Archive for January, 2008

Was that fun, or what?

That radio debate was a hoot and a half, but I can't take credit. All the joy came straight from the mouth and brain of my lovely opponent, who obviously didn't do a lick of research for either the debate or for his books. I was shocked for a moment when, after I'd mentioned the recent discovery of Indohyus, he went on to claim that there were no intermediates between that deer-like artiodactyl and modern whales … and when I tried to mention Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodcetus, Basilosaurus, etc., he seemed to have never heard of them, claimed his information came from a Scientific American article some months ago (way to plumb the depths of the scientific literature, Dr Simmons!), and then started making stuff about them not exhibiting dorsoventral flexion in swimming, and not having dorsal blowholes. He wrote a whole book about "Billions of missing links"! His other book, What Darwin Didn't Know, needs to be retitled in a new edition, What Geoffrey Simmons Doesn't Know. It will be a very large book.

I shouldn't have been surprised at his performance, though. I have a secret: I read part of What Darwin Didn't Know before the show, and knew exactly what kind of creationist I was engaging.

I have to share a few tidbits with you from that hilarious book. It has a chapter titled "Purposeful Design" which purports to list 81 examples of design. He has very low standards. Basically, anything that works is evidence of design.

The mouth, vagina, urethra, and anus are sealed by mucus when not in use and yet can open and close in controlled ways as needs arise.

This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn't drooling and feces aren't dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. After reading his book, I kind of agree.

The book is full of confessions like that.

Menopause: Are women designed not to have babies when they age or are physically less fit, or is it the reverse, that babies shouldn't be born to women who might not live until their children have grown up? Most women go through menopause around 52 years of age, and they all go through menopause in much the same way. It is clearly programmed. A similar pattern is found in men. As they approach 50, many have lower testosterone levels, lower sperm counts, and less interest in having sex.

What a bizarre argument. So, when the life expectancy was around 30 or 40 (say, in the time of Jesus), shouldn't women have entered menopause around the age of ten or twenty? And if a designer is setting the timers on women's fertility for optimum utility, I have a complaint: I want daughters' fertility switched off until they're old enough to handle it. Like around 30.

All women don't go through menopause in the same way. There is an underlying similar cause, but the symptoms and expression of that mechanism is different in everyone.

And, umm, how old is Geoffrey Simmons?

His age might not matter. I don't think he knows very much about sex. Look at this argument: women's bodies are perfectly designed to maximize their enjoyment of the missionary position!

Intercourse: Face-to-face intercourse is relatively rare in the animal world, found only among whales, dolphins, dugongs, manatees, beavers, sea otters, centipedes, some crustaceans, a aNew Zealand songbird, and some primates like orangutans and bonobos [and squid. "Relatively rare," huh? -- pzm]

One might ask, how did human males and females evolve to be so perfectly compatible? Pelvic thrusting during intercourse stimulates both individuals and deposits the sperm in the deepest possible spot. Vaginal rugae (folds) stimulate the penis. Every male aspect of intercourse—from the initial excitement set off by visual cues and pheromones, to a good mechanical fit, to stimulation, to the placement of sperm—matches up well with the female's equivalent interest, her means of being stimulated, the delivery of the egg, and her mechanisms to help the sperm on their voyage. Dopamine, a chemical responsible for feelings of reward and pleasure, is released into the bloodstream in males and females after sex, just as it is released after ingesting a good meal or certain illicit drugs.

Please, somebody, show Dr Simmons where the clitoris is and explain female orgasms to him…for the sake of Mrs Simmons!

After that mercy is taken care of, explain evolution to him. I will note that Dr Simmons is the product of parents who had sufficient interest in sex and sufficiently compatible plumbing that they could generate him, and that they in turn had parents with compatible genitalia, and they came from parents likewise, and on and on back into the past. There was never a point where anyone had two parents who did not have sex with each other, so his observation, from an evolutionary perspective, is completely trivial. Design is unnecessary.

I was really tempted to turn this debate into a sex education discussion, which would have been good for the Christian listeners. Imagine a Christian talk station that patiently explained to the male listeners what a clitoris was … there would be many happy smiling ladies in church.

Read the comments on this post...

We Hardly Knew Ye

 Arthur Carty has been dismissed and he won't be replaced when he leaves on March 31. I'll let that shocking news sink in for a minute or two .... ♪♪ ...musical interlude ..... ♪♪♪ So, are you properly outraged? No? If you're like 99.99% 0f Canadians you probably didn't know that Arthur Carty is Canada's National Science Advisor. Probably 99% of Canadians didn't even know we had a National

MySpace: No place for Atheists?

AS reported at Secular Student Alliance, MySpace has deleted a major atheist group from their site, apparently after complaints from religious groups: Social networking site, MySpace.com, panders to religious intolerants by deleting atheist users, groups and content. Early this month, MySpace again deleted the Atheist and Agnostic Group (35,000 members). This deletion, due largely to complaints from [...]

MySpace: No place for Atheists?

AS reported at Secular Student Alliance, MySpace has deleted a major atheist group from their site, apparently after complaints from religious groups: Social networking site, MySpace.com, panders to religious intolerants by deleting atheist users, groups and content. Early this month, MySpace again deleted the Atheist and Agnostic Group (35,000 members). This deletion, due largely to complaints from [...]

Religious Retard Attacks Science - People Should Stop Learning

Did I say “Retard”? I shouldn’t degrade mentally retarded people by comparing them to someone who willingly rejects knowledge and embraces ignorance. At least retarded people try to learn.

