes if this collective energy could better be spent on other tasks...

But then I see a video like this. It just reiterates what I already know, but it reminds me that maybe it's time well-spent after all. Our government should not discriminate against any group just becuase they are in the minority. I think its more wrong to, for instance, deny a huge chunk of the population the right to marry... but perhaps if our national symbols more accurately reflected the inherent secular nature of our founding documents, it wouldn't be as easy to justify such disparities through an appeal to religious tradition...

Doctor Who cocktails

2010-03-19T08:42:00.000-07:00

So, I'm having party in a few weeks for the premier of the new season of Doctor Who. I'm well excited to see what new showrunner Stephen Moffat, who has written most of my favorite episodes, will bring to the series. (I've written previously on why I'm not sorry to see Russell T. Davies leave the show.) What I've seen and heard so far is promising: to my knowledge, there are no aliens that just look like humans with animal heads glued on. This is very encouraging!

In addition to Doctor Who, I also enjoy mixed drinks. Specifically, I like making mixed drinks. And I love devising new ones... So, here are a few Doctor Who-themed drinks I've come up with. I like fizzy drinks, so this is weighted in that direction.

If you try any of these, I'd love to hear how it went in the comments.

The Sonic Screwdriver
This is a simple on. And obvious, as it names both the world's most popular cocktail [citation needed] and one of the most iconic features of the show. The internet suggests that a Sonic Screwdriver is 2 parts blue Jones' Soda and 1 part vodka. However, isn't Jones blue soda bubblegum flavored? No thank you. Here's my version, which at least keeps the citrus theme of a true SD.

4 ounces grapefruit soda (I use Fresca, but choose your poison)
1.5 ounces vodka
.5 ounce blue curacao

Pour into an ice-filled lowball glass, garnish with a blood orange wheel.

I hear the color of the sonic screwdriver effect in the new series will change from blue to green. If so, just substitute orange juice for the grapefruit soda, and you're done!

Captain Jack Harkness
This one is full of yum. Mmmmmm...

1-1.5 ounces dark rum (NOT spiced rum)
1 ounce whiskey (I used Crown Royal, but Jack Daniels is a more obvious choice)
4 ounces ginger beer (or ginger ale, if you want something a little less spicy)
dash of lime juice (unsweetened. juice from 1 line wedge is about right)
splash of cream

Add all ingredients except for the cream to ice-filled highball and stir gently. Now add the splash of cream which should slowly diffuse through the ice. Do not stir. Garnish with a twist of lime. This makes a delicious and pretty drink.

Regeneration
This was a delightful drink and refreshing drink. You might even call it regenerative. I'll make this again, Doctor Who party or not.

3 ounces pear nectar
2 ounces champagne
3 ounces club soda or seltzer
2 ounces whiskey (I used Crown Royal)

Combine the pear nectar and whiskey in a shaker, shake vigorously, and pour into a highball (no ice). Stir in the champagne and club soda. Garnish with a pear wedge. I think this was my favorite of the bunch. Yum.

Time Vortex
This is a layered drink, so ingredients must be added in this order*. I've not included quantities here. Just add enough to achieve the desired stripe width.

grenadine (don't go overboard here)
pineapple juice
Jagermeister (just enough to form a distinct layer)
blue curacao (don't go overboard here)
Chambord

Use the brand specified if you can. If you substitute other brands or other liqueurs, the densities may vary, so you'll need to experiment to make sure to it will layer properly.

Layered drinks are mostly made to look pretty rather than taste good. Nonetheless, I rather liked this. The herbal flavors of the Jagermeister set off the otherwise too-strong fruit flavors nicely.

*If you've never made a layered drink before, the most reliable way I've found is to hold a spoon by the spoony end and place it so the handle end is just above the partially-poured drink. Gently pour the next ingredient along the spoon handle. This slows down the liquid so it doesn't splash into the glass and ruin the layered effect. Ingredients must be added from densest to least dense. Also, the thinner the glass, the better your drink will hold its layers, a shooter glass or (if you happen to have them) a pousse-café glass is best.

Have any other ideas for DW cocktails? Post them in the comments!

Thoughts on Dacey / Hausam debate

2010-03-01T13:06:00.000-08:00

This past Saturday, I attended a lecture (organized by SHIFT) by Austin Dacey entitled "Blasphemy: Hate Speech or Human Right."

Despite me sending Dr. Dacey off on a fifteen minute wild goose chase in search of a bathroom minutes before the lecture, he was extraordinarily well-spoken, eloquent and persuasive.

The thrust of Dr. Dacey's argument is that all people are deserving of equal respect and dignity, but that not all ideas are, and that a truly open society depends on the ability to criticize ideas. I couldn't agree with this more. With blasphemy laws spreading, such as the new one in Ireland and the various proposals put before the UN (the talks for which Dr. Dacey has participated in), this is an important distinction.

Following his lecture, Dr. Dacey was joined by Dr. Mark Hausam for a debate (really, more of a conversation) called "Is Morality Possible Without God?"

Dr. Hausam's position, of course, is that no, morality is not possible without God.

Hausam began by listing off several things that would be true in a Godless universe. I objected to very little of what he said here, I just don't view it as a problem. (e.g., the universe is so vast and expansive that in the grand scheme of things, we puny humans on our pale blue dot add up to very little, except in our own eyes.)

Then things got dicey. Hausam's contention, and I'll try not to strawman here, is that all human morality is "subjective" and therefore illusory. Only an observer outside of the Universe and truly "objective" can therefore be the source of true morality. (For no apparent reason, he also said this fact demonstrated God's existence... which was neither the topic of discussion nor true.)

Nearly everything Hausam said hinged on one or both of these assumptions being true. Yet he failed to substantiate either assumption. Furthermore, I think both of these can be deomstrated to not be true: human's can be moral without a god, and God (and let's not beat around the bush here, Hausam was talking about the God of the Bible) is neither "objective" nor consistently moral.

Human-based morality is not real morality?
Hausam played a little linguistic trick throughout his arguments. He was supposedly saying that morality cannot exist without God. But what he actually contended is that objective morality cannot. I got so tired of him invoking the word "objective" as if it gave him a free pass to say whatever he wanted.

Here's the deal: in a way, he's right: there is no universally accepted "objective" morality in humans. Things deemed anathema to one society wouldn't garner so much as a batted eyelash in others. We can come up with some approximations of "objective" morality: equal opportunity no matter one's gender, race, religion, or nation; rejection of murder and rape, and so on. But even those qualities are based on some assumptions (assumptions that I subscribe to), such as the inherent equality of all people. Indeed, without holy words in the picture, I'd contend that it may be easier to fashion something approaching an "objective" morality, as wouldn't be based around the capricious desires of beings that only speak through chosen "prophets."

So what if human morality is "subjective?" They're the result of evolution and social cohesion, primarily, which doesn't make them less applicable to human life, but more applicable than those based on the unintelligible motivations of a sky god, operating under the the simple moral rule of "whatever I say goes."

Hausam repeatedly stated that although he wouldn't act any differently in a godless universe, other people would. He doesn't have numbers to back this up of course, as atheists are the least well-represented in American prisons of any religious group, and the least religious nations in the world report the highest levels of overall happiness and stability (yes, there are many other factors playing in to those two statistics, but it does throw into question the idea that lacking belief in God = guiltless crime spree party).

God is objectively moral?
Hausam came out as a Calvinist during the debate, meaning he believes that every jot and tittle of our lives is specifically preordained by God, making EVERY HUMAN ACT EVER a moral act by his standards, as it was preordained by the perfect holder of "objective" morality. Torture? Moral. Rape? Moral. Murder? Moral. I doubt very much that Hausam truly believes those acts are okay, yet he's constructed a world in which there is no reconciliation -- save cognitive dissonance -- of these factors. If anything God does is moral, and god specifically preordains all human acts, then the 9/11 attacks, the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, and [insert horrific human act of choice here] are all moral acts.

Indeed, this is a much more troubling scenario than the one he proffered about we amoral atheists.

So how objective is God's morality? If we are talking about some inchoate, distant Deist god who is not concerned with human affairs one way or another, then fine: call it objective. But also call it meaningless. Of what use is "objective" morality if this being is not concerned with us and does not communicate with us?

If, instead, we're talking about the God of the Bible (and let's be clear: we are), then we most certainly are not talking about an objective being. God says so himself, in describing himself as variously jealous, loving, vengeful, pleased at the smell of burning animal flesh, and myriad other decidedly subjective dispositions towards humans and human acts.

Based on my own set of "subjective" morals, rape and genoocide (to pick two examples) are always wrong. The same can't be said for the God of the Bible. If whatever he says is moral is moral, then that means raping war orphans is not only sometimes morally acceptable, but morally obligatory. Same goes for murder, genocide, and on and on. These things aren't always okay. Just whenever God says they are. How is this objective? It sounds rather capricious, petty, and -- dare I say it? Yes, I dare -- immoral to me.

Furthermore, if we assume that Yahweh is an "objectively moral" being, then from whence comes this objectivity? This is a classic turtles all the way down problem: Who bestowed moral authority on God?

I wished there was a Q&A session afterward, as Austin Dacey only had a limited amount of time (and therefore, a limited scope) to respond to Hausam. I've touched little on Dacey's criticisms here, precisely because he answered them so persuasively that all I have left is the stuff Dacey was unable to address and I thought warranted more exploration.
_________________________________________________

If you read through all of that (and I don't blame you if you didn't), I'd be interested to your your thoughts in the comments below.

SHIFT: Austin Dacey lecture and debate, Feb 27

2010-02-21T17:34:00.000-08:00

SHIFT: Secular Humanism, Inquiry and Freethought, the University of Utah secular student alliance, has an exciting event coming up this coming Saturday. I'll be there! Hope you can make it too!

(via SHIFT's blog)
Austin Dacey, author of The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life, and former Center for Inquiry representative to the United Nations, is coming this Saturday!

His lecture, called "Blasphemy: Hate Speech or Human Right? Inside the struggle for freedom of expression at the United Nations" will be held in the University of Utah Fine Arts Auditorium (375 South 1530 East) on Saturday, February 27, beginning at 4:00pm ~ the doors will open at 3:00, and seating is first-come-first-served, so come early to grab your good seats!

Following Dr. Dacey's lecture, he will be joined by local Salt Lake Community College Professor of Philosophy, Dr. Mark Hausam, for a debate entitled, "Is Morality Possible Without God?"

Don't miss this amazing opportunity! This lecture is being hosted by SHIFT ~ Secular Humanism, Inquiry and Freethought. It has been generously made possible by the exhaustive efforts of Co-Founder Jason Cooperrider, The Secular Student Alliance (one of our national affiliates), and The Humanists of Utah, as well of course by our participants Dr.s Austin Dacey (and Angie McQuaig) and Mark Hausam.

Donations are gratefully being accepted via cash or checks mad

We need to have a serious talk about Glenn Beck

2010-02-21T12:28:00.000-08:00

I know I've been away from the blog for a bit. I promise right now to be posting more. You know how real life gets in the way of things...

So, Glenn Beck is a ridiculous conspiracy theorist. This is not news of course. But I tend to think of him as more of a laughingstock than anything else.

But every now and then, he reminds me that he's dangerous. Watch this vid. Watch the whole thing so you hear the poor frightened caller who he has convinced will be murdered, even going so far as to tell her directly that, yes, expect people to be bursting through your door any day now to put you out of your misery. It's utterly appalling:

(via Attempts at Rational Behavior)

Weirdo non-sequitur post about my Old Navy canvas wallet

2010-01-20T09:59:00.001-08:00

When I was 16ish, I had a cheap-ass leather wallet. It belonged to my grandfather when he died, but I don't think it had ever been used. I'm not sure how old it was, but in the clear driver's license pocket there was card with terribly-illustrated drawings of Alan Ladd and Virginia Mayo. There is no way I'd have recognized Ladd and Mayo's on sight, but they were helpfully labeled "Alan Ladd" and "Virginia Mayo," respectively. Handy! I thought this was so bizarrely awesome that I left the card in place.

It wasn't a very well-made wallet, and it starting falling apart rather quickly. Luckily, around my 18th birthday (which HOLY CRAP WAS 12 YEARS AGO!!!), I received an Old Navy gift card.

I walked on in and, not finding any clothes I was particularly enamored with, I ended up picking up a new wallet instead. It was a green canvas wallet; a bi-fold with a Velcro clasp and a zippered coin purse built in to the front. I transferred over the contents of my old wallet, including the ugly illustration of Alan Ladd and Virginia Mayo, and off I went!

It's now 12 years later, and this durable beast of a money holder is still the only wallet I've owned as an adult. It's seen some action: I've lost it for extended periods at least twice. It's been dropped into the ocean in a foreign country. It's packed around a LOT of crap, including ticket stubs for every movie I watched from 1998 to 2005 (it seemed like a good idea at the time, okay?). It has held up amazingly well. The zipper on the coin purse is shot, and there's a bit of fraying here and there, and Alan & Virginia departed in the last two years, but otherwise it's in great condition.

A few years ago, I looked at replacing it. I'd had the thing for a decade and although it didn't need replacing, I wanted to get something new. I looked. Hard. And nothing I found had everything I wanted: bi-fold, canvas (or at least not leather, as I was vegetarian at the time), reasonably attractive. I did find a hemp wallet that was just what I was looking for... except for the giant marijuana leaf embroidered on the front. Nothing met my criteria, so I decided to just hold on to what I knew I liked until it totally gave out...

I don't know what I'll do when that happens!

Side note 1: This is not a plug for Old Navy. due to the labor practices of their various factories, I don't shop at Gap, Inc. Gap is actually one of the better companies when it comes to big-time overseas garment production, but they are no means good guys. Even if 90% of a company's labor comes from "clean" sources, that still means 10% comes from deplorable or slave-like conditions. For khakis.

Side note 2: Hey hemp people: you know, some of us actually might prefer to buy ethically-made, fair-trade, sweatshop free, and/or animal-free products without giant ganja leaves on them, or giant proclamations that "Hey! This is made out of hemp! That makes me better than you, you jackass!" on your products (okay, I may be exaggerating... slightly). And don't get me started on the whole "organic" thing. That's a different post for a different day.

Revisiting my "personal history" posts

2010-01-13T09:16:00.000-08:00

In the early days of this blog, all the way back in the last decade, I did a little miniseries of posts about my personal history, particularly my relationship with religion. A recent thread on Skepchick has caused me to dig those posts up.

Rereading these, I'm surprised by my level of candor and the depth of my descriptions. I've been an atheist for a long time, but I wrote these as I was starting to find community in other people who felt likewise, and beginning my affiliation with rational skepticism.

I really like these posts. And I hope you do too:

Part 1 - Who I am now (well, who I was in 2008, which is mostly the same thing). Why I'm an atheist & a skeptic and what those terms mean to me.
Part 2 - I grew up in a Mormon family and community, but my parents always encouraged critical thinking.
Part 3 - As I became a teenager, I began reconciling my belief -- or lack thereof -- with a scientific viewpoint that increasingly edged-out religion.
Part 4 - "Agnostic, leaning toward atheism"

I would love to hear comments about your own experiences with religion in the comments here on on the posts themselves. Cheers!

Be my podcast co-host!

2010-01-04T14:11:00.001-08:00

I'm working on a new podcast. I don't want to give too much away about it just yet, as you filthy internet thieves will steal my ideas, and my soul along with them!

(Um... That is to say, I want to wait until I have a the first few episodes planned out and the first one in the bag before I get too loudmouthed about it.)

The show will have a single, ongoing topic, and I'm going to approach it from a skeptical perspective... though it's not a topic that generally gets a lot of attention from the skeptical community and isn't covered by any other skeptical podcasts that I know of... And best of all, that topic is going to lend itself to being a LOT of fun.

I'm also looking for a regular co-host. It's probably easiest if you live in the Salt Lake area, but I'm open to anyone. Care to participate in a biweekly/semimonthly podcast on a mystery topic? (Just ask me, and I'll spill the details.)

Also, the plan is also to do regular scientific-ish (emphasis on the -ish!) tests to be included in the show, and will require a decent number of participants. The idea is to put to-the-test various claims, myths and legends about my mystery topic. And it will be AWESOME for everyone involved. I promise it'll be a BLAST.

------

P.S., Hmmm... Upon rereading those last couple of paragraphs, it sounds like I'm obliquely implying that the mystery topic will involve an orgy, for science. Though science is a perfectly good reason to have an orgy, it is not currently on the agenda, as I cannot afford that much plastic sheeting.

------

P.P.S., And no, it doesn't involve drug use either.

------

P.P.P.S., To the person who stumbled upon my last post (the decade-in-review music post) with the Google search term "erotic preteens": I heartily recommend you go die in a fire.

