Teh Juggernauts

2009-11-17T17:21:00.000-08:00

SKEPTICON APPROACHES!!!

FEAR IT!!!

Finally! The Proof Is Here...

2009-07-12T22:48:00.001-07:00

A Bible Based Marriage

2009-06-16T18:57:00.000-07:00

Church is Lies

2009-05-18T19:08:00.001-07:00

This is in Springfield, at the corner of Cherry & Jefferson.

A Fun Rant about Conservatives: A Great Excuse for a Research Paper by Lauren Lane

2009-04-30T12:41:00.000-07:00

I had to write this for my Art History of Graphic and Applied Design Class, and I thought I would share. It was super fun to write! I'll let you all know what kind of grade I get! The topic we were supposed to write on was "The propaganda of traditional values in contemporary visual communication as a result of the current political climate" and he wanted us to write as if we were writing him a letter or talking to him. I think I did ok...

Whenever I read the topics for the research paper, I nearly squealed in delight. You see, I have what one would call, oh, I don’t know, an intense loathing of all things conservative. These strict ‘moral’ people continue to shock and anger me on a daily basis. There seems to be no end to their vortex of stupidity.

However, in many cases, I am more than content to blast apart their unsteady arguments that they push forth like screaming toddlers before nap time. So getting to write this paper for class about their rather mindless propaganda of their traditional values in contemporary design only gives me an excuse to feed the fire and spend even more time on the internet getting angry over the blatant piles of stupid I trip over. Let’s look at a few favorites, shall we?

The first type of propaganda I would like to discuss is the most recent commercial, and now youtube video phenomenon, to have hit the mainstream media about anti-gay marriage. Put forth by the National Organization of Marriage (or NOM…I’ll let that one sink in), this video claims that “a storm is coming, are we ready?” As individuals with rather sullen looking faces are telling the camera that “they are afraid” for us heathen liberals have taken the issue of same sex marriage “far beyond same sex couples.” One such individual goes as far as saying that they believe their “freedom will be taken away” and that “they will have no choice.” Yeah…what?

Anyone with half a brain can instantly see this is a load of complete bullcrap. It has become clear that, due to the current political climate turning continually more liberal out of both necessity and common sense, conservatives are becoming more and more nervous human beings. This seems to be causing them to lash out with any and all available resources with blatant disregard for rationale, logic, and honesty for they innately fear change and progress.

To endorse and implement gay marriage would happily and rightfully end in the redefinition of the basic family values that conservatives hold dear. Husband? Wife? Mother? Father? Male? Female? All going to change, but rightfully so and for the better. Unfortunately, trying to tell that to anyone who is a conservative is like banging your head against a brick wall. Their heads are so far deep in the sand that all they can really make out is some muffled noises.

In a similar vein, I would like to talk about another attack against the homosexual lifestyle that has been fully supported by the right wing, the ‘ex-gay’ movement. Designed to make people feel as if being gay is an unfortunate temporary lapse in judgment and a voluntary, conscious decision, this is another type of hateful propaganda spread by the right wing.

Perhaps one of my favorite organizations to roll my eyes at is called NARTH, which stands for the National Association for Research & Therapy of Sexuality. It is here, with the creation of these types of organizations, that misleading propaganda reaches the tipping point of irony. This organization claims to “respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny” and yet squashes and belittles the rights of those who claim to be homosexual . How, exactly, is this respecting the rights of all individuals? It’s this kind of double speak that conservatives specialize in that I find rather infuriating. They never seem to know the difference. Or will admit to knowing the difference, anyway.

Furthermore, this type of propaganda is even more so disgusting in that it claims to have actual research to back up its rather false and antiquated declarations. The use of people with doctorates from the smallest and most religious of schools is an old tactic that has as yet to go out of style. For example, the article written on the NARTH website entitled “Homosexuality 101: What Every Therapist, Parent, And Homosexual Should Know” is written by Julie Harren, who has the fancy titles of P.H.D and LMFT behind her name. After some quick Google stalking, I can find nothing about to which university this woman gained her degree or where she is currently at work. It’s strange how they have not included to which institution of higher education she has come from. I mean, if her views and opinions are legitimate then you would want her pedigree easily accessible from all us nay-sayers, right?

The fact that conservatives will fight so dirtily only further proves how completely misguided they are. They have to either fabricate facts and figures or skew them laughably out of proportion to find even the smallest of foothold to stand upon.

As an additional attack on sexuality, conservatives like to spew out misinformation galore when it comes to abstinence-only education and its benefits. It is a well known fact that any and all religious organizations adamantly lobby for youngsters of all ages to please keep it in their pants until marriage. Because you suddenly become mentally and emotionally ready for such a thing once you are wearing a certain ring on a certain finger and have spent way too much money on pomp and circumstance to please both your parents and society. It’s true! (Please be sensing the blatant sarcasm, here.)

Organizations, such as Abstinence Clearinghouse (which is a ridiculously ironic name), Chastity Call, and Generation Life attempt to show the validity of abstinence through their rather large and horribly organized website layouts. For example, Chastity Call’s ‘A Real Woman’ poem claims that females are “Modest, pure and chaste… Understands chastity, Values her sexuality, Appreciates her fertility, Controls her passions and desires, Knows her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.”

Ok, ok, you’re going to have to give me a minute to stop giggling so much my sides hurt before I tear this faulty logic a new one…Alright, god-living aside, (for I could write you another research paper equally as long if not longer in support of atheism) this poem is so full of wrong it hurts my eyes.

Valuing people, especially women, on the basis of their sexual history is innately and severely damaging. What kind of message is this sending to let young people know that basically their entire worth is dependent upon the status of their no-no parts? This misdirected significance placed on their genitals is thoroughly antiquated and downright insulting to women everywhere. Ladies, are we not more than our lady parts? I know that I have a perfectly good brain over here. Anyone interested?

Also, this sad excuse for a poem asks women to basically suppress their physical urges, while at the same time asking them to value their sexuality. Umm...what? Do the makers of this propaganda not realize how confusing and contradictory they are being?

So, if I’ve got them right, I should love being sexual, but only when I’m supposed to when I’m married, and only if we’re doing it to have children. Right. These people don’t seem to understand that I am human and will have urges because, oh, guess what? They’re normal! Suppressing yourself and living in obtuse religious restraints is not normal. And what’s this stuff about my body being a temple for the holy spirit? Who is this guy/girl/thing? What the crap is he doing in my body without my knowing it? Is that a form of nonconsensual sex?

Yeah, well, I hate to break these people’s hopes, but it turns out that their, ahem, lovely poems, scary prom-gone-bad Purity Balls and abstinence pledges certainly aren’t winning anyone over or doing anyone any good. It turns out that “teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do” (Stein 1). So not only are the kids doing it, but if they say that they are saving it for Jesus, they are more likely to be unsafe about their reproductive health. I have one word for you, conservatives-FAIL.

Moving on, I mean, I wasn’t going to bring this up, but since we’re on the topic of women and their bodies, I might as well talk about it. Perhaps the most aggravating and sickening propaganda that the conservative right winger’s put out is information about the nature of abortions. Pro-lifers might as well be my sworn mortal enemy because I wish I could set them on fire with my eyeballs due to their disturbing lack of knowledge. You know, for people who seem to be fairly earnest and dedicated, you would think that they would at least research all of the information first, right? Wrong.

Conceivably the most ghastly tactic used to propagate misinformation about abortions by conservatives is the ‘bloody baby’ pictures. (I’d put one here in the paper for reference, but they are just too gross for sharing, even for academic purposes, really. But if you need to see what I am talking about, go to www.armyofgod.com and prepare to throw up in your mouth a little). Relying upon this kind of shocking visual as a crutch for your argument is pretty low in my book.

For the purposes of keeping this essay rather short, I’m just going to lay out the facts that republicans are more than likely to willfully ignore in order to stubbornly stay within their obsolete religious value system. One, a baby is not a baby until it has exited the womb. Two, yes, a fetus has the potential to become a human being, but so do a woman’s eggs and men’s sperm, and if you’re going to talk about how sacred a small collection of cells are, let’s not rule those out. Three, all evidence suggests that conscience is tied exclusively to a functioning brain, so no worries about losing a human soul-if they even exist. Four, having an abortion will not make women go crazy. Yes, they are going to be somewhat psychologically straining, but so is pushing a watermelon out of a hole the size of a quarter.

In the end, what it comes down to is that pro-choice wins. Abortion should be a viable option for any and all who should want and/or need it. This way, I can have it my way and you can have it yours. Even if I think your way is crazy.

I suppose it would be unfair of me to write a paper regarding the conservative wing’s use of propaganda to propel their traditional values in contemporary society without talking about every right winger’s favorite news channel, FOX News. Aptly dubbed ‘faux news’ to those in the know in more liberal circles, this twenty four hour news channel often times seems more like some sort of joke than it does actual news.

For example, let’s look at this whole ‘tea party’ phenomenon. Historically, tea parties were held in response to colonists being taxed on items, such as food, without having any representation in their presiding government across the Atlantic Ocean-The British. Settlers decided to quit being ignored and dumped a large amount of tea into the Boston Harbor as a mark of protest. No taxation without representation! Seems to be a fair and reasonable request, no?

Alright, now that we’re clear as to the history of the Boston Tea Party, we can move on to the newest incarnation that the likes of the FOX news community has brought to our attention. They, being the oh so clever little devils that they are, decided to throw their own little ‘tea party’ on tax day as a protest against the recent tax increases that Obama has implemented in order to stimulate the economy and work on stemming the already overflowing national deficit. Heck, they even had everyone’s favorite all-American man, Joe the Plumber out, to celebrate this recreation of a historical event that their beloved founding fathers did, and gosh darnit, they’re gonna do to.

But, that’s the thing. While the intentions of lowering or getting rid of taxes is the same between both events, that’s where the similarities end and the hilarity begins. These people all have representation. They are not being taxed against their wills and without any kind of voice to stand up for them in government like our forefathers, they have people they voted for in office!

To make matters worse, these tax increases that these teabaggers were protesting most likely didn’t affect them in the least. The modest (at best) tax increases that the president had implemented were to only affect those people who make more than $250,000 per year or big businesses (Tapper 1). Let me reiterate so I know that we are being perfectly crystal clear with one another. These tax increases, which prompted many working class families to protest in the form of mailing teabags to the White House and rally in the streets, were for people who make more than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. The average family makes about $46,000-$50,000 dollars a year. Yeah.

I can only speculate that, somehow, FAUX, I mean, FOX news was able to distort the facts so fully about the tax increases that it frightened a great many people into protesting something that they didn’t really understand. It is, without a doubt, deeply disturbing that such a great number of people are willing to digest what they see on news channels without a second thought. Having capitalized on this, FOX News is one of the biggest propaganda generators of our time. I kind of want to perform some kind of teabagging that I am not allowed to talk about in academic papers to the CEOs of FOX news, but I unfortunately lack a certain type of body organ to do so.

Isn’t is the job of journalists everywhere to remain true to the story at hand and present all the facts in a clear, fair, and balanced manner? I would argue that it is the role of news channels everywhere, regardless of affiliation, to present information in a truthful, accurate, and complete manner, something FOX news hasn’t done…well, ever, as far as I’m concerned.

OK, well, now that I am officially overly worked up from looking at all of the ridiculous piles of stupid that are permeating society due to right wingers, I need to go calm down before I end up setting something on fire. I think we can both safely say that conservatives are masters of misleading information in contemporary society. I don’t blame them for being scared, though, they rightfully should be. I will certainly leave not leave their inaccurate and faulty logic be, I plan on destroying it.

Sarah Haskins fills the Jesus Shaped Hole in My Heart

2009-04-25T12:23:00.001-07:00

I realized today that I haven't shared the wonder and absolute joy that is Sarah Haskins. She has a regular spot CurrentTV online every Thursday called 'Target Women' that usually makes me laugh so hard I shit my pants.

Gotta love those feminists who kill you with humor! Enjoy this week's episode:

Hannity Acends to New Heights of Douchebaggery

2009-04-25T12:10:00.000-07:00

Check out the first couple minutes of this video. Hannity says that he is against torture, but for 'enhanced interrogation' (whatever the hell that is) and then offers to be water boarded for charity. What. A. Jackass.

Go Keith Olberman for totally handing Hannity his ass to him:

Miss America: An Epic Journey into the Unknown

2009-04-24T13:43:00.000-07:00

So, I'm quite sure that you all have heard of this Miss California gay marriage thing that has been popping up everywhere as of late. And while I certainly do have a lot to say regarding gay marriage, right now there is only one thing on my mind:

Why the hell do beauty pageants still exist?!

Proponents of such moronic cattle calls really seem to rally under one point: that it gives scholarship money to young girls who would otherwise have no chance! OMG!

Apparently, these women are so spectacular that they can find the time to promote a platform of charity, be a part of a half dozen school organizations, hold down a job, and don't forget workin' the stairmaster for tight buns, keeping your hair nice for the boys, and having a big, fat, laser white smile and fake tan, but not so spectacular that they can't find other ways of paying for their education. More academic and meaninful ways. Right.

Just for shits and giggles, can we take a look at some of the contestants?

Nope! Doesn't look like they're trying to fit an idealized stereotype at all! Well thank goodness for that.

Anyway, being an extra special nerdy-type that I am, I decided to do a little research and see what, exactly, it takes to be Miss America. After all, for a place that advertises itself as being 'one of the nation's leading achievement programs and the world's largest provider of scholarship assistance for young women' you know that they are going to be all inclusive, right? Wrong. Check it out:

A Contestant Must:

Be between the ages of 17-24 years of age. Must be a High School senior or graduate and no older than twenty-four (24) years of age on December 31, 2009 (for Miss Missouri 2009 / Miss America 2010.)
Must reside in; be enrolled and attending classes on a full-time basis at an accredited college or university in; or be employed on a full-time basis for six months in the state in which the young woman plans to compete.
Must be a citizen of the United States of America at the time she enters her first pageant.
Additional Requirements:

Must have never been married.
Must have never been pregnant.
Must not be the adoptive parent of any child.
Must never have been convicted of any criminal offense.
Must not have criminal charges presently pending.
Must be in good health and can participate fully and without limitations in any Program activities.
Must not use or consume any illegal controlled substances or abuse the use of alcohol or other dangerous substances.

* See contestant contract for additional requirements.

Apparently you can be Miss America, but only if you fit the bill of a stereotypically 'good' young woman. Forget it if you've ever been preganant or are turning your life around after a substance abuse problem, sucks to be you! And apparently there are more requirements in the contest contract...who knows what they are. And what if you have taken custody of a younger sibling?

Ok, so, maybe the requirements aren't as outrageous or as far fetched as we'd all like to think. I mean, asking young women to conform to these ideals is small potatoes, right? Like, who doesn't, like, have, like, this perfect idealized existence? OMG! So let's say that your springy young non-pregger and non-substance abuse loving body makes it into this pageant. What kinds of things do you have to do to prove that you are fit to represent the "not-for-profit organization (also known as the Miss America Pageant, LOLZ) that has maintained a tradition for many decades of empowering young women to achieve their personal and professional goals, while providing a forum in which to express their opinions, talent and intelligence."

Phases of Competition:

1) Interview a.k.a 'Presentation and Community Achievement'

Alright, I see what they're doing here, they're seeing what these girls are all about. I can agree with there being some sort of interview to see if these girls got what it takes and are the upstanding, active, and intelligent people that they are said to be. Right on.