Pope says some science shatters human dignity

The Pope VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Thursday that embryonic stem cell research, artificial insemination and the prospect of human cloning had “shattered” human dignity.

In an address to members of the Vatican department on doctrinal matters, Benedict said the Church had a duty to defend the “great values at stake” in the field of bioethics.

The speech was the latest in a series in which the conservative Pope has told his listeners that scientific progress should not be accepted uncritically.

Benedict, who headed the same department for years before his election in 2005, said the Church was not against scientific progress but wanted it based on “ethical-moral principles.”

He said this included total respect for the human being as a person “from conception until natural death,” and respect for the natural transmission of life through sexual intercourse.

Practices like freezing embryos, suppression of embryos in multiple pregnancies, embryonic stem cell research, the prospect of human cloning and artificial insemination outside the body had “shattered the barriers meant to protect human dignity,” he said.

Religious choral music

Kazim here. I know I've mentioned before that I sing in the Austin Community Chorus, and that we do a lot of religious music. I did a whole show about justified acknowledgment of religion in art and education a while back. The fact is that historically, MOST classical music (along with other forms of art) was sponsored by the church. So in general, if a song is much more than a hundred years

Leisure time

If you'll take a look at the green bar to your right, you'll notice I've updated my reading list. I hadn't changed the list since before I graduated, so I figured I should clear out some of the school books, which I'm not really reading anymore. For posterity, the list right now says:

What I'm reading right now (or trying to)
What I recently finished reading
Note that just because I say I'm currently reading something doesn't always mean that I'm reading it particularly actively. Collapse, for instance, has been in my bathroom for probably about two years.

Nice to be out of school, that's what I say. Also I'm playing a crapload of World o' Warcraft. My priest Kazimus is now doing regular guild raids at level 70, and I'm starting to move my warrior up the ladder. Yay free time!

~Maya Angelou

Mirror “I don’t know if I continue, even today, always liking myself. But what I learned to do many years ago was to forgive myself. It is very important for every human being to forgive herself or himself because if you live, you will make mistakes- it is inevitable. But once you do and you see the mistake, then you forgive yourself and say, ‘well, if I’d known better I’d have done better,’ that’s all. So you say to people who you think you may have injured, ‘I’m sorry,’ and then you say to yourself, ‘I’m sorry.’ If we all hold on to the mistake, we can’t see our own glory in the mirror because we have the mistake between our faces and the mirror; we can’t see what we’re capable of being. You can ask forgiveness of others, but in the end the real forgiveness is in one’s own self. I think that young men and women are so caught by the way they see themselves. Now mind you. When a larger society sees them as unattractive, as threats, as too black or too white or too poor or too fat or too thin or too sexual or too asexual, that’s rough. But you can overcome that. The real difficulty is to overcome how you think about yourself. If we don’t have that we never grow, we never learn, and sure as hell we should never teach.”

If it Looks Like a Duck…

...and sounds like a duck, it must be a swan. Right?

According to Attorney General Mukasey, waterboarding -- the practice of simulated drowning that has been used against Al Qaida in Iraq -- would be torture, if it were done to him. Mukasey also commented that while he may believe waterboarding is torture, he would not consider it illegal.

Yes, you read that correctly, the head of the justice department believes that waterboarding is torture, but not illegal. Apparently, something that looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, is indeed a swan.

Up until this point in time, I've only ever encountered this caliber of mental compartmentalization in religious zealots and 1984. This is some high-grade doublethink proudly on display right here. I mean, I can understand why some people would hold that certain practices might be repugnant but not necessarily illegal -- because they are able to differentiate between personal preference and equal protection under the law. There comes a point at which this kind of understanding fails, and a practice in question becomes illegal due not only to its effects, but also to its repugnance.

Torture is a perfect example of a case like this. The practice is illegal on the books not only because of the effect it has on the individual (severely damaging both physically and emotionally, PTSD-inducing, etc...), but also because any sane person subjected to torture would find the practice repugnant, to put it very, very, mildly.

I could rehash here all the arguments about morality that have been made to justify this barbaric practice, but they are so morally disgusting that it's enough to simply say this:

Until such time as waterboarding -- and indeed all torture -- is
permanently and universally condemned, and abandoned as a practice by
the established government of the United States; it is a perfectly legitimate
request to ask that any candidate for political office -- appointed by election,
or by representatives of the people -- be waterboarded as
a demonstration of their commitment to their belief that waterboarding is not
torture.

Complaints Against Penn & Teller’s Bullshit!

Thank you, Freedom of Information Act.

Governmentattic has a collection of complaints made to the FCC regarding Penn & Teller’s Bullshit!

It’s amazing how many people don’t know how to change the channel or can’t stand any form of criticism against their beliefs.

Here’s the PDF of the complaints.

These are my favorite pages:

Page 6 — It includes this comment by Catholic League president Bill Donohue: “In the 12 years that I have been president of the Catholic League, I have never witnessed a more vicious attack on Catholicism than what appeared this week on [the show].”

Funny. He called Chocolate Jesus “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever.” Does he keep a list of the worst attacks somewhere?

Page 12 — He saw an online commercial for the show! The horror!

Page 21 — It includes the phrases, “Old black Martin Luther King loves watermelon and red ripple” and “Greedy Rabbi Gold steals his brother’s money and copulates with his brother’s wife.”

(via Reason)


Technorati Tags: ,

Share This

More laws please, we’re British

Once, Britain viewed itself as the cradle of democracy and home of freedom and civil rights. Even then it was probably a false impression, but in recent years it has really become ludicrous.