Top 10 Albums of the Preteens

2009-12-31T08:58:00.001-08:00

It's the end of decade! That is, unless you're one of those pedantic technically-speaking-2010-is-the-end-of-the-decade-because-there-was-no-year-zero people. Which I'm not. Say goodbye to the 00's, the "Ohs", the "2Ks", the "Noughties". I'm calling them the "preteens" purely becuase I haven't heard anyone but me offer it up as a potential name for this decade. Yep. I'm that self-satisfied.

Anyway...

I know, I know. Top 10 lists are soooo cliche. Tough. Here comes a top ten list, along with my thoughts about the albums. I hope you enjoy!

Do you disagree? Anything you'd put on your list? I'd love to hear from you in the comments.

God, I love music.

Top 10 albums of the preteens, according to me
I'm trying reaaaaaallly hard not to weight this list too heavily to the last couple of years, with albums like Grizzly Bear's Vekatimest that I adore right now, but -- let's be honest -- I'll hardly remember in five years. Also, I refuse to rank them, so it's alphabetical. Also, there are twelve entries. Whatcha gonna do about it? Huh? HUH!? Okay, here goes:

The Decemberists, The Crane Wife
I debated long and hard (nearly two minutes!) over which Decemberists album to put on this list, and I almost included two. Upon my first listen, I didn't care for the Crane Wife as much as Picaresque. Maybe becuase it's a little less quirky. But as it grew on me, I discovered it was a deeply rich and engrossing album, with common threads (both figurative and literal, if you listen to the lyrics) running throughout the album. Like all Decemberists albums, it's one for storytellers and story lovers.

If you liked this album, check out bluegrass artist Sarah Jarosz's album Song Up in her Head to hear a gorgeous and chilling cover of the song "Shankhill Butchers".

The Dresden Dolls, The Dresden Dolls
If you're not already a Dresden Dolls or Amanda Palmer fan (you probably are), go buy this album right now. Listen to it. Then once more. Then come back here. Congratulations! You're now a Dresden Dolls fan!

Elastica, The Menace
This album is probably not making many best-of-the-decade lists. But you know what? I really like it, so there. Oh, how I miss Elastica.

Goldfrapp, Felt Mountain
Goldfrapp has become quite popular as a sort of weirdo-disco artist in the last few years. Even if you don't know her (she's not gotten near the attention here in the US as in Europe), you've heard music her on TV shows, in commercials and in films.

Felt Mountain, Goldfrapp's first album, is quite a bit different from later releases. Rather than quirky eletcronic dance pop, this album sounds like it was recorded in a smoke-filled speakeasy in the middle of an enchanted forest. How's that for a metaphor? This album is filled with haunting, jazz-ish melodies; strange howls and whistles; and an unrelentingly erotic air. The most upbeat song here, "Human", might as well have been a Shirley Bassey song, and that is not a bad thing at all. I LOVE this album.

PJ Harvey, Stories from the City, Stories from the Sea
Anyone who knows me knows that I love me some Polly Jean Harvey. She's almost certianly on my list of top five favorite artists. But there really are two different PJ Harveys, and it seems that they alternate between albums. One PJ is a manic, rocking badass who could eat Mic Jagger for a midnight snack. The other is introspective, soulful, haunting and (relatively) subdued. I tend to prefer my PJ loud and in charge, but this album is by far the best of "quiet" PJ (though it's FAR from quiet at times) and is one of my favorite albums. Period.

The Thom Yorke duet "This Mess We're In" is beyond gorgeous, and "A Place Called Home" would surely be one of my answers if this were a lame Facebook "If you could only listen to the same five songs..." quiz. Which it is not.

Metric, Live It Out
Blah blah blah. I just wrote a long and pretentious passage about how so much of the decade's important music (blah blah Arcade Fire blah blah Broken Social Scene yada yada Feist) came from Canada, and it included jokes about Crash Test Dummies and William Shatner. But I scrapped it. The point is this: Metric is one of the best bands making music today, in my opinion. Any of their albums could have made this list, but I went with this one. There's not a song on it that I don't love. Excellent.

Nine Inch Nails, Year Zero
I "discovered" music in part because of NIN's album The Downward Spiral, which *HOLY CRAP CAME OUT 15 YEARS AGO WTF!?!?!??!*

After Spiral, it seemed like a looooooooong wait for another proper album from Reznor & Co. When The Fragile (and later, With Teeth) was finally released, I was more than a little disappointed. It just didn't speak to me at all, and I considered giving up on NIN entirely.

Then came Year Zero. YZ is so many things: It's a concept album. It's social activism. It's environmental activism. It's pointed criticism of religious fanaticism, racism, nationalism, fascism and corporate greed. It's a multifaceted, multilayered story told across different media, including the album itself, music videos, websites from the "future", real-world events orchestrated as part of an alternate reality game, and even mysterious USB drives filled with hidden clues left where fans might stumble upon them. And on top of all of that, it's a phenomenal album musically. A superb evolution of the NIN sound. I heart it.

Also, in case you were keeping track, the total number of words ending in "-ism" in the last paragraph: 7

Noisettes, What's the Time, Mr. Wolf
Every time I listen to this album, I find myself singing along, loudly, whether I want to or not. Nothing fancy here, just really well-executed, loud, fun rock-and-roll. If you've not heard this ridiculously fantastic album (and you probably haven't), imagine what the Pixies might sound like if they were fronted by Billie Holiday, and you're getting close. Unfortunately, the Noisettes went in a different direction for their second album: mostly boring, over-produced pop. They're more successful now, so good for them. But I miss this incarnation of the Noisettes.

Portishead, Third
Do this right now: Build a time machine, go back in time to 1998, find one of the newfangled "Internet Cafes" and look at some profiles on an internet personals site. Find the question that asks what music is the best to make love to. You'll likely see one of two bands (strangely, both hailing from Bristol, England): Massive Attack and Portishead.

The Portishead of the 90s was phenomenal music. I adored their first two albums, which sounded like they'd been designed with three purposes in mind: fucking, bleak rainy days, and early James Bond films. Their first two albums of truly excellent music helped spawn an entire new genre of music: trip-hop.

But even I, a Portishead fan, can recognize that another album of the same sound would have been overkill. I suspect the band members also realized this, so a long time passed before Portishead's third album called, uhh... Third, was recorded. And WOW, was it worth the wait.

Gone are the idiosyncratic spy-theme grooves and the record scratches. This Portishead is ferocious; full of distortion, aggressive drums and hypnotic sounds. And Beth Gibbons voice sounds more willful than ever. And yet, it still Portishead down to the last ounce. Every time I listen to this album, I discover new layers and new sonic adventures. (Huh, that statement sounds a lot more like it should involve cartoon hedgehogs than I'd intended it to).

Sleater-Kinney, The Woods
Best album of the decade. End of review.*

*-Except to note that it's also S-K's final album, which sucks.

Runners Up (i.e., superb albums I'm too lazy to write a review for):

Sons and Daughters, The Repulsion Box

Mary Timony, Ex Hex

Just to move that last post down from the top

2009-12-22T14:23:00.000-08:00

I'll have more real substance in my posts coming after the year. (Maybe before, who can say?)

This post is mainly to move that last post down the page a bit. I was having a bit of a bad day that day.

Aaaand, on that note, I'm out!

Christmas this year.

2009-12-15T13:11:00.000-08:00

It's been nearly a month since I've written a post. I think it's a record!

So, Christmas this year will be strange for me. It really is going to be just like any other day
and no, not for the reasons you think: Sure, I'm an atheist, but I've got nothing against Christmas. Ultimately, it's a secular holiday with a religious name and a few religious traditions attached to it (and, really, it always has been).

No, this will be the first Christmas I'll be spending more or less like every other day. I'll have no family in town, and all of my friends have elected not to do gift exchanges this year... This makes Christmas shopping REALLY easy, but still I feel like I'm missing out on something, and I'm not quite sure why. Despite not having anything against Christmas, neither have I any particular attachment to it... Still, it feels like I should be doing SOMETHING on the 25th.

Any ideas?

Thank you, Wired!

2009-11-24T16:06:00.000-08:00

Wired magazine has the first story (as far as I've seen) in the mainstream mediacalling into question the veracity of some of the claims made about Houben via facilitated communication.

Thanks! :)

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/houben-communication/

BTW: Wired has been kicking ass with the skeptical reporting lately. Amy Wallace's awesome cover story debunking the nonsense claims that vaccines cause autism was excellent as well.

Man thought to be in coma for 23 years was conscious the whole time!!!! Except, probably not...

2009-11-24T11:11:00.001-08:00

If you're like me, you've heard everyone in your office talk in hushed, shocked tones of Rom Houben, the Belgian man thought to be in a coma for 23 years. Now, by using a special keyboard, Houben has miraculously spoken, and it turns out he was conscious the whole time, and he recounts the terrifying reality of being trapped in his body without the ability to speak or move. As Hoben himself sadi through his keyboard, "I screamed, but there was nothing to hear."

Or that's how the media is reporting it.

Unfortunately, that's not the whole story. This "special keyboard" works like this (via the Guardian):

What's so strange about that?

In order to use the keyboard, his hands must be supported and moved by an someone else. This is known as "facilitated communication". FC began as a method to allow people with severe autism and other neurological conditions to communicate. But unfortunately, facilitated communication has been not only debunked, but debunked soundly and repeatedly.

What's almost certainly at play here are the ideomotor effect and the observer-expectancy effect. These are the same principles upon which Ouija boards work: The facilitator (the one holding supporting the hand) will unintentionally be directing the hand where they expect it to go, spelling out words and sentences. The most famous example of the observer-expectancy effect is that of Clever Hans., the horse who could supposedly perform arithmetic.

Let me be perfectly clear: I don't believe that anyone is intentionally trying to fool anyone here. Much as in the Terry Schiavo case, there are loving family members who are looking for any reason they can find to believe their son is still "alive" in spite of the evidence to the contrary. The other side of this story is that a brain scan revealed abnormal activity. I don't know enough about the neurology end of this to say anything intelligent, and there aren't a lot of details in the public sphere about what those results are.

Perhaps Houben really is conscious. There's a simple way to prove it: Perform a test where some input available to Rom but not his facilitator, such as through earphones, and see if his responses still make sense. I'll gladly change my tune, then. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to accept that he is communicating in the the way described. And certainly not to uncritically attribute quotes directly to him in the Guardian, a usually top-form newspaper that ought to know better.
____________________
UPDATE: Tracy at Skepchick just posted about this as well.

And here's another credulous story, complete with video, at the BBC, another news organization that should know better. It's got more "direct quotes" from Houben. Gah!!! And despite the video showing facilitated communication, not one of the news articles I've seen mention that this "special keyboard" requires a facilitator. Grrrrr...

Feminism, Atheism and Skepticism

2009-11-23T08:31:00.000-08:00

Okay, I know I've been rather absent from my blog of late... and I don't expect that to change for at least the next week or so. Apologies. I WILL be back with more to say on this topic...

But I wanted to break my silence briefly to draw your attention to this excellent post by Amanda Marcotte (one of my favorite people in all of the internets) over at Pandagon on the convergence between atheism, feminism and skepticism. She rightly calls the skeptical and atheist community on to the carpet for turning a blind eye to sexism and creating an atmosphere where women are not welcome unless its to sex things up a bit. I see this happen, and I've left local atheist groups (and even created my own skeptics group) in part because of some of the sexism I've seen on display. These communities ought to know better.

I could go on (and I will try to, later), but Amanda says it better than I can. Plus she's a professional blogger which is more than I can say for myself. (Read: "I better stop blogging and get back to work")

Read it at Pandagon.

And as a bonus, here's another superb post from Skeptifem from last week on a similar issue.

Also, if you're not following Greta Christina, who regularly posts on feminism, atheism, sexuality, politics and how the they all interact, you should be.

That's all for now! Back to the grind for me!

Why Gay Marriage Shouldn't Be Illegal

2009-11-06T12:47:00.000-08:00

31 states have now put up ballot initiatives or propositions to explicitly ban same-sex marriage. In all 31 cases, those measures have passed, disallowing rights to some individuals that are granted to others. Maine was perhaps particularly surprising, due to it being solidly democratic and the 3rd least religious state in the country.

If you haven't read it already, check out my post from January of this year entitled "Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal."

Re-reading it, it might have been better called "Why Gay Marriage Shoult Not be Illegal", as my focus is more on dismantling the various claims made by bigots and fundamentalists...

I'd love to hear any comments on that post, too. Have you heard any other arguments, particularly any that are -- at least on the surface -- not based on religion?

Read it here:
Why Gay Marriage Should be Legal

A new post! Yay!

2009-10-28T08:15:00.000-07:00

I've been neglecting the blog for the last bit... And I'm still doing it. This is really just a post to move the last one on the Oaks speech down the page, because I'm tired of the whole affair.

That's all from me today! :)

A closer look at Dallin Oaks' sinister speech

2009-10-16T09:53:00.000-07:00

"Sinister?" A bit of an overstatement?

Maybe. Maybe not.

I think we all zoomed in on the absurd claim that Mormons are akin to the blacks during the era of the civil rights movement. That's a claim so baldly ridiculous that it's easy to, well, ridicule.

But as C. L. Hanson explores over at Main Street Plaza, that derision allowed some of the more insidious language of Oaks' speech to go unrebutted. For instance:

But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.

In other words, Oaks is claiming that when people speak out against the LDS church from a secular position, their opinion should be automatically devalued, because religious "actions" by default carry more weight than secular ones.

Positions based on one's faith certainly are given deference in ways I think are often inappropriate, such that as long as someone can say a hateful belief or immoral action is faith-based, it should be immune to criticism. But to hear a high-ranking religious leader put it so plainly is troubling.

Oaks puts it even more plainly here [emphasis mine]:

Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.

Is he just saying that the faithful should call people who they disagree with on the carpet and tell them they're wrong? Maybe. And if so, that's all fine and democratic — as long as he does not expect religious people to be immune from criticism, which he clearly does...

If his text is taken literally, Oaks believes the gay rights movement (in particular) should be censored, that they should not even be allowed to express their opinion, simply becuase it contradicts religious tradition.

Ugh (for the second time today).

More analysis of Oaks' speech at Main Street Plaza. and here's the full text of the speech.

Picking cherries

2009-10-16T08:50:00.000-07:00

I've been talking a lot about cherrypicking on this blog lately; that is, picking the bits you like out of something (let's say, oh, the Bible) while disregarding the bits you don't. It's one of the biggest reasons why I think one's personal religious perspectives in many ways form to fit the way they already see the world, rather than than one's worldview being shaped by religion.

Anyway, here's a terrible story: a gay man was brutally attacked and beaten on the streets of Queens. All of this was caught on security video. Disgusting. The two attackers have been apprehended, which is a good thing.

The news report below (WARNING: it includes video of the vicious attack) features an interview with a friend of one of the assailants who claims that the atatck was not a hate crime, as the victim had it coming for propositioning one of the attackers. Ugh. So, if a woman he wasn't interested in had propositioned her, she would have deserved such an attack too, according to his logic...

So, now to the cherrypicking part (as picked up on by the Friendly Atheist):

The interviewed friend features a tattoo of Leviticus 18:22 on his arrm. You know, the "thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" passage. Yep, that's in the Bible all right. But you know what else is in the bible? In some Bibles, probably even on the same page as LEV 18:22? This:

"Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord."

A prohibition against tattoos. Yet, he does not not seem to live in fear of being beaten nearly to death as a result.

Of course, his friends (assuming they were religious. Who knows?) were cherrypicking too: they're ignoring the "love thy enemy as theyself" parts.

Ugh.

ATTENTION FUNDAMENTALISTS: Stop depriving us of all opportunities to satirze you

2009-10-15T10:09:00.001-07:00

Right on the heels of this,

and this,

and countless other bits of paranoia and extremism from the far right and religious extremeists, comes this:

Pastor Marc Grizzard [of North Carolina's Amazing Grace Baptist Church] and his church’s members will be banning “Satanic” books… Like all non-King-James versions of the Bible...

They’re also burning books by Billy Graham, Rick Warren, and (really?) James Dobson, Bill Bright, and Tim LaHaye.

Seriously? The likes of Tim LaHaye, and James dobson are too pinko-liberal, lefty-revisionist for these guys? Serioulsy?

Yes, seriously:

I give up. I just don't know where to go from here.

Irony, thy name is Dallin H. Oaks

2009-10-14T11:37:00.000-07:00

Who was it that said "irony is dead?" I mean, originally. Whoever it was was either very, very wrong or was, ironically, trying to be ironic... or something.

Anyway, Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve (this quorum of twelve, not that one), is one of the highest-ranking officials of the LDS church.