2) Talent a.k.a 'Artistic Expression'

Ok, so this is where the judges start to lose me a little. A talent portion? What for? Who cares if these girls can sing or tap dance? Isn't it about what's inside that counts? Actions speak louder than words? Plus, any kind of talent competition that only allows 'absolutely functional' props and bans talents 'involving safety hazards, such as fire batons, sword and/or knife twirling, bow and arrow skills' sounds really boring, anyhow.

3) Swim Suit a.k.a 'Lifestyle and Fitness'

Yeah...what? What the hell does my worth and integrity as a woman have to do with how well I look in a damned swimsuit? Does Sean Hannity have to look good in a swim suit to do his job well? How about Obama? Yeah, didn't think so. This is starting to be sexist, sexist shit.

4) Evening Wear a.k.a. 'Presence and Poise'

Once, again, what the HELL does looking good in evening wear have to do with empowering women?! How about asking them about public affairs? Relevant and controversial issues?

5) On Stage Question a.k.a. 'Knowledge and Understanding'

Well, ok, looks like the pageant people are attempting to be less superficial with this part. The questions are usually about a social issue-like binge drinking, so at least we're getting somewhere, here, but here's the thing: contestants are answering not for themselves but pandering to the judges to win. Straightforward and honest opintions will be hard to come by.

Well, there you have it. The Miss America Pageant in a nutshell. I can understand that these people are trying to give opportunities to young women...but there are much better ways to do so. What good can come from a place where one's personal worth is mostly based upon their outward appearance?

In a less eloquent way-fuck pageants.

Today Show Proves Stupidity Yet Again

2009-04-23T12:57:00.001-07:00

Why is that every news show will give airtime to views that are obviously wrong and/or destructive? Even if they are trying to be fair and balanced, they are surely doing a crap job of it.

Go Jessica Valenti for not flat out kicking these bitches in the face!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Jay Smooth PWNS Miss California

2009-04-23T12:56:00.000-07:00

We have the power to change minds.

2009-03-18T18:50:00.000-07:00

Last Fall, I put together a skeptics event on my campus that was retroactively dubbed "Skepticon." And here we are, just a few short months later, preparing for Skepticon II, which will honestly make Skepticon I look like chicken feed.

Today, PZ posted a blog about a grateful e-mail he received from a student who attended the first Skepticon.

Last semester I took a Religions of the World course, and as an extra-credit assignment, I was given the option to attend an event at the Missouri State University, at which you spoke. I went, and let me tell you, it was probably one of the most jarring and terrifying moments of my life. I'd always known there were those who strongly opposed religion. In fact, one of my best friends in high school was an extreme skeptic, who constantly asked me the tough questions, you know, the ones that usually can only be answered with "He works in mysterious ways." But I'd never been in a room packed with people who whooped and cheered every time a stab was taken at the way I'd chosen to live my life. It was chilling and upsetting and I wanted to leave every second since you'd first opened your mouth. I didn't hate you for saying it. How could I? It was your belief and you were sharing it, which you have every right to do.

But what horrified me the most wasn't the room full of atheists, or the seemingly impenetrable arguments you provided that I should completely dump my faith and see the world in a different light. What turned my stomach and threatened to send me off the edge were the stories you told of Christians giving the rest of us a bad name, such as those at the Catholic Mass when the student stole the cracker and received death threats. I suppose hypocrisy is simply the nature of the conventional Christian. They act like children in a tree house that throw rocks at anyone who hurts their feelings.

Atheists ranting about how the past five generations of my family are superstitious crackpots I can handle, because the atheists are standing for what they believe, but when people who claim to have devoted their lives to furthering the love and compassion that Jesus showed start acting in ways that negate every message they've ever tried to present, or they choose which biblical rules they want to follow and which to ignore, and things like that, it really just makes me sick.

Anyway, I suppose this isn't terribly interesting to you in any event, but I've resolved to stop sitting in church and being spoon fed pre-cooked beliefs, and to start seeking answers by asking questions I was afraid to before. The founder of Buddhism once said, "Do not believe these things because I've told you to, but find truth through your own experiences." I've adopted that to the core of my beliefs.

I still believe in God, and I still consider myself a Christian, but I'm seeing things in a different light. I'm finding the meaning behind the rituals and traditions, rather than just believing there's power in "holy" water or an oyster cracker. I've begun searching for the reasons why certain rules are administered, instead of just saying "because the bible says so".

I don't know if you'll ever read this, and I don't know if I'll ever come in contact with you again, but I want to sincerely thank you. I know I completely missed the purpose of your speech, but whether or not you actually accept my thanks isn't the point. I hope that maybe others of my faith can learn the lesson I did, and I definitely think that it's a good idea to listen what nonbelievers have to say.

After all, knowledge never really hurt anyone, right?

So often I hear people say "What's the point of being an evangelist of reason, nobody's going to change their minds." That's pure bollucks, and it's precisely what the fundamentalists want you to say. People do change their minds.

The Skeptical Student was a Christian when I first met him here at MSU. He changed his mind.

In my five years of being a vocal skeptic and critic of religion, I've received over 40 e-mails from people who thanked me for helping them abandon faith. They changed their minds. Who knows how many more never e-mailed me?

Ben over at War on Error changed his mind.

I changed my mind.

Our nation is slowly changing their minds (and even our nation is only following the pattern of the world), and it's because finally, for the first time in the course of the human experiment, a large contingent of people are charging past the taboo of criticising faith and demolishing the pretensions of religion without apology.

Good reasoning is irresistible. If the case for any proposition is strong enough, you will helplessly believe it, whether you can admit it to yourself or not. We have the power to wake people up and expose them to the light of reason. And faith, like cockroaches, does not do well in the light.

"The premise of evangelical atheism is that you can introduce people to the importance of reason and they will come to a reasonable conclusion on their own. The premise of evangelical faith is that people must accept an arbitrary belief because an arbitrary judge, who the convert may not query, demands it. The former kind of proselytizer ought to be called a teacher, but is more often called an arrogant asshole; the latter ought to be considered a liar, a fraud, and an arrogant asshole in fact, but they actually believe they are humble servants of the lord." ~ PZ Myers

Science, you're doing it wrong

2009-03-12T07:10:00.001-07:00

It's come to light that one of the biggest names in anesthetics, Dr. Scott S. Reuben, fabricated data on 21 of his over 70 papers in peer review. This is huge because of the impact of Dr. Reuben's work. It is also huge because every anti-science theocratic wackaloon is going to begin flying this as a banner for how science is "just a bunch of theories" and contaminated with contingency. In short, Dr. Reuben has hosed countless patients whose anesthesia was administered based on his work; he has hosed the scientific community by occupying a bank of resources that could have been more productively used elsewhere; and he has hosed people like me, who take the time out of their lives to defend science, and must now blog about it rather than getting that extra thirty minutes of sleep. Dr. Reuben should have his ankles bound to a cement block, doused with oil, set on fire, and then just before he burns to death be kicked into a lake to drown. Such is the penance for aggravating me (commenters be warned).

Seriously though, the scientific world is simply baffled about how this type of thing could have slipped past peer review. Many religious people will cite this as some form of vindication for how peer-review surely fails to jettison bad science, with their implication being that it has failed to jettison scientific ideas they do not like based on ideology rather than even a cursory understanding of the scientific method. They'll probably also type their truimphant nonsense on a computer that could not function except for what peer-review has produced on the function of electromagnetism. Tools.

So before the following argument goes flying (and I'm sure it will), let's take note of something very important. Science is sadly, not contingency-free. No method is. And when we hear the shrieks of "Ha! Science got it wrong!" it's important to note that science actually got it right. When error like this does arise in science, who gets the credit for correcting it? Faith? Of course not. The credit belongs to good science. Even now, scientists are in the process of correcting this error, and our policy on anesthesia will change to cohere with what we do have a right to claim knowledge of. Remember, the world around you is a symphony spun by the fruits of science. It is not faith that has given us plentiful food, clean water, reliable medical treatment, computers, and so on, but rather the same processes that have caught Dr. Reuben (albeit, inexplicably much later than usual) and will abandon him to shunned obscurity henceforth.

The fact that peer review and the scientific process catches frauds and corrects errors is not a testament to the frailty of science, but rather to a strength that can only be acquired by such a scrutinizing process of self-improvement. It is what science has so right that religion has so wrong. And now we're about to get hit by a wave of stupidity, insisting that because scientists were slow to catch this fraud that the yarn about talking snakes and magical gardens somehow explains anything or has provided a single iota of human knowledge - which shows about how reliable their reasoning is. The truth is that science has the ability to admit that its talking snakes were mistakes. Good luck getting the same concession from a clergyman.

And now, a quote from my father in response to a religious person exclaiming that there's power in prayer (turns out, there's not):

"I'll pray for you" is a phrase some Christians use in order to make themselves feel smugly superior by doing nothing at all, especially when they are unable to defend their position through truth, reason, or logic. It is nothing but a form of one-upsmanship, usually heard as a last desperate shot when their arguments are lying in tatters around their feet along with all caps and lots of exclamation points.

Beautiful. I can tell I'm going to be using this one in abundance.

It is seven am...

2009-03-12T05:16:00.000-07:00

But already the world has reassured me that religion, and those who stand behind the curtain, will do anything to protect themselves and care nothing of their "flock".

In short... they are trying to repeal the statute of limitations on sex crimes in NY. Guess who is opposed???

To be fair, there are some great arguments about playing shuffleboard with statutes of limitations on crimes.

But the church, an organization that has millions to lose if this passes, isn't worried about those arguments. They are just protecting their own asses.

Deliver us from evil

2009-03-05T11:59:00.000-08:00

I spend an inordinate amount of my time shredding the bad arguments of religiously unreasonable people. Years of doing this has helped acclimate me to the horror of dogma and the way we can kick compassion to the curb for the arbitrary whims of a pernicious and mythological god.

However, some things still disgust me so much that they defy any attempt to find the right phrase or wording to convey how stupid, how callously inhuman they are. This is one of those times. Here's the title:

Brazil girl, alleged rape victim, aborts twins
The procedure on the 9-year-old girl draws complaints from Catholic church

And here's the text. Read ahead if you'd like to ruin your day and what faith you had left in mankind.

RIO DE JANEIRO - A 9-year-old girl who was carrying twins, allegedly after being raped by her stepfather, underwent an abortion Wednesday despite complaints from Brazil's Roman Catholic church.
Police said the stepfather has been jailed since last week.
Abortion is illegal in Brazil, but judges can make exceptions if the mother's life is in danger or the fetus has no chance of survival.
Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the 15-week-old pregnancy posed a serious risk to the 80-pound girl.
"She is very small. Her uterus doesn't have the ability to hold one, let alone two children," Maia told the Jornal do Brasil newspaper.
But Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, said the girl should have carried the twins to term and had a cesarean section.
"It's the law of God: Do not kill. We consider this murder," Miranda said in comments reported by O Globo.
Calls to Miranda were not immediately returned.
Brazil is home to more Catholics than any other nation.

Monsters.

What god could exist that would not be ashamed of Christianity? What god could possibly allow these faith-drunk madmen to speak for him? Irrationality is dangerous, and there is no more productive engine of irrationality, and no more impenetrable edifice of outlandish stupidity, than religion.

On the incompatibility of science and faith

2009-03-05T11:58:00.001-08:00

An old voice teacher of mine, a brilliant friend named Marvin Murphree, linked me to this article the other day which suggests that science and faith are compatible. I think otherwise.

Non-overlapping Magisteria

The author of the aforementioned article went the route of saying that science and religion address different questions, with religion tackling the who and why and science explaining the what and how. However, I take issue with his use of the word "explain."

Religion just makes stuff up that is false by any sane definition of the word. That is not how science operates.

What's more, he bases religion's magisteria on implied truths that have no evidence supporting them. While we know there is a what and how to the operation of the universe, who says that there must be a who and why? I submit that there is no reason to assume there is a who or a why to the functionality of the universe, and most certainly not an omniscient, perfect intelligence. A look at the universe reveals it to be the work of a fairly incompetent engineer at best, as it took billions of years of trial and painful error to reach its current state. A perfect designer would not require such a system. It is also still riddled with a host of simple errors that are just what we would expect to see in a universe that operates on a series of mindless rules, but that are just bizarre if a god created anything. These are things like the existence of the appendix, babies heads being bigger than the birth canal, and the clunky nature of DNA.

Furthermore, everything that we have explained has been found to have a natural rather than a supernatural explanation. Everything. You may respond that surely some intelligence put into place those natural explanations, but how do you know this? Before answering, be sure to have a good explanation for why your reasoning doesn't apply to the creator you're suggesting as well.

The questions that religion purports to answer here are superfluous before any evidence is provided to show that they are legitimate.

Religion is based on scientific questions...it just gets the answers wrong

The author of the article says:

No amount of logic must deduce they oppose each other. They're asking different questions, which lead to different answers, but not necessarily contradictory answers.Religion errs when it seeks to dictate the range of answers science can discover.

But the question "Did a man rise from the dead 2000 years ago?" is a question of Biology. And the question "Did Jesus walk on water or transmute water into wine?" is a question about Physics. The Christian faith makes a magnificent glory of how these propositions fly in the face of science, which is why they're called "miracles". But science has the (obvious) answer to both of these questions, and religions have no sound evidence for why the natural order was abrogated in the ways they claim. The entire Christian religion is based on the truth of Jesus' resurrection, which could not conflict with science more.

Differences in Method

The very nature of making a truth claim implies some degree of testable prediction about the future. A simple example would be the statement "I own a chess set." The implication here is that if you sift through every possession I own, amongst them you would find a chess set. Science makes testable predictions in this vein;

If we add wings and the right type of engine, this vessel will fly.
If we use the proper type of filament and apply electricity, it will produce light.
If we replace a particular organ, this patient will live.
If we apply our hand to the knob and turn, the door will open.

Religion does no such thing, but the fact that religion attempts to make such claims is the reason that science has been a one-way erosion of religion from the get go. Don't believe me? Try this simple, two-question test:

Think of one thing for which we once had a religious answer, but for which we now have a scientific answer (this one should not be difficult).
Think of one thing for which we had a scientific answer, but for which we now have a religious answer (don't waste too much of your time).

The notion of faith is used, without evidence, to force assertions into areas we have not explained (argument from ignorance) and even into subjects we have explained. The idea that you can believe anything without evidence or good reasoning is anti-scientific, and this isolation of thought is why schoolboards everywhere are having to combat religious wackos who want to dilute science at best, but more often purge the parts of it that conflict with their faith. The fact that some scientists believe in a god or that some believers accept Evolution has everything to do with the partitionable nature of the human mind, and nothing at all to do with the idea that the two schools of thought are compatible. Scientific reasoning will lead you to conclude that men do not rise from the dead, and that they do not walk on water. It would be a terrible scientist that would accept either claim without evidence.

So the truth claims made by religions do not meet the criteria for being a legitimate truth claim by any sane standard. Science thrives on such things.

Also, science places a very high premium on overturning truth claims upon the discovery of new evidence. This is why if you were to revive a very well-educated man from the fourteenth century, his understanding of math, science, history, and any academic discipline would embarrass a modern five year-old. But his understanding about scripture would be spectacular, easily exceeding most religious people nowadays. Why is this? There are only two real possibilities:

That we reached the zenith of our understanding of god at a time when our understanding of every other subject was completely inchoate. (not likely) or...
Religion, and the faith that supports it, is the mere maintenance of dogma, and does not admit of change - even in the face of academic advance.

Religion does not overturn its claims because its truth claims are not falsifiable. The presumably liberal theologian who penned the article says theistic Evolution is compatible with his faith, but I'd be curious to know if there is any fact of the world that would not be compatible with his faith? That is not because his faith is strong, but because it is built on an idea that is not falsifiable (the way scientific ideas must be). Self-fulfilling prophesies are worthless as a means of explanation.