Today, on the Radio news bulletins there has been a few items about how the police are trying to get online video sharing services (i.e. YouTube) to prohibit people uploading video of themselves driving dangerously or excessively speeding. The articles finished off with an ominous threat that if it wasn’t banned, the government would be pressured into making it illegal.

I am confused.

Driving dangerously is an offence. Driving along the road holding a mobile phone in one hand to record both your speedometer and the road ahead is illegal. Breaking the speed limit is illegal. What difference will making a new law have? What advantage is there in creating a new law in our already burgeoning system?

In our current Orwellian-Britain, it is almost a daily occurrence for the tabloids to scream about how antisocial behaviour is out of control and call for “more, tougher laws” to curb it. Our intellectually lazy public laps this up and as a result our offensively fickle politicians (as well as the politically minded Chief Police Officers) pick up on this and agree we need new laws to make XYZ illegal. No one seems to notice the sheer madness of criminalising more and more behaviour, then complaining about more and more criminals…

Add to this, the weird idea that people seem to have about handing over more of our civil liberties to the police and you can see we are truly on the road to 1984. If you are in doubt about the weirdness then have a look at the BBC “Have your say” from Wednesday, 30 Jan 08. Titled “Will more stop and search powers reduce crime” it carries the following blurb:

The government is to announce an extension of stop and search powers for police to enable them to stop people without grounds for suspicion, the BBC understands. Will this help the police?

The government has been trialling routine stop and search powers for police in so-called gun and knife “hotspots” but the powers could shortly be extended to other parts of the country.

The Conservatives are also promising a major overhaul of police powers to stop and search suspects, with police being allowed to radio in the personal details of who they have stopped.

Rightfully, there is a mix of comments for and against the powers so I wont go into too many of them but this was one typical of the “tabloid-Britain” point of view:

In London it should reduce the number of youngsters carrying knives so it must be a good thing!

Wow. Working on the assumption that something may happen justifies the injustice. Amazing.

The very concept of stop and search without requiring even the farcical “reasonable suspicion” of the past is mind blowing. This legislation, is passed, would allow the police to randomly stop anyone they wanted and search them to see if they are carrying anything illegal or, worryingly, anything the officer feels may assist with a criminal act. This definition is very broad brush - a screwdriver can be considered in all manner of ways… Even more disturbingly, the new legislation seeks to remove the “paperwork” which accompanies current stop and searches. Quite rightly most police officers dislike having to spend time filling in forms explaining who they have stopped and under what grounds the stop was carried out - however, by taking away that paperwork there is no longer any protection of the innocent person who has been subjected to police harassment.

I am sure that 99.9% of police officers are fine, upstanding members of the community and have no goal but the greater good of society. However, there are a lot of police officers so that 0.01% represents a lot of “bad eggs.” When these officers decide to stop people because of their skin colour, or their dress or whatever and continue to stop a minority of people there is (currently) a system in place where the citizen has a record of the stop and evidence of excessive stops can be presented to the authorities. Removing that removes a vital safeguard for both the public and the police officer.

Are the British people so ignorant of our recent history that we wilfully refuse to acknowledge any of its lessons? I could understand it if we were talking about issues which happened 500 years ago, but in my lifetime we have seen the problems caused by internment, lack of police accountability, criminalisation of a segment of society based on nothing but their religion (etc). Over the last 30 years we should have learned that this sort of thing encourages people to turn to violence to make themselves heard or to get “restitution” for police oppression (real or otherwise). Did we learn nothing from Londonderry, Toxteth, Brixton, Belfast…

As an answer we have this bit of madness (comment on the BBC have your say page) which encapsulates the “average British person” and their point of view (if the media is anything to go by):

Stop and search is necessary, whilst crime continues.

What we have in Britain is the lunatics running the assylum.
we have already given in to many of the lunatics request for leniency. and what has improved in the last 30 years ?
Nothing thats what.

Forget all the figures about the crime rate being down.
most crimes now go unreported.
In any society, we need control.
we cannot have unelected voices demanding a change in law.

If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

No, it doesn’t make any sense to me either. Crime will be with us (and every other culture) for as long as humanity survives. Most crimes do not go unreported (prove they do and I will be impressed). The bit about changes to the law really threw me and I gave up on this genius. Sadly, this is a tone which you can find on nearly all the national newspapers and pretty much every Television channel. Will the politicians be swayed by this?

Share This

More laws please, we’re British

Once, Britain viewed itself as the cradle of democracy and home of freedom and civil rights. Even then it was probably a false impression, but in recent years it has really become ludicrous.

Today, on the Radio news bulletins there has been a few items about how the police are trying to get online video sharing services (i.e. YouTube) to prohibit people uploading video of themselves driving dangerously or excessively speeding. The articles finished off with an ominous threat that if it wasn’t banned, the government would be pressured into making it illegal.

I am confused.

Driving dangerously is an offence. Driving along the road holding a mobile phone in one hand to record both your speedometer and the road ahead is illegal. Breaking the speed limit is illegal. What difference will making a new law have? What advantage is there in creating a new law in our already burgeoning system?