(An aside: a few days ago, I found myself — bizarrely, for the second time — in a local diner in the company of Thomas S. Monson the president and prophet of the LDS church. For better or worse, I can't say the story was nearly as entertaining as the first such event.)

Oaks recently spoke to students at Brigham Young University- Idaho, remarking that "The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing... The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom."

This isn't the ironic part. I do happen to believe Oaks is wrong about that, though: perhaps the tide is changing as he says, but there is no hint of any campaign to impinging on religious freedom, and indeed secularists and most nonreligious people would vehemently oppose any such proposed laws.

But wait, irony is on the way! You ready? Here it comes! [from Fox13 News]

In an interview Monday before the speech, Oaks said he did not consider it provocative to compare the treatment of Mormons in the election's aftermath to that of blacks in the civil rights era, and said he stands by the analogy.

"It may be offensive to some -- maybe because it hadn't occurred to them that they were putting themselves in the same category as people we deplore from that bygone era," he said.

Wait, did he really just say that? Yes he did: Oaks just compared the campaign to pass Prop. 8, which denied basic civil rights to an oppressed minority, to the 1960's Civil Rights movement. It's an apt analogy, of course... except in Oaks' metaphor, the LDS church is akin to oppressed African Americans, and gay people and progressives are akin to the oppressors denying people their rights.

Huh?

No one is trying to deny Mormons civil rights. No one is preventing Mormons from getting married, forcing them to the back of the bus, or dispersing their services with fire hoses. This is absolute lunacy.

Oaks cites a few threats against Mormons and incidences of vandalism of LDS church property. A few such acts did happen just before and after the passage of Prop. 8, and they were wrong and deserve to be condemned. But for every such incident, there are scores and scores of incidents of violence against gay people and their property. Oaks is so far off-base here, it's past "funny" and into "shocking" territory.

Today, this "oppression" Oaks is talking about consists of gay (and straight!) couples making out in protest near their property; a few people campaigning for the revocation of the LDS church's tax-exempt status (as they have been acting a lot more like a PAC than a church when it comes to political items such as Prop. 8); and, yes, some undeserved hostility to rank-and-file Mormon people — even to liberal Mormons who may have opposed Prop. 8 — that would be better directed at the church leadership and policies. (I will say this to any liberal Mormon's reading, though: remember, your tithing money is funding these hate-based campaigns.)...

But no one here is trying to infringe on the religious freedom of Mormons or any other religion. No one is now or will force the LDS church to perform gay marriages if they wish to become more and more irrelevant.

Oaks' statements — despite his claim that they should not be "provocative" — are not just laughably backwards, they are outright offensive.

[hat tip to PZ]

RE: Bill Maher

2009-10-12T09:28:00.000-07:00

Regarding my previous post (and by "post," I mean "linking to a video with a snarky comment"), Orac has a great takedown of Bill Maher's recent comments, and why it's frustrating and ironic that the Atheist Alliance International would give him the 2009 Richard Dawkins Award (named for Dawkins, not given by him). Sure, Maher's film Religulous was entertaining, if mostly shallow, but his endorsement of cancer and flu death is every bit as dangerous, faulty and antiscientific as the rhetoric of the religious extremists he chronicled in Religulous. As Orac beautifully put it:

He's an anti-vaccine, quackery-supporting font of flaming moronicity every bit as bad as Ken Ham, Michael Behe, or any flak from the Discovery Institute. His views on medicine are every bit as much ideology driven as any view on evolution from a creationist. Indeed, the vitalism from which Maher's germ theory denialism derives is every bit as much a mystical, religious viewpoint as that of the worst hard core young earth creationist. And he's the 2009 recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award.

Good going, AAI.

Oh Bill Maher, why must you force me to side with Bill Frist over yourself?

2009-10-11T12:01:00.000-07:00

Why must you be an anti-science nut?

[via PZ]

The Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-07T16:57:00.000-07:00

Ugh! It has been a busy couple of weeks. After spending all of last week on a work trip, I came home... But guess where I am now? That's right, on a work trip. Busy busy busy...

Anyway...

The Conservative Bible Project. I can't not comment on this utter ridiculousness.

I can't not comment on this. Do you remember a few posts ago where I talked about how religious people cherrypick the bits of their holy books that illustrate their own philosophies? Both religious liberals and conservatives do this.

But few are so brazen about it as the people behind the Conservative Bible Project.

Andrew (son of Phyllis) Schlafly's Conservapedia has started a the CBP because, and I shit you not, they feel that the Bible has a liberal bias. their solution is, much as Conservapedia is to Wikipedia, to edit out all of the hippy dippy parts about not stoning adulterers but keep all the parts about guns and miniature American flags. Okay, maybe I'm being a TAD facetious on that last part, but only ever so slightly.

Jesus. H. Christ. On a bicycle.

This, of course, is quite frustrating, as the fundamentalists are swiftly depriving us of any opportunity to satirize them by going so much further than any satire could possibly imagine. (Indeed, Slactivist has a great post on that very topic. Check it out.)

Okay, now back to work for Patrick.

Quick update... and WTF?

2009-09-29T22:28:00.000-07:00

So, I'm out on a work trip all week, and I've been BEYOND busy. whew!

That means no blogging... well, except for this.

Also, to the people at Ralph Lauren: are we REALLY supposed to believe this is a real person, or even some "idealized" version of one?

City Weekly alien abduction story

2009-09-24T09:38:00.000-07:00

[X-Posted at Salt City Skeptics]

A month or so back, I was interviewed by Salt Lake City Weekly, the local alternative weekly. I was asked help provide a skeptical perspective on alien abduction.

Looks like the story was just published online (my quotes are all on page 2), and the dead tree version comes out next week.

This is my first experience at being a Token Skeptic, but hopefully not my last (token skepticism is at least better than NO skepticism, right?), so I thought I'd share my thoughts.

When interviewed I didn't have any information on the specific cases being discussed, so I tried to speak in generalities. I will say that I appreciate the author including every main point I tried to make, and including a second skeptical voice as well (Joel Layton, who made some similar points).

Is the story written from a rather credulous perspective, taking the statements of "abductees" at face value? Yeah, but I'm having trouble faulting the author for that. That's just kind of how stories like this go. I think I did a decent job of giving a reasonable counter-balance, though it would have been nice to tailor my thoughts more to the specifics of the stories mentioned.

And so... that's what I'll do here! I'll try not to recap the stories themselves too much here, so keep the article handy if you want to follow along. In each case, I'm more or less assuming that the people interviewed are being honest about their memories, and not deliberately lying (there's no reason to think they were lying).

The article starts with a few "abduction" accounts. First up is Don Anderson's story, where aliens come to take for his four-year-old son and he convinces them to bring him along.

To me, Anderson's story reads just like the recounting of a dream: many things happen that aren't particularly causally linked to each other, lots of odd details that stick out with unusual focus in the story, the "tall blond woman" who seems strangely familiar (I know when *I* dream, people I know are often composited into other people who I don't quite know... alternative explanation: it was Six). It even ends with him springing out of bed.

I once dreamed that I was eaten whole by a fifty-foot tall genie on a Godzilla-like rampage through downtown Salt Lake City, only to discover that it was a robot on the inside. I challenged the robot's controller to a game of Uno and, upon winning, defeated him with a withering one-liner.

No one would report such a dream as an actual experience, yet if they dreamed the same experiences as Anderson, I could easily see them interpreting it as an actual experience, as our society is primed to accept stories of alien abduction more readily than those of giant robot genies.

There is nothing in this story to make me think it was anything other than a vivid dream.

Ron Johnson's story (not to be confused with Jon Ronson) is the same. It sounds like it was a nightmare, period. He had a nightmare about a scary-looking creature staring at him when he was fourteen. Two hundred years ago, he'd have dreamed it was a demon or a succubus; but in our culture, aliens are a more plausible beastie, so he he dreamed about an alien. Moving on...

Glenys Moore also recounts a story that sounds much more plausible as a dream. I hate to sound like a broken record here, but to me, these all just sound like dreams. Moore's may have been a sleep paralysis dream. As I mention in the article, sleep paralysis is a well-understood neurological phenomenon that, when coupled with a nightmare, can lead to some horrific experiences of captivity at the hands of whatever is in the nightmare, be it an alien, a succubus, or Freddy Krueger. Terrifying, but still just a dream.

None of these people are crazy nutjobs, but neither are the stories compelling... But wait, there's more!

Enter, Marlee Spendlove. Spendlove is a hypnotherapist and (though the article fails to mention this fact) Assistant Dirctor of the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) of Utah.

Now, if those two details together don't raise your skeptical alarm bells, perhaps you should have them readjusted.

According to Spendlove, aliens futz about with the memories of abductees to erase or mask what really happened. And Spendlove uses hypnotherapy to help her patients, including Anderson and Johnson, recover their memories of alien abduction.

Uh oh...

In the 1980s, there was a nationwide pandemic of people who, as adults, used hypnotherapy to "recover" "memories" of their parents sexually abusing them children in Satanic rituals. The only issue? It didn't happen. There was no such pandemic of Satanic abuse, and the recovered memories were actually false memories created by the therapist and the patient, sometime cause huge amounts of personal trauma, family estrangement, and prosecution over events that never took place. Furthermore, it minimized or distorted the trauma of people who really have been sexually abused by their relatives.

I should mention that I don't think such false memories are deliberately put in place through such therapy. I've no doubt that these therapists, including Spendlove, are providing these "therapies" honestly. It's just that they don't provide reliable memories, particularly when the therapist is predisposed to lead their patients to a particular conclusion, like Satanic sexual abuse or alien abduction.

Indeed, Spendlove is approaching her therapy with the assumption that her subjects have had an abduction experience, and from how I read it, helps direct her therapy to make her subjects come to that conclusion:

Spendlove says that extraterrestrials are able to block portions of memories, so that the human who interacts with them carries screened memories where the actual alien encounter is replaced with elements that are more typical of everyday human life. After his initial experience, Anderson says that memories of other experiences made more sense to him. “When I was a kid, the 9-foot man in the back yard was one of those beings coming to get me. On other times, they would send these little 3-foot black troll-looking guys to get me, and I called them my gorillas. Thinking back, it made sense, because I had a little black stuffed animal that was a gorilla.”

Umm... Or you, in a suggestible state, constructed a memory wherein two unrelated memories you already had (a scary nightmare and the gorilla stuffed animal) were combined into a narrative story that's much more interesting. Continuing...

Anderson hoped his young son would corroborate it. “I thought, ‘My son has got to prove to me that this really happened.’” When he arrived home from work the day after his first alien encounter, he met his son, who told Anderson he’d had a dream about being attacked by wild bears that were in the house. Anderson had recently read that “in screened memories, aliens mask themselves as animals, because people are comfortable with that.”

Really? A dream about bears = "I was abducted by aliens!" What would the interpretation have been if his son had dreamed of a trip to Willy Wonka's factory, or of a slimy reptilian monster under the bed, or us a giant robot genie, or if he could remember no dreams atr all? I'd bet money that any of these would be interpreted as evidence that the abduction story were true.

Anderson's original story was that they brought him along to make his son feel less afraid. Why was that necessary if they seem to have such mind-control powers? And why, then, did the aliens choose to disguise themselves as BLOODTHIRSTY FREAKING BEARS‽‽‽

Anderson’s son said, “It was really, really weird because it felt so real. And I reached down to scratch my leg, and it’s all bloody.” Anderson says he wiped some of his son’s blood away and “there was a little crescent mark on his leg, which is what extraterrestrials do to take DNA samples.”

So, let me get this straight: An alien species that has evolved to be so human-like in appearance and physiology that we can have sex with them (more on that later) develops faster-than-light space travel and journeys to our planet, but they don't know how to take a DNA sample without leaving a gaping, bloody gash on a young boy's leg? And this is supposed to be a plausible explanation? Ever heard of a cotton swab on the inner cheek? Or a syringe?

None of the stories recounted have any kind of physical evidence to support them. It's all based on people recounting their experiences years or decades after they actually happened. Ron Johnson claims to have actually obtained physical evidence at one point, though of course, it was never retained for analysis. Back to Ron Johnson...

In 2008, for the first time, Johnson was willing to discuss finding tangible physical evidence of alien encounters following several instances of sexual relations with extraterrestrials that occurred over many years. He describes lying on a table having intimate encounters with scrawny-looking, near-anorexic aliens with large eyes. For him, it felt like having sex with a mannequin. “They had no life to them.”

He says he always awoke with a green residue—the color of lime sherbet and texture of Karo syrup—in his underwear. He says he encountered a young man from England at a UFO conference in Laughlin, Nev., who had similar experiences. Recalling his many encounters, Johnson wishes that “whatever the aliens want to do with me, I wish they would let me know what it is.”

Great! So, he always awoke with a mysterious green substance in his underwear, and even found others that had the same experience! We should have some of this mysterious green goop, right?

No? We are supposed to accept that these who independently evolved to be almost human traveled across space to have sex with humans, and even left behind some sort of intergalactic lube for us to study, but the people they left it with threw it all away so we don't actually have any physical evidence?

Again, what is more plausible?

Unintentionally Wingnut Irony, Part II

2009-09-17T08:05:00.000-07:00

On the heels of "don't steal from Medicare to support socialized medicine" comes more from Unintentional Wingnut Irony Theatre.

(from WSJ, via Balloon Juice)

Protesters who attended Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.
Rep. Kevin Brady called for a government investigation into whether the government-run subway system adequately prepared for this weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services.

Seriously.

The Texas Republican on Wednesday released a letter he sent to Washington’s Metro system complaining that the taxpayer-funded subway system was unable to properly transport protesters to the rally to protest government spending and expansion.

And there's more...

[hat tip to Tobasco da Gama]

No words are necessary

2009-09-15T07:10:00.001-07:00

[via Denialism Blog]

Why I don't understand religious moderates and progressive Christians

2009-09-14T09:29:00.000-07:00

I don't understand religious moderates. At all.

Let me start with the caveat that I *love* religious moderates and progressive Christians. Yay for religious moderates! I am glad that you are moderate, progressive and liberal. Religious fundamentalism and extremism pose significant threats, both to individual people (e.g, George Tiller) and to societies as a whole (e.g., generations of people in Africa condemned to die of AIDS because the Catholic church continues to lie about condoms and forbid their use). These are among the reasons our governmental structures need to be built on secular, religiously-neutral pillars. This is where the fight should be, and nontheists and moderates alike can strive for this...

But this post is not about fundamentalists. It's about moderates. It's about people I view as allies on nearly every issue I care about, but I simply do not understand why they are religious. And the issues here are at the core of why I'm an atheist. (Note: I talk here about Christianity, becuase that's the tradition I'm most familiar with, but the same goes for just about of the big "world religions.")

I touched on a lot of these same things last year in my review of For the Bible Tells Me So, the documentary about Christian families coming to terms with their homosexual children. I'll try not to reiterate TOO many points from that post. (You may want to read that post, as well.)

Okay, enough preamble. Let's do this:

Religious fundamentalists get a lot of criticism (and rightfully so) from nontheists, liberals, progressives, and religious moderates. Some particularly egregious examples (viz, Westboro Baptist Church) even get a fair dose of criticism from the right.

Many of these criticism take the form of "you're just reading the Bible the way you want! You're cherrypicking only the parts that back up your hateful views!" arguments.

These points are right on the money: Fred Phelps and friends (bizarrely) protest in front of soldier funerals that "God Hates Fags" but you never see him in front of Red Lobster saying "God Hates Crustaceans." They are cherrypicking the Bible. They are the just choosing the parts that back up their hateful views, and ignoring the "love thy enemy as thy self" parts.

But here's the thing: religious moderates are doing the same thing, just with different passages. They are cherrypicking the Bible (or whichever holy books they happen to be using), identifying with the passages that back up their already-held views of love and acceptance and charity, and ignore the parts advocating for murder and rape and avarice.

Homosexuality is perhaps the most currently pertinent case of this cherrypicking. I'll try not to rehash my points from my earlier post, but here's the thing: The Bible is pretty unequivocal about homosexuality, or at least male homosexual sex: The punishment is death. Period. People like Phelps say that every time homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it's met with execution and/or revulsion. And you know what? They're right. And that goes for the supposedly-progressive New Testamant as well, which also includes the only explicit mention (and condemnation) of lesbianism.

In fact, the Bible makes the point again and again that RAPE, though nearly always viewed bad (except when "righteous" men order it as a punishment), is somehow far less bad if a man rapes a woman than if a man rapes another man. In fact, if a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, the only "punishment" is that she has to marry him and a small fee is paid to her father. That's horrid.