Moreover, even theistic scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller compartmentalize their scientific mindset by failing to hold their religious beliefs to the same standards they hold their science. If you are asking if an idea is merely possible given your presumptions, you will almost never be disappointed (my belief that pixies authored the universe and put all the natural mechanisms in place remains strong, as every new discovery confirms and strengthens my belief by revealing a mechanism of the universe, which I know was put there by pixies). Instead, if we are using scientific reasoning, we must ask if the best explanation for a universe that is pitiless and indifferent in its execution and laden with all manner of engineering flaws, is a loving, omniscient god (or pixies). Clearly, it's not.

Why this guy's outro was made of fail

This part made me want to claw my eyes out:

Sometimes, atheistic evolutionists annoy me. They overstep their bounds, confident that because they feel they have good answers for the what and how of creation, they do not need a Who or why.

The universe does not need a who or a why - it appears to be chugging along just fine with it's mindless processes and inanimate objects. We probably get annoyed with you because you insist it does need a who or a why without providing any evidence. That is not "overstepping our bounds," it is simply making a rational appraisal. Do you have some manner of evidence that the universe has an ultimate purpose or was blasted into being by a god? Show us. But in science it is never noble to pretend to know things you do not (it's even less noble to say we are overstepping our bounds by calling you on it).

He goes on:

But more than annoy me, they make me sad. For when they close their minds to the possibilities outside their sphere, they also close their hearts to a relationship with the God of love, Who has transformed my life and filled it with meaning and purpose. I feel sorry for them.

Ah, the old implications that atheists are forlorn people who are close-minded to their salvation. What crap. My mind is open to god the same way it's open to unicorns. If you take me out behind your house and show me that you have a unicorn tied up (and I can actually use its blood to heal my wounds), I will change my mind so fast it would make your head spin. The same is true with a god. My mind isn't closed, there's just no evidence. What there is, is an entire demographic of religious people who use crummy arguments to support a conclusion that is not bound by reason, even as they claim their faith is reasonable.

Don't feel sorry for us. The univere is a wonderous place full of unimaginable surprises. We are capable of seeing it for the magnificence it possesses in full, rather than through the blurry lens of fantasy. Furthermore, we don't have to deal with the cognitive dissonance, n00bs!

Ultimately, it all boils down to evidence and good reasoning. Science emobies them, and religion thrives on finding ways to avoid their constraints. This leaves about as much room for compromise as a coin toss.

Some Common Logical Fallacies (a.k.a. How Religious People Argue a.k.a Stop Presenting Me with Shitty Arguments that You Expect Me to Take Seriously)

2009-03-01T14:52:00.000-08:00

After my recent atheist post, many friends have asked me questions in private about my beliefs, many arguing poorly in defense of a god. I’ve compiled this list of the numerous logical fallacies presented to me time and time again in the defense of a god because I am sick of individually refuting them. Well constructed and sound arguments are the only ones that are going to change my mind, people, so read up and learn!

(Just so you know, this is going to be quite the extensive list; you really won’t hurt my feelings if you don’t read it all. And-thanks to JT Eberpants for helping me out. :D )

Ad Hominem: Attacking the person instead of their presented ideas.

Ex: OMG! You are just a mean, evil atheist who is going to hell because you don’t believe in Jayysus.

Argument from Omniscience: Saying that all people, everyone everywhere think or believe a certain thing.

Ex: Everyone believes something! (Orly? How can you support this claim o’ omniscient one? I submit that you cannot.)

Appeal to Tradition/Belief: Saying something is true or good because it has been done for many years/decades/centuries.

Ex: Christianity has been around since, like omg forevers! So it must be true! Also-My parents raised me to believe in god so it’s what I believe.

Appeal from Authority: Using the words of an ‘expert’ on the subject to add credibility to your claim.

Ex: Ben Stein believes in god and he’s, like, really smart!

Argumentum Ad Baculum: Presenting an argument that is based on a threat.

Ex: If you don’t believe in god you will burn forever in the fiery depths of hell with no marshmallows, sucka!

Appeal to Ignorance: Assuming that someone will accept your argument because there is no proof of the contrary.

Ex: Because there is no proof that God doesn’t exist, you should accept that he does.

Appeal to Pity: Trying to get the other side to feel sorry for you to get them to agree with you.

Ex: I have nothing but god in my life, I was a bad person before and now I am good because I have accepted my savior, therefore religion is credible.

The Bandwagon: Arguing that just because lots of people are doing it makes it right.

Ex: Like, hundreds of people believe in god, so there must be one!

Begging the Question: Demanding your audience accepts whatever conclusion you come to without any sort of support or evidence to your case.

Ex: Worshipping a god improves the morals of society. (What proof do you have, Mr./Miss jesuspants?)

Burden of Proof: When one argues for something and then forces their opponent to prove otherwise.

Ex: You think god doesn’t exist? Prove it! (Apparently atheists are always on trial for their beliefs so we have to be well read motherfuckers while everyone else can skip around happily ignorant.)

Circular Reasoning: Stating in your argument what you’re trying to prove.

Ex: God exists because the bible tells me so, the bible exists because god created it.

Confirmation Bias: When one who is presenting an argument purposefully ignores the evidence that does not support their cause.

Ex: People of religion who expound upon the powers of prayer based on a few cases where it happened to work out rather than the millions of other ways it has not.

Confusion as to Correlation=Causation (Or Cause/Effect): Assuming that because two factors are linked when there is no verifiable proof that they are.

Ex: Stalin was an atheist and look at all the bad shit he did. Therefore, all atheists must want to do bad shit. (This can also be called ‘guilt by association’-all atheists are like Stalin)

False Dilemma/Dichotomy: Presenting only two options, one of which must be true.

Ex: Either the universe came about by chance or by design. It didn't come about by chance. So, it must have come about by design.

Hasty Generalization: Drawing a conclusion about a population using a sample that is not large enough.

Ex: That one atheist I met is a real jerk. All atheists must be jerks.

Non-Seqiutor: When a conclusion doesn’t follow what evidence has been presented.

Ex: We can't figure out how any natural process could account for the complexity of the human cell or whatever complex biological entity. Therefore, an intelligent designer must have put these parts together in the cell.

Middle Ground: Attempting to accept that the middle ground between two extreme ideas must be right simply because it is the middle.

Ex: Agnostics. (Suckers! Lol.)

Misleading Vividness: Allowing recent events to overshadow facts and evidence.

Ex: Person 1-I’ve been thinking about becoming an atheist. Person 2-What? No! Last week I talked to this atheist and they were really mean and spiteful and no one liked them at the church bake sale. Person 1-Oh! I guess I won’t, then.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Assuming that because one thing happens after another that the two are linked.

Ex: After you prayed super hard for a pay raise at work for a couple weeks, you got one. Therefore, the power of prayer has been proven.

Poisoning the Well: A type of Ad Hominem fallacy, this is where someone spreads unfavorable information about a person (true or false) in order to discredit whatever they should say.

Ex: Don’t listen to them, they’re atheists! *Gasp!*

Red Herring: When an arguer will change the subject in order to divert attention from their crap argument.

Ex: God exists. You don’t think so? You’re a bad person! Look at all the bad stuff you do!

Reification Fallacy: When someone treats an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical, tangible entity.

Ex: God.

Relativist Fallacy: When a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for them for whatever reason.

Ex: Person 1-You’re claim that a god exists is unjustified, unsupported by any evidence, and riddled with logical fallacies, therefore I cannot accept it. Person 2-Well that may be true for you but it’s not for me.

Slippery Slope: Presenting a chain of events and assuming that one will inevitably lead to the other and so forth so you must accept a claim.

Ex: If you don’t believe in god, then you are a bad person, bad people go to hell, in hell you burn eternally, burning eternally sucks, so you should believe in god.

Special Pleading: Someone applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking themselves (or those they have special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

Ex: I am a Catholic. I follow the bible, as do my peers because it is what we believe is right. I use birth control, though, because I am a pretty princess.

Straw Man Fallacy: To distort or misrepresent the arguments that you are trying to refute.

Ex: You want to spread Atheism do you? You realize that Pilt-Down Man was a fraud of paleontology, right? So atheism is built on a series of fallacies.

Two Wrongs Making Right: Justifying one’s actions because another has done the same.

Ex: How can you give me crap for criticizing my religion when you do the same? (This has no relevance to an argument, people.)

Weak/False Analogies: Comparing two things that aren’t really alike in all of the relevant respects.

Ex: Atheists and religious people are the same because they both believe something.

Well, there you go. Feel free to add some, because I know I missed some, or let me know if I got something wrong.

Oh, and, YOURMOM!

Bad Idea Bears Talk About Voting

2009-02-28T18:37:00.000-08:00

Revulsed, but not surprised

2009-02-27T08:20:00.000-08:00

You'll recall my recent entry about Republicans being petty and stupid, which I think was a very tame assessment of them. I think the stupidity of Buttars and Jindal especially, is so maladaptive and lacking of basic human empathy (opposition to science that prevents national disasters and extreme bigotry to normal people) as to be considered evil.

Yet, the Republicans never cease to raise the bar for harrowing amounts of doltish lunacy. Meet Dave Schultheis, Republican senator from Colorado. He thinks providing HIV testing to pregnant women, rather than being a necessary step towards the suppression of the disease, is a bad idea because it would promote promiscuity. However, the fun doesn't stop there...

“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”

Yes, he just said that bringing a child with AIDS into the world would be a suitable punishment for sleeping around. No real concern for the poor kid, but boy wouldn't it be a suitable punishment for the mother? Ah, family values.

This is reminiscent of when we released a vaccine for HPV, a disease that is responsible for 1 out of ever 4 cases of cervical cancer. Hard-lining religious kooks and their Republican mouthpieces opposed that one as well, also on the grounds that it would supposedly encourage promiscuity. That's right, they wanted to keep cancer as a detterrent for sex.

These people are batshit crazy.

We live in a world where you can have responsible sex with many different partners with almost certain safety, if you're employing all the protections available. Do it. If you're uncomfortable with even the amazingly small chance that something could go wrong in that case, work on your oral skills. There's no reason not to aside from paranoia brought on by silly notions about men in the sky, angels, and the evils a-dancin'. Sex is not a bad thing (in fact, it can be quite enjoyable). Educate yourself. Educate your kids.

There are, of course, other excellent ways to reduce your chance of pregnancy or contracting an std...

This cultish obsession that our various religions have with virginity was stupid enough to begin with, but if it's going to extend into an arena where we utilize children as pawns fodder in our culture wars to punish a mother for making mistakes (as if a disease that slowly kills her isn't punishment enough) it is unarguably time to send this rancid bit of ancient morality back to where it came from; it has separated us from our humanity at this point. Hell, it separated us from our humanity when we cast the first stone for paltry, imaginary crimes thousands of years ago...and here we are in the 21st century, dredging the ignorance of our ancestors into the present and voting for people who promise to continue doing so.

Really...I just can't even fathom this. Who but the devil himself could think that bringing a child into this world with a life-threatening disease, a child that will almost surely be orphaned in short order after the death of its mother from the same disease, is a fitting punishment for a single mistake? These people are monsters. Sadly, they're also your leaders.

Republicans are being petty and stupid

2009-02-26T07:59:00.000-08:00

But mostly stupid. It's no secret that the Republican party is the party of fundamentalist Christianity in all its fetid forms, so this should come as no surprise.

I didn't get to see Bobby Jindal's appeal to emotion following Obama's speech, but the youtube videos would have made me roll on the floor busting a gut if this guy didn't represent at least half the votes in a state. Jindal bypassed any argument of substance (if such an argument existed) and went straight to trying to tie Obama to the ineptitude of FEMA's response to Katrina.

On top of that, he stuck with the most maladaptive consistency amongst the Republican party: that of being anti-science. In talking about the pittance in the stimulus for monitoring volcanoes, Jindal said "Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.".

A few things here. Number one, and I want to put this as delicately as possible...

VOLCANO ERUPTIONS KILL PEOPLE YOU INSENSITIVE DUMBASS!!!!

Aside from killing people, they do tons of damage. The last eruption of Mt. St. Helens cost us 2.74 billion dollars. And the US has the third most volcanic eruptions per year (behind Indonesia and Japan). The amazing irony here is that we actually have the capability of determining almost precisely when a volcano will erupt. It requires the installation of a relatively inexpensive GPS system to monitor movement in the ground. The lion's share of the cost of these systems is for their installation and maintenance, which creates/saves jobs. Consider that Mt. Redoubt in Alaska has been threatening to erupt again since January, and we have been unable to determine the time of eruption because, wait for it, we lack one of these relatively inexpensive GPS systems there due to, you're never going to believe this, lack of funding. Thanks Bush administration that gutted science and education funding.

Second, we should be monitoring the eruption of spending in Washington? Where were our Republican saviors the last eight years?

Third, does anybody else find it a little ironic that the governor of Louisiana thinks it's wasteful to support funding for the prevention of national disasters? That's like a general saying it's wasteful to spend money on kevlar and guns. Let's face it, right now the Republican party is contaminated with people who are completely oblivious to reality - and yet they affect laws that should be based entirely in reality. They chose Jindal, one of their shining lights, to attempt to rebut Obama - and this is what one of their best and brightest brought to the table. Ug.

Moving on, how about Senator Chris Buttars out of Utah, that festering pile of religious quackery that wants to dictate the lives of others (but not have them lash back)? He has some opinions about gay people that are about as far removed from reality as you can get:

"What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that because anything goes."

Or how about this one?

"They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of."

Well, I know a lot of homosexuals, and I think that sentence is true...but not in the context Buttars was going for. Innuendo ftw!

Thankfully, Buttars was stripped of his committee appointments, but then we got to hear some measly, wormy defense of Buttars:

"I want the citizens of Utah to know that the Utah Senate stands behind Senator Buttars' right to speak, we stand behind him as one of our colleagues and his right to serve this state," Waddoups said. "He is a senator who represents the point of view of many of his constituents and many of ours. We agree with many of the things he said. ...We stand four square behind his right [to say what he wants]."

And then there's the woman they thought was the best choice to be a heartbeat away from leadership of the free world who, when asked at a bipartisan conference by her fellow Republicans if she'd like to share some of her plans and proposals for the upcoming legislation, responded:

"I feel like you guys are always trying to put me on the spot."

Yeah...those Republicans and their "gotcha" questions.

Forgive the alliteration, but right now the Republican party is run by a cultish collection of clowns. It is hindering forward progress and obstructing important legislation with paltry concerns like the demands of their faith and the obstruction of human rights. It's also introducing rank idiocy like everything above into our governmental discourse when it should be laughed at and jettisoned immediately.

These are your leaders, and faith prompts people not only to vote for them, but to defend them, even when they are the most compassionless and nonsensical - in fact, it prompts religious people to defend them because they are compassionless and nonsensical.

Is there any greater force for the enshrinement of stupidity?

Lauren's "Why I'm an atheist and stuff" rant:

2009-02-15T20:46:00.000-08:00

I've promised a certain someone that I would write this (*ahem*, JT), so here I am, doin' it. I would like to preface my rant with a disclaimer: I like to use profanity, sarcasm, and cynicism whenever possible. Feel free to stop reading here if a well placed 'fuck' or 'bitch' is going to disturb.

Alright, down to business, first of all, I am, in fact, an atheist. No, I don't hate you. Or eat babies. Or have five STDs. Or eat babies with STDs. I just simply do not see a logical reason to believe that some being is living in the air/space/brainz of everything and everyone around us on top of dictating our silly little lives.