In our current Orwellian-Britain, it is almost a daily occurrence for the tabloids to scream about how antisocial behaviour is out of control and call for “more, tougher laws” to curb it. Our intellectually lazy public laps this up and as a result our offensively fickle politicians (as well as the politically minded Chief Police Officers) pick up on this and agree we need new laws to make XYZ illegal. No one seems to notice the sheer madness of criminalising more and more behaviour, then complaining about more and more criminals…

Add to this, the weird idea that people seem to have about handing over more of our civil liberties to the police and you can see we are truly on the road to 1984. If you are in doubt about the weirdness then have a look at the BBC “Have your say” from Wednesday, 30 Jan 08. Titled “Will more stop and search powers reduce crime” it carries the following blurb:

The government is to announce an extension of stop and search powers for police to enable them to stop people without grounds for suspicion, the BBC understands. Will this help the police?

The government has been trialling routine stop and search powers for police in so-called gun and knife “hotspots” but the powers could shortly be extended to other parts of the country.

The Conservatives are also promising a major overhaul of police powers to stop and search suspects, with police being allowed to radio in the personal details of who they have stopped.

Rightfully, there is a mix of comments for and against the powers so I wont go into too many of them but this was one typical of the “tabloid-Britain” point of view:

In London it should reduce the number of youngsters carrying knives so it must be a good thing!

Wow. Working on the assumption that something may happen justifies the injustice. Amazing.

The very concept of stop and search without requiring even the farcical “reasonable suspicion” of the past is mind blowing. This legislation, is passed, would allow the police to randomly stop anyone they wanted and search them to see if they are carrying anything illegal or, worryingly, anything the officer feels may assist with a criminal act. This definition is very broad brush - a screwdriver can be considered in all manner of ways… Even more disturbingly, the new legislation seeks to remove the “paperwork” which accompanies current stop and searches. Quite rightly most police officers dislike having to spend time filling in forms explaining who they have stopped and under what grounds the stop was carried out - however, by taking away that paperwork there is no longer any protection of the innocent person who has been subjected to police harassment.

I am sure that 99.9% of police officers are fine, upstanding members of the community and have no goal but the greater good of society. However, there are a lot of police officers so that 0.01% represents a lot of “bad eggs.” When these officers decide to stop people because of their skin colour, or their dress or whatever and continue to stop a minority of people there is (currently) a system in place where the citizen has a record of the stop and evidence of excessive stops can be presented to the authorities. Removing that removes a vital safeguard for both the public and the police officer.

Are the British people so ignorant of our recent history that we wilfully refuse to acknowledge any of its lessons? I could understand it if we were talking about issues which happened 500 years ago, but in my lifetime we have seen the problems caused by internment, lack of police accountability, criminalisation of a segment of society based on nothing but their religion (etc). Over the last 30 years we should have learned that this sort of thing encourages people to turn to violence to make themselves heard or to get “restitution” for police oppression (real or otherwise). Did we learn nothing from Londonderry, Toxteth, Brixton, Belfast…

As an answer we have this bit of madness (comment on the BBC have your say page) which encapsulates the “average British person” and their point of view (if the media is anything to go by):

Stop and search is necessary, whilst crime continues.

What we have in Britain is the lunatics running the assylum.
we have already given in to many of the lunatics request for leniency. and what has improved in the last 30 years ?
Nothing thats what.

Forget all the figures about the crime rate being down.
most crimes now go unreported.
In any society, we need control.
we cannot have unelected voices demanding a change in law.

If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

No, it doesn’t make any sense to me either. Crime will be with us (and every other culture) for as long as humanity survives. Most crimes do not go unreported (prove they do and I will be impressed). The bit about changes to the law really threw me and I gave up on this genius. Sadly, this is a tone which you can find on nearly all the national newspapers and pretty much every Television channel. Will the politicians be swayed by this?

Share This

More laws please, we’re British

Once, Britain viewed itself as the cradle of democracy and home of freedom and civil rights. Even then it was probably a false impression, but in recent years it has really become ludicrous.

Today, on the Radio news bulletins there has been a few items about how the police are trying to get online video sharing services (i.e. YouTube) to prohibit people uploading video of themselves driving dangerously or excessively speeding. The articles finished off with an ominous threat that if it wasn’t banned, the government would be pressured into making it illegal.

I am confused.

Driving dangerously is an offence. Driving along the road holding a mobile phone in one hand to record both your speedometer and the road ahead is illegal. Breaking the speed limit is illegal. What difference will making a new law have? What advantage is there in creating a new law in our already burgeoning system?

In our current Orwellian-Britain, it is almost a daily occurrence for the tabloids to scream about how antisocial behaviour is out of control and call for “more, tougher laws” to curb it. Our intellectually lazy public laps this up and as a result our offensively fickle politicians (as well as the politically minded Chief Police Officers) pick up on this and agree we need new laws to make XYZ illegal. No one seems to notice the sheer madness of criminalising more and more behaviour, then complaining about more and more criminals…

Add to this, the weird idea that people seem to have about handing over more of our civil liberties to the police and you can see we are truly on the road to 1984. If you are in doubt about the weirdness then have a look at the BBC “Have your say” from Wednesday, 30 Jan 08. Titled “Will more stop and search powers reduce crime” it carries the following blurb:

The government is to announce an extension of stop and search powers for police to enable them to stop people without grounds for suspicion, the BBC understands. Will this help the police?

The government has been trialling routine stop and search powers for police in so-called gun and knife “hotspots” but the powers could shortly be extended to other parts of the country.

The Conservatives are also promising a major overhaul of police powers to stop and search suspects, with police being allowed to radio in the personal details of who they have stopped.