Let's look at a case in point: Do you know the Bible story of "the Levite?" In this charming little tale (itself a partial plagiarism from another part of the the Bible, the story of Sodom and Gommorah), a man and his concubine are traveling to Jerusalem and get caught on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak. A man invites them to spend the night in his house, but things don't go as planned:

²² While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."
²³ The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. ²⁴ Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."
²⁵ But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. ²⁶ At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
²⁷ When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. ²⁸ He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

Now, it's not the central lesson of this story (which, as it happens, was that you should never trust anyone who's not part of your own ethnic group), but one of the explicit lessons here is that it is far preferable for these men to rape the concubine and the virgin daughter than the man. Like I say, the rape is condemned regardless, but it is less bad to rape a woman. It's the same thing in the story of Sodom and Gommorah: Lott offers up his daughters to be raped, and when the Sodomites decline the offer, God destroys them and their city. What an asshole.

How is it that someone can look at this story, or countless other horrid "moral" lessons found in the Bible, and say that the book is a good document to use as one's moral code?

And it's not just an Old Testament/New Testament thing. It's often said that the Old Testament god is a being of jealousy and wrath and terror; while Jesus and the New Testament god is/are being(s) of love and peace and forgiveness... But that's not really true.

Now, on the whole, there's less to dislike in the NT than the OT, but it still doesn't come close to being a positive moral guide, if you ask me. Jesus DOES say to love your enemy, but he also says people (by which here, as most anywhere in the Bible, he means only men) should abandon their wife and chidren for a cool reward. The NT states explicitly numerous times that women are subordinate to men. Paul, who more-or-less founded Christianity, had many charming things to say about women and their place in the chruch.

Let's be clear: *I* am cherry picking here, too. I'm only picking out a few particularly ugly and abhorrent passages. There are many positive moral teachings and lessons in the Bible.

But for for every one of those, there are three or four truly abominable moral lessons. Those lessons are ignored by progressive Christians and religious moderates... And though I think that's a good thing, it's also my point:

If the Bible is such an unpredictable mixed-bag anyway, why use the it as a moral guide at all? Either the Bible is the word of God or it isn't, right? If you're a good person and you recognize the nastiness of the stories mentioned in this post, then clearly the Bible is not really your moral compass anyway. Why not embrace the qualities you cling to and live by, and reject the superstitious and hateful nonsense?

Again, I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of anyone who reads this. Positive, negative, whatever. Please post in the comments! :)

Also, in the course of writing this: Reed at Homosecular Gatheist put up an excellent post touching on similar themes. Go check it out as well.

What ever happened to posts with actual substance?

2009-09-04T08:51:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone!

My apologies lately for not having many posts with any real, you know, substance. It's been an extraordinarily busy month or so. I'll be back in the swing of things here on the blog shortly. :)

Oh dear...

2009-08-31T07:59:00.000-07:00

I just don't know what to say anymore. The Edward Cullen wall cling was a terrible thing.

But this... I just do not even have the words. I'll just let the picture do the talking:
I just... No. NO. GAH!

[via Gizmodo]

Hahah... HahahhaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

2009-08-28T17:04:00.000-07:00

So, Glenn Beck is an idiot. This fact is not in dispute... But I find him strangely entertaining to watch.

I went through a brief period when I stopped finding Glenn Beck funny, and started to find him scary... But no, it's back to funny.. The man has no sense of self-awareness: he cautions right-wingers against getting violent, then puts on a skit about murdering a senator...

Now, I hope I'm right in only finding him funny, and that some crazy person doesn't get inspired by his words and, you know, murder a senator.

But this... THIS is just hilarious.

Yep! It was missing a letter all right... But the letter was C! Hahah. It looks like he'd been leading up to this moment all week, with his foreboding chalkboard of liberal doom... AND HE MISSED A DAMN LETTER! Hahahaha

Irreligiosophy, featuring ME!

2009-08-28T16:24:00.001-07:00

So, I am on the latest episode of the Irreligiosophy podcast along with another Salt City Skeptics member to discuss the group, my religious background, and what it's like living here in Salt Lake City...

Additionally, it was finally determined which of the two hosts, Leighton or Charley, is the most grating -- and why. (This all goes back to my blog post mentioning that, although I liked the show, I could find the hosts grating).

I gotta say, it wasn't nearly as weird hearing my voice on this show as I had anticipated. :)

Sigh... This is what we're up against, people...

2009-08-24T09:34:00.000-07:00

Okay, so in my last post, I mentioned Andrew Schlafly and Conservapedia. If you're not familiar with Conservapedia, it's basically like Wikipedia, except that as the "trustworthy encyclopedia," it is not beholden to, you know, facts.

Just on a lark, I decided check out the current state of the Barack Obama article. What I found was not encouraging. Ugh.

Texas: DOOMED

2009-08-24T07:57:00.000-07:00

So, for decades -- nay, over a century now -- there has been a constant tug-of-war waged by the religious right against including evolution in public school classrooms. To anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of biology, this is absolutely ludicrous. Trying to teach modern biology without evolution would be like trying to teach modern medicine without any discussion of germ theory. Evolutionary theory is modern biology.

The last few years of this war have not gone well for those who wage it. The Dover trial exposed the Intelligent Design movement as little more than a rebranding of creationism, and struck down its includion in public schools. Attempts to insert creationism into biology textbooks have failed, or have succeeded briefly before being overturned by voters or by courts.

Despite huge battles in this war being waged in Florida, Kansas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere; no single state is as important in this war as Texas.

Texas has a state-wide curriculum set by the state Board of Education. This means that rather than each district choosing its own textbooks, the state purchases vast numbers of only those textbooks that have been approved for the curriculum. As a result, Texas holds enormous sway over what is included in your public schools, whether you live in Texas or not. Textbook publishers tailor their content to fit the Texas curriculum. In a very real way, the Texas curriculum is the nation's curriculum.

Which makes what is going on there right now all the more troubling.

Religious conservatives, facing defeat after defeat on the creationism front, have taken an entirely new tack. Not content to simply rewrite science to fit a religious narrative, the Texas school board is now attempting to rewrite American history to reflect a religious, explicitly conservative narrative that is a grotesque distortion of reality:

The first draft for proposed standards in United States History Studies Since Reconstruction says students should be expected “to identify significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly and the Moral Majority.”

This is outrageous. Amanda at Pandagon has an indepth take on this absolute insanity. As Amanda says, including people like Schlafly (who, of course, is a horrible monster) in the history books is not, in and of itself, nefarious. But it should be included in context of what it was she actually fought for, which was to deny equal rights to women. [Side note: Andrew Schlafly, Phyllis' son and founder of Conservapedia among other things], is also a piece of work Portraying her as some sort of hero is beyond ludicrous. It is outrageous.

Go read Amanda's post. She says everything better than I can say it, becuase all I want to say right now is "Mnablargablaniklobomablagrrrrrraflimaginlsdofidun!"

Oh dear god, NO.

2009-08-21T11:00:00.001-07:00

This is quite possibly the creepiest piece of movie tie-in merchandise -=EVER=-:
Yep. It's a sillhouette of Edward Cullen that you can slap on your wall to spy on you from the shadows as you sleep. That's right. It's almost as good as having an actual stalker. I don't believe it's an officially licensed item, but seems to be offered without the merest HINT of irony.

Please, PLEASE just put me out of my misery now. I'm not sure I can go on.

[via Topless Robot, who has another piece of Twilight merch that is NSFW, unless you work at Good Vibrations.]

----

Update: Walking up to a stalker staring at you not enough? Why not have him stare at you in the shower, too!

Translation Party

2009-08-18T12:25:00.000-07:00

Hahaha... Okay, after that longwinded and rather serious post, here's something much more fun:

Translation Party takes whatever phrase you enter into it, translates it to Japanese, then back into English, then does it again and again until it's reached equilibrium (that is, until after two consecutive translations are identical). For instance, here's some text you've probably read before:

Human rights law, divinity, politics, the band's declaration of independence for a connection to the ground station for this event, the decision to establish the same rights, and meet the needs of the natural aging process.

This is the first paragraph to the Declaration of Independence. Strangely, the phrase "declaration of independence" does not appear in the source text at all. lol.

ur nation, in order to establish justice, peaceful, and form a more perfect Union, Japan, and certainly I, we provide a general benefit to the descendants of the Statue of Liberty in the United States Establishing a Constitution to improve the welfare for the common defense of its own.Go check out Translation Party.

[Skepchick me through an interpreter, and found the party.]

What groups like Humanists of Utah can do to thrive

2009-08-18T09:34:00.001-07:00

[Cross-posted from Salt City Skeptics]

Note, though I'm talking about a particular group here in Utah, my thoughts apply to any similar organization...

Last week, I attended a picnic for the Humanists of Utah. HoU is a great organization. Their events and guest speakers are always insightful, and the people are warm, welcoming, positive and just generally awesome.

I've been to two or three HoU events over the years. Each time, one issue has been very apparent. And it's an issue they readily admit: they're aging out. Other than myself, a few members of SHIFT (which was invited to attend), and a few children of long-time members, I don't believe there was anyone under fifty in attendance. And most were older than that. Nearly everyone I spoke with was ecstatic that there were just a few younger people there.

I had a discussion with one member of the HoU who wondered why humanism didn't appeal to younger people, whether it even applied to our lives at all.

My answer: an unequivocal yes. The ideals of humanism are very much the ideals of vast, vast numbers of younger people openly embrace.

So, what's going on then? Why are there so few 20- and 30-somethings attending HoU events?

One piece of the puzzle is shifting labels. The ideals of humanism and the ideals of organized skepticism are very similar and entirely compatible. Yet organized skepticism has grown tremendously over the past few years. Events like The Amaz!ng Meeting have grown from a sort of boutique conference for a few people to become huge social events for skeptics of all stripes. And in the case of TAM, it's been getting younger and more diverse every year.

The "New Atheist" phenomenon has also had a huge impact in the last few years, particularly on younger people. Whether they consider themselves atheists or not, the nonreligious have been emboldened to more readily -- and proudly -- embrace their identity openly.

Not ervey last person who labels themselves a skeptic or an atheist is going to have ideals that line up perfectly with humanism, but for the vast majority of them (including myself), it's the Enlightenment ideals that these labels stand for that are important, not the labels themselves.

But what has changed to make it seem like groups like Humanists of Utah are no longer applicable?

Quite simply, the internet.

The internet has enabled people to form communities with like-minded individuals in ways that weren't possible twenty years ago, or even ten.

Each week, I download vast amount of content to my iPod. Podcasts like Little Atoms (<3), Point of Inquiry, SGU, Irreligiosophy (on which I will be a guest on an upcoming episode!), and Skeptically Speaking keep thoughtful insight into secularism, rationalism, non-theism and other Enlightenment ideals in my ears all week long.

I subscribe to countless blogs in my RSS reader. I've become friends -- both online and IRL -- with some of those bloggers, I keep up with people both locally and far-flung through social media. The people on these blogs and podcasts are real people, and I can get to know them, in some small way, through Twitter or Facebook. I mean, I know more about Rebecca Watson's stuffed animals than I do my neighbors two houses down. Never has it been easier to find a group of like-minded people, regardless of the topic.

This is awesome. I get to be a part of a community of like-minded people all around the world. Whether you love drinking beet root juice or want to find others who love to go bowling in full animal costumes, chances are there's a Facebook or Meetup group for you.

Does it come at a cost? Maybe. The fact is that I don't know much about my neighbor two houses down. My "neighborhood" is definitely more the place I live than a community of which I'm a part. But the internet allows me to find community locally as well. It's precisely because of the internet that I was able to form Salt City Skeptics, and indeed is how I know of Humanists of Utah.

But HoU has yet to jump in to these newer internet media. I've no idea whether this is by choice or just because it hasn't yet been done, but the fact of the matter is that younger people today just do not respond as readily to a static website or monthly physical newsletters. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying there is anything wrong with these things or that they should go away. Maintaining a blog or podcast takes a lot a time and effort. And to some people, a printed newsletter may be totally indispensable.But the fact of the matter is that most people under 35 and a huge number of those over are likely to use (and I hate this term, but it here goes...) Web 2.0 media like blogs, podcasts and social networking sites.

Let's look at my group, Salt City Skeptics. I started the group a little under a year ago, more or less on a whim, and between the presences on Facebook, Meetup and subscribers to the SCS blog, we have nearly 250 unique "members."

Now, very few of those members are as devoted to the group as members of HoU are to theirs.
SCS has a rotating group of ten to twenty people who actively attend our events, plus occasionally more people at special events. For most, Salt City Skeptics "membership" mostly consists of adding it to one's Facebook profile in a list right next to "Fans of Lady GaGa" and "People who don't enjoy being on fire." Most "members" have never come to an event.

HoU members, conversely, have thirty or forty devoted members who come to every event (and probably countless more who don't) and are likely much more invested in the group, viewing it more as a unique community.

The Humanists of Utah certainly have more to offer in terms of content than SCS. I'm just one person and have to balance my time with the group with all the other stuff that comes up in life. HoU is, you know, and actual incorporated nonprofit group with clout and a board and a chair and a budget in excess of $70 a year. The programing schedule put together by HoU is impressive and insightful. SCS mostly gets together to share a few drinks and gripe about pseudoscience and the excesses of religion. I always promise to have more guest speakers, etc., but it takes work getting the ball rolling on these things.

So, what's my point here.

I, for one, want to see HoU continue. But that means they need to invest now in social media and a next-gen web presence. I'd like to help the group survive. I'm going to start posting HoU events here, and I'm going to make my best effort to attend them. I'd hope that HoU can start getting a presence on these newer platforms. A Twitter feed or Facebook group takes just a few minutes to set up, and it instantly allows people to discover these groups and their events. Let's all help this phenomenal group with 20 years of history survive.

Do Not Want

2009-08-14T12:45:00.000-07:00

So, Ron Moore's take on Battlestar Galactica, the only TV show I've reliably watched in the last five years (though, after finally watching a few episodes of Mad Men, I may have another), has been off the air now for less than five months. Many, including myself, are still processing the finale (some in, um, great depth).

What's more, it's not even over: There's a spin-off series, Caprica, on the way; and a TV movie, The Plan, set for release in two months.

Ron Moore's vision of BSG has a throng of die-hard fans who have loved the series' realistic(ish) take on the science behind the fiction; the difficult ethical, moral and political questions explored; the complex characters that fail to fit into simple black and white categories; the strong female characters; it's occasional wry references to Mormon theology and on and on and on.

So what does Universal decide is a good idea? Have Bryan Singer direct a reboot movie. Not a sequel, not a film set in the same universe, but a reboot... supposedly holding closer to the campy 1970's original series, which was little more than a Star Wars ripoff. While I thought this summer's return to a candy-colored Star Trek was fun, I do not - DO NOT - want a candy-colored BSG. This is the worst idea since they decided to reboot Buffy without Joss Whedon's involvement. Ugh.

Who is the target audience for this? People who don't know BSG won't want to see it, and people who do won't want to see it.

Okay, sorry about that. Now back to what is swiftly becoming a favorite passtime: Snarky comments about Glenn Beck... Glenn Beck is a horrible, horrible person. I will laugh at him all the way to my death panel.

The Importance of Standing Firm

2009-08-13T10:18:00.000-07:00

[via Skepchick]
Boston Skeptics has a great post about the overlap of skepticism, feminism, activism, and the importance of standing up for what is right and what is true -- specifically in regards to the abortion issue. The comments on this post are worth a read too. Check it out.

Want. Now.

2009-08-13T02:13:00.000-07:00

Looks like Terry Gilliam is back in prime form with The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. His last two movies left me wanting (Tideland was okay, but I absolutely ABHORED The Brothers Grimm).

It's also Heath Ledger's final film, and Depp/Farrel/Law stepped in to fill his shoes. Also, it's got Tom Waits as the god-damned (literally!) devil, so it must be good.

OMG I hope Rick Santorum runs for president

2009-08-12T06:11:00.000-07:00

[via Shakesville]

Word on the street is that Rick "man/goat marriage" Santorum will be throwing his proverbial hat into the proverbial ring for the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination. Please make this happen. Please help push the Republican party further into obsolescence by bringing in a homophobic, anti-progressive religious zealot and bigot of the highest order who will easily get over 15% of the vote and who is so egregious that his name is now synonymous with a byproduct of anal sex.

Of course, my face will be red if he wins.

Irreligiosopy: The Battle for Grating Supremacy

2009-08-11T06:12:00.000-07:00

Last week, I wrote a post that included a recommendation to a podcast called Irreligiosophy. I'll second that review now. The topics covered on the show are always great and well-covered, and the occasional interview sections are always insightful... But I also noted that the hosts can sometimes be "grating."

Well, Charlie and Leighton, the hosts of Irrreligiwhatever saw my post and even read my "review" on the latest episode! Now I'm famous among all four-and-a-half of their listeners! (they do refer to me as "she" throughout the segment, but there aren't a lot of explicit references to my gender here, so no biggie.)

