Monthly Archive for January, 2009

Jimmy Carter: A Better Man

Published

on January 30, 2009

Catching up on Daily Shows, I watched the episode from January 27, which included former President Jimmy Carter as the guest. Mr. Carter is now 84 but remains the soft-spoken gentleman I remember from my childhood. As president, he faced a mountain of problems and upon leaving office he was considered one of our more ineffective leaders. He has since proven otherwise. Watching the segment with Jon Stewart a few things jumped out at me: First, Mr. Carter may not (or may) have known at the...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Jimmy Carter: A Better Man

Published

JCE

on January 30, 2009

Endemic corruption

Published

on January 29, 2009

Blagojevich did acknowledge that the truth of his actions might not be flattering in some cases. He referred to taped conversations played earlier in the Senate trial. The tapes appeared to show Blagojevich linking legislation to campaign contributions.

He said that's something "all of us in politics do." (source)

I believe him. It's refreshing when you hear a politician actually tell the truth for once, isn't it?

Endemic corruption

Published

on January 29, 2009

Blagojevich did acknowledge that the truth of his actions might not be flattering in some cases. He referred to taped conversations played earlier in the Senate trial. The tapes appeared to show Blagojevich linking legislation to campaign contributions.

He said that's something "all of us in politics do." (source)

I believe him. It's refreshing when you hear a politician actually tell the truth for once, isn't it?

An Atheist and Christian Debate: Part 8

Published

Ron

on January 29, 2009

Part 8 today, part 9 and the conclusion will follow as soon as I get a chance. I've been pretty busy with real work, my apologies for the delay.

PS: I still have comments to respond to. I always respond to my comments, so please hang in there until I get some time.

----- Original Message ----
From: Daniel
To: Julio
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2008 11:17:08 AM
Subject: RE: Research Volunteers Needed

There's nothing more to discuss here. You are defining the scientific term 'theory' outside of the bounds of science. Did you know that gravity is also a theory? General Relativity, as Einstein 'shot from the hip' with, is also just a 'theory'. If you contend that theories are just complete guesses and speculation, then we can talk no further on this subject. I assume that you don't consider the rest of the 'theories' which you agree with to be merely guesses and speculation...it's only the ones that go against your faith which you MUST disagree with.

We still are left with myself ready to believe anything you want me to believe, as long as you provide evidence. You've not provided one shred of unambiguous evidence for your positive claim of God, or more importantly, Jesus. Rather than provide me the evidence for your positive claim, you instead have taken a .99c flyswatter to flail against the evil scientific community's unproven, untested, speculative 'guesses'. This does nothing to prove God or Jesus, and it does nothing to disprove the evidence which supports the theories of Evolution, Gravity, General Relativity, Conservation of Energy, etc. Science is founded on 'theories', and these theories can be (and are) testable, repeatable, and proven beyond a 'reasonable' doubt. Crafty word play on the definition of 'theory' does not change this fact.

Scientists are not evil, and science is not evil. The only people who oppose science are religious leaders (and their flocks of sheep), because it threatens the beliefs that they cling to. I've been to many creationist websites, and I can see that your information has come from there (or from someone who teaches creationism). I recognize the same arguments, the "God of the Gaps" ideas, and the misrepresentation of the word 'theory'. Perhaps you've been reading: http://www.answersingenesis.org/ , or http://www.allaboutcreation.org/ ? Equating scientific theories and religious 'theories' is probably another thing that creationism teaches, but it is completely wrong. Completely wrong. I could explain this to you in a simple sentence, but honestly if you can't figure this out, then there's no reason for me to tell you.

I'm not gonna sit here and teach you the theory of evolution. I gave a little explanation in the previous email, but it seems that you weren't interested in discussing the validity of the argument, but rather the semantics involved. I answered your question about apes and humans; if you want to know more, then you gotta take a real science class on it (a class that doesn't have the word 'creation' in it). Discuss your problems with the word 'theory' with the professor, and he'll clear it up for you (or maybe you'll clear it up for him). Will your church allow you to take a course on evolution (physical anthropology) at the local junior college, or is this frowned upon? Are you just choosing not to understand this?