Overall, I see religion as a rather stupid part of society that needs to be outed along with sexism and racism (two things that the Bible advocates if you religious types would actually read the damned thing).

I'm just such a big fan of reason and logic. More evidence exists in support of there being no god, therefore I do not believe in it/she/he/turtle. I realize that society has not reached an exact conclusion scientifically, but I would wager that if certain types (BUSH) would let science frolic and run free we would be a lot closer to answering such a question.

The bible is also an overwhelming piece of shit. That's right, SHIT. Have you ever actually read the bible? There's more incest, violence, and prejudice in that thing than every rap video and video game combined. I prefer to just live a moral life because it makes me happy and feel good. I don't need a magical book telling me how to live. I get the feeling that if I did, I would never be truly happy because I'd always have to compare myself to some really fucked up standards. But, I suppose that is going to have to wait for a different post another day.

Listen, I can understand the need for comfort. It would be nice to think that out there somewhere is a big superman-type character who's got a plan for us all and is watching out for us. But that's such a weak way to live, it's like a metaphysical cop-out. Life is weird and crazy and unpredictable and you just gotta roll with the punches. Sometimes, life really fucking sucks. Other times, it rules. That's just how it goes. Admitting that you're alone is hard, but extremely freeing. You realize just how strong you are, I know I did. I'm ten tons of awesome.

So, if you got this far in my note you're either 1) Really pissed at me and planning on waging a comment attack below before de-friending me, 2) Amused but unsure that it's such a good idea to take such a strong stance or this issue, or 3) Right along with me.

To those in category one, well...fuck you. I just thought I would get that out of the way. See, every time I argue with a Christian, they say that they are more than willing to accept other points of view and keep an open mind during conversation, but always seem to go back on their word. So, if you planned on writing a large expose on why I should accept Jesus Christ as my savior please kindly fuck the hell off. I have made a solid decision based on lots of introspection and thought. Can you say the same about your choice in religion?

Now, that isn't to say my mind can't be changed. I say that if you are absolutely sure that you have certifiable evidence of a higher power, by all means, present it to me and send my atheist ass back to the congregation. I think here you will find the glaring difference between atheists and religious-types. I am more than willing to change my mind if given the evidence. Right now, as it stands, there's more on the 'no god, sorry, try again' side that the 'do this or god will surely smite thee' side.

Category two, it would do you well to grow a set of balls. I urge you to think through the arguments, do the research, and come up with a solution that works well for you and defend it. I think I can confidently say that I already know which side you are going to end up on. Mine! So do me a favor and convert yourself so I don't have to come over there and beat some sense into you.

Category three, right on! *High five*

So, there you have it, some rather basic arguments as to why I don't believe in god and consider myself to be an atheist. Have a lovely day!

Hawt Juggernaut Looooove

2009-02-15T13:43:00.001-08:00

I realized that we never threw up some pics of our epic journey to California last summer, so here's a small taste:

Don't let them gut science

2009-02-07T07:19:00.000-08:00

Wherever the Democrats in power have proposed increased funding for science, the Republicans have demanded that funding for science be cut ten-fold. This is worrisome.

Thankfully, Aron McCart has composed a positively beautiful letter (must have facebook to read) to Claire McCaskill (whose contact information can be found here) about the subject. I encourage everybody to read Aron's letter - it is well-informed and not only hits the nail on the head, it brings down the ten-ton hammer and crushes it to smithereens.

Here is my letter, which reaches nowhere near as far as Aron's.

Dear Senator McCaskill,

I am writing you to encourage you to support the funding in Obama's stimulus plan for scientific research.

The only consistent method of revealing the nature of the universe, a knowledge from which we derive every modern technology, has been through our scientific research. The answer to quite literally every problem we face today is not to continue throwing the same amount of money at tackling it using merely our current understanding, but to forge new discoveries that make our investments more efficient - at times to the point of removing the need for them.

This is what must be done to ensure the future of our dreams, and to solve the problems of the present. The acquisition of new knowledge has been the driving force of human development, and it continues to be.

Here are the proposed cuts that have the scientific community and the scientifically informed portion of our populace worried:

NSF 100% cut ($1,402,000,000)
NASA exploration 50% cut ($750,000,000)
NOAA 34.94% cut ($427,000,000)
NIST 37.91% cut ($218,000,000)
DOE energy efficiency & renewable energy 38% cut ($1,000,000,000)
DOE office of science 100% cut ($100,000,000)

Thank for your time.

JT Eberhard

Awe, thanks News-Loser

2009-02-06T19:27:00.001-08:00

They printed my response to some anti-gay rights fuckstick and, would you believe it, some bible-thumpers don't think medical experts know what they're talking about and they think I'm an agent of Lucifer himself.

Tsk, tsk. Go voice your support for gay rights. Don't have to debate, just say gays are alright.

On the topic of abortion...

2009-01-25T06:11:00.000-08:00

The Vatican is in a frenzy. On Friday our new President repealed the global gag order that kept US money from going to groups that discuss or offer abortions.

Monsignor Rino Fisichella, one of the "higher up spokesmen types" in the Catholic Church, issued a statement that made reference to:

``the arrogance of those who, being in power, believe they can decide of life and death.''

Yeah, Catholic Church! You tell them!

Beyond the inherently flawed connotation that abortion is the same issue as murdering a sentient, conscious being, you should all be noting something odd in the words of the Catholic Church...

Let's read it again:

``the arrogance of those who, being in power, believe they can decide of life and death.''

Really?

The arrogance of those in power... life and death...

What does that make me think of??

What could it be??

P.S. JT has been writing some about abortion lately. You should read it, if you haven't yet.

Abortion should remain legal

2009-01-22T07:19:00.000-08:00

The following will be a growing document. I will add to it every time I encounter a new argument.

Intro

"From a point of view outside of this affair, the killing of a neurologically inactive fetus is no greater a harm than the killing of a mouse, and in fact decidedly less--a mouse is neurologically active, and though it lacks a complex cerebral cortex, it has a brain of suitable complexity to perceive pain." ~ Dr. Richard C. Carrier

The most frequent canard I encounter in discussing the morality of abortion is that it takes a life. As with any philosophical discussion, we need to first define our terms to ensure that we are all on the same page when we use the word "life" (or the words "baby" and "child" for that matter). After all, many things have life; they possess cells that replicate, undergo the Krebs Cycle, etc. Objects on this list include trees, sperm, and cancerous tumors. The list is literally so extensive as to defy concise description. So obviously "life" in the sense of merely being alive doesn't mean all that much, since we typically don't weep over chopping down a tree and we can be downright insistent on purging tumors. Clearly, there is a difference between something being alive and something having a life, and it seems that those who are opposed to abortion also make this distinction whether they admit it or not, since none of them mourn the loss of a tree.

Where then, do we draw the line on when it is alright to destroy something that is living (because if the loss of living cells bothers you, it's time to stop scratching your nose)? This point must be reached somewhere, since most of us would consider it morally wicked to snuff out the life of a freshly born human being. What are the criteria? At what point does the collection of cells within the pregnant female acquire a "life" such that it is separated in terms of humanity from other living things?

I suggest it has everything to do with consciousness and the ability of a being to suffer its own loss. This even makes sense medically. The point at which you are medically dead is when there is no activity in your central cortex (when your brain "flat lines"). At this point your heart may still be beating with the help of a pacemaker, your cells will still be active, and your lungs may still be breathing with the help of a respirator, but this is all irrelevant since the conscience that constituted "you" is gone and will never return. At that point your body is simply engaging in autonomous functions. There is no reason to consider you still alive or to grieve when we unplug your life support.

With a fetus, the brain does not become electrically active until the fifth month (typically the 20th week). Until that point, it is no different than killing anything else that is alive but cannot suffer its own loss. When we say the words "baby" or "child", we imply a creature that has lost something when it stops "living"; a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus is not a child. It is a collection of cells (until the end of the second month when minute organ development begins to occur), nothing more.

Argument from potential

An argument that almost unavoidably arises at this point is that a zygote will one day become a child (perhaps the next Beethoven!) if left unchecked. These people do not seem to realize that every sperm in my body is a potential human being (it just needs the female egg, itself a potential unique, glorious human being). Yet the prospect of this lost potential does not seem to frighten them out of their chastity (trust me, it doesn't). Why not?

I am certain that if all human beings went Sodom and Gomorrah-style crazy with lust, we would eventually produce a physicist that would dwarf Stephen Hawking or Einstein, or a composer that would reduce the work of Mozart to child's play. That's no reason to do it. The dire consequences of augmented, unmitigated population growth are very well documented. A woman should feel no obligation to produce a child she does not want, simply because that kid might be the first John Conner.

Why then do we care about the potential of a particular set of cells in the female because they share a similar potential?

Argument about souls

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." ~ Jeremiah 1:5

There is not a scrap of evidence to suggest we have a soul that existed before birth or that will exist after death. All evidence suggests that conscience is tied exclusively to a functioning brain. Religious people can profess their certainty in this until they are blue in the face, but until they can evince even a decent reason to believe that it's true, they are just wrong by any rational standard.

Of course, nobody is insisting that religious people forfeit the right to reproduce as they please; nobody wishes abortion to be forced on anyone, even if their reasons for avoiding them are ludicrous. But you most certainly do not get to use your delusions to inflict others with their arbitrary, unfounded standard.

Argument from post-abortion trauma

In 1987, Ronald Regan asked then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to produce a report assessing the possibility of trauma in the would-be mother. Scott's report concluded that "the available scientific evidence about the psychological sequelae of abortion simply cannot support either the preconceived notions of those pro-life or those pro-choice." This was as generous as the highly conservative Koop could be without being flagrantly dishonest. However, Regan ordered the report to be re-written to say that women did suffer post-abortion trauma, and it was (though Koop separated himself from it both publicly and during investiation) from this re-written report that the idea that abortions induced trauma was born.

Since both the announcement of that one disingenuous paper and the resulting beat down from the scientific and medical communities, all of our credible medical bodies have been in perfect harmony on the facts. The American Psychological Association sums it up nicely:

"The most methodologically sound research indicates that among women who have a single, legal, first-trimester abortion of an unplanned pregnancy for nontherapeutic reasons, the relative risks of mental health problems are no greater than the risks among women who deliver an unplanned pregnancy."

All the same, even if a higher portion of women did suffer depression after their abortions, you cannot shackle everybody for that. Women should still get the choice. However, the science is conclusive that no greater threat to mental health exists for having an abortion, so the argument is moot.

Outro

Abortion provides societal good by helping to mitigate population growth and by not saddling women with children they are not ready for, and there is no downside. All arguments to the contrary depend on either wrong information, outright lies, a lack of knowledge about the nature of pregnancy, beliefs about reality that are contra to the evidence and accepted on nothing more than faith, not spending enough time taking in the philosophy of the situation, or some conglomeration of all of the above. To quote Richard Carrier for the second time in this post:

"An act that causes no involuntary harm and produces some benefits for individuals and society in general should never be outlawed. This is based on the principle that laws should only exist to preserve and protect the liberty of individuals and, when no liberty is at stake either way, to increase the general welfare of all citizens."

There is no logical or empirical grounds upon which to illegalize abortions.

BiGALA

2009-01-14T08:28:00.000-08:00

This is a shameless plug, but tonight is my first meeting as BiGALA Co-President, and I would love for everyone to come.

BiGALA meetings are every Wednesday night at 7pm in PSU 315.

BiGALA is Missouri State's Queer-Straight Alliance. It is open to the whole community, not just MSU students. Also, it is open to all orientations and gender identities. Straight allies are really important, so don't think you can't come if you're straight! I feel like it's important to say also that we don't just sit around and talk about who's gay and who's straight - we will never ask you what your orientation is.

We do a lot of events and things throughout the semester other than just having meetings, some of which are issue-related, and some of which are just for fun, so if you aren't a weekly meeting type of person, there will still be plenty of opportunities for you to come hang out. And I will be telling you all about them throughout the semester. :)

Obama...

2009-01-12T13:50:00.000-08:00

... is set to close Gitmo.

I want to hug him right now.

Rough draft letter to the editor

2009-01-12T07:14:00.000-08:00

Some days it is just painful to get through the day. Painful because people are stupid. They are petty and stupid, they are hateful and stupid...they are just plain stupid.

Today's brush with ignorance comes from what often seems to be our local shrine to backwards religious nuts, the Springfield News-Loser.

Go on, brace yourself and read it. If you have a brain, it should hurt.

Anyway, I decided (while intoxicated) to crank out a response. Throw me any suggestions. It's probably a little more snarky than it should be...let me know if you think that.

Paul Summers Should Inhale My Penis*
by J.T. Eberhard

Before I dive into Paul Summers' letter, I will concede that I agree with him on one point: that all bullying is bad and should be discouraged. However, if one demographic is being abused with greater frequency, it seems only sensible that we give that group specific attention (after all, I’m against followers of any religion being fed to the lions, but that shouldn’t stop us from addressing specific examples).

Now for the abundance of places where I do not think Mr. Summers made sense. In his first paragraph he ascribes motivations to Sara Lampe that he could not possibly know without an intimate knowledge of the trappings of her mind. Nobody should be convinced by this. As for what could be identified as bullying, the measure would grant local school boards the power to make that call. If you want witnessing excluded (as I can only imagine it would be), simply make that known. The tenor of Mr. Summers letter is one of paranoia that gay people must surely be seeking some underhanded end, such as the suppression of faith, rather than just being protected from abuse. There is no reason to suspect that that is the case.

If a religious person lacks the character to realize that a person’s sexual orientation is none of their business and must approach the homosexual and attempt to impose their arbitrary standard on them…well, we cannot legislate tact or compassion. Now, if that conversation includes a negative assessment of their worth as a human being, I’d consider that bullying. Just as if I made it a point of approaching Christians in public school and calling them delusional bigots, that should also not be allowed.

I’m not sure where Mr. Summers got the idea that this measure had anything to do with interfering with churches (it probably stems from the paranoia I touched on earlier). It mentions nothing of the sort. In fact, it is very specific that this would apply only within public school grounds and property. Mr. Summers is frightened by only his own lack of information here, nothing more.

We then get this gem:

“If you do not want to be frowned upon, stop doing what causes the frowns. Grow up. Take some responsibility! If you do not want to be called "gay," stop what you are doing.”

There are several things to say about this, the most obvious of which is that if what they’re doing is not pathological in any way (and it’s not), why should the public schools tacitly endorse abuse over it? Later in his letter, Mr. Summers admonishes us that he does not want to see homosexuals bullied or degraded. How can we take him at his word when that guarantee is preceded by a statement like the one above, which clearly suggests that derision of homosexuals is acceptable until gay people change? Are you encouraging bullying? Well, despite your protestations to the contrary, yes you are.

The second thing to note is that Mr. Summers lacks the credentials to fly in the face of every credible psychiatric and medical body in this country (and the world, for that matter). That is precisely what he has done by insinuating that gay people have the option to change (or that they should even want to). The following is from the American Psychological Association, which is far and away the American authority:

“Human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”

Our most austere battery of medical minds, the American Medical Association, echoes the sentiments of the APA, and they take it a step further in regards to measures like the one in question:

“Our AMA will collaborate with the US Surgeon General on the development of a comprehensive report on youth violence prevention, which should include such issues as bullying, racial prejudice, discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and similar behaviors and attitudes.”

This is the established opinion of the world’s most preeminent medical bodies, but Mr. Summers seems to be concealing a substantial reason to believe that they are all full of it. You can probably find the reason nestled within his one-book library.