What's more, I've been invited to come on the show and settle once-and-for-all the burning question of whether it's Charlie or Leighton that is more grating, and why. Still working out the details, so when/if it happens, I'll let you know!

If you weren't already planning on coming to Drinking Skeptically at Piper Down this Wednesday, you plan on it. There's a chance -- emphasis on the CHANCE -- that the Irreligiosophy crew may be coming along and recording for the show.

Take this fun video quiz!

2009-08-06T06:41:00.000-07:00

Hehehe... Oh I love Edward Current. Here's his latest, in the form of an awesome video quiz. I scored a zero. See if you can beat my score!

"If you thanked God that hilarious comedian Dane Cook wasn't aborted, you are correct."

Mississippi spends public money on sectarian abstinence-only conference

2009-08-03T19:52:00.000-07:00

From Feministing:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is going up against the Mississippi Department of Health and Human Services for an Abstinence Summit that was held using government funding.

Ugh.

Seriously: Ugh. Point the first: Abstinence-only sex education does not work. The ideas behind it -- viz. that if you keep secrets about sex from teens, they won't do it -- do a massive, massive disservice to the next generation. Not does AOSE not have any effect on the rates of teen sex, but it also ensures that, when they do have sex (which, since teens love sex, they will), they will not have the knowledge, forsight, and/or mindset to do so safely, with protection from pregnacy and STIs. Period.

And what's more, this event is Mississippi is clearly sectarian in nature. This is why it is so important that we keep religion out of government and out of civics. If all the churches in Mississippi wanted to get together and hold this pro-ignorance conference, then fine. But don't use public money. And it's nonsense like this that shows why organizations like the ACLU are so important. I heart the ACLU... See the video.

God and Abstinence from Stuart Productions on Vimeo.

Living in Utah

2009-08-03T18:17:00.001-07:00

A coupe of links to here and Overheard in SLC from Main Street Plaza, which I just discovered is not in my blogroll... Ahh, there. That's better. I've been enjoying Main Street Plaza (the blog, that is -- I'm less enamored with the actual Main Street Plaza of late) for the last few months. Check it out if you have an interest in the intersection between culture, politics and religion here in Utah...

So, I love Salt Lake City. I really like living here. But it's a misunderstood place. Salt Lake City is one of the most liberal, progressive cities in the nation in a vast sea of red in every direction. Everyone I know who visits here is astounded that the city is so unlike what they expected. I never get tired of exploring new crevices of our (admittedly small) downtown or the gorgeous mountains just to my east. There are layers here. Layers to be pulled back and marveled at. I mean, I live within walking distance of a Sphinx with the head of Joseph Smith and just a quick drive from the haunted dancehall from Carnival of Souls. Can you say that, Bostonians? Chicagoans? I didn't think so. And is Chicagoans a word?

But it's undeniable that living in Utah -- even in the liberal bastion of SLC -- brings with it some challenges, and outsiders may not be familiar with some of the cultural references. Main Street Plaza is a great blog discussing the overlap between the culture, politics and religion here in Utah. Most of the contributors are "post-Mormon" (I like that term. I may appropriate it), but it's not an "anti-Mormon" blog, though it is certainly -- and rightfully -- critical of many of the the LDS church's policies.

Oooh, and another thing: my good friend RebelGrrrl recently introduced me to the Irrligiosophy podcast. It's a pretty decent podcast on atheism and religion, with an emphasis on archaeology, Middle Eastern history and Mormonism (both of the hosts are former Mormons). I'll be honest, sometimes the hosts can be a bit grating, but on the whole it's a very solid podcast with lots of good info. Check it out. :)

Unscientific America

2009-07-30T22:11:00.000-07:00

So, if you've been following the science blogs, the atheist blogs, or the skepticism blogs, you've no doubt heard of the giant kerfuffle over Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum's new book Unscientific America.

Because I'm lazy, I'm not going to link to the relevant posts, but it shouldn't be hard to track down the relevant back-and-forth salvos o'vitriol at Mooney/Kirshenbaum's blog and PZ Myer's blog.

Now, I'd like to preface this with noting that I have not read UA to date. I have read and enjoyed Mooney's previous books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World. But the consensus I've seen of UA seems to be that there's some good discussion of scientific illiteracy in this country, but that there are major flaws in their approach to how to solve the issue. Namely, Mooney and Kirshenbaum blame scientists for not being PR people in addition to being, you know, scientists; and blame the "New Atheist" movement for daring to not bow down to religious claims when they are contradicted by science. If you ask me, kowtowing to unscientific claims is a good way to INCREASE public misunderstanding of science.

There's a new review of UA by Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon. Though it seems to echo the earlier criticisms of the book, Amanda's review is the best encapsulation of the issues at hand I've read... For instance,

I am so sick of the argument that assumes religious people can state their beliefs as forcefully as they like and threaten non-believers with hell, but atheists have to approach the topic on our tip toes. Mooney and Kirshenbaum repeatedly state that there’s no conflict between religion and science as if it’s a fact, when at best that’s a point of strong disagreement.

Exactly. This is why I heart Amanda Marcotte. Go check out the full piece.

Overheard in SLC: Polygamist Rally Roundup

2009-07-30T14:12:00.000-07:00

So, I have another blog -- a neglected one -- called Overheard in SLC. If you're familiar with Overheard in New York, it's the same thing... only, you know, in SLC... and crappier.

Anyway, I just put up a post with some of my favorite quotes from polygamous FLDS members -- and the people who'd come in contact with them -- who were here in town over the last few days for a huge rally thing.

Also, if you live in SLC and would like to help contribute to Overheard in SLC, let me know! Or, if you overheard something deserving of being included, drop me a line!

Gary: Landlord of the Flies

2009-07-30T12:52:00.000-07:00

Check out this HILARIOUSLY awesome blog from Gabe, who has been documenting his increasingly bizarre experience with a room rental (and now, it's aftermath) since first moving in at the beginning of June. Here's a taste of the awesomeness that is Stranger than Eviction, and be glad that Gary is not your landlord:

Upon returning from work on Wednesday, I find 2 cop cars parked in the driveway. The police inform me that when James returned from the hospital, he discovered his TV, laptop, and iPhone were all missing. When asked about this, Gary claimed he had no idea where they were. The police then found the TV in Gary’s garage. He admitted to having stole the TV, but said he had no idea where the laptop or phone was. They found the laptop under his bed. “Alright, I also stole the laptop, but I have no idea where the iPhone is.” The iPhone was then found in his desk drawer.
This is the first, and a prime example, of Gary’s inability to plan for future events. One could assume that after finding the TV, they would likely continue to search. Unless you have thought of a really unique hiding place, just fess up, because they’re probably going to check your desk and under your bed...

And it gets so much better/worse.

Since, as a blog, the newer posts are at the top, I'd recommend starting at the first post (currently, at the bottom of Page 3) and working your way to the newest post. You'll be ~~reading it and laughing in sympathetic horror~~ working hard at your job all afternoon.

Shona Holmes and the reality of Canadian heatlhcare

2009-07-30T07:53:00.000-07:00

If you're following the heathcare debate at all, you've probably heard of Shona Holmes. Holmes has been showing up just about everywhere with her story of how the Canadian government, because their socialist, bureaucratic healthcare system, was willing to allow her to die of a fatal brain tumor. Luckily, she came to the USA where we have a super awesome healthcare system not forged by Stalin, and doctors here were able to save her life.

That's the story, more or less, how she tells it... but you might (not) be surprised to hear that the problems with her story are numerous and range from hyperbole to outright falsehoods.

See the rest of this tale at Some Candaian Skeptic's blog. [and a hat tip to Kaylia Metcalfe]

HAHAHA! Oh, Fox News, you make it too easy!

2009-07-28T15:23:00.000-07:00

Wow.

Check out the awesomeness of Fox's map of the Middle East.
And here all this time I though Egypt was in Africa... And where, exactly, does this put Iraq? You'd think since we've been fighting a war there for more than half a decade, our friends at Fox might have this down by now...
[from Media Matters, via Sadly, No!]

Surprise Debate @ the Farmer's Market

2009-07-27T10:41:00.000-07:00

Last weekend, some friends and I went to the Salt Lake City Farmer's Market. After we'd browsed around for a bit, we grabbed some food and sat down in the shade to eat and relax.

The four of us were chatting about labels. You may have seen my post recently on the same topic. We were discussing the meaning and qualities people might assign to you if you labeled yourself, for instance, a secular humanist versus an atheist.

Out of nowhere, a guy laying on the grass about ten feet away decided to join our conversation, yelling over at our small group:

Atheism is a religion like any other! Atheists are destroying this country and militantly trying to push their views on everyone else and [details lost in a haze of illogic]."

Um. Okay. Who invited this guy to the conversation? We were having a rather abstract philosophical discussion on nature of words and categories, and I was using my religious identification as an example (which happens to be more or less shared by the three people I was with). This guy feels he has an obligation to set us straight on what, exactly, we believe.

This guy shot into a long monologue about why atheists are bad and evil and we're all conspiring to destroy the world or something. At this point, two women on a nearby park bench stand up and leave. I can't say I blame them. Then I spoke up.

Did I make a mistake in engaging the guy? Possibly, but the discussion (which, needless to say, was fruitless) was such a shining example of the sorts of slurs and nonsense I hear hurled about against the nonreligious all the time right along utter falsehoods presented as facts.

Allow me to share some tidbits and quotes, as best as I can remember them. (I'll note that my text intercut here is probably a more fleshed-out discussion of the issues than I originally said, but his text should be fairly accurate.)

Jerk: Atheists are trying to push their views on everyone! They're trying to prevent me from worshiping the way I want. Atheists are trying to infringe on my free speech!

Me: No they're not. Most atheists are for a secular government, but would be vehemently opposed to limiting anyone's religious freedoms. Are there atheists who want to ban all religion and prevent people from practicing as they choose? Probably. I've never met one, but there are extremists in every group.

Jerk: But they're infringing on how I choose to worship! A church in New York had to take down their cross. Some atheist sued them because the shadow of the cross hit public property.

Me: If that happened, which I doubt, then that is wrong. [As expected, that story appears to be bullshit.] Like I said there are extremists in every group. Everyone should be enabled to worship -- or not -- as they see fit. That's exactly why we need to keep our government secular: to protect your religious freedom!

Jerk: Well, this country was founded as a Christian nation.

Me: That couldn't be more false! Many of the founders weren't even Christian: Franklin, Jefferson, Madison--

Jerk: Madison was a strong Christian who believed in Christian principles in our government!!!

Of course, in the real world, Madison more vociferously opposed any religious intrusion into the government than maybe even Jefferson, and said so just about any time he opened his mouth. Lots of other awesome Madison quotes at that link.

Jerk: If they didn't want it to be a Christian nation, why did the founders make "In God We Trust" our national motto.

Me: Uhhh... They didn't! That became our national motto in the 1950s during the Red Scare. The founders were pretty strident secularists, even most of the religious ones.

Jerk: Show me where in the Constitution it says "separation of church and state."

Me: Yeah, those specific words don't appear, in the 1st amendment. But it's clear that was the intent, particualrly since that specific phrase, "separation of church and state," originate from Jefferson's explanation 1st ammendment. How about the first ever legal US government document that makes any mention of Christianity whatsoever, the Treaty of Tripoli, which was written by President Thomas Jefferson and ratified unanimously by the senate, which states that the "Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." That seems pretty unequivocal to me.

Jerk: Well, our laws are based on Christian laws.

Me: No they're not.

Jerk: Name one that isn't.

Me: Name one that is.

Jerk: Thou shalt not kill.

Me: Laws against murder long predate the Hebrew Bible and exist in every society. What about the Sumerians? The Code of Hammurabi?

Jerk: I don't know where you've been learning your history. Maybe you should go back to school.

Me: Um, my degree is in anthropology and I primarily studied Middle Eastern archaeology.

Jerk: Oh yeah! Well, I have a Ph.D!

Me: Um. Okay...

Jerk: How old are you?

Me: That's not important.

Jerk: No, really, how old are you?

Me: That's not important.

My friend: Actually, we were having a private conversation that didn't involve you. Why do you think you have the right to intrude into it.

Jerk: Because I live the United States and I have the right say whatever I want, a right atheists want to take away!

And it went on like this for a while. Eventually, the four of us stood up to walk away from this nonsense, and as we sauntered off, I murmered "Jesus Christ" to myself.

Jerk: PLEASE DON'T SAY THAT!

Me: Why? I thought we lived in the United States, where I'm free to say whatever I like! That's the difference I'm talking about: I think that everyone should be able to say what they like, and you think some people, like me, should be excluded.

Jerk: ... Well, at least I said please.

Simon's Cat

2009-07-26T15:20:00.000-07:00

Via FilthyGrandeur, here's Simon's Cat. No words need be added. Just enjoy:

There's more to be had at the Simon's Cat YouTube channel.

Pat Buchanan = Racist Gasbag; Rachel Maddow = Made of Win

2009-07-21T13:16:00.000-07:00

In case you hadn't heard this, perennial bigot and Pat Buchanan, who is inexplicably still employed by MSNBC, went on the Rachel Maddow. Buchanan was arguing that Sotomayor did not deserve to be on the supreme court because she hadn't written any law review papers "that I [Buchanan] have read," and because the seat rightly belonged to a white man, because...

"...White men were one hundred percent of the people who wrote the constitution, one hundred percent of the people who signed the declaration of independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This is a country built by white folks, basically..."

Well, Maddow has responded and issued a correction to Buchanans racist falsehoods...

"and today he's invented me murdering my son:

2009-07-20T19:46:00.001-07:00

This has already appear just about everywhere, but it's so great I have to share it here as well...

Instead of just venting rage, here are some pics of the Doctor Who

2009-07-20T18:22:00.000-07:00

I'm really quite frustrated with real-life events today.

Quite frustrated actually doesn't even begin to summarize it.

But I don't want that to spill over here or get anyone else down...

So instead, here are some of the first set pics of Matt Smith as the new Doctor Who and Karen Gillan as companion Amy, courtesy Blogtor Who... A bowtie, seriously? He looks like Tucker Carlson. Also -- and I'm saying this as one of the palest people on the face of the earth -- don't these two look like they need a bit of sun?

Can't comment his the acting yet, of course. I'm hopeful, but I still wish it had been Patterson Joseph in that, um... bowtie. He'd have been brilliant:

Congratulations, Sid and Rebecca!

2009-07-15T17:43:00.000-07:00

This makes me happy. :)

Main Street Plaza Kiss In

2009-07-15T07:27:00.000-07:00

I can't really say anything that hasn't been said on this already, so I'll just leave it to Jen at Blag Hag (a blog I'm coming to enjoy quite a lot! :) ), when it comes to the leadership of the large religious organization located at the heart of my fair city:

I hope gays make out in front of all of your temples every day until you wise up.

Nice. :)

Categories and Labels: a Manifesto

2009-07-14T09:27:00.000-07:00

There are many categories I or others might consider myself a part of. Some of these are fairly trivial in their consequences, some are shaped by my society, some shape my role in that society. Some are completely self-applied and help shape the lenses through which I view the world.

Now, labels are just labels. There is a huge variety of opinions within any group. And anyone can throw labels onto themselves that other people might take issue with. The Pussycat Dolls claim to be a feminist band. Bill O'Reilly calls himself a centrist. I, on the other hand, might label him a "douchebag." He in turn would then label me a "pinhead," and so on. We humans like to put things in categories. They make things easier to understand. Categories can be useful, even self-applied categories. But it's important to recognize that they're artificial.

Today, I want to address several of these labels that I readily apply to myself. The ones through which I see the world, as I mentioned above. I'm a far-left liberal, a skeptic, a feminist, an atheist, a humanist, an agnostic, a science-enthusiast, and on and on and on.

I don't see any conflict between belonging to any of those categories I listed above. But why do I apply those particular labels to myself?

I'm a humanist, a skeptic, a science enthusiast, an atheist, and an agnostic because I believe there are things we do know, things we don't know and things we can't know.

In the case of things we do know, I revel in them. I am awed by the fact that we are the products of billions of years of evolution from simple chemical chain reactions to complex creatures that can turn around and consciously know that we are the result of said chain reactions. We are self-aware. Isn't that cool? And those chemical reactions are in turn made possible by billions of years more of stars coalescing from clouds of pure hydrogen, burning for periods of time longer than we can really even conceptualize beyond pure numbers, then exploding in a confetti of oxygen, carbon, neon, copper and all the other elements that make up everything we see, including the eyes we see them with... That is awe inspiring stuff.