"If I asked that your evolution belief doesn't allow you to believe in other things, your mind goes crazy and tells its self "is Julio crazy doesn't he know that, etc......""

My evolution 'belief' doesn't prevent me from believing other things. I could very well believe in God and evolution, no problem. Science doesn't tell me what I can and cannot do There is no agenda behind science, but there is an agenda behind anti-science. You're misrepresenting the stance of the non-religious, and you're again equating two things which are not equal.

"P.S-You still haven't answered my question. I am interested in knowing the reasons why you think a God "does" exist. You volunteered to let me know and asked if I was interested and I'm letting you know to give it to me my Nig!"

It's a waste of time/energy and will only lead us to discuss scripture forever and ever. If you begin providing evidence that God exists, and that Jesus is that God, then I'll give you my reasons. I was actually going to give you my reasons in an earlier email, but it got lost in the rest of the discussion.

You've made the claim for God and Jesus, still waiting for your evidence,
-Pastor D

An Atheist and Christian Debate: Part 8

Published

Daniel

on January 29, 2009

"If I asked that your evolution belief doesn't allow you to believe in other things, your mind goes crazy and tells its self "is Julio crazy doesn't he know that, etc......""

"P.S-You still haven't answered my question. I am interested in knowing the reasons why you think a God "does" exist. You volunteered to let me know and asked if I was interested and I'm letting you know to give it to me my Nig!"

Systemic police perjury addressed

Published

on January 29, 2009

Coming quickly on the heels of my post two weeks ago on police lying to gain search warrants, today's Wall Street Journal addresses the issue of police lying later in the process, at trial.

Though few officers will confess to lying -- after all, it's a crime -- work by researchers and a 1990s commission appointed to examine police corruption shows there's a tacit agreement among many officers that lying about how evidence is seized keeps criminals off the street.

To stem the problem, some criminal-justice researchers and academic experts have called for doing polygraphs on officers who take the stand or requiring officers to tape their searches.

A Supreme Court ruling this month, however, suggests that a simpler, though controversial, solution may be to weaken a longstanding part of U.S. law, known as the exclusionary rule. The 5-4 ruling in Herring v. U.S. that evidence obtained from certain unlawful arrests may nevertheless be used against a criminal defendant could indicate the U.S. is inching closer to a system in which officers might not be tempted to lie to prevent evidence from being thrown out.

Criminal-justice researchers say it's difficult to quantify how often perjury is being committed. According to a 1992 survey, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges in Chicago said they thought that, on average, perjury by police occurs 20% of the time in which defendants claim evidence was illegally seized.

"It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers," though it's difficult to detect in specific cases, said Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals-court judge, in the 1990s. That's because the exclusionary rule "sets up a great incentive for...police to lie."

So let me get this straight: everyone in the criminal justice system accepts that police routinely lie to help them gain convictions. Rather than realize that this means something is fundamentally flawed with our system, their solution is to remove the penalties associated with police misconduct? The exclusionary rule is one of the few protections afforded to defendants, and now we're going to weaken it because some cops feel pressured to lie to gain admission of the evidence? Exclusionary rule or not, I really am still stuck on the fact that a fifth of the police department routinely perjures themselves in court, and yet that is not the focus of this article. Let me put this another way: our police are committing criminal acts, and nobody is doing anything to stop it.

Throwing out evidence because of wrongful searches and arrests "is not an individual right and applies only where its deterrent effect outweighs the substantial cost of letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.

Civil liberties advocates and defense lawyers say losing the exclusionary rule would harm the public. "We'd risk far greater invasions of privacy because officers would have carte blanche to do outrageous activity and act on hunches all the time," says JaneAnne Murray, a criminal defense lawyer in New York.

Excluding illegally obtained evidence "is not an individual right and applies only where its deterrent effect outweighs the substantial cost of letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free." Really? If we follow Justice Robert's statement to it's natural conclusion, then police can do whatever they want, as long as they actually catch some people that have drugs. And just what are these "substantial costs" associated with letting drug offenders go free? It seems to me that there are more substantial costs associated with incarcerating drug offenders than there are in letting them go free. As I write this, the federal and state governments combined have spent over $4.1 billion dollars in the first 29 days of 2009 on the drug war. Police arrested an estimated 872,720 persons for cannabis violations in 2007, the highest annual total ever recorded in the United States, according to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Of those charged with cannabis violations, approximately 89 percent, 775,137 Americans were charged with possession only. An American is now arrested for violating cannabis laws every 38 seconds.(source)

When do we admit that the drug was has been a total and abject failure?