The rest of his letter continues to disregard medical evidence and expert opinion. I’m sure that there are many people who will think that Mr. Summers' high level of piety absolves him from the normal constraints of what makes an opinion match reality. To the rest of us, it should be crystal clear that this man is scared of nothing. It is also not difficult to deduce that this man is attached to the idea of deriding normal people for imaginary crimes – his words suggest nothing else up until he assures us that he does not feel that way.

And this is the wisdom Christ has to offer me? If Christ is to be in conflict with not just reason but also compassion, I must take reason and compassion, as any decent human should.

* No, I'm not really going to use that as the title.

Free pass from god

2009-01-12T07:11:00.000-08:00

PZ already commented on this, but I think something else about it needs some attention.

One of the most prominent rabbis in Israel, if not the most prominent, Mordechai Eliyahu has just sent a letter to Prime Minister Olmert explaining that "All civilians living in Gaza are collectively guilty for Kassam attacks on Sderot."

He also explained that "there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza."

And the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Eliyahu's son, himself a high-profile religious figure, "said his father opposed a ground troop incursion into Gaza that would endanger IDF soldiers. Rather, he advocated carpet bombing the general area from which the Kassams were launched, regardless of the price in Palestinian life."

There's one step for the justification: they attacked us without regard for the price of innocent life on our side of the fence! And since we just abhor the destruction of innocent life, there only seems to be one sane, logical reaction (and thank god that the almighty was around to give it to us before our humanity got in the way): we have to carpet bomb the innocents in their country! Thanks for the green-light, god.

But where is the line? How many heathen childrens' souls must we send to hell in this conflict?

"If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand," said Shmuel Eliyahu. "And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop."

Yes, "whatever it takes to make them stop," as if innocent people should get to be clumped up with "them". It's a pity that god couldn't be bothered to send this maniac a memo explaining that the people responsible for shooting missiles at their country and the common people who just happened to be born in Palestine are different groups (this will be lost on the war hawks who think all Americans endorsed the "shock and awe" assault on Iraq...it's kind of the same thing).

And now for the second part of the justification. Speaking of "shock and awe," you'll never believe this:

In the letter, Eliyahu quoted from Psalms. "I will pursue my enemies and apprehend them and I will not desist until I have eradicated them."

Yup, the bible. Where to even begin? For starters, the bible is a muddled piece of incoherent trash. Unlike any academic piece produced by mere mortal scholars in the modern world, the bible is so convoluted that you can evince any stance from its needlessly lengthy pages of crummy poetry and prose. Still, trusting your gut without regard for tempering your opinions with, y'know, logic and evidence is much easier than actually learning, and the notion of faith with an assist from the Bronze Age allows people to be lazy thinkers. Any problems that arise from this can easily be attributed to the lack of faith or any sinful non-conformity to their creed (since scrutiny has already been thrown out the window in favor of whatever they feel). And hence, the circle perpetuates.

And now this pious yutz in Israel is dredging the ignorance of the past into the 21st century, which explains his inability to discern his "enemies" that he wishes to be pursued and destroyed from normal fucking people who didn't have shit to do with it!

Eliyahu wrote that "This is a message to all leaders of the Jewish people not to be compassionate with those who shoot [rockets] at civilians in their houses."

Yes, because Sally P. Gaza-Housewife was the one who pulled the trigger.

We live in a world where somebody can have the intelligence and the resources to construct a nuclear weapon, yet still believe he will receive paradise for detonating it. We live in a world where children die consistently because people have faith in the power of prayer, yet find the skepticism to scrutinize doctors and the tangible results of medicine. To any sane human being, it is horrifyingly clear that this type of holy stupidity is dangerous and unnecessary.

There are a lot of things that people will say about this. They will say that he interprets the bible wrong, even though they will lack a single good reason to believe that their faith is even slightly more likely to be correct. If they disagree with Eliyahu, they will ascribe his error to any number of factors with the exception of one: few people, if any, will point out that this man has been divorced from compassion and sundered from reason by faith. It is the fault of the same disconnection from reality that most people on this planet embrace as noble or necessary that this type of horror could be considered possible. This man wants to cull millions of people he knows had no hand in assaulting his country because he believes, without reason, that god said they were guilty.

And all god's people said, "Amen".

You want sanity to return to this world? Then start making sure that insanity gets pointed out and scrutinized unapologetically.

And now, let's try and get a laugh out of it:

Time to Mobilize

2009-01-08T08:11:00.001-08:00

This Saturday at 12:30, there will be a rally at the downtown square in Springfield, MO to protest the Defense of Marriage Act. This is very important. We need to keep this issue in the public eye and not let them sweep it under the rug. Hateful irrationality and bigotry are like cockroaches: they don't do well in the light.

It takes a very backwards mind to take something so aggressive like a belief that you have the divine right to insist that everybody else live by your arbitrary standard, or an attempt to enforce that belief via (supposedly) secular law, and call it "defense". What are you defending? In Denmark, civil unions with the same rights as marriage have been around since 1989, and other Nordic countries followed suit in the 1990s. Same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 2001. Amazingly, somehow, some way...religious freedoms, families, marriages, and the governments of these countries continue to flourish, and there have been no reports of ANYONE trying to marry their family pet. Incredible, right?

Well, religious people do not have the right to insist that we march to the beat of their mythological bunkum, and it's high time we started marching in order to drive that point home. There is no defense with DOMA, prop 8, or any similar bill; there is just bigotry dressed up in velvet. Calling it "defense" is their way of trying to coat the piece of poop that is discrimination with a pretty layer of paint to hide what it really is. Newsflash: it's still a piece of poop, and a layer of paint doesn't hide the stench.

I detest proud discrimination as I detest everything evil (and I especially detest the engines for such evil). As I have said before: there will be no more hiding behind your sacred beliefs. In order to be a bigot, I will do everything in my power to make sure you have to stand up in public with your badge of hate and defend your bigotry - and you'd best believe I'm gonna make it sting when I do. I've noticed that fewer and fewer people who have the courage to thump their bibles at the polls possess the fortitude to stand up in public and bear some actual criticism. It's amazing how pious certainty can fade really quick outside the privacy of the voting booth, isn't it? Only in the safety of the darkness, absent of the light of reason, do these people demonstrate the courage of their convictions. Fucking cowards. Fucking trolls.

Not sure who said it, but it's very true: all that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing*. I'll be there Saturday, and I encourage you to be there as well.

* Apparently it is attributed to Edmund Burke, though there is some question about whether that phrase or some approximation were actually his writings. What he did actually say though was, "Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength."

Good shit. Thanks to dad, for that piece of info.

Too Bad the Holidays are over

2009-01-02T22:46:00.000-08:00

I can totally think of a few people who need this Sarah Palin toilet paper.

Or a John McCain punching bag.

MONA - Anti-bullying legislation for Missouri schools

2008-12-31T11:19:00.000-08:00

Sara Lampe is pushing for this, and PROMO, Missouri's LGBT advocacy group, is also behind it.

There was an article in the News-Leader yesterday, on the front page, and of course, it looks like there's backlash in the comment section of the online version of the story. There are 16 pages of comments. I don't know if there good or bad, since I haven't read them yet. I'm having too good of a day to ruin it with ridiculous Ozarks hate, but if you would like to go talk some sense into anyone who is being hateful, that would be awesome. Since that's what we do.

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081229/NEWS01/812290347&s=d&page=13#pluckcomments

Prop 8-The Musical!

2008-12-28T00:37:00.001-08:00

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... by Jack Black

Rick Warren should also shampoo my crotch

2008-12-24T08:32:00.001-08:00

As everybody knows, Rick Warren, the homophobic fraud pastor of the Saddleback Church (yee-haw!), will be giving Obama's invocation.

Rick Warren: "I believe no such thing. I never have. You've never heard me once in thirteen years talk about that."

He's talking about equating gay marriage with incest and pedophilia. He said this last Sunday.

And now, Rachael Maddow, take it way.

And that old gem, "I actually love gay people." I believe he's sincere when he says that, as are most religious people who say it. I believe Warren is concerned and trying to do right. The problem is that because he has blocked out reason from his worldview, his faith has poisoned his mind so that his genuine concern has become prejudice and bigotry that he, and many other religious people, have ignorantly branded as "love."

Hey, my god insists that punching Christians in the face thirteen and a half times will make it snow twenty-dollar bills, and that if they accept my god (let's call Her Fuckus Prejudus, in all Her holiness) as their Lord and Savior, then it will snow FIFTY-DOLLAR BILLS for for each new convert, and that they'll get chocolate pudding in Heaven forever. So I sock them right in the jaw as commanded because I love them and want them to have pudding.

Shit, I forgot to employ checks against my belief set to make sure I'm not espousing stupid ideas that would make me an obtuse son of a bitch if I were wrong. Oh well, how important can that be? These are my beliefs.

Bush is a gay rights douche bag. Who knew?

2008-12-23T07:17:00.000-08:00

The other day, still-president Bush and his administration took a break from not doing anything aside from watching the seconds tick down on their administration to refuse to sign a UN resolution urging the decriminalization of homosexuality world-wide.

In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration -- which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

Let me take a moment to harp on precisely what this means. Our president refused to sign a measure that would encourage those around the world not to imprison or kill homosexuals.

But don't worry, we don't like it when human rights are violated:

Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the United States -- despite its unwillingness to sign -- condemned any human rights violations related to sexual orientation.

Then put your money where your mouth is instead of condoning it with your signature and only paying lip service to human rights when you speak. Fucking liars and the fucking people who think this is ok.

PraiseMoves-The Christian Alternative to Yoga

2008-12-23T01:13:00.000-08:00

Yeah, this thing really exists.

*sigh*

------EDIT------

I fixed the stupid link. Enjoy the crazy!

-----END EDIT-----

Obama disappoints

2008-12-19T09:16:00.001-08:00

Obama has selected Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

"As we've pointed out several times before, in 2004 Warren declared that marriage, reproductive choice, and stem cell research were "non-negotiable" issues for Christian voters and has admitted that the main difference between himself and James Dobson is a matter of tone. He criticized Obama's answers at the Faith Forum he hosted before the election and vowed to continue to pressure him to change his views on the issue of reproductive choice.

He came out strongly in support of Prop 8, saying "there is no need to change the universal, historical defintion of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population ... This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about." He's declared that those who do not believe in God should not be allowed to hold public office."

Father makes a good point: we already have the "liberals" on our side, so we need to corral the "conservatives" (I use those words in quotes because I hate using them). If Obama has Warren do his invocation and then does great things for gay rights (as we know he would like to), fine.

Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on drawing in religious people by pandering to their delusions. If we get them, I would much rather it be because people believing in things without evidence have been marginalized to the fringe of society, and must abandon unreason in order to rejoin humanity.

I think it's a very thin rope Obama is walking, and though I'm not thrilled with the decision I really hope it works out.

Also, because everybody loves pictures:

Parrenting FTW

2008-12-17T21:22:00.000-08:00

Have you heard about the parents who are seeking legal action against a supermarket because they refused to write out their child's full name on his birthday cake? Did I mention the kid's name is Adolf Hitler Campbell?

Seriously. I couldn't make this shit up.

Oh, and he has two sisters. JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell. How charming.

Craigslist Shenanigans

2008-12-17T21:19:00.001-08:00

Lately, there have been some pretty stellar best-ofs on the craigslist website, so I thought that I would share them with you:

"Room for Rent -- Inauguration Day/ObamaCon 2009

Date: 2008-11-11, 11:45AM EST

In a search of a room in DC so that you can spend Jan. 20 standing in the bitter winter cold with thousands of like-minded souls watching the historic transfer of power from one Harvard grad to another? Look no further.

Me: Heartless, greedy right-wing oppressive type looking to make a buck.

You: Obama's election was Christmas/your first kiss/May Day all wrapped into one. You dutifully wore his button -- which you have yet to remove -- contributed money to his campaign from your non-profit job and chanted "yes we can" as if it were the 11th commandment. A strange void now exists in your life and -- like an old hippie looking to recapture the spirit of Woodstock -- you are undertaking a pilgramage to Washington for one last gulp of the Kool-Aid.

Along with my bedroom you will have access to the house's many amenities including cable television (not that you watch much TV) for viewing Keith Olberman's latest unhinged rants and CNN in high-def. Wireless internet means that the Huffington Post and DailyKos are only a click away on your MacBook. American flags and other patriotic paraphernalia in the room can be removed upon request.

The house is located in the diverse neighborhood of Adams Morgan with people of many different skin pigmentations that will allow you to revel in your tolerance. Rest assured, however, that this diversity does not extend to ideology and that you are sure to march lock-step with the prevailing sentiment ensuring that your most strongly held beliefs remain unchallenged.

Easily accessible subway and bus stops will help ensure a minimal carbon footprint while fair trade coffee is never more than a few steps away at any number of independently-owned establishments. Nearby non-chain bookstores similarly mean that tomes such as Mao's Little Red Book, Chomsky's latest masterpiece or additional copies of The Audacity of Hope can be easily purchased either for yourself or as early holiday shopping.

Rather than state a price I am requesting that you bid on this fabulous opportunity to ensure profit maximization on my part so that I can better weather the Bush Recession."

And then there's this:

"Lost: My Right To Marry

Date: 2008-11-05, 6:36PM PST

I went to bed early last night and when I woke up, I discovered I'd lost my right to marry. It's pretty easy to recognize--four California Supreme Court justices spotted it several months back, although it took them a long damn time to finally find it. It's in like-new condition--I personally haven't had a chance to use it yet, and was really looking forward to the opportunity. A couple of my friends and family still have theirs, and even enjoy it so much they've used it several times. If you can find it for me, I'd really appreciate getting it back. I'm not sure, but I think the shady gang of thugs who stole it were heading for Utah or maybe Fresno, so please keep an eye out. Thanks."

Twilight Can Lick My Proverbial Balls.

2008-12-11T15:36:00.000-08:00

Ok, yeah, I know, this post is a few weeks late, but, hey, I'm in school and it gets default priority. Right after mayhem. Anyhow....

Twilight. This new literary 'sensation' that rivals Harry Potter is just so outrageously bad I think I'm going crazy because not a lot of other people have spoken up about it. So, here it is, my reasons for hating Twilight and all of its bullshit:

This book has a bazillion religous undertones. Did you know that the author is Mormon? Well, now you do, and boy does it show within her work. For one thing, the looks and actions of the main female character, Bella Swan, just so happen to fit into the constraints of the author's religion. She has long hair, doesn't have premarital sex and/or sexual thoughts until after she is wed, cooks and cleans for her apparently incompetent father, and is the epitome of your stereotypical housewife/good little girl which brings me to my next point:
Bella sets an abominable example for young girls with her stereotypical and mostly anitfeminist actions and views. She constantly has to be taken care of by her male counterparts unless those actions happen to be cooking and cleaning, that stuff she can handle because of her innate delicate inner female nature. Well screw that, I say, let the girl freakin' fight for herself every once in a while, have her stupid Dad learn to cook a few things to break these characters from your normal gender roles and shake things the hell up. Plus, I am a hardcore feminist and to see that Bella couldn't really stand up for herself was frustrating to read. Women are very capable creatures.
This story also greatly emphasizes physical beauty. I mean, I know that this is a vampire story and that they are supposed to be beautiful, but I swear to all that you find holy if I hear about how goddamned gorgeous whatshisnuts (Edward) is one more freaking time I am going to sock the first pretty boy I see on the street in the face. I really wish that there would have been less description of his 'golden eyes' and 'marbled physique' and more about his personality and thought processes. I am pretty sure that, if you cut out all the extraneous 'Oh my god you are so pretty *drool*' portions of the book, it would cut the books in half length-wise. We get that he is easy on the eyes, now let's move the hell on and get some action up in this bitch.
This book supports rather unhealthy relationships. Bells sees Edward once, and BAM! She is hooked like a junkie on heroin, no questions asked. What about actually getting to know someone? It's like she just sees this really pretty boy and that's it, that's all she needs for a fulfilling relationship. Well, I've got sour news for you chum, it takes more than a pretty face to make a relationship work. And what about the obsessive stalking that Edward does? The obvious neglect and abuse suffered? Do we really want teenaged girls to seek out this glorified emotional dependence? I've got some news for you all out there who can't get enough of this 'love story.' Someone who loves you will not just up and leave your ass for whatever reason without an explanation. Someone who loves you will not stalk your butt at all hours of the day, even when you are sleeping. Someone who loves you will communicate everything, no matter how shitty, so that you can both work it out. Edward and Bella are two dumb teenagers who haven't even begun to learn what love is or can be.
Sex. The sex thing bothers me. It's like Bella and Edward are asexual beings up until they get married. Then they just can't get enough of each other's goods. Someone please point out some other couple in the history of time in their teenage years that was able to have such self-restraint and innocence for a few weeks, nevermind a few years. Even Romeo and Juliet got it on! Now, I'm not saying that the book should be overrun by hormonal teenagers, but I felt as if I was reading nothing, absolutley nothing about the physical attraction these two had for eachother (minus the 'omgz you are so pretty *droool* shit) up until they got hitched. Then it was a free-for-all junkfest. That shit is just not normal. Again, what kind of example is this setting for youngsters and how realistic is this premise? Refuckingdiculous, I say.