And things we don't know? Science is the journey to turn these things into things we do know. It's that self-awareness I mentioned, looking deeper, trying to understand how things are the way they are. And it's by far the best tool we have for doing this.

Then there are the things we can't know. Did a god create the universe? Well, unless it appears before us and presents irrefutable evidence that it did, we have no way of knowing. I personally think this is unlikely, which is why I call myself an atheist. I do not believe that gods exist. Can I prove it? Of course not, but I likewise cannot prove that leprechauns do not exist, such is the nature of magic and supernatural beings. But I cannot know whether or not gods exist. Thus I am both an atheist and an agnostic. One is a statement of belief ("I do not believe that gods exist") and the other, one of knowledge ("I cannot know whether they do or not").

And I'm a skeptic because we live in a beautiful, natural world filled with wondrous things, and do not feel the need to sully the gorgeous wonder of our universe by muddying it up with crass notions for which there are no evidence, such as gods, anal-raping aliens, or using the magical "memory" properties of water to treat real illness.

I'm a feminist. I'm a humanist. I'm a political liberal. I'm these things because I think all people should be equal, that everyone in our world should have the same opportunities, regardless of gender identification, race, nationality or because of those with whom they choose to share their life or their bed. I believe that we need to listen to each other. I believe that we are all informed by our background. I believe that, for instance, white males -- a demographic to which I belong -- collectively have a hugely disproportionate voice. I believe that women, non-whites, gender and sexual minorities, religious minorities, cultural minorities, and countless other groups have been and continue to be disenfranchised and we need to do everything we can as a culture to correct this. No one's thoughts should be dicarded or discounted because he or she belongs to any particular group. This includes everyone, from bisexual libertarian Arab Scientologist men to straight Marxist white atheist women.

I do not believe, however, that one's statements should be exempt from critique simply because either the speaker of the critic belongs to any one group or another. I was dismayed recently at the reaction on a feminist website when a few commentators disagreed with the post or even just added information in the initial post. The reaction was not to critique the content of the comments, but to malign the character of the commenters for happening to belong to a group (in this case, being non-disabled) of privilege. It's absolutely true that being disabled gives one a different perspective, and that our society is built around the non-disabled.

But squelching discourse, to say that someone in a "priviledged" group is not even entitled to an opinion, that's wrong. And it's hateful. And I will condemn it when it's done in a group I identify with every bit as much as when it's done elsewhere.

What the hell is wrong with me?

2009-07-02T05:41:00.000-07:00

Last night, I committed a horrible and unconscionable act. Something I regret woefully. Yes, I watched Transformers: Revenge of the Falllen.

Why do I do this kind of thing to myself. After seeing the trailer, I already knew it was going to be utter crap, and had no desire to see it... but then the reviews started pouring in. And. They. Are. Scathing.

Now, a normal person would read things like "Transformers 2 has a shot at the title Worst Movie of the Decade," and they'd think to themselves, "huh, guess I'll avoid that one for sure!"

But me? No. I think "Hmmm... Now I NEED to see it." I have a track record with this kind of thing. It's why I watched Twilight. It's why I saw (and blogged about) Expelled: there are bad movies, and there are fiascoes. And I can't help myself with fiascoes.

Let it be known: Transformers 2 is a fiasco.

First off: it's a sloppy movie. Early on -- when the Autobots (the good guys) are tracking down and brutally murdering what is left of the Decepticons, who are now hiding and scattered in diaspora -- there are three motorcycle transformers called the "Arcee Twins." Yep. That's some good math. We don't see them again until the final battle, when one of them, now just called "Arcee" reappears. So, are there one, two, or three Arcees?

Ah, but I'm nitpicking. There is so much wrong with this travesty of a film. And it goes far beyond bad math (though there's more of that, too, as others have noted: At one point, a naval officer detects five Decepticons headed to the ocean floor. There, one of them becomes spare parts to fix Megatron. When the remaining four plus Megatron resurface (note: 5 - 1 + 1 = 5), the naval officer annouces that SIX targets are coming up! Ominous!).

There's been a fair amount of criticism af Skidz and Mudflap, two new robots designed to be the comic relief, and clear racist stereotypes. One of them has a gold tooth, and they don't know how to read, cuz dey's from da inna city. Honestly, I'd not have been surprised if they ended up eating fried chicken and watermelon. Jesus Christ.

And what about female characters? Let's review all of them:

First, there's Mikaela, Megan Fox's character. She is an even flatter, shallower character than she was in a the first film, and that's saying something. Everyone in the film, INCLUDING FREAKING ROBOTS is constantly remarking on how hot she is. Hot hot hot. One Joe Pesci-ish robot even humps her leg for laughs, such is her irresistable charm. She has two roles here: be hot, and be a good girlfriend.

Next up: the Arcee "Twins." These are robots, but they are clearly female in that they have skinny hips and boobs. They are in the movie for maybe 30 seconds, and the filmmakers can't even keep straight how many of them there are. For 30 freaking seconds.

Alice: I think that was her name. She's the hot hot hot seductress on campus, secretly a robot the Decepticons enrolled into Sam's college, just in case Sam ended up being important again (Surprise! He did!). As this awesome "Transformers 2 FAQ" put it: "The slut-bot made out with [Sam] for a little bit then immediately tried to kill him, neither for any apparent motive or gain."

Then finally: Sam's mom. She buys a magic brownie at Sam's college, which has a picture of a marijuana leaf on it, and which everyone in the room warns her is a pot brownie. She is sure the green leaf just means all-natural, or something, and she downs the thing. Because she is daft, apparently.

And that's it That's every female role in the film. Other than that, the movie is a scrotum-fest. And unfortunately, I'm not being facetious: one of the giant robots has a huge pair of testicles made of wrecking balls. I imagine that John Turturro must have been rethinking his career choice when he was uttering this line from the film:

I am standing directly beneath the enemy's scrotum.

Wow.

I can't really bring myself to say much more about this film, but I HIGHLY encourage you too read this hilarious Transformers 2 FAQ. Here's a taste:

Transformers don't teleport.
Jetfire does.

But -- wait a second, he's a fucking jet. He could fly everybody to Egypt, right? And that would make perfect sense for both the character and the franchise!
Well, I guess so. But he chooses not to. The point is Jetfire teleports them all to Egypt where he explains that there used to be 7 or 8 Primes, and they traveled around the galaxy blowing up suns for energon. But they never did it on planets with life.
Well, they had set the machine up on Earth and not noticed all the life running around, and one of the Primes just said fuck it, let's do it anyways. This was evil, so they called that Prime the Fallen and beat the shit out of him although he escaped.

Why would a robot need to fart, pee, or vomit? And why would it need testicles?
Michael Bay does not understand what a robot is.

I am already incredibly sick of this movie, and I'm just typing questions about it. Sam resurrects Optimus, Optimus kills the Fallen, end of story, right?
Pretty close. Sam dies, though.

Really?
Yeah, for a little while. But then the Transformers in heaven send him back because he still has work to do.

Fuck you.
I'm serious.

Fuck you. There's no way.
It's true. The 6-7 Primes are there in the clouds like Mufasa's head in The Lion King, and tell Sam he's awesome and he needs to live again so he can bring Optimus back to life.

lol

TimeTree

2009-06-12T12:51:00.000-07:00

{via ERV}

Since I'm not, you know, a real scientist, this tool is of limited real use to me... but it's still awfully fun!

Time Tree will allow you to enter the name of two species and you'll get an estimate of when the branches leading to each species split form each other, based on collected molecular data. The more data collected on the two species, the better the estimtes, of course...

How long ago did koalas split from tree sloths? 160 million years ago, give or take.
Chimpanzees and bonobos? A mere 3 million years ago.
Humans and "magic mushrooms"? about 1.3 billion years ago.

I am, of course, somewhat dismayed that none of the results I've found to date are 6000 years. Obviously, science is broken.

Check out the Time Tree!

Newsweek: Not the Antichrist afterall; jury still out on McCarthy and Oprah

2009-06-03T12:19:00.000-07:00

[FYI: this post's title is a reference to this post.]

Thank you Newsweek. :)

In case you hadn't heard (And if you only get your news from this blog, you hadn't), Oprah Winfrey recently inked a deal with Jenny McCarthy, giving the latter her own TV show from which to spew the unscientific, harmful and dangerous rhetoric she is so fond of dispensing (which I've blogged about before). In the long and sordid history of horrid ideas, this ranks near the top.

Oprah's show has always mixed its trademark life-affirming stories with some new age pseudoscience, much of it related to beauty and medicine. But with her embracing of Jenny McCarthy (which extends long before the new show deal was inked), Oprah crosses over, as Phil Plait puts it has said, into outright antiscience.

This move has been roundly derided around the blogs, the best and most heartfelt I've seen in this open letter to Oprah. And McCarthy's vaccine/autism nonsense is just the tip of the iceberg. Watch the Oprah show, and nearly every single time that any topic comes up with a vaguely medical aspect to it, you'll see the pseudoscience creep in.

Now, I happen to think Oprah does do some good. Her book club is kind of awesome, getting millions of people to read literature (including a few of my favorite books) they otherwise wouldn't. I'm sure a lot of people get a lot of benefit out of the positive life-affirming stories, too. Some of the new age stuff is fairly innocuous, if ineffective. (The Secret, though, totally works! And I have the fleet of helicopters in my 12-acre back yard to prove it!)

But the moment she starts recommending unscientific treatments as medicine -- when efficacy and evidence are shunted aside in favor of unproven crap -- that crosses the line. It leads to injury, delay of real treatment, exploitation of the credulous by bogus practitioners, and death. Oprah readily jumps on the bandwagon of just about every new nonsense medical treatment out there. Some are ineffective, some are harmful to the person being treated. Some, such perpetuating the vaccine -> autism myth, are harmful to society as a whole.

Somehow, Oprah has had a free pass from most of the mainstream media. But this week, Newsweek entered the fray with a cover story -- A COVER STORY!!! -- on the dangers of taking medical advice from Oprah's media empire, including her show, her magazine and Jenny McCarthy's upcoming fiasco.

Go Newsweek!

And now YOU go: Read the article! Then write Newsweek and thank them for publishing it! I know I will :D

Skeptical at Work: Orbs

2009-05-27T10:45:00.000-07:00

[ the "Skeptical at Work" concept was ~~stolen from~~ created by the awesome Skeptigirl blog. This edition's subject is an easy target, but maybe it'll be the start of something continuing. ]

So, among other things, my place of employment hosts some extensive convention space. Since booking was WAY down due to the economy, the suits took the opportunity to do some significant renovation.

Walls are coming down. Ceilings are gone, construction materials are EVERYWHERE. Everything is dirty.

Yesterday, I was sitting at my desk when two of my coworkers, "Tyler" and "Jane," were freaking out about something: "Oh my god! That's so creepy!" (and so forth.)

It turns out Tyler had been going aorund taking pictures of the carnage wrought upon the meeting space with his new camera, and was shocked to discover that the pictures he'd just taken were filled with ghost orbs!

Immediately, my skeptical ears rose up as I overheard the conversation:

Tyler: "You know they're real because they're in a different position in every shot." (Presumably, this was to explain that they weren't due to something on the lens.)

Jane: "Look at this one! He's in ALL of them!"

Tyler: "I'm creeped out now. I didn't know this place was haunted."

HE? We're already assigning gender to these spots of light? Haunted? Because of some spots on his photos? Time for me to put on my skeptic's hat.

So, what are orbs? What are some reasonable explanations for seeing them in photos taken of a darkened room filled with construction debris?

Ghost orbs or spirit orbs, for those unfamiliar with them, are light spots showing up on photographs of varying size, color and intensity.

What causes them?

For a hint at the answer, check out the many, many orbs captured in this photo taken at my New Year's Eve party immediately after midnight, January 1 of this year:
The conditions of this photo were not unlike those in the event space where Tyler found the orbs: it was dark (just blacklight and disco ball, baby), so the camera's flash was on... And there was a lot of debris in the air. In this case, festive, multicolor debris that I'm still vacuuming up to this day.

The International Ghost Hunters Society , who claims to have coined the term in 1994 (probably true, just covering my bases), says spirit orbs "[represent] the soul of a departed person... the essence of who they were in life, complete with their intelligence, their emotions and their personality."

Here's an image from the IGHS claimed to be a "spirit orb":

Here's the interesting bit... Interesting to me, anyway... The IGHS site acknowledges that all orbs are not ghosts or spirits, and that many (some, like myslef, would say "all") are reflections of light from (or occasionally refraction through) dust particles, typically from the camera's flash. The following image, from the same page as that above, is claimed by the IGHS as the result of NON-ghostly dust particles:

These "dust orbs" look nearly identical to the "spirit orbs" above, and yet one is claimed to be a supernatural manifestation of a spirit. In the second image, there are several "orbs," so there was likely a lot of dust or debris in the air... but other than that, what?

In the end, that's all ghost orbs are: Dust. Nearby crap hanging in the air that happens to shoot the flash's light back at the lens. Since the lens is not focused on them, their image is blurry, thus an "orb."

Want to capture some orbs yourself? Go out at night. Take some pictures with the flash on. Maybe you'll get something, maybe not. Try kicking some dirt up at your feet. Now? Great. Now turn your flash off. Go through the same steps. Find any orbs? Nope, didn't think so.

Fox News: Star Trek may literally be a gift from God

2009-05-16T10:38:00.000-07:00

Taking a short break from dandelion murder, and what do I find? io9 has a link to a story at Fox News asking if the new Star Trek film is a gift from God.

This article would be HILARIOUS, had it been in the Onion... But it's meant with 110% earnestness:

The signs are everywhere, folks. And I believe that “Star Trek,” and similar shows, are some of these signs.

Signs of what, you ask? Oh, of the coming nuclear holocaust between Iran and Israel.

I still laugh at Fox News' "fair and balanced" slogan, which appears at the top of this story, which proceeds to assert that the Bible is literally true, that all creative enterprises come directly from Yahweh, and that we need to assist Israel in developing a photon torpedo program. And I swear to god, that last item is meant literally. No tongue, no cheek:

Would Israel be safer if it could shoot down enemy missiles and rockets with such photon torpedoes, or block them altogether with a force field? Of course it would.

Now, like everyone and their dog, I loved the new Star Trek movie. My inner nerd is experiencing a renaissance, and I've even let him off his leash a little bit to get out and get some fresh air... but seriously?

It's truly a surreal article. It starts out with it's question (Is Star Trek a gift from God?), and immediately answers it (Yes it is). Then it goes off on a bizarre rant about how we need to build a mile-high fence around Israel to keep out all of the brown people (a sentiment, it should be noted, that is pretty much antithetical to Trek's vision) and invest $100 billion into missile defense because ZOMG IRAN MAY GET TEH NUKES IN A COUPLE DECADES!

I'm pretty confident that pacificistic lefty Gene Roddenberry has been rolling over in his grave at about 165 RPM since the moment this sentence was committed to a computer screen:

What we need today are leaders who have the vision to see a film such as “Star Trek,” and say, “Why not? Why not have such weapons and protections, as soon as possible? Let’s do what it takes to make it so.”

(Actually, I think Roddenberry's ashes were shot into space, so I'm not sure he's capable of rolling over like that... I digress.)

To be honest, it seems to me that this article was likely written before all of the Star Trek hullabaloo, and merely recommended that we, you know, follow God's commands and built a freaking 1-mile high wall around Israel. Then, later, the author (or an editor) decided that more people would read it if it had Star Trek in it... So in went a couple references to phasers and tricorders, and BAM! Instant success, as evidenced by the fact that I'm writing about it now.

But STILL. Sheesh.

Miscellany

2009-05-07T21:59:00.000-07:00

So, I haven't been doing the whole blogging thing very successfully lately. Me reasons are threefold:

1) Work work work. Phew! I've In the last three weeks, I've had two week-long trips. And it looks like I may be off to Omaha next week. Sigh...

2) Horrible, awful, terrible people in my house that wouldn't leave. (Note: they are FINNALLY out of my house. And now I'm still dealing with the aftermath... Just discovered a new issue tonight that makes me FURIOUS. For those of who who haven't already heard the story, I'll have to share it soon.)

3) Twitter. Yep. I've become one of THOSE people. 140-character posts are a LOT less effort than a proper and thorough screed. But good god, Twitter can be a weird place. Yesterday, while Wil Wheaton was discussing the finer points of genital euphemisms, Trent Reznor was asking for romantic comedy recommendations. Also, today, my love for Colin Meloy, already one of my favorite musicians (seriously, I've been listening to the Hazards of Love in its entirety, over and over again more or less nonstop since it came out a month ago) grew even stronger when he declared on Twitter that "Jenny McCarthy is a crackpot." Which, of course she is...

On the topic of Jenny McCarthy, the news that she's just been given her own TV talk show to hawk her anti-science, anti-health, anti-rational nonsense is beyond disheartening.