Systemic police perjury addressed

Published

on January 29, 2009

Coming quickly on the heels of my post two weeks ago on police lying to gain search warrants, today's Wall Street Journal addresses the issue of police lying later in the process, at trial.

Though few officers will confess to lying -- after all, it's a crime -- work by researchers and a 1990s commission appointed to examine police corruption shows there's a tacit agreement among many officers that lying about how evidence is seized keeps criminals off the street.

To stem the problem, some criminal-justice researchers and academic experts have called for doing polygraphs on officers who take the stand or requiring officers to tape their searches.

A Supreme Court ruling this month, however, suggests that a simpler, though controversial, solution may be to weaken a longstanding part of U.S. law, known as the exclusionary rule. The 5-4 ruling in Herring v. U.S. that evidence obtained from certain unlawful arrests may nevertheless be used against a criminal defendant could indicate the U.S. is inching closer to a system in which officers might not be tempted to lie to prevent evidence from being thrown out.

Criminal-justice researchers say it's difficult to quantify how often perjury is being committed. According to a 1992 survey, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges in Chicago said they thought that, on average, perjury by police occurs 20% of the time in which defendants claim evidence was illegally seized.

"It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers," though it's difficult to detect in specific cases, said Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals-court judge, in the 1990s. That's because the exclusionary rule "sets up a great incentive for...police to lie."

Throwing out evidence because of wrongful searches and arrests "is not an individual right and applies only where its deterrent effect outweighs the substantial cost of letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.

Civil liberties advocates and defense lawyers say losing the exclusionary rule would harm the public. "We'd risk far greater invasions of privacy because officers would have carte blanche to do outrageous activity and act on hunches all the time," says JaneAnne Murray, a criminal defense lawyer in New York.

When do we admit that the drug was has been a total and abject failure?

Mercury contamination widespread in US Food Supply

Published

on January 29, 2009

Rather than simply presenting this story and ranting about it, I want to use this as an opportunity to demonstrate my way of critical thinking. I think that the way the news is reported does a tremendous disservice to the American public. I further believe that a large segment of the American population is losing, or has lost, their ability to think at any depth about the implications of the stories in the press. Read this article, then meet me below for commentary.

Studies Find Mercury in Much U.S. Corn Syrup

Corn Syrup Industry Attacks Findings, but Researchers Stick by Studies

Reuters

WASHINGTON

Many common foods made using commercial high fructose corn syrup contain mercury as well, researchers reported on Tuesday, while another study suggested the corn syrup itself is contaminated.

Food processors and the corn syrup industry group attacked the findings as flawed and outdated, but the researchers said it was important for people to know about any potential sources of the toxic metal in their food.

In one study, published in the journal Environmental Health, former Food and Drug Administration scientist Renee Dufault and colleagues tested 20 samples of high fructose corn syrup and found detectable mercury in nine of the 20 samples.

Dufault said in a statement that she told the FDA about her findings but the agency did not follow up.

Dr. David Wallinga, a food safety researcher and activist at the nonprofit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, said he followed up on the report to find mercury in actual food.

"When I learned of that work, I said that is interesting but we don't just go out and eat a spoonful of high fructose corn syrup," Wallinga said in a telephone interview.

"We went and looked at supermarket samples where high fructose corn syrup was the first or second ingredient on the label," he said. These 55 different foods included barbecue sauce, jam, yogurt and chocolate syrup.

"We found about one out of three had mercury above the detection limit," Wallinga said.

The Corn Refiners Association challenged the findings.

"This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance," the group said in a statement.

Wallinga and colleagues said they believed the mercury got into the food during manufacture, at plants that use mercury-grade caustic soda produced in industrial chlorine plants, although his team was unable to show this.

"Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two reagents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years," Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, said in a statement.

Wallinga said the studies were based on samples taken in 2005, the most recent available.