Rightfully, there is a mix of comments for and against the powers so I wont go into too many of them but this was one typical of the “tabloid-Britain” point of view:

In London it should reduce the number of youngsters carrying knives so it must be a good thing!

Wow. Working on the assumption that something may happen justifies the injustice. Amazing.

The very concept of stop and search without requiring even the farcical “reasonable suspicion” of the past is mind blowing. This legislation, is passed, would allow the police to randomly stop anyone they wanted and search them to see if they are carrying anything illegal or, worryingly, anything the officer feels may assist with a criminal act. This definition is very broad brush - a screwdriver can be considered in all manner of ways… Even more disturbingly, the new legislation seeks to remove the “paperwork” which accompanies current stop and searches. Quite rightly most police officers dislike having to spend time filling in forms explaining who they have stopped and under what grounds the stop was carried out - however, by taking away that paperwork there is no longer any protection of the innocent person who has been subjected to police harassment.

I am sure that 99.9% of police officers are fine, upstanding members of the community and have no goal but the greater good of society. However, there are a lot of police officers so that 0.01% represents a lot of “bad eggs.” When these officers decide to stop people because of their skin colour, or their dress or whatever and continue to stop a minority of people there is (currently) a system in place where the citizen has a record of the stop and evidence of excessive stops can be presented to the authorities. Removing that removes a vital safeguard for both the public and the police officer.

Are the British people so ignorant of our recent history that we wilfully refuse to acknowledge any of its lessons? I could understand it if we were talking about issues which happened 500 years ago, but in my lifetime we have seen the problems caused by internment, lack of police accountability, criminalisation of a segment of society based on nothing but their religion (etc). Over the last 30 years we should have learned that this sort of thing encourages people to turn to violence to make themselves heard or to get “restitution” for police oppression (real or otherwise). Did we learn nothing from Londonderry, Toxteth, Brixton, Belfast…

As an answer we have this bit of madness (comment on the BBC have your say page) which encapsulates the “average British person” and their point of view (if the media is anything to go by):

Stop and search is necessary, whilst crime continues.

What we have in Britain is the lunatics running the assylum.
we have already given in to many of the lunatics request for leniency. and what has improved in the last 30 years ?
Nothing thats what.

Forget all the figures about the crime rate being down.
most crimes now go unreported.
In any society, we need control.
we cannot have unelected voices demanding a change in law.

If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

No, it doesn’t make any sense to me either. Crime will be with us (and every other culture) for as long as humanity survives. Most crimes do not go unreported (prove they do and I will be impressed). The bit about changes to the law really threw me and I gave up on this genius. Sadly, this is a tone which you can find on nearly all the national newspapers and pretty much every Television channel. Will the politicians be swayed by this?

Share This

The next big CFI Ontario event: Professor Stuart Kauffman proposes a new scientific worldview for understanding the origin of life and biodiversity, economics, ethics and spirituality


REINVENTING THE SACRED:
How the Paradigm of Emergence Offers New Scientific Views on the
Origin of Life and Biodiversity, Economics, Ethics, and Spirituality

Stuart Kauffman, Institute for Biochemplexity and Informatics,
University of Calgary

Thurs, Feb 8, 7:30pm, Centre for Inquiry Ontario, 216 Beverley St,
downtown Toronto. (more…)

A Season for Nonviolence: 64 Ways in 64 Days - Day 2

In the Season of Nonviolence each day, people are ask to help promote nonviolence and peace. The idea is 64 ways in 64-days to create peace.To celebrate this event, I would ask fellow bloggers, both pro-gay and anti-gay to mark each day of the 64-days by stepping out of the box and posting one idea of how to create peace, especially with our adversaries in the gay/anti-gay conflict.

Day 2 of 64:  Today, I have really been busy and my patience was tested by way of interuption city all day.   So, today I am practicing my patience.  I vow that today, I will empathize and be patient with others.

 What will you do for peace in these 64-days?

Nobel Prizes by Country

 The number of Nobel Laureates in each country is often a matter of some pride. More importantly, it is often used to bolster arguments about the quality of science in different countries. Recently, I saw a creationist use these numbers to support the claim that acceptance of evolution was irrelevant. According to this IDiot, the USA has the most Nobel Laureates in spite of the fact that 50% of

Standard creationist tactics, as expected

Two days ago I was asked to participate in a radio debate with a Discovery Institute fellow. I asked about the topic and the format, and they said, "the evidence of Evolution vs. evidence of Intelligent Design" and "each would get a 5 minute opening statement and then we would debate the issues brought out in the opening statements." OK, sure, I said, while rolling my eyes at the ridiculous expectations.

I'm supposed to call in in an hour and a half. I just got this email.

I just received an e-mail from Dr. Simmons requesting the title of the debate to change to "Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?" When you agreed to the debate I proposed the title and format to you but did not consult with Dr. Simmons. I was corresponding with you while I was in the middle of a show that day and didn't think to pass that specific information to Dr. Simmons. When he learned of the original title he requested this change but sent it to our Producer last night and I just learned of it now.

Well, isn't this just so incredibly typical of frauds? Bait and switch, juggle the terms, move the goalposts, play games.

The show will go on. I had absolutely no respect for my opponent's intellectual honesty in the first place, so I can't argue that this has diminished it.

Read the comments on this post...

The Three R’s: Readin’, ‘ritin’, reloadin’

Arizona's gun loonies never cease to amaze with their utter stark raving idiocy. Unfazed by the failure of their pet legislation to allow guns in bars, a cretinous crusade that was deservedly lampooned by the Daily Show and brought worldwide embarrassment to the state, these mouth-foaming gun worshippers now want to force guns into schools.