Sigh...

Now I'm depressed. And so are you... So to cheer you up, here's what is perhaps the most entertainingly disturbing family portrait ever taken (possibly NSFW).

Jon Stewart - Baracknophobia

2009-04-30T23:53:00.000-07:00

[Stolen from Saganist]
Jon Stewart does what he does best here: deconstruct right-wing talking points, showing them to be utter absurdities. Watch this.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Baracknophobia - Obey

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

First 100 Days

Twilirony

2009-04-28T22:06:00.000-07:00

[via Latter-Day Main Street]

I am here in a hotel room in Madison, Alabama literally laughing out loud:

Deseret Book, the LDS-church owned book store chain, has banned Twilight from their shelves.

Yep. A book that in many ways is LDS-church propaganda, or at least propaganda for the worst aspects of the sorts of relationships encouraged by the LDS-church authority (e.g., woman giving up on their personal development to get married as soon after high school as possible; women being completely subservient to their overbearing husband; sex only after marriage and ideally only for propogation; reproducing as efficiently as possible regardless of it effects on a woman's well-being) has been removed from Deseret Book stores.

The church and the bookstore have declined comment, but it's honestly not hard to imagine why: aside from the fact that all that stuff above is completely abhorrent, the books ARE a vaguely sadomasochistic fantasy aimed at teenage girls, as I've noted before. I haven't read the last book (or, to be honest, ANY of them), but I understand things get a little hot and heavy once rings are on fingers.

So, I understand why they've done this, and it's perhaps not all that surprising... It's just a little bit ironic given the criticism the books have received from many non-Mormons.

Earth Day

2009-04-21T23:23:00.000-07:00

Today is Earth Day, and (via The Intersection) here is Carl Sagan, whom the world lost too soon, remarking on just how... well, remarkable, our world is, how precious life is, how gloriously insignificant and yet unique and grand we are.

Beautiful, beautiful words:

What should Jesus have done?

2009-04-18T12:44:00.000-07:00

[h-t to PZ]

Things that make me cringe, Part 1a

2009-04-17T17:06:00.000-07:00

Anyone who knows me personally knows that, despite getting worked up about a lot of things here on my blog, I take things pretty easy, and don't get upset about too many things. But there are a few things that I just can't stand.

Here they are:

People who make fake gang signs in photographs. That stopped being clever in 1996. Scratch that, it was never funny. Also, I suppose I should make an exemption for actual gang members. You can keep doing that, if you must.

Here's a typical member of the species, found randomly on the web:
Looks like a fun night... but thanks for ruining the photo, jerkwad!

The word "hubby." I don't know what it is about it. It always bugged me, particularly in Facebook status updates, then Alex (curse you!) got me hooked on the STFU, Marrieds blog, and now my seething hatred of this word knows no bounds. Same goes for "wifey," though thankfully it's less common.

A typical specimen:

Glenn Beck.
Of the rabid right-wing TV/radio show hosts, Rush Limbaugh may wield more evil power, Sean Hannity may be more smugly righteous, and Michelle Malkin more reflexively accuse liberals of colluding with terrorists, nut when it comes to utter dumbshittery, none can match Glenn Beck.

Here' a typical example I stole from Travis. Seriously, watch the whole thing.

.... And that's where I'm leaving this list for today!

Rick Warren: lying lieface

2009-04-14T12:41:00.000-07:00

[hat-tip to the Friendly Atheist]

Let me just preface this by saying that I absolutely hate pious hypocrisy and pious deception. I hate it when religious leaders think that because they are working for the Glory of God or whatever, they feel they have the right to lie.

Rick Warren, who you may remember from such films as I'm a Bigot, but Don't Tell Anyone! and Saddlebackin' is in the news again.

Warren was notoriously criticized by many for his anti-gay bigotry after being selected to give the invocation.

Last week, Warren claimed on the Larry King show that he had never endorsed Proposition 8. Specifically, he said:

I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be.
During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never — never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going. [emphasis added]

Of course, everyone knew this was a blatant lie, so people rushed to the intertubes and tracked down a video of Warren, speaking to his congregation saying:

Now let me just say this really clearly. We support Proposition 8. And if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8.

That sounds like about as unequivocal an endorsement as I can possibly imagine.

Warren responded that this statement cannot be construed as an endorsement, as it was just a pastor takling to his flock. Umm.. What?

But wait! There's more!

Warren felt all picked on for being caught in an obvious lie, so he canceled an upcoming appearance on ABC's This Week.

And it gets even BETTER:

Warren attacked Beliefnet founder Steven Waldman, hardly a hostile interogator for Warren, for tricking him into equating gay marriage with pedophilia. Specifically, Warren said:

I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe.

So, just how did he do that? Here's the passage Warren's talking about:

“WARREN: The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that [some partnership rights] as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

[WARREN:] Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion - this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews — historically, marriage is a man and a woman.

(Um... Has Rick Warren even read the Bible?)

Now, in fairness, I will say that some of Warren's statement's in the full transcript of that interview are a hell of a lot less virulently anti-gay than what you hear from many religious leaders, but it really seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it to on the whole bigotry issue.

Of Sparkly Vampires and Sleeping Beauty

2009-04-14T10:33:00.001-07:00

So, I saw the Twilight film a week or so ago. And since then, I've been trying to work out how I feel about the whole Twilight phenomenon.

NOTE: The film itself is horrendously, hilariously awful. It IS worth seeing, if only for the lawls.

I'm of at least two minds on the Twilight thing. I sometimes feel like people (including myself) who've criticized Twilight for being a bad example for teenage girls don't give teenagers enough credit.

When I was was in 7th grade, I devoured (no pun intended) Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles. I remember getting in trouble from by 7th grade English teacher because the book I was reading had 'Damned' in the title. In terms of unhealthy relationships and explicit sexuality, these books went far beyond anything Twilight has ever dreamed of. By the end of the year (remember, I would have been 13 at the time), I was reading Rice's gloriously over-the-top, incredibly sexually explicit BDSM epic Sleeping Beauty Trilogy.

These were, to say the least, not books meant for children. Though I openly read the Vampire Chronicles in front of my parents and at school, I was well aware that the content of the Sleeping Beauty trilogy was not something I "should" have been reading at such an "impressionable age," so I kept it to myself.

But despite the ever-present themes of sexual domination, surrender and sadomasochism (seriously, if you haven't read the books, go check one out. Open to a random page and see what you find), I didn't seek out relationships that mimicked those in the book. I understood that what's in those novels is fantasy. And fantasy is not only okay, it's a good thing, in my opinion.

So, what's so different about Twilight?

Well, I'm not entirely sure there is a real difference, but if there is, this is it:

The Sweerthearts box above isn't a 'shop job, but is an actual product available at your local grocery store. This whole commoditization of BDSM sexual fantasy for teen girls (albeit without the intercourse) is just bizarre to me. Seriously? A sexy-vampire-themed conversation heart that says "lamb" and "bite me?"For kids? Mmm, delicious.

When I was reading Rice's Sleeping Beauty, I knew it was subversive, that it was so enrapturing in part because it contravened society's boundaries. And it wasn't the only thing I read. I was reading works of literature, poetry, news, science and nonfiction. I was raised with values of gender-neutral self-empowerment and principles of free inquiry.

Twilight, on the other hand, has gained a reputation in some circles as a shining example for the nation's children, what with the traditional gender roles stuffed down your throat and the no-sex-until-marriage stuff. Girls are reading this tale of an obsessive relationship where a girl pretty much subsumes her entire character and identity into a guy she just met. A guy who secretly spies on her and sneaks into her room at night to "watch her sleep." A guy who vomits at the thought of their sexuality, and yet draws her in closer and closer. And we're all supposed to accept that this just means he loves her, and not that he's a creepy stalker. Any why? Because they don't fuck until they're married. And that makes it an excellent moral lesson, apparently: If you're going to get into an horrible, abusive relationship that will, quite literally, result in your death, be sure you get married before you find out if the sex is even good.

Like I say, I think we do teenagers a disservice when we thing they're not capable of understanding the difference between fantasy and reality. It's hard to put yourself back into the mindset you were in at 13 or 14, but I know that I wasn't totally ruined by the books I read. To the contrary. I think that nearly anything that gets people -- kids or not -- to read more is a good thing. Twilight is certainly not a shining example of classic literature, but is it going to lead to a generation of girls specifically seeking abusive relationships? No, I don't believe so.

That said, when it comes to empowering, positive vampire tales, Buffy could totally take both Edward AND Lestat with both hands tield behind her back (and no, I didn't mean that as a bondage joke... though I do now).

AmazonFail = QualityControlFail

2009-04-13T20:37:00.000-07:00

So, the story of what happened with AmazonFail is in, and it was, indeed, a glitch of sorts. There was no massive conspiracy to exclude certain works from rankings and searches. In fact, it seems the issue had to more with language barriers -- and an unfortunate lack of quality control administration -- than anything else.

It seems someone editing the code for Amazon.fr (Amazon's French portal) conflated the word "adult" with the word "sexuality." All of Amazon's portals everywhere are linked, so the local change in France propagated throughout ALL of Amazon.

I can only imagine the PR nightmare this all has been to Amazon. Amazon says it will take some time to repair this issue. I kind of feel horrible for the guy who made this mistake. Once the torches and pitchforks were headed hsi way, his blood must have run cold... But it's not really his fault. This is a great lesson on why multiple levels of quality control are a fine idea. Think of the damage this person could have done if they were trying to be malicious.

SeattlePI has the whole story.

What really happened with AmazonFail? Too early to tell.

2009-04-13T08:27:00.000-07:00

The Blogosphere, Twitterverse, Facebookistan and, I don't know, the Metaweb are all abuzz since yesterday about "AmazonFail," the deranking of many items with gay and lesbian themes, such that they do not show up in, for instance in the Amazon Top 100 or search results.

From what I can gather, many books tagged in the "gay and lesbian" category, whether sexually explicit or not, were then also tagged with the "adult" category. And "adult" items are automatically excluded from sales rankings and many searches. I suppose that's so there's never a top ten book called Hot Asian Sluts or something. Exactly what criteria was used to exclude such books in unknown, and seems rather arbitrary (see below).

My initial reaction was that this was due to some sort of error, or possibly a single overzealous employee who wanted to get spectacularly fired by pissing off an entire segment of society at Amazon. It does seem like either of those, particularly the latter, are still possible. Amazon's own take, of course, is that this was due to a "glitch," but has declined to comment on the nature of that glitch.

But it looks like the full story is rather more complex than that. Indeed, Amazon sent letters to some authors who's non-sexually-explicit works were affected by this "glitch," noting that:

In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.

It was only after the firestorm of criticism caught on in earnest that Amazon's story changed to a glitch.

As it stands now, many "straight" sexually explicit books, including straight romance novels and Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds, retain their ranks and show up in searches. But many books with gay themes still have their ranking removed, including non-sexually explicit works, plus award-winning material like Annie Proulx's Brokeback Mountain, E.M. Forster, Sarah Waters' Tipping the Velvet, and more.

Science fiction blog io9 reports on how this has affected gay and lesbian sci-fi writers. Author David Gerrold remarked on how this policy/glitch was applied nonsensically to two of his own works:

It's silly. They've removed The Martian Child from their page rankings which was based on an award-winning novelette about how I adopted my son and was the source for a warm-hearted movie starring John Cusack. Meanwhile, they've left The Man Who Folded Himself ranked, which is a far more explicit novel about a man who explores a number of unique sexual possibilities. Obviously, they didn't think this through.

I'm not satisfied with Amazon's explanation of "glitch," particularly when measured against their previous "in consideration of our entire customer base..." statement. Perhaps it was a glitch, but I think it's too early to tell what happened, and remember that these books are still deranked. I can say that excluding material to appease any group's sensitive "OMG teh gay!" mentality, which Amazon has indeed admitted to doing, i's pretty much enough to make me want to start patronizing other online booksellers. Powell's here I come!
--------

P.S., I can't wait to check out my page rankings and see what searches bring people to this post! Along with my last post at Salt City Skeptics, there's some fun search fodder, what with the "hot asian sluts" and the "pig masturbation." Methinks people won't be finding what they're looking for here.

---------
UPDATE: As Neil Gaiman points out, yesterday WAS Easter Sudnay, so it's reasonable that any sort major of error might take until today to get fixed... And also -- and I can't say this any better than Neil:

I mean, a week ago, a search for "Girl Scout Cookie" on Amazon.com produced sexy costumes, speculums, wolf urine and a Morgan Freeman biography as a result. Now the speculums and Morgan Freeman biography have vanished (although the wolf urine is still there). Obviously, Amazon listings are always in flux.

So, there's THAT. :)

Planet of the Dead

2009-04-12T02:13:00.000-07:00

This be a nerdy post... Ye have been warned...

Over the past week or so, I've started and abandoned three separate blog posts on Real Issues (such as this ridiculous video full of lies). But for whatever reason, I'm having trouble striking the right tone.

So, instead, here's another post about Doctor Who.

I posted on Doctor Who once before, and it was only recently surpassed by this post about why same sex marriage should be legal as my most popular post of all time.

So, I just watched "Planet of the Dead," David Tennant's antepenultimate episode as the Doc before passing the torch to Matt Smith, the new Doctor. Due to the power of the internet, I was able to check it out just hours after it aired in the UK. Yay! So, what did I think?

Well: Meh...

Some of the imagery was kind of cool, such as a bashed-up double-decker bus sitting in the middle of the desert (most of the ep was actually filmed in the desert of UAE), and... well, that it really. Pretty much everything else ranged from "sigh" to "ugh." (My use of words like that are why I'm not a professional TV reviewer.)

I have to say, as much as I appreciate his reinvigoration of the show I adored as a kid, I'm glad to Russell T. Davies' go at the end of this year and leave the show in the hands of Stephen Moffatt, who has written most of the best episodes of the new series.

Things I won't miss about Davies tenure:
(at least, I hope they're gone.)

Aliens that are just humans with the heads of earth animals stuck on them. Planet of the Dead featured a new one, the fly-headed dudes:

This is in addition to the rhino people, pig people, cat people, and probably many others I don't recall:

Seriously. Knock that off. It's beyond lame, and I feel a little ashamed to like the show every time one of these stupid creatures comes on screen. Maybe I'm spoiled by BSG complete lack of aliens of any kind.

Rose Tyler. Enough with the Rose Tyler already. And furthermore, enough with revisiting the old companions time and time again in general... except for Martha Jones. More Martha Jones is always welcome.

The Final and Complete Destruction of the Daleks for All Eternity I Mean it for Real This Time happening every three weeks. Yeah, I know the Daleks have been the Doc's most notorious villain since their debut in 1963, but they lose a little potency when you see them all the freaking time. Same, to a lesser extent for the Cybermen.

This plotline: There's a massive alien invasion of London that threatens the entire world. The Doctor stumbles upon their plan too late and the entire city and/or world falls to the invasion. The Doctor and friends are taken captive, but eventually gain the upper hand. The Doc kindly offers the evil aliens a choice: leave now or die. They choose die. The next day, everyone goes about their business as usual as if they hadn't just been slaves of an alien race less than 24 hours ago.

Seriously, you could just plug in some alien-sounding names in there and top off some guys in jumpsuits with, oh, let's say shark heads, and you're ready to start filming!

The Sonic Screwdriver. This should just be called "the magic wand" instead, because it can do pretty much everything. This was a problem on the original series too, to the point where John Nathan Turner (the producer for most of the 1980s) had it killed off because the writers relied on it too much instead of, you know, having the Doctor be creative. Time to do it again. Ditto for the once-clever-now-tired psychic paper.
----------------------

Okay, enough of the geeking out for now. I now return you to your regularly scheduled long spate of silence broken by the occassional long-winded rant.

Amusing typo in BYU's student newspaper

2009-04-08T14:00:00.000-07:00

[hat-tip to The Friendly Atheist]

So, Monday's edition of Brigham Youn'g University's student newspaper, The Daily Universe, has a rather amusing typo in it...

Now, this isn't NEWS really. A typo is a typo. I know I make them all teh tiem. It sounds like it's a simple case of clicking the first option that came up on a misspelled word. I kind of feel bad for the editor who made the mistake, because surely there are ridiculous amoutns of unwanted attention on him or her now (and it's not like I'm helping). It would be a complete non-issue... except for how utterly amusing the typo is.

Below a photo of members of the Quorum of the Twelve (no, not that Quorum of the Twelve), a caption was supposed to read:

Members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other general authorities raise their hands in a sustaining vote…

Instead it said:

Members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostates and other general authorities raise their hands in a sustaining vote…

Heh...

Glenn Beck is losing it

2009-04-06T18:13:00.001-07:00

Bored? Feeling down?