Many studies have shown that fish can be high in mercury. Wallinga said consumers should know about other potential sources so they can limit how much they eat. "The best mercury exposure is no exposure at all," he said.

"Even at low levels methylmercury can harm the developing brain. The last thing we should intentionally do is add to it," Wallinga added.

He said his team did not test foods that did not contain corn syrup to see if they were also high in mercury.

OK, so pretty scary stuff, but if you read the article uncritically, you might be left with the impression that there is a dispute about whether mercury is in high fructose corn syrup (and the foods that contain HFCS) or not. But a critical reader notices what the corn industry actually said, which is "This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance." That's not a denial. If there really wasn't mercury in the syrup, then they would say something along the lines of "We have the highest processing standards and a rigorous quality control process. We are confident that there is no mercury in our products. However, to be absolutely certain, and in the interests of American consumers, we are submitting samples to a third-party lab for testing as well as inviting inspectors into our plants to monitor our processes and submit ideas for improvements." Ah, but that's not what they said, is it? Instead, they admitted that at one time their products contained mercury, and argued that even if they still do contain mercury, it's probably not really that significant anyway.

The next thing to do is to thing about the motivations of the people cited in the article. Who has a motivation to mislead? The scientists are doing science, and publishing their research. They might have an incentive to publish something like this which could be sensationalized, if it draws more attention to them. It could lead to a book deal, talk-show appearances, etc...

Alternatively, the corn industry also has a motivation to mislead. HFCS is in practically everything you purchase. If news that it was contaminated with mercury became widespread, then people may not purchase as much of their product, or lawsuits seeking damages may be initiated. Millions of dollars in lost sales, punitive damages, and impaired goodwill are not unforeseeable. So, if they can mislead people into thinking the studies are no good, that might just nip the problem in the bud.

So which is more likely to be misleading you? I don't know, but I suspect that it's the corn industry, especially in light of their non-denial statement. However, it could be both of them. And if you are reading an article that quotes a politician, all bets are off.

So there you have it, you're probably injesting a significantly higher amount of mercury than you were expecting. Welcome to the dysfunctional American food supply, would you like some salmonella peanut butter with that?

Mercury contamination widespread in US Food Supply

Published

on January 29, 2009

Studies Find Mercury in Much U.S. Corn Syrup

Corn Syrup Industry Attacks Findings, but Researchers Stick by Studies

Reuters

WASHINGTON

Many common foods made using commercial high fructose corn syrup contain mercury as well, researchers reported on Tuesday, while another study suggested the corn syrup itself is contaminated.

Food processors and the corn syrup industry group attacked the findings as flawed and outdated, but the researchers said it was important for people to know about any potential sources of the toxic metal in their food.

In one study, published in the journal Environmental Health, former Food and Drug Administration scientist Renee Dufault and colleagues tested 20 samples of high fructose corn syrup and found detectable mercury in nine of the 20 samples.

Dufault said in a statement that she told the FDA about her findings but the agency did not follow up.

Dr. David Wallinga, a food safety researcher and activist at the nonprofit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, said he followed up on the report to find mercury in actual food.

"When I learned of that work, I said that is interesting but we don't just go out and eat a spoonful of high fructose corn syrup," Wallinga said in a telephone interview.

"We went and looked at supermarket samples where high fructose corn syrup was the first or second ingredient on the label," he said. These 55 different foods included barbecue sauce, jam, yogurt and chocolate syrup.

"We found about one out of three had mercury above the detection limit," Wallinga said.

The Corn Refiners Association challenged the findings.

"This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance," the group said in a statement.

Wallinga and colleagues said they believed the mercury got into the food during manufacture, at plants that use mercury-grade caustic soda produced in industrial chlorine plants, although his team was unable to show this.

"Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two reagents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years," Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, said in a statement.

Wallinga said the studies were based on samples taken in 2005, the most recent available.

Many studies have shown that fish can be high in mercury. Wallinga said consumers should know about other potential sources so they can limit how much they eat. "The best mercury exposure is no exposure at all," he said.

"Even at low levels methylmercury can harm the developing brain. The last thing we should intentionally do is add to it," Wallinga added.