This lunatic idea is being rammed through the Arizona legislature by a couple of extreme hard-right imbeciles, Senate Leader Thayer Verschoor and "worst legislator of the year" and five-times-married defender of family values Karen Johnson. Because, is there anything scarier that a classroom full of unarmed children?

Proponents of the measure frame their arguments in terms of the usual mindless gun-fetishist theology about "good guys" and "bad guys", and the good guys should be allowed to fire back at the bad guys, yada yada yada. The problem of course is that Cho Seung-Hui, the shooter at Virginia Tech, was a "good guy" right up to the moment he killed his first victim. Will the gun fetishists guarantee that a "good guy" who has been dumped by his girlfriend or flunked an important exam will never turn into a "bad guy" and start shooting?

This is the point that gun nuts (deliberately) never get. They just take it for granted that the bad guys will be armed and there is nothing we can do about it - the guns just fall out of the sky into the hands of the bad guys - so the only thing we can do in response is arm the good guys to the teeth, and keep them in an arms race against the bad guys. The solution to the problem of gun violence is always more guns. How convenient for the gun industry, the beneficiary of the gun nuts' frantic efforts at gun proliferation! The nuts refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that this crazy and dysfunctional system creates a vicious cycle that makes it even easier for "bad guys" to get all the guns they want.

It's too bad that our insane gun laws have created the need for armed security in schools in the first place. But armed security must be provided by trained law enforcement officers. A roomful of Walter Mittys blasting away only makes a bad situation even more nightmarish. This stupid and brain-dead legislation is all about letting immature juvenile wannabes indulge their macho fantasies - it is not about protecting children.

(Comment on this post)

Oil, Profits and Taxes - Who is to blame?

It is a national outrage (depending on which segment of society you hail from) and it is certainly something that impacts all elements of the UK. It is also subject to a strangely twisted world view.

I am talking about oil prices (and petrol prices specifically).

For us poor Brits, the average price of petrol (gasoline for our colonial brethren) is now £1.05 per litre. This is approximately $7.91 a gallon. For some people it makes owning a car financially crippling (to the great joy of some “green” lobbyists), and it also has the knock on effect of making public transport prices increase to the point of stupidity. Given the way modern society works, not having access to affordable transport is fatal. Using plain old me as an example, my “commute” to work leaves me driving at an average of 23 miles per hour which is far from economical with the fuel - however there is no public transport which covers the route, it too far to walk (20 miles) and for various reasons cycling is not an option. I have no choice but to foot the big assed fuel bill each month (best part of a gallon each way…).

As you can imagine, fuel prices annoy me. A few years ago we had all manner of protests over the UK when road haulage firms complained about the high tax rates, but despite this pump prices have been steadily rising every few months. Breaking the £1 per litre mark was once thought to be so outrageous as to never happen. Ha.

The government tax fuel at 65%, pretty high really. I don’t actually have a problem with this in general terms as it provides a phenomenal source of revenue for the country. This is, normally, a GOODTHING™©. However, despite this source of revenue, a tax which is claimed to exist at least partly to encourage people to reduce personal transport usage, is not being used to provide good quality public transport.

Whenever people complain about the monstrous cost of vehicle fuels, the oil companies are always quick to point the finger of blame on the government’s massive fuel tax. And, on the surface, this seems reasonable as 65% tax is high. If you take the oil companies at face value, they are charging the minimum they can get away with to recoup their costs and pay their taxes. Aren’t they all saintly?

Today, one of the headline news items read “Shell sets new UK profits record.”

Wow. How can these two versions of reality be reconciled?

If, as they claim, the high cost of oil is solely dependant on the government imposed tax how is Shell managing to turn £13.9 BILLION in profit? That is in the region of £230 per person in the UK. For that, they could strike off 30p a litre on fuel and still be making a phenomenal profit - not to mention the massive amount of extra sales they would get.

It really makes my head spin to think that Shell (and presumably the other oil companies) are happy to commiserate with the public about the high price of oil while at the same time gouging a monstrous profit. Petrol prices may suffer from high taxes, but the root cause of their bank-balance-busting status is the uncontrolled greed of the oil companies. At least the governments tax makes its way back to the nation…

Share This

Oil, Profits and Taxes - Who is to blame?

It is a national outrage (depending on which segment of society you hail from) and it is certainly something that impacts all elements of the UK. It is also subject to a strangely twisted world view.

I am talking about oil prices (and petrol prices specifically).

For us poor Brits, the average price of petrol (gasoline for our colonial brethren) is now £1.05 per litre. This is approximately $7.91 a gallon. For some people it makes owning a car financially crippling (to the great joy of some “green” lobbyists), and it also has the knock on effect of making public transport prices increase to the point of stupidity. Given the way modern society works, not having access to affordable transport is fatal. Using plain old me as an example, my “commute” to work leaves me driving at an average of 23 miles per hour which is far from economical with the fuel - however there is no public transport which covers the route, it too far to walk (20 miles) and for various reasons cycling is not an option. I have no choice but to foot the big assed fuel bill each month (best part of a gallon each way…).

As you can imagine, fuel prices annoy me. A few years ago we had all manner of protests over the UK when road haulage firms complained about the high tax rates, but despite this pump prices have been steadily rising every few months. Breaking the £1 per litre mark was once thought to be so outrageous as to never happen. Ha.