So, there you have it, a few reasons why I hate these goddamned books and everything that comes with it. Sure, I am a chick and I have been known to like a good romantic story every once and a while but this book just has so many blatantly unfeminist aspects I find it rather repulsive and hard to stomach.

What about you? Do you like Twilight? *eyes narrow*

Whopper Virgins

2008-12-10T21:58:00.000-08:00

Am I the only one who thinks that BK's new ad campaign is outrageously exploitative and racist as hell?

The have these people (dressed as 'native' as possible, of course) eat a whopper and a big mac to see which one they like better. I can't help but think this is just a bit fucked up. I mean, going out and seeking normal Americans who haven't tasted either burger seems more acceptable to me, but to go out and find people that are obviously foreign and clueless to use as a gimmick seems rather heartless. Do these people realize they are being used for a stupid ad campaign? Are they OK with that?

It is entirely possible that I am just being overly sensitive here, but I can't help but feel as if it's innately wrong to use these people as a ploy. Using racist stereotypes has always been a part of ad campaigns, but this one just seems to get to me more than your average pizza commercial.

Thoughts? Anyone?

Why we should still lock your ass up... but not call in punishment... =P

2008-12-10T13:50:00.000-08:00

Ok... as background for this post... I just had an assignment to write a short paper using the following prompt:

The traditional perspective of the criminal justice system is that people are individual agents whose actions are free-will-based conscious choices made on a rational basis, and consequently people can be held responsible for their actions. What is the dividing line between behavior for which the individual is legally responsible and the behavior that is not the defendent's fault. If one assumes, as this course does, that all behavior is generated by brain activity, where and how do you draw the line between behaviors the individual is legally responsible for and those which are beyond his/her control? Is this even the right way to frame the issue? If not, what is?

My response:

The justice system in the United States assumes that individuals are responsible for their actions. Sentences are intended to punish individuals who fail to conform to society's laws. However, this conceptualization of the justice system is inadequate in the face of growing neuroscientific research. For millennia determinist philosophers have dismissed the justice system's assumption that people are in control of their actions. In the last few decades, neurosurgery research has begun to find support for a deterministic perspective. Notable neuroscientists like Joshua D. Greene and Jonathan D. Cohen are now arguing that the justice system should reorganize itself to focus on deterrence, instead of the current goal of revenge (Rosen, 2007). This does not change the challenges that our society faces when dealing with society's deviants, but it does call for a new approach to the justice system. Instead of a focus on punishment, the justice system must focus on protecting its citizens from those who cannot, or will not, live their lives without unduly imposing themselves on others.

In the American prison system many felons are substance abusers. Their crimes are either simple possession of a controlled substance, or other illegal activities they participated in to support their drug habit. Addictive drugs directly (cocaine, amphetamines) or indirectly (opiates, heroin, nicotine) trigger activation of the nucleus accumbens within the meso-limbic pathway (PA Packet, text). The meso-limbic pathway is responsible for the activation of behavior seeking further reinforcement, known as the "Go Signal". All reinforcers activate the nucleus accumbens, although controlled substances often provoke a much stronger response. Once a drug that triggers dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens is introduced, the "Go Signal" will be activated (PA Packet).

There is evidence that this can be avoided through the use of antagonist substances that stop the nucleus accumbens or other "upstream" structures from becoming activated by the controlled substance. For example, introduction of a DA receptor antagonist (Haloperidol, for example) can block the effect of the nucleus accumbens in projecting the behavior increasing "Go Signal”. However, there is little evidence that any other structure in the brain can simply override this signal. In fact, rats injected with cocaine will have a continuous activation of the "Go Signal" until the drug wears off (PA Packet). They will continually participate in species specific behavior. Similar behaviors are manifested in humans given cocaine, and the behaviors may be completely out of their control. More important, this is directly reinforcing, so there will be a continued drive to reactivate the nucleus accumbens using the same or a similar drug. This does not mean that individuals with a strong drive for cocaine or other substances should remain in society. They should be removed and placed in treatment facilities. When their behavior can be controlled, they can be released.

Another behavior that can have highly detrimental effects is an excessive amount of anger or rage. This can lead to assault or even homicide. Neuroscientists are finding many variables that may increase emotional reactivity, variables that seem to result in a chain of events outside of conscious control. Individuals who inject synthetic male hormones into their body will suffer from increased aggression. Additionally, a gene called the 5-HT (serotonin) transporter is responsible for the formation for serotonin reuptake in the brain (PA Packet). The homozygous long form of the gene leads to strong serotonin transmission, the heterozygous gene leads to weaker serotonin transmission, and the homozygous short form of the gene leads to a significant decrease in the transmission of serotonin. Low serotonin levels are linked to an increase in the reactivity of an individual to emotional events. This may lead individuals to respond with less control to stressful events in their lives, since the events actually create a stronger emotional reaction in them.

Violent crimes commonly occur when the aggressor is emotionally aroused. Negative emotions increase avoidance behaviors in an organism. One such avoidance evoking emotion is anger. Anger is aroused through the ventrobasal amygdala. The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) is a brain structure that makes non-conscious assessments of the effects of environmental stimuli. Damage to the OFC can result in a decrease in the weight that long-term consequences are given (PA Packet). This would result in an increase in the amount of control that the emotion arousing ventrobasal amygdala would hold over an organism's behavior. The OFC can often be damaged or impaired in adults, and it may not even be developed at all in adolescents. The OFC is the non-conscious component of the prefrontal cortex, one of the last structures to develop in humans.

All this supports a more deterministic explanation of life, where emotions and behaviors are not controlled solely through a higher consciousness, but through the combined efforts of many smaller brain structures. This would not to say that behavior should not be controlled. Even if we are "moist robots”, as a friend of mine is fond of saying, the behaviors need to be controlled.

As the scientific evidence begins to give greater weight to the argument that people may not have a “free-will” to control their behavior, a reorganization of the justice system is in order. Instead of being based on a rubric of punishment for actions performed at free will, the justice system should switch to a pronounced intention to protect all members of society. The research indicates that people may not be capable of controlling their actions. No amount of pure punishment, be it incarceration or threats of penalties, will stop all crimes from being committed. For instance, long term threats of punishment mean nothing to an individual with a low functioning or damaged OFC. Treatment or removal of individuals from society, with no reliance on a concept of punishment, is a way to protect the society through the most productive means possible.

The goal of the justice system should be to protect society from those who do not behave in a way that is productive, and to protecting those same destructive people from themselves. This would require a complete overhaul of the system, with a focus on treatment. It also would require a much stronger focus on prevention, since many of these deficits are caused by exposure to negative environmental stimuli. It would also require people to give up the construct of "punishment" or "revenge" in favor of the greater good. This may not be something that is feasible at this point in our society, but it is the path that is supported by the scientific evidence.

Note:

All this is based on the assumption that the justice system is capable of acting in a purely rational way and seek out the greater good. The justice system in the United States is a collection of individuals. The prosecutors, the judge, and the jury are all individual humans, with the same susceptibility to dangerous behaviors as the citizens it rules.

Take, for example, the story of Zenos the Stoic and his slave. Zenos was a Greek philosopher whose views approached strict determinism. It is said that Zenos once caught a slave stealing from his home. He captured the slave, and was preparing to punish him. The slave, however, stopped Zenos. He quoted Zenos’ writings, where he argued that every action is predetermined through the Providence. If this was true, said the slave, his actions as a thief were predetermined, and simply a matter of fate. Zenos is said to have responded by agreeing that the theft had been a matter of fate. He argued, however, that his punishment of the thief was also predetermined. And with that he whipped the slave.

This isn’t to say that we cannot break out of the system we are currently within. We cannot, however, expect this to be a simple process. In a democratic state, the citizens in charge of the justice system are prone to the same neurological deficits that the citizens they prosecute are. We might very well expect that the justice system would have great difficulty breaking out of this cycle, since the crimes of others have the power to evoke great emotions within observers.

Such a pretty little sign...

2008-12-06T08:47:00.000-08:00

So...

It is the atheists who are trying to trample on others rights?

We are the intolerant ones?

Aaarrgghhsz.

Lasers?

2008-12-04T10:27:00.000-08:00

There is a really interesting post over at Seed, talking about camera vandalization.

You all should check it out. =)

I am thinking about it...

2008-12-02T09:15:00.000-08:00

Don't I need my house exorcised?

It would be snazzy... anyone want to come down??

Since we all love female masturbation...

2008-12-01T11:52:00.001-08:00

I hate to drag down the level of the posts again. JT's pimp article on the LHC is, well, amazing.

But I had to share this.

The F Word has an amazing post up on female masturbation in pop music.

Wo0T!

The Large Hadron Collider

2008-12-01T07:16:00.000-08:00

An Astronomy student named Aron McCart recently asked me to review a research paper he was doing for a class. I loved the paper so much, I asked it I could repost it to my various blogs. Click on all images to biggify them.

Of course, it doesn't go after the jugular of faith as much as I'd like (it seems the only opposition to the LHC comes from a handful of religious scientists and a fair number of religiously-motivated layman) as a research paper shouldn't, but it'll do.

Science...it's how we know, bitches!

Abstract
________________________________________

The LHC is 7,000 more times powerful than any other particle accelerator ever created (LHC Safety Study Group). This has led to a renewed concern over the safety of high-energy particle collisions. This paper will examine the main safety arguments from both sides. The original safety concerns of high-energy particle collisions are the production of stranglets (stranglets will be described later in this paper) and micro black holes. Stranglet concerns have been disregarded because other particle colliders like the RHIC actually have a higher chance of creating stranglets (LHC Safety Study Group). In addition, most of the scientific community has dismissed micro black hole arguments with arguments centered on cosmic rays and Hawking radiation (Benjamin Koch). Many members of the scientific community, including the German Society of Physicists (KET), claim that lone arguments like Dr. Rossler’s arguments are based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. It is the conclusion of this paper that LHC poses absolutely no danger to the Earth or humanity, and furthermore, the research from the LHC could fundamentally change the way we understand the universe and could lead to science fiction-like technologies.

Introduction
________________________________________

Description of the LHC

The LHC is the largest, most expensive, most technologically advanced, and most powerful science experiment ever built by man. The LHC is a particle collider that physicists use to study the fundamental nature of matter by learning how particles behave during collisions. The LHC is designed to collide opposing beams of protons or lead ions and take extremely high-resolution pictures of those collisions. What makes the LHC so unique is that it is capable of accelerating particles to near the speed of light. It uses a huge series of the largest superconducting magnets ever built to shove particles though a metal 3.8-meter wide 17-mile circumference circle. It is located mostly in France and crosses the Franco-Swiss border at four different points. CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) began construction of the 8.2 billion dollar project in 1986. Construction was completed in summer 2008 and test runs commenced in September. However, during a test run one of the magnets failed and caused operations to cease until summer of 2009 (Large Hadron Collider).

Purpose of the LHC

In the standard model of particle physics, the last unobserved particle is called the Higgs boson. If the standard model is correct, the Higgs boson should exist. The Higgs boson is smaller than atoms, the protons and neutrons that make atoms, and the quarks that make protons and neutrons. It is theorized that Higgs boson is what gives all particles mass. However, since the Higgs boson has never been observed, the standard model is incomplete. It is hoped that during high energy collisions the Higgs boson will be created by breaking up other particles thus confirming the standard model. There are other less powerful colliders that have failed to create the Higgs boson, like the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in New York. It is the hope of physicists that accelerating the particles to 99.999% speed of light the LHC will finally produce the Higgs boson (Large Hadron Collider). However, the most exciting part about the LHC is the possibility of proving the standard model wrong or finding other particles predicted by highly theoretical extensions of the standard model. For instance, the first real physical evidence of extra dimensions predicted by string theory might be observed at the LHC, or the graviton might finally be directly observed. If we can observe, predict, and control gravitons, things such as anti-gravity, artificial gravity and floating cars will be more of a reality instead of science fiction. However, it is expected that LHC will fall short of creating the energies for these theoretical particles to form, and that the LHC will not even find the Higgs boson. In fact, Steven Hawking, a world famous physicist, has placed a 100 dollar bet that LHC will not find the Higgs boson. He added, “That [the LHC] will show something is wrong, and we will need to think again” (BBC).

LHC opposition

The LHC has been subject to opposition from within the scientific community. The opposition is primarily related to safety concerns, like stranglets and micro black holes; however, there are some moral and ethical concerns as well. The scientific opposition is isolated to a few individuals, and has largely been considered discounted by the rest of the scientific community (KET) (Plaga) (Benjamin Koch) (Rossler). The scientific opposition consists of a few individuals working alone to form what other scientists consider self-contradicting arguments. By contrast, the response to scientific concern is dismissed by CERN-sponsored studies and large groups of independent scientists working together. The ethical concern is why the LHC has received billions of dollars for its construction while there are other issues, like poverty, deserving of the funding (Rossler). Poverty and other issues are very deserving of the LHC’s funding, but the LHC’s potential impact on science and humanity certainly justifies the LHC’s large price tag.

The first objections to the LHC’s safety were brought before it was even close to being completed. Similar arguments were brought up at the RHIC in New York. Walter L. Wagner is an American botanist and a former radiation safety officer. He earned his Biology degree with a minor Physics from UC Berkeley. Wagner contended that the differences between high-energy collisions with cosmic rays and the upper atmosphere are different from the “at rest” collisions at the LHC and could potentially have catastrophic consequences in the form of an Earth-devouring black hole. He tried to stop full-energy collisions unsuccessfully in US and European courts (Lite). Dr. Otto E. Rossler has similar concerns about black hole creation, but his arguments are considered self-contradicting and fail to bridge gaps between his claims and evidence (KET). The most recent and convincing arguments come from a German astrophysicist, Dr. Plaga Rainer. Dr. Rainer believes that you cannot rule out the possibility, however unlikely, of Earth-devouring black holes and dangerous theoretical Hawking radiation (Plaga). Ultimately, all of the opposition has failed to stop the LHC from operating at its full capacity. In summer of 2009 the LHC will achieve energies five times that of any collider before it (Large Hadron Collider).