He said his team did not test foods that did not contain corn syrup to see if they were also high in mercury.

The Tragedy of Adarwinists

Published

salient

on January 29, 2009

Celebrating 200 Anno Darwini

link

Is belief an ethical act?

Published

Francois Tremblay

on January 28, 2009

I have debated the issue of god-belief for a long time but honestly it was mostly an intellectual exercise for me. I don't think the hoary chestnut of "does God exist" really deserves any debate any more.

The best proof of that is that no one really believes in God. How could you? It's impossible to even conceptualize the idea of God, and you can't believe in what you can't conceptualize. The person who says "I believe in God" believes in some image in his head which he believes is the image of God, but which cannot in any way have any relation to what God is actually supposed to be according to the theologians. They believe in a father in the sky, not an abstract absolute existing in Dimension X.

Alison really hit the nail on the head when she told me the real issue was that people actually believe in the act of belief itself. Indeed, the Christians have been positioning themselves as being part of the "belief-based" side and that they support religion against atheism, instead of their regular exclusivism. Because of this, a most vital debate that should be taking place right now, and which people like Dawkins and Harris are starting, is "is belief an ethical act?" (and by ethical we mean: as a social rule or judgment, group norm, etc, as opposed to personal judgments)

That is the real issue that should concern all of us, atheists and religious alike.

Is belief an ethical act?

Published

Francois Tremblay

on January 28, 2009

Support Your Local Weatherperson

Published

JCE

on January 27, 2009

Time and time again I hear local weatherpersons disparaged as having a dream job: They get to be wrong and still collect a huge salary. (This may have shifted a bit given recent economic events and the dream job may now belong to Wall Street CEO's.) While I can understand the frustration that goes along with inaccurate weather predictions it does always stun me a little that many of these people willingly equate meteorologists with psychics and never consider the science behind either. ...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Support Your Local Weatherperson

Published

JCE

on January 27, 2009

New Releases

Published

on January 24, 2009

I am *so* excited!! Studying for my licensing exam, job applications, job interviews and unfortunately a death in the family have kept me from my regular internet activities. And to my surprise, I discovered that a book I've been eagerly waiting for is being released early! YEAH!

As soon as this came to my attention, I went straight to Amazon to place my order. The book is Raising Freethinkers: A Practical Guide for Parenting Beyond Belief. If this book is half as good as the first book, Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion, I will LOVE it.

These books address the issues where atheists may differ from theists in the subject of raising children. Some of these subjects include: death and dying, values, holidays, living with religion, meaning and purpose, wondering and questioning, etc. It is very difficult to do things differently from one's parents. I was raised by fundamentalist Christian parents who thought that James Dobson wrote the best parenting books. I felt like I was starting from scratch and had to question every reaction I had when I became a parent...I often still do. Is this reaction reasonable? Why do I feel that their actions were wrong? Is that a good reason? I couldn't rely on the answers I was given when I was a child. No...thunder and lightning is not happening because god is bowling. I had to figure out a way to explain these things in kids terms so that I was giving a real answer. If I don't know an answer, which happens a lot, we look it up together. Reading how others have dealt with similar situations has been very helpful to me. I have referred to my PBB book many times and I'm sure I'll do the same with Raising Freethinkers.

I should also add that the feeling that I was starting from scratch was not only because of my change in views on religion. My sister and I had our first children 1 month apart. She is a Christian and she also has her Master's degree in Social Work. We both do things very differently from our parents and have relied on one another for advice and ideas. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that we both have degrees in Psychology and have learned better behavior modification techniques than what our parents used. For example, neither of us spank our children because we know that the science just doesn't back it up as an effective form of discipline. This change was challenging for both of us, but we've helped each other find research on different methods of discipline and other parenting issues. My non-belief compounded my feeling of starting over and it's nice to have these books available....kind of like having another sister to talk to ;)

While I was at Amazon, I also ordered 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God. I've heard the author, Guy Harrison, interviewed on many of my favorite podcasts and have been anxious to read it. The other book I ordered is Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became one of America's Leading Atheists. Now that I'm finished with school, I should have more time to read the books I want to read. I'll call these my early Darwin Day presents ;)