The government tax fuel at 65%, pretty high really. I don’t actually have a problem with this in general terms as it provides a phenomenal source of revenue for the country. This is, normally, a GOODTHING™©. However, despite this source of revenue, a tax which is claimed to exist at least partly to encourage people to reduce personal transport usage, is not being used to provide good quality public transport.

Whenever people complain about the monstrous cost of vehicle fuels, the oil companies are always quick to point the finger of blame on the government’s massive fuel tax. And, on the surface, this seems reasonable as 65% tax is high. If you take the oil companies at face value, they are charging the minimum they can get away with to recoup their costs and pay their taxes. Aren’t they all saintly?

Today, one of the headline news items read “Shell sets new UK profits record.”

Wow. How can these two versions of reality be reconciled?

If, as they claim, the high cost of oil is solely dependant on the government imposed tax how is Shell managing to turn £13.9 BILLION in profit? That is in the region of £230 per person in the UK. For that, they could strike off 30p a litre on fuel and still be making a phenomenal profit - not to mention the massive amount of extra sales they would get.

It really makes my head spin to think that Shell (and presumably the other oil companies) are happy to commiserate with the public about the high price of oil while at the same time gouging a monstrous profit. Petrol prices may suffer from high taxes, but the root cause of their bank-balance-busting status is the uncontrolled greed of the oil companies. At least the governments tax makes its way back to the nation…

Share This

Should I go or should I stay?

I have a MySpace page. It's not much, just a token entry on one of the big social networking sites.

Now here's a problem: MySpace is run by religious bigots. They selectively censor atheist groups wholesale; this makes me rather dislike the place. Yesterday was International Delete Your MySpace Account Day as a protest — I didn't participate because I didn't find out about it until this morning, and now I face a dilemma. Should I remove even my nominal participation in MySpace, or should I keep my page up? If it stays up, it will definitely have something protesting the managerial abuses that are going on.

There's something to be said for either alternative, but I'm lazy (and also crazy busy today), so I'll put it to the readers of Pharyngula: shall we say no to MySpace and torch the Pharyngula webpage thereon, or shall I leave it up? Scorn them by participating in the mass shunning, or leave a one-fingered salute waving at them?


The New Humanist is running a poll on this very same issue — how should atheists respond to organizations that discriminate against us?

Read the comments on this post...

Freedom and democracy in Afghanistan

If you bothered to listen to the king this past Monday you’d heard him state that everything’s great in the newly minted democratic Afghanistan. There’s only one problem. A 23 year old journalist was recently sentenced to death for blasphemy in what appears to be vengeance for his elder brother’s stance against local strongmen.

How’s that for freedom and democracy?

addthis_url = 'http%3A%2F%2Fbligbi.com%2F2008%2F01%2F31%2Ffreedom-and-democracy-in-afghanistan%2F'; addthis_title = 'Freedom+and+democracy+in+Afghanistan'; addthis_pub = '';

Freedom and democracy in Afghanistan

If you bothered to listen to the king this past Monday you’d heard him state that everything’s great in the newly minted democratic Afghanistan. There’s only one problem. A 23 year old journalist was recently sentenced to death for blasphemy in what appears to be vengeance for his elder brother’s stance against local strongmen.

How’s that for freedom and democracy?

addthis_url = 'http%3A%2F%2Fbligbi.com%2F2008%2F01%2F31%2Ffreedom-and-democracy-in-afghanistan%2F'; addthis_title = 'Freedom+and+democracy+in+Afghanistan'; addthis_pub = '';

blogroll additions and Skeptics’ Circle

I am writing to make a few announcements. First of all, the new Skeptics' Circle is up over at Podblack Blog - and it includes LOLcatz. Just go over there if you need to get a breath of fresh air from all the woo and daily idiocy intake coming in from our TVs/idiot boxes.

Also, I wanted to introduce to you a few blogs that I am going to be adding to my blogroll. And I am encouraging you to check them out, there's quite some good stuff out there!

Greta Christina's Blog: I should have added this a loong time ago! If you are a mentally open person about sex, science and non-religious views of the world, then this blog has it all for you. It's spicy, it's cool, and most importantly, it is often quite a lot of fun to read.

The Blowfish Blog: watch out because there is some explicit material in this blog - but that's the whole point. If you want to become more comfortable with your sexual life, you are curious, or you are simply interested in the topic of human sexuality, this would be a good read for you. If you are squeamish about kinky stuff, though, I advise you to stay out, think about it, and then dive right in to learn that human sexuality is simply a normal expression of our humanity.

FemaleScienceProfessor: as she puts it, "Women professors in the physical sciences: a few. Women professors in the physical sciences at research universities: even fewer. Women full professors in physical sciences at research universities, especially mine: very very few, miniscule, microscopic, a nano-amount. But we exist!" This is a very good read for women who are eyeing a career in science, but also those who are interested in knowing what it really means to be a woman in science (spoiler: being a woman has quite a lot of implications!)

I hope you enjoy the reading. And don't forget about my blog - I know, sometimes I take some serious hiatuses, but I do have a life outside of the computer, you know!
feed me!

Red

I love it when new people visit here- I go visit their blogs and invariably find something whacky and /or interesting

This from Jeber's Blog is of the whacky variety and will make you laugh or drive you mad- hopefully both :)



Put The Big Red Button on your site

Stop the presses! Bigot found in church!

A choir member at Greater Mount Calvary Holy Church up in Washington decided to quit the choir because “80 percent of the tenors are homosexuals and act more like a female in choir rehearsal than [she does].” She stated this in two emails sent in December and January and people are a bit upset with her.