Stranglets
________________________________________

Stranglet properties

Stranglets are microscopic parcels of strange matter. In particle physics, normal atoms made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons are called nuclear matter. Nuclear matter is what the elements consist of and what gives them their unique properties. The individual protons, neutrons, and electrons are made up of quarks--specifically, up and down quarks. However, strange matter equally consists of up, down, and strange quarks while nuclear matter does not contain strange quarks. Strange matter more simply put is matter made of equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks that are more stable than nuclear matter, but for the purposes of this paper, negative stranglets are the subject for concern. Positive stranglets would be repelled by ordinary matter posing no threat. However, negative stranglets would actually be attracted to normal matter. It is theorized if negative stranglets were to come into contact with ordinary matter, it would instantaneously convert the nuclear matter into strange matter removing any properties it originally had. The concern is that a negative stranglet could convert the entire Earth into strange matter erasing at the atomic level every unique property about the Earth (Witten).

Evidence against stranglets

First, strange matter has never been observed anywhere. Strange quarks have been detected and created in laboratories for decades, but they have always decayed within a nanosecond, and more importantly have never created a stranglet. Strange matter is supposed to be the end product of nuclear matter if nuclear matter is not stable infinitely. It is also purely theory that strange matter could be more stable than nuclear matter. Regardless, the most likely place to find strange matter is neutron stars. Neutron stars are the end product of a star that is not quite massive enough to turn into a stellar black hole, but much more massive than our own star. At the atomic level, neutron stars are literally a gigantic nucleus packed so tight that individual atoms cannot form. Neutron stars are the focus of the search for strange matter and the focus of stranglet arguments (LHC Safety Study Group) (John Ellis).

If a neutron star contains strange matter it is called a strange star. However, there are many difficulties when it comes to finding these theoretical strange stars. Astronomers have been observing neutron stars for many decades, but the problem with detecting strange stars is that we are not sure what the observable difference is between strange stars and neutron stars. There are many great starting points, but astronomers lack the understanding of strange matter to form observational tests. However, observations of neutron stars have not demonstrated great cause to doubt they are neutron stars. In essence, we have not found any strange stars which when taken in context with the LHC, gives reason to worry about the formation of negative stranglets (Ghosh) (LHC Safety Study Group) (John Ellis).

Micro black holes
________________________________________

Black hole properties

Micro black holes are essentially black holes that have incredibly low mass. In astrophysics, we believe that the smallest star that can form into a black hole is estimated to be 25 solar masses or 25 times the mass of our sun. Normal black holes usually come in two types: stellar mass black holes formed from the collapse of super-massive stars and billion plus solar mass super-massive black holes at the center of most galaxies (Black Hole). The common understanding of black holes sucking up everything around it is incorrect. Except for the event horizon, everything is normal about the gravitational field. For instance, if our sun was to magically turn into a black hole right now, our orbit, Mercury’s orbit, Jupiter’s orbit, or any other gravity-dependent variable would not change in any way whatsoever. However, our solar system would freeze because black holes do not shine as our star does. Besides the fact that our sun will never be a black hole, the only difference between it and its theoretical black hole twin is its radius. In our sun’s case, the radius is much larger than its event horizon. The sun’s black hole twin has a radius that is smaller than it’s event horizon. The event horizon is the point where light can no longer reach escape velocity. On the other hand, micro black holes have been theorized to form when super high-energy cosmic rays collide with atmospheres or the surfaces of neutron stars. At this incredibly low mass, micro black holes are supposed to evaporate into bright flashes of dangerous gamma radiation, according to Steven Hawking. Almost the entire scientific community has regarded the radiation to be negligible because it would be such a small amount. The other concern about micro black holes are if this incredibly small black hole could begin to accrete. They have masses around the atomic level, so their gravity is very small. Not only would it be very implausible for micro black holes to accrete a significant amount of matter, they are expected to leave the Earth near the speed of light.

Scenarios of micro black hole formation

There are two main scenarios proposed for micro black hole formation. However, Dr. Plaga proposes a third scenario that he believes is the one to be concerned about.

• The produced micro black holes decay immediately in flashes of gamma radiation via Hawking radiation.

• The produced micro black hole would pass through the Earth in any direction near the speed of light accreting an infinitesimally small amount of matter, if any.

• Dr. Plaga believes that astrophysical evidence does not rule out the idea of a micro black hole accreting matter, and that a micro black hole could be stable and not escape Earth’s gravity because the particles at the LHC collide from opposing directions at similar energies while cosmic rays collide with much greater energies from a single direction.

Evidence against dangerous micro black holes

The main concern about micro black holes and the LHC is that when the LHC is colliding protons at its maximum energy of 7 TeV micro black holes could form. One of the main arguments against the black hole formation within the LHC is cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are high energy rays that originate from things like supernovae and black holes. These cosmic rays have energies that are literally 100,000 times greater than what the LHC produces. Throughout Earth’s 4.5 billion year history over 100,000 cosmic rays have struck the Earth. The basic argument is that if these much more powerful collisions that occur with cosmic rays happen all the time while the Earth still exists, then the much less powerful collisions at the LHC pose no threat (John Ellis) (Steeven B. Giddings).

Some people have rightly pointed out that the model of cosmic ray collisions with the Earth does not rule out dangerous micro black holes (Plaga). A much more convincing argument lies in astrophysics. As said earlier, neutron stars are essentially huge atoms because the neutrons are packed so tightly atoms do not have room to form. These neutron stars are the perfect target for cosmic rays. The fact that neutron stars are so dense exponentially raises the probability that a micro black hole would form from cosmic ray collisions. In observations of neutron stars, no micro black holes have ever been observed accreting mass from neutron stars (John Ellis).

Shortly after Dr. Plaga published his article making the claim that micro black holes could remain in the Earth and accrete matter at a runaway rate, Dr Steven B. Giddings and Michelangelo L. Mangano published a paper claiming that Dr. Plaga’s math contains basic inconsistencies. Also, another paper titled Exclusion of black hole disasters at the LHC was published summarizing all arguments made for black hole formation, and the paper concluded that the LHC poses no danger in any logical manner. The basic argument behind dismissing Dr. Plaga’s argument is if micro black holes can remain within the Earth’s gravitational influence, then it must occur in things like neutron stars where the gravity is much stronger. Also, if the black hole does remain within the Earth or neutron stars, there is no risk of the black hole accreting matter on timescales less than its natural lifetime (The Earth’s natural lifetime is estimated to be 13 billion years.). Essentially, because a neutron star has never turned into a black hole and that Dr. Plaga’s math is inconsistent, the last remaining scenario of a black hole disaster poses no danger at all (Benjamin Koch) (John Ellis) (Steeven B. Giddings).

Conclusion
________________________________________

The LHC represents the next great step in our understanding of how matter works. The standard model that physicists have been working on for decades could be proven correct, or it could send physicists back to the drawing board as Stephen Hawking predicts. If the LHC discovers extra dimensional particles, like the graviton, the LHC could shed light on string theory or even the multi-verse theory. Up until now, those theories have only consisted of elegant mathematical formulas with no physical evidence making them largely hypothetical. For the first time ever the LHC could turn them into real physical science. If the graviton can finally be observed, man’s future space exploration could greatly exceed the bounds of our solar system. Things like floating cars or anti-gravity enhanced spacecraft that could finally make space travel economical could exist. Graviton control could make things like moon bases and Mars bases a fraction of a percent of their current proposed costs.

Not only is it extremely exciting for particle physicists, it is also exciting for big bang researchers. The LHC will spend some of its operating time recreating energies that have not been seen in the universe since almost instantly after the big bang occurring. While the big bang theory explains the current observable evidence, it does not explain everything about how the big bang actually worked. The LHC could solidify or modify the big bang theory to a much higher degree increasing our understanding of the origin of our universe greatly.

After examining the current scientific debate about dangerous scenarios at the LHC, it becomes clear than neither stranglets or micro black holes pose any real danger. The proposed dangerous scenarios for stranglets already exist at places like the RHIC, and the LHC is actually less likely to produce stranglets than the RHIC. Also, all proposed scenarios for micro black hole formation have been examined in great detail by many in the scientific community, and there is a consensus among almost all scientists that none of the possible scenarios for micro black hole formation pose any threat to the Earth. This concludes that the LHC poses absolutely no danger, and it represents the next great leap in our understanding of the universe.

Works Cited
________________________________________
BBC. On the hunt for the Higgs boson. 9 September 2008. 19 November 2008 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7598000/7598686.stm>.

Benjamin Koch, Marcus Bliecher, Horst Stocker. "Exclusion of black hole disaster scenarios at the LHC." arXiv (2008).

Black Hole. 19 November 2008. 19 November 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes#cite_note-21>.

Ghosh, Sanjay K. "Astrophysics of Strange Matter." arXiv (2008).

John Ellis, Gian Giudice, Michelangelo Mangano, Igor Tkachev, Urs Wiedemann. Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions. CH 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland: Theory Division, Physics Department, CERN, 2008.

KET. "The LHC is safe." Wuppertal: University of Wuppertal, 1 August 2008.

Large Hadron Collider. 19 November 2008. 19 November 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider>.

LHC Safety Study Group. Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group. Geneva: CERN, 2003.

Lite, Jordan. Judge scraps lawsuit over Large Hadron Collider. 9 September 2008. 19 November 2008 <http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=judge-scraps-lawsuit-over-large-had-2008-09-30>.

Plaga, Rainer. "On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantium-black holes produced at particle colliders." arXiv (2008).

Rossler, Otto E. A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma. Tubingen: University of Tubingen, 2008.

Steeven B. Giddings, Michelangelo L. Mangano. "Astrophysics implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes." Physical Review (2008).

Witten, Edward. "Cosmic Separation of Phases." Physical Review (1984).

I have some good news and I have some bad news...

2008-11-27T08:05:00.000-08:00

Disclaimer: When people mess with the well-being of children, it makes my blood boil. As such, even the "good news" section of this note results in a pretty strong rant. If you're faint of heart, keep reading - it'll be good for you.

Let's start with the bad: one last time, science is going to suffer at the hands of the current President before he is finally (and mercifully) sent packing back to that shithole we call "Texas."

Before he leaves, Dubya is filling federal positions dealing with science policies with the same type of people he has always appointed: those who are grossly unqualified. Needless to say, AAAS President James McCarthy is pissed:

"It's ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure," said James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer who is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "You'd just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments."

Ouch. This is coming from one of our most austere science organizations, and one that was slower than most to criticize ID for fear of offending people. Glad to see McCarthy pulling no punches over this.

So how bad could it be?

"In one recent example, Todd Harding -- a 30-year-old political appointee at the Energy Department -- applied for and won a post this month at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. There, he told colleagues in a Nov. 12 e-mail, he will work on "space-based science using satellites for geostationary and meteorological data." Harding earned a bachelor's degree in government from Kentucky's Centre College, where he also chaired the Kentucky Federation of College Republicans.

Also this month, Erik Akers, the congressional relations chief for the Drug Enforcement Administration, gained a permanent post at the agency after being denied a lower-level career appointment late last year.

And in mid-July, Jeffrey T. Salmon, who has a doctorate in world politics and was a speechwriter for Vice President Cheney when he served as defense secretary, had been selected as deputy director for resource management in the Energy Department's Office of Science. In that position, he oversees decisions on its grants and budget."

Can we please get this dangerous, simpering git out of Washington as soon as possible?

Ok, good news to balance that out. A Florida court has overturned the ban on gay adoption, and has included us a wonderful paragraph of sanity:

"It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent. A child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to their needs."

Of course, we're already hearing "Judicial activism! Waaaaaaah!" from the ~~religious~~ other side. We're also hearing the same shit that came out of Arkansas a month ago:

"Everywhere in the law where children are affected, the standard must always be what is in the best interest of the child," said Stemberger, an attorney in Orlando. "What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window. Children do better with a mother and a father."

To quote my dad:

"They shovel that manure out as if leaving 2/3 of the foster care kids with NO HOME AT ALL somehow achieves that "best environment" and somehow doesn't "harm children in ways that show up later in life". How stupid and gullible can people be? Talk about shit for brains.

You have to hate and fear homosexuals a lot to pass a law that hurts both children and heterosexuals in order to "get the gays". I think it is both disgusting and pathetic that people would use children as expendable pawns in their culture wars."

You know what? Statistically, kids to better with rich parents than they do with poor parents. They also do better with educated parents than with non-educated parents and better with white parents than they do with black parents (statistically speaking), but any laws prohibiting those demographics from rescuing a child from a fucking orphanage would rightly look cruel and retarded (as long as we're talking about throwing standards out the window, jackass)

And as usual, what's the culprit? Faith. Not stupid people who happen to be religious, but faith. The culprit is the very notion that believing in things (and hence formulating your world view) without evidence and clinging to that belief no matter how ridiculous, discriminatory, or malicious is not only a good thing, but the best thing. It's the only way that people could divorce themselves from basic human empathy to such an extent as to harm children to get a group of people that want to help the children. And it's the only way people could so eagerly spit on the products of our 21st century understanding in order to do so.

Yet it's "disrespectful" for people like me to point out how indescribably stupid those beliefs are. Tough shit, your religion is false. Your religion, the only motivation there can possibly be to discriminate against these normal people given the findings of science is false, so you can stop believing it. There are no talking snakes, witches, or pernicious gods that get pissy when people work on the wrong day (and there never were), and dredging the moral imperatives of times before Christ into the 21st century based on believing such nonsense is the very definition of pious idiocy. At the very least you deserve to be mocked for being so gullible, even for the minority of voting Christian voices who don't let their credulity turn them into bigots.

Sarah Palin Turkey Interview

2008-11-23T21:08:00.000-08:00

Sarah Palin is a retard. Proof: she conducts an interview with local media right in front of a farmer slaughtering turkeys. *Warning*-Graphic turkey slaughter action.

Surfing teh Interwebs is Good for You!

2008-11-23T19:33:00.000-08:00

A new study has proven that surging the internet is good for teenagers.

Not a teenager? Not to worry! It turns out that surfing the web is just as good for everyone else, too.

Each volunteer underwent a brain scan while performing web searches and book-reading tasks.

Both types of task produced evidence of significant activity in regions of the brain controlling language, reading, memory and visual abilities.

However, the web search task produced significant additional activity in separate areas of the brain which control decision-making and complex reasoning - but only in those who were experienced web users.

Yay for not ending up like this guy!

If 'God' had a Facebook page:

2008-11-23T19:18:00.000-08:00

Well, what do you know, College Humor actually comes up with something not involved half naked chicks or booze. Kind of.

Behold, the 'God' Facebook page!

Here's a little taste of what it's like (but I highly recommend going to the page and reading it all):

Sweet Map Action

2008-11-23T10:23:00.001-08:00

So, I was listening to NPR the other day I learned about World Mapper. This guy, Mark Neuman, and his team of super nerds have come up with an alternative mapping method which re-sizes areas on a map according to a certain subject of interest.

For example, here is the normal election map that is sectioned out by state:

This map can seem somewhat skewed because it seems like, due to visibility alone, that Montana would have more influence over New York because it appears larger on the map. However, New York has more electoral votes because of the larger population, which this map doesn't show.

Check out Mark's alternate version:

Freakin' cool! The areas are skewed to properly show how much influence each red or blue state has.

More maps can be found on World Mapper and they are all pretty awesome.

They are Coming to Your Town...

2008-11-21T14:23:00.000-08:00

I hate to pull down the level of the posts lately. JT has been doing a great job keeping the posts up to a high intellectual standard.

But this is just so funny...

You can buy the FIVE PACK TODAY!!!