Here's a great family activity that all can enjoy:

Watch the Glenn Beck show.

The man inexplicably had a show on CNN Headline News for some time, but he's recently set up shop at Fox News... And this move has apparently allowed him to completely wall himself off from reality.

I swear to god that he is publicly and spectacularly spiraling inward from being an cloyingly idiotic ass into a paranoid conspiricist, just two episodes away from donning a tinfoil hat and retreating to his underground bunker while the "liberals" plunge the nation into an age of godless, gun-stealing, gay Nazism.

And it's so much fun to watch.

For example, watch this video of Beck making the case that Obama and us crazy godless liberals are on the verge of plunging the nation into and age of -- no, not socialism -- no, not communism -- FASCISM... a road that, according to Beck, we've been on since Theodore Roosevelt was president:

(Video has embedding disabled, so click this link for the video)

Yep, Beck's case started with pointing out that an American coin once featured the "fasces," an Ancient Roman symbol consisting of bundle of sticks bound together with a ribbon (often including an axe), signifying things like "United We Stand" or "strength through unity." This symbol was indeed the symbol of Italy's Fascist party... Unfortunately for Beck, that party wasn't formed until YEARS AFTER this coin was minted.

Seriously? That's his evidence of some secret left-wing conspiracy to establish an extreme right-wing authoritarian dictatorship? A coin used a symbol that was later used by some awful people? Does this make Buddha a Nazi?

And it goes downhill from there. He even pulls a full-on Godwin.

I know I make light of this, because there really is no way to make sense of the crazy except through humor... But it scares me because some people -- a surprising number of them, really -- think this guy is talking sense.

A short rant...

2009-03-28T16:01:00.000-07:00

This is just a short rant, inspired by my dear friends who have lost their jobs or been harassed at work; and by a few conversations I've overheard or been involved in over the past few weeks.

Hi there! I am an American-born, English-speaking heterosexual male of European descent. I'm between the age of 25 and 50. Though I'm an atheist, I am often mistaken for (or assumed to be) a member of the dominant religious group here in Utah, a fact that works to my advantage more often than my detriment. Though I'm a hugely flaming liberal and am happy to let someone know it in conversation, at a rally, or in a voting booth; I may not be readily identified as such in my daily life walking down the street.

Do you know what I'm sick of? American-born, English-speaking, Christian heterosexual males of European descent complaining about how hard life is these days for American-born, English-speaking, Christian heterosexual males of European descent in the United States of A-freaking-merica.

Guess what: Compared to nearly the entire rest of the world, my life is cake. I encounter challenges in my life just like everyone. Sometime those challenges can really put me to the test. Sometimes those challenges are the result of something totally out of my own control. But I guarantee you that every last one of those characteristics above means that I encounter far fewer challenges (on average) than those who posses other characteristics instead.

I have experienced some discrimination because of my atheism. After all, we are the least trusted group in America. But I'm lucky: I can just blend in when I need to by not getting into religious discussions with coworkers. (This is also the reason I'm pseudonymous at my blog. It's pretty easy to find out who I am, were one interested in doing so. I'm pretty sure my first and last name have appeared -- separately -- in various posts here... But I don't want a potential employer to plug my name into Google and go "Oh my ~~god~~ gosh! He's a heathen!") Now whether I should have to hide that fact about myself is a different issue.

I am absolutely tired of people who have the privileges of geography, heredity, sexuality, language and religion in our society complaining that some "Mexican" took their job, or aghast that their new boss is a woman. I'm sick of hearing about my female friends being treated as sex objects because they happen to have boobs, or hearing little jokes about how someone must have slept their way to the top. I get furious when I hear that my friend's company laid off every last one of their non-Mormon workers (including my friend) and retained all of the Mormon ones. When I hear you say that you're glad your company laid off "that faggot," because you "don't need people like that" working with you, then guess what? I'm going to think you're a horrific asshole.

That is all.

The Science of Little Red Riding Hood

2009-03-26T01:37:00.000-07:00

It's been a freaking lifetime since I've posted. The last few weeks have been extraordinarily busy, and I never seem to get around to the whole blogging thing.

I don't really have anything to say at the moment though. So instead, here's an awesome retelling of Little Red Riding Hood:

Slagsmålsklubben - Sponsored by destiny from Tomas Nilsson on Vimeo.

Exciting give-away!

2009-03-04T17:55:00.000-08:00

Here's a potentially fun little game crossing from "blog-life" to "real life," from Michelle of Rediscovering Me.

Let's give this is shot!

On to the details of the giveaway...
The first THREE people to respond to this post will get something made by me!
My choice.
For you.
This offer does have some restrictions and limitations:
1- I make no guarantees that you will like what I make!
2- What I create will be just for you.
3- It'll be done this year. (might be a little while)
4- You have no clue what it's going to be.It may be a story. It may be a joke book, autographed picture of myself, or a little invention of my own! I may bake you something and mail it to you. Who knows?
5- I reserve the right to do something extremely strange. Believe me... it may blow your mind.
The catch? Oh, the catch is that you must re-post this on your blog and offer the same to the first 3 people who do the same on your blog.
The first 3 people to do so and leave a comment telling me they did, win a FAB-U-LOUS homemade gift by me! Oh, and be sure to post a picture of what you win when you get it!
Sounds like fun, right? So, let's play!

Legion are the ways that today was a better day than yesterday...

2009-02-27T16:45:00.001-08:00

The last two days have kind of sucked for me. I blogged about Wednesday... Then yesterday, I ended up missing ALL of the Evolution of Human Aggression sessions for the day... the session I was most interested in seeing.

Ah, but today was much better!

My day began with a job interview that resulted in an offer a few minutes later (of course, the job is my CURRENT job, but I'll be reporting to a different arm of the company), and I ended up getting offered some extra money, which I was not at all expecting, so that was nice!

I spent the afternoon attending the last few sessions of the conference, and thought it was EXCELLENT. Martin Daly & Margo Wilson's presentation was particular insightful... And I got to hear Sarah Hrdy talk, who looks entirely different from what I had imagined... Her book, Mother Nature, was one of the books that made me fall in love with anthropology as an undergrad.

I met and briefly chatted with Steven Pinker and Richard Wrangham... It must get so annoying to be a known person (I was going to say "celebrity," but I'd sound like such a nerd calling a bunch of scientists celebrities... Guilty as charged as I might be), having to stop every 20 seconds to hear some fan gushing.

Anyway, the panel discussion afterward, consisting of social workers and representatives of the Tanner Center for Nonviolent Human Rights Advocacy, discussing the implications and ramifications of the research presented over the last two days, was quite interesting.

Anyway, I need to get ready for Drinking Skeptically tonight. Peace out, sisters and brothers!

Frustration! = no Frans de Waal

2009-02-25T18:14:00.000-08:00

Who is in the mood for a rant. Anyone?

Oh good! Then I have just the thing for you!

So, I had plans today to see Frans de Waal give the keynote address at the Tanner Center Forum. I'm a HUGE fan of de Waal's, more than anyone should be a fan of a scientist. I've been looking forard to this conference and pushing it mercilessly to the Salt City Skeptics group.

But when the time came to think about heading up to the U to see it, I'd lost all motivation.

Here's what happened:

I have a job interview on Friday, and it's a suit-and-tie sort of job interview. It occured to me that I hadn't seen my suit coat in a while. I don't wear it all that often, and last remembered wearing it in Montreal. So when I got home form work today, I went searching... My closet? No. Coat closet? Nope! Crumpled heap on bare concrete in the storage room next to the cobwebs and camping equipment? Bingo!

This means I needed to get it dry cleaned. And post haste, because I needed to make it to the keynote! So, off I ran -- okay, drove -- to the dry cleaner.

"Any chance I could get this back by end of day tomorrow?" I asked.

Dry Cleaning Guy: "Oooh, I don't know let me check." (disappears) "No, we can't guarantee it'll be done then."

"Does that mean it will probably be done tomorrow, or that it probably won't?

"All he said is that we can't guantee it."

Dry Cleaning Guy was clearly disinclined to investigate the matter further. So, I said thanks, but I'll need to find somoene who can get it done. Off I went to a competetor... Thank goodness, they other can get it done. Whew! Now, I need to get back home, change my clothes, grab a quick bite and head out the door!

Oh, damn. A really long light. I'm in the left turn lane, eight cars in front of me, and only two getting through per cycle. Annoying, but what can you do?

I work my way up to the front and I'm waiting patiently at the light. It's a very narrow street, one narrow lane each direction and a narrrow left turn lane with me in it.

Along 7th east (the major street I'm trying to turn left onto), a bus comes along, trying to make a right turn onto my road which, again, is very narrow. Guess what? The bus can't do it. Instead, it's basically headed directly for my car. I get a little nervous at the thought of being slowly crushed, but the bus driver stops short and makes a motion to me to move my car forward (i.e., into the intersection) so he can complete his turn...

Ummm, okay. I crank my wheel to the right as far as I dare without hitting the next car over and go forward a few feet. He moves the bus forward some more, pretty much wedging me in now. Nice.

I somehow manage to get forward a little further, JUST far enough that the bus can clear me. (Though now he is IN the left turn lane going the wrong direction and everyone behind me is having to contort their cars as well.)

Finally, though, the bus moves on... But there I am, the front of my car hanging out in the intersection, far enough that I am, in fact, a hazard.

No deaths though, and soon my light turns green and I'm finally able to turn. Just as I turn on to 7th, I see lights behind me. I am getting pulled over.

Yes, pulled over because my car was too far in the lane. Did he not see the bus that I was trying to avoid getting crushed by?

Why no, no he didn't. Luckily, he accepted my explanation and sent me on my way sans ticket, but by the time all this was through, I just wanted to be home, relax, and snuggle with the newly-short-haired Shakespeare.

So here I am... I think I'm going to tackle an article I've been meaning to write for the Salt City Skeptics blog about the difference between skepticism denialism. Specifically, how denialists abuse the word "skepticism" to give a veneer of credence to whatever it is they don't like (e.g., "global warming skeptics," "vaccine skeptics" an so on).

Happy Valentines Day!

2009-02-14T10:22:00.001-08:00

Happy Valentines Day, everyone!
[SVU-tines from Brandon Bird]

Yesterday's events, fossil evidence, and coming soon to LET!

2009-02-13T12:01:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's Darwin Day event was a resounding success...

I just blogged about it over at Salt City Skeptics, along with a big post I'd been working on about the fossil evidence for evolution...

But rather than crossposting here, I'm just linking to it... PLEASE COMMENT! I'm dying to know what you guys think about the stuff I commit to words! I see the page hits, I know you're reading! No use hiding! Let me know what you think! :)

I think I'm going to start using SCS blog for (obviously) stuff related to the group, plus anything science or skepticism related, and use this one for anything related to atheism, religion, and any more personal posts. I'll put up links here to any SCS posts worthy of note.

Just so the three of you reading this know. :)

I'm starting to write a massive series of posts about Mormonism. This was spurred by a conversation with somoene who says they're agnostic, that god likely does not exists, but posists that if there is a god, it'd the version of god proposed by the LDS church. Needless to say, this odd dichotomy confused the HELL out of me... So look forward to a series of topic posts on the Book of Abraham, Kinderhook Plates, claims about Joseph Smith and his life, and much much more! Yay!

Why Darwin Day?

2009-02-12T13:35:00.000-08:00

[Reposted from Salt City Skeptics]

First: One last reminder about the Salt City Skeptics Darwin Day Spectacular, tonight at Fat's Grill... Okay, now that that is out of the way...
________________________________________

Today is the day that we gather together with our families to celebrate the birth of, you know, some dude... Not a savior or a God or a legend. A man. Is it totally arbitrary for us to have a holiday or festival based around this one guy on this day every year?

Pretty much, yeah. We could have just as easily declared June 22nd "Evolution Day" or October 7th "Heliocentrism Day." We don't celebrate Galileo Day or Jonas Salk day.

So, why Darwin Day?

Darwin was not, as is often mistakenly reported, the first to come up with the idea of what we now call "evolution." The idea that species have changed over time to become other species (including humans) dates back at least to Anaxamander in the 6th century BC.

Indeed, Darwin was not even the first to develop an evolutionary model based on natural selection. That credit goes to Al-Jahiz, an 8th century biologist from what is now Iraq. Al-Jahiz postulated that:

"Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring."

That's about as concise a definition of natural selection as I can imagine. And this was 1300 years ago!

But Darwin's own realization about natural selection came at a time when people were eager for knowledge. During the 19th century, enlightenment ideals of free inquiry were coming to fruition, and the way science was practiced was shifting from "armchair philosophy" to a more methodical, procedural method of whittling away at null hypotheses.

Darwin's simple insight was at odds with a growing fire-and-brimstone brand of religion, particularly in the United States. No idea since the Kepler's heliocentric model of the Solar System had so inspired the wrath of religious fundamentalists, who insisted (and continue to insist) that the Genesis creation account was literally true. The rift between what science shows to be true and what Biblical literalists contend has grown and grown in the 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Speices, a rift that has been exacerbated by developments in astronomy, cosmology, genetics and geology that, time and again, fly in the face of biblical claims.

Darwin himself has thus become a lightning rod of criticism from religious fundamentalists, who maintain that his ideas preclude the existence of a deity. Indeed, religious fundamentalists have attempted to discredit natural selection and evolutionary theory by branding it as a dogma: "Darwinism."

Which calls into focus even clearer the question posed above: Why Darwin Day? Isn't celebrating Darwin playing in to the hands of those who claim that "Darwinism" is akin to religious dogma?

Well, sure. I suppose it is to some extent... But so what? Anyone who "celebrates" Darwin Day surely looks at February 12th as a celebration of science in general, and not a day to worship a mere mortal.

Darwin Day is about what Darwin represents: The scientific enterprise; courageously pursuing knowledge no matter where the evidence leads; challenging notions of our world and universe based on tradition rather than evidence.

That's why Darwin Day.

Wordle

2009-01-28T09:42:00.000-08:00

Curious what this blog looks like as Wordle Cloud?

I know that you are. Wordle is a sort of toy, displaying words found in a text or an RSS feed with the more-frequently-occurring words appearing larger. It's a sort of word portrait.

So, here it is. Click to embiggen:

Skepticism: The Pocket-Size Scientific Method

2009-01-23T09:56:00.000-08:00

[Cross-posted at Salt City Skeptics]
Sam, the lone skepdude blogger at Skepchick, co-runs the Houston area skeptics group (Space City Skeptics... I swear I didn't steal the alliterative name and the SCS acronym) just put up a post called "What Is Skepticsm?" and I loved what he had to say so much I wanted to touch on some of it here.

You may have seen my own "What is Skepticism?" post here, and Sam touches on a lot of the same ideas. But he said a couple things that expand on these ideas beautifully. Here's the butchered-to-hell version of some highlights for you lazy people, but you really should go read the whole post.

...The scientific method is the single most valuable tool ever conceived for understanding the universe around us ... The conclusions we draw from doing good science are as honest and as accurate as anything can be. Science is that powerful.

But the scientific method is problematic; at least where regular folks are concerned.

It’s just not practical to apply the scientific method fully to everyday claims and situations. I mean, there are phenomena we encounter on a daily basis that spark our curiosity, and our desire to discover. Perhaps strange things are happening at the old lake house, and we want to know if it’s haunted. Perhaps the claims of homeopathic medicines pique our interests, and we want to know if they really work. Perhaps our co-workers insist the bright lights in the sky last night were alien space craft, and we want to know if that’s true. Unfortunately, the majority of us simply don’t have the means to set up lab experiments, test hypotheses, repeat the tests, have peer groups study our data and scrutinize our tests and repeat them, and have independent lines of inquiry from all over the world repeat the process. The scientific method is just too bulky and cumbersome for us in this regard.

That’s where skepticism comes in.

We can view skepticism as an express version of the scientific method; sort of a travel or pocket version that we can apply to everyday claims, ideas, and situations. It is a tool that basically does the same thing as the scientific method — it relies on evidence and the analysis of that evidence to draw conclusions that are most probably true — but it’s more practical for regular folks to use at any time, because it can be applied without the attendant “ceremony” of a scientific experiment. We basically become a one-person research team.

If we observe phenomena, or encounter outrageous claims, or hear seemingly amazing ideas in our everyday lives, we can deploy our pocket scientific method. Without the formality of a full-on scientific review, we can examine any related evidence that may be present. We can leave any biases we may have behind and rely on a critical analysis of the evidence to discover what is most probably true about the phenomena; the lake house is just old and creaky, homeopathic medicines are basically just water, and the lights in the sky were probably just the Goodyear Blimp.

Nice work Sam! I love the idea of skepticism as the pocket version of the scientific method. :)