The outings added to the inner turmoil experienced by a large number of gays who attend services at the 7,000-member Greater Mount Calvary Holy Church, located on Rhode Island Ave., N.E., according to a gay former member who provided copies of the e-mails to the Blade.

“I will be leaving the choir at the top of the year because 80 percent of the tenors are homosexuals and act more like a female in choir rehearsal than I do,” the church choir member said in one of her e-mails to Bishop Alfred Owens Jr., the church pastor.

The e-mail, sent in December, identifies about 45 fellow church members as gay. She sent a second e-mail to Owens on Jan. 2 identifying another 62 church members as gay.

“The following people I am asking you to monitor very closely and my prayer is that you will sit them down from their ministries,” she told Owens in the December e-mail. “Because they are ushering in the presence of sin, lies, a spirit of homosexuality and sexual spirits.”

She sent a copy of her e-mails to a Yahoo list group that goes to more than 300 church members, the gay former church member said.

The problem though is that the church is Baptist. The Baptist sect is conservative and believes the bible is the “Word of God” unless said god contradicts them. I could see some outrage if it was one of the liberal sects, but the Baptists? You might as well be outraged that lions are large carnivorous predators.

In other news, the allegedly “moderate” Baptists are holding a meeting in Georgia on the grounds that the Southern Baptists get too much press and give the collective sect a bad name. Pardon me for saying it, but the only people giving the Baptist sect a bad name would be the Baptists - of all stripes.

addthis_url = 'http%3A%2F%2Fbligbi.com%2F2008%2F01%2F31%2Fstop-the-presses-bigot-found-in-church%2F'; addthis_title = 'Stop+the+presses%21+Bigot+found+in+church%21'; addthis_pub = '';

Stop the presses! Bigot found in church!

A choir member at Greater Mount Calvary Holy Church up in Washington decided to quit the choir because “80 percent of the tenors are homosexuals and act more like a female in choir rehearsal than [she does].” She stated this in two emails sent in December and January and people are a bit upset with her.

The outings added to the inner turmoil experienced by a large number of gays who attend services at the 7,000-member Greater Mount Calvary Holy Church, located on Rhode Island Ave., N.E., according to a gay former member who provided copies of the e-mails to the Blade.

“I will be leaving the choir at the top of the year because 80 percent of the tenors are homosexuals and act more like a female in choir rehearsal than I do,” the church choir member said in one of her e-mails to Bishop Alfred Owens Jr., the church pastor.

The e-mail, sent in December, identifies about 45 fellow church members as gay. She sent a second e-mail to Owens on Jan. 2 identifying another 62 church members as gay.

“The following people I am asking you to monitor very closely and my prayer is that you will sit them down from their ministries,” she told Owens in the December e-mail. “Because they are ushering in the presence of sin, lies, a spirit of homosexuality and sexual spirits.”

She sent a copy of her e-mails to a Yahoo list group that goes to more than 300 church members, the gay former church member said.

The problem though is that the church is Baptist. The Baptist sect is conservative and believes the bible is the “Word of God” unless said god contradicts them. I could see some outrage if it was one of the liberal sects, but the Baptists? You might as well be outraged that lions are large carnivorous predators.

In other news, the allegedly “moderate” Baptists are holding a meeting in Georgia on the grounds that the Southern Baptists get too much press and give the collective sect a bad name. Pardon me for saying it, but the only people giving the Baptist sect a bad name would be the Baptists - of all stripes.

addthis_url = 'http%3A%2F%2Fbligbi.com%2F2008%2F01%2F31%2Fstop-the-presses-bigot-found-in-church%2F'; addthis_title = 'Stop+the+presses%21+Bigot+found+in+church%21'; addthis_pub = '';

A Message Board

Unbrainwashed recently made a comment suggesting we ought to have a message board so that people who visit this site can carry on their own discussions. The upside to this is that the threads could last several days, as opposed to a blog posting, where discussions tend to be short-lived.

I don’t have enough knowledge about how to do this, but if anyone would like to shed some light on how it works, what software to use, costs, etc., please let me know! And if you’re willing to moderate it, that would be good to know as well )

I’ll see if we can make this happen!


Technorati Tags: ,

Share This

All of The Vatican Shatters Human Dignity

~ I swore I was not going to post on this, the Pope releases a new statement nearly every day illustrating his ignorance and bigotry, eventually it becomes 'old hat' writing about his inane comments. Well, after I saw this headline, Pope says some science shatters human dignity, I felt compelled, BY MY DIGNITY, to comment. One area in which the Catholic Church has exceeded expectations over the last two millenia is the shattering of human dignity, spirit and thought. We have witnessed or read accounts of numerous instances where under the guise of protecting the faith, people have been imprisoned, burned, tortured, silenced, and mistreated. One only needs to look as far as historical accounts of Galileo, the Inquisition, or even modern day situations such as Mother Theresa in the slums...

Click here to read more!

What’re you reading…

Let me begin by saying that the person who asked me this is one of the sweetest, nicest people I've met.

"Well, this one is Atheism: a Reader," I say.

"You're an atheist?"

"Yep."

"Oh no, but you're such a nice person," almost disparagingly.

"...atheists can't be nice people?"

That was the end of the conversation, by which we moved on to discuss the weather.

What does this say to how misunderstood atheism is? I also wonder how and where she comes by information to suggest that atheists are bad people to begin with.

When a set of people are vilified and demonized; it's no wonder they get outraged and angry.