Note: I just read a beautiful little piece over on the Friendly Atheist's blog on this video. Very well done. =)

Chuck Norris should shampoo my crotch

2008-11-21T05:27:00.000-08:00

I've seen this letter from Chuck Norris circulating around the intertewbz, including the blogs of two good friends of mine. So I figure I need to say something about it.

The first seven paragraphs are the Association Fallacy, trying to insinuate that a few isolated incidences are indicative or approved of by the whole of those supporting equal rights.

No, almost all of us condemn violence. If this logic works, then all Christians pray their children to death, hate science, and are members of the Ku Klux Klan. If that sounds absurd to you, then Chuck is not off to a very good start. Chuck's whole letter depends on asserting that something is the case when it's not the case. The instances of violence are rare and are an exception to the rule - yet Chuck, for his spiel to work, has to invert reality and convince us that most protesters are shoving old ladies. This is dishonest and wrong. Rather, throughout the protesting we are seeing stuff like this:

"Throughout the entire event demonstrators were thanking the police," said Long Beach Police Sgt. David Marander. "It wasn't an adversarial event, except for the few who were there to cause trouble."

"Other than a smashed police car window, there were no reports of property damage nor injuries."

Or this:

"A similar protest took place in San Diego, where around 11,000 people demonstrated peacefully despite an attempt by anti-gay marriage activists to disrupt the march, police said. One man was arrested for attempting to incite violence before being released."

Afterward, he admonishes us to accept the will of the majority. This is a means of circumventing the discussion about whether or not what the majority wants is moral. Consider the following paragraph:

"The truth is that the great majority of those opposed to blacks marrying whites are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman of the same ethnicity. Their opposition to Loving vs. Virginia wasn't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage."

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? "We weren't trying to be bigoted, we just think you should have to abide by our tradition when choosing who you should marry." That would be downright hilarious if people weren't serious when they used that argument leading up to 1967, when people of different races were finally allowed to marry.

First, it doesn't matter if it's your tradition - if your tradition is exclusionary, if it insists that others abide by your tradition while forsaking their own, it's bigoted and hate-mongering.

Second, Chuck doesn't seem to know much about the history of marriage, even within his own faith. It has not always been between one man and one woman. Hell, if the tradition had never changed, marriage in the Christian faith would not even be about love.

Third, Christian marriage is not the only marriage. Many religions recognized by our government will, and always have, married people of the same gender. To insist that people abide only by your ideal of marriage is, wait for it, ignoring and suppressing the traditions of other religions. All the same, why does years of tradition matter? I just fasted for 20 minutes and had a revelation that Zothar the Lizard King is the one true god (tm), and I am now forming a religion and starting my own traditions which include marrying people of the same gender and forbidding marriage to somebody of the opposite gender. If my faith gets the nod governmentally, I'm not being a hatemonger - I'm just adhering to my own tradition.

Wait, my tradition is needlessly discriminatory? Shit...

Or, try this paragraph:

"Nevertheless, bitter African-American activists simply cannot accept the outcome as being truly reflective of the general public. So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those white-skinned and religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and especially Mormons, who allegedly are robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their right to vote and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views on slavery."

The fact that slavery was once the overwhelming will of the American public, endorsed by their moral and traditional views, never made it moral. The majority was wrong then, and you can bet they used arguments like this to circumvent the argument of whether or not what they wanted was right or fair, even as they asserted that they were being moral, just like Chuck is doing.

Other people who have been unable to accept the majority's traditional views on morality have been Susan B. Anthony and Dr. Martin Luther King. Yes, the majority had spoken, but as Dr. King once said (from a jail cell, no less), "It is the duty of every decent man to disobey unjust laws."

On protesting black churches, it's hard to protest a race. A race is not a belief-set. Even if 70% of voters with brown eyes had supported prop 8, protesting people with brown eyes would just be silly. However, those people who attend churches (and voted for it by a clip of 86%) which donated tens of millions of dollars to the campaign to get prop 8 passed, they are clearly culpable and should be protested. That being said, gay rights people should be protesting "black" churches - but because they are churches that contributed, not because they are "black."

The rest is more conflating those upset about losing their rights with "violent thugs," including Chuck's quote of Colson. Yes, we are begging Americans, particularly those on the religious right, for tolerance. You can't really be surprised when we don't buy your insistence that those of us being intolerant of the discrimination you voted for are themselves the intolerant ones. Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.

The rest of it is Chuck pissing and moaning about violent protesters that make up a few isolated incidences and have been condemned by virtually every gay rights organization both in CA and nation-wide. If you buy this, you are neither reading nor watching the news.

So, here's a brief recap of Chuck's arguments:

1. Majority rules.

Yes, it does, and now we are bound by the law. That doesn't make it right, and to invoke this is to avoid the argument about whether or not it was right.

2. All/most of the protesters are violent.

Anybody who glances at the news in the morning will know this is bullshit. Yet, people believe it when Chuck says it without doing any fact-checking. These people vote. Ug.

3. We're not bigots, our faith is just different than yours and so you have to abide by ours.

...really?

The most overt Chuck Norris joke seems to be Chuck Norris himself.

On the notion of tolerating intolerance, as Chuck is asking us to do, Mark Morford once said it better than I ever could.

Space - we're tackling it a little bit at a time.

2008-11-13T23:21:00.000-08:00

It's been such an exciting time for Astronomy lately. We've discovered water on Mars, which means that microbial life is probably there. The next rover we send over there should be able to determine this for sure. The Garden of Eden had quite the extended reach, it seems...

Also, we have our first images of exoplanets orbiting other stars. We have discovered over 300 planets now that orbit stars outside our solar system, and that number is perpetually growing. So far, we've found no Earth-size terrestrial planets, although there's the possibility of one around Gliese 876.

These images are huge news! And, if it's huge news in Astronomy, you know Phil Plait will have to have to weigh in.

You'll notice that not once did we ever have to pray our way to these results - nor is this information found anywhere in the bible between instructions on how to keep slaves and sacrifice animals. This is the accomplishment of mortals, period. Let this be a lesson to all of us: we can pray for things to change, or we can use that time changing them by taking in reality for what it truly, and beautifully, is.

Gay Marriage: the Arguments

2008-11-12T10:18:00.000-08:00

This is a collection of all the arguments I have heard against gay marriage, and the reason why they are factually errant, logically vacuous, cruel and without empathy, or a combination of the three.

In order to get into some of these arguments, we all need to be on the same page about marriage's development. Historically speaking, the notion of marriage is a nebulous concept that changes constantly. While marriage traditions differ greatly from culture to culture, marriage within Jewish culture and subsequently Christian culture was seldom an issue of love, but rather a means of producing children, securing bloodlines, and managing property rights. This is why a widow was made to marry her husband's brother. Also, throughout much of it, women were considered chattel, which was a different way of saying "property" (the word itself being derived from "cattle").

The History

Polygamy.

"Although [polygamy] was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce." ~ St. Augustine, The Good of Marriage

Indeed, even Martin Luther, the catalyst for the Protestant Reformation from which we derive what would become our Christianity, wrote "I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture."

In 1650, the parliament of Nürnberg decreed that men could take up to ten wives for a brief period, and the Catholic Church adopted it.

Religious philosophers, starting with Augustine in the 5th century, debated the issue of polygamy for centuries. However, it was the Roman Catholic Church that put an official end to the practice in the 12th century.

Endogamy.

Marrying only within a particular social group (the opposite of exogamy, which is marrying outside your particular social group). Many Muslim groups still engage in this, as do some Christian groups. Until 1967, Christian groups opposed exogamy in the form of marrying somebody of a different race (thus supporting endogamy). Names for these types of laws were often similar to Virginia's "Racial Integrity Act," and they werejustified as defending the traditional meaning of marriage. They did this citing passages from the bible, the most frequent of which was Phinehas and the curse of Ham. It should be noted that these laws would have prevented the marriage of Barrack Obama's parents.

Arranged Marriages.

These have been prevalent throughout history. We owe arranged marriages to the Hebrew edicts that marriage preserve property rights, as well as the tradition of marriage to tackle primarily financial issues. Often these marriages were conducted by proxy, in which somebody stood in for the groom. It is this tradition of marriage as a financial matter that gave us the idea of a dowry.

It was the troubadors of the 12th century that introduced the concept of romantic love to the notion of marriage, and begun to emancipate us from marriage, both in the religious and political sense, as an economic institution.

The list of assundry changes to the idea of marriage could quite literally go on forever, but this should be sufficient for arguments I'm about to make.

The Arguments

It is plain to see that any argument against gay marriage is merely bigotry dressed up as an argument, and if we are to be moral, good human beings with sensible moral imperatives, we must oppose bigotry wherever it rears its devout, ugly head.

We cannot "redefine marriage."

We cannot redefine marriage for whom? Marriage exists in many cultures and many faiths differently than it exists in yours. There is not a single definition of marriage, and the United States government recognizes several faiths as legitimate religions that have a different definition than yours. Many of these faiths will marry people of the same gender. To recognize one religion over another legally is an abrogation of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

By saying that we cannot redefine marriage, you are simply saying that the country must recognize your idea of marriage and grant you the monopoly on the concept. This is flagrantly discriminatory and for no good reason.

We must keep the traditional value of marriage.

Again, you do not seem to grasp the notion that there is no "traditional" value for marriage. The term is broad, and even marriage in your faith changes constantly (historically speaking). You really just want to force others, with their own notion of marriage (which is just as legitimate as yours) from keeping with their tradition. So in reality, it is you who is ignoring other cultures by demanding that they adhere to yours.

Also, as we've seen, tradition is a very poor measuring stick for what is fair. Traditionally, the United States allowed you to keep slaves (until we broke from that wicked tradition). Traditionally, blacks were not able to marry a majority of the citizens in the United States who didn't share their ethnic minority. We rightly eliminated those laws - far later that we should have. Tradition should be eliminated if it conflicts with compassion. There is no need to maintain a practice from a dated society with different needs than our current one, that conflicts with modernity. To do so could only be called regressive and stupid.

My brother put it very well once:

"I hear there are some voodoo hoodoo tribes in Africa where it’s a passage to manhood to rip some poor sap’s still-beating heart out of his chest and eat it raw while prancing about on a bed of hot coals and whacking off with their free hand. I hope they get rid of that tradition – that one sucks.

Some traditions should be flushed down the proverbial toilet, or at least be given a few rigorous wipes to make them applicable to modern society."

Homosexuality is a life-style choice.

Even if it is...who cares? Your traditional marriage once forbid marriage to a non-believer, which is certainly a choice. Why should whether or not loving somebody of the same gender is a choice even matter?

The following is a non-sequitor, since whether or not it's a choice is irrelevant.

Our most prestigious batteries of medical minds say it's not a choice. This is from the American Psychological Association in response to the question of whether or not homosexuality is optional:

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

All credible medical bodies are in concert with the APA on this subject. In order to part ways from them, you must have a good reason to deny the consensus of the experts. What is it?

Marriage is for the production of children.

Your idea of marriage may be. But, once more, you do not hold all the rights to the notion of marriage. Nobody is insisting that you must alter your particular set of tribalistic rules to accommodate groups you want to exclude, so nobody wishes to alter your concept of marriage. It is you who wants to forcibly exclude other ideas of marriage from their protection under the first amendment because those ideas do not mesh with yours. If you can do that, what prevents others from doing the same to you?

If marriage were for the production of children, we would have laws against impotent couples (which make up about 15% of marriages), we would take away children from single-parent homes, and we would make procreation requisite for marriage. We do none of the above. We tried to do so in 2007 with Washington Initiative 957. Initiative 957 or the "Defense of Marriage Act" would have required a couple to prove they were capable of having children in order to be married, and it would have annulled their marriage if they did not produce offspring within three years. The measure failed and rightly so - because marriage is not exclusively about producing children in the eyes of our country.

If you want your definition of marriage to be about producing and rearing kids, great. Nobody is saying you cannot do this. But to insist that others forsake their traditions, religious or otherwise, and abide by yours is tyrannical and wrong.

Even if it were about raising children, adoptions happen (many of the orphans coming from straight-marriage homes), and gay people are certainly capable of handling that responsibility. The American Medical Association, perhaps the most austere medical organization on Earth, supports gay people raising children:

Our AMA will support legislative and other efforts to allow the adoption of a child by the same-sex partner, or opposite sex non-married partner, who functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child.

The American Psychological Association follows suit:

Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's.

According to the Department of Human Services in my home state of Arkansas, on any given day there are about 3,700 children are in foster care with only about 1,100 foster homes ready to take them. So even if gay people cannot produce children (a fact that is irrelevant for the purpose of denying them marriage), they can still adopt and provide a child with a loving family they wouldn't have had otherwise.

If you are denying gay people familial rights that currently, in states like Arkansas, prevent them from adopting children, your policies are hurting children even as you pose as defenders of our progeny. If you are doing this, you should be ashamed of yourself.

The slippery slope argument.

The idea is that if we let gays get married we must also let polygamists get married. I have also heard other wretched comparisons used with this argument, like if we let consenting adult gays get married we must also let pedophiles marry their prey or let people marry animals.

This argument was also invoked by pious Christians leading up to the landmark 1967 decision to allow interracial marriage. If we let blacks marry whites, what next? The correct answer is, nothing. Each issue must be weighed on its individual merits and for fairness of its own account. If the slippery slope argument is to hold, what keeps us from slippery sloping in the other direction? What keeps the government from saying that you can't marry whomever you choose based on your income, or some other arbitrary measure?

In the case of gay marriage, you are not protecting anybody. These are consenting adults, who have found happiness in each other's arms. There is no harm. There is no danger. Why do we need to have laws against this? Who are we protecting by doing so?

The one-size fits all approach to marriage.

The idea here is that gay people have the same rights as straight people: they can marry somebody of the opposite gender. This is really just another way of saying that your particular idea of marriage (out of tens of thousands on Earth) should be the only one, and that people somehow have full rights because they can adhere to your sense of marital propriety.

That's just stupid.

Outro

This is a growing document, so I will be perpetually adding facts to it and addressing new arguments as they arise. If you have anything to contribute, please e-mail it to me at jteberhard@gmail.com or leave a comment.

All of us know what it is like to be discriminated against for one reason or another. If you would prevent that unpleasantness from being visited on perfectly normal and perfectly good people for no good reason whatsoever, speak out.

While life may not be fair, the unfairness does not have to come from us, as compassionate human beings. If you have a sense of justice, and want to wash your hands of unethical treatment of others, speak out.

If you want to be somebody who views us as a single race trying to share happiness on this rock we call Earth, rather than an agent of a balkanizing tribe, speak out.

In short, if you have empathy, and truly want to transcend the vagaries of our different cultures. to share yours and acknowledge others', you cannot sit silently on this issue - and you must not let any of the terrible arguments that allow people to ignore the well-being of others to advance.

I Am A Figher of H8

2008-11-11T21:11:00.000-08:00

This Saturday, at 12:30pm Central time, people are rallying across the nation in protest to California's passage of Proposition 8. Proposition 8 banned same-sex marriage in the state that only month's before had begun to allow same-sex marriages. 18,000 same-sex couples had been married in the state when the Supreme Court's decision was overruled by that Prop 8.

So, we're speaking out. There are rallies all over the country. Specifically in Missouri, there are rallies in St. Louis, Kansas City, Cape Girardeau and here in Springfield. I urge you to attend one of these rallies.

I, along with others of the Juggernauts, are helping with the Springfield rally. We need all the support we can get. It is a peaceful protest, so leave your angry words and Fuck You signs at home. Please come and support equal rights for everyone.

I Am A Fighter of H8
Nationwide Rally Against Proposition 8
Saturday, Nov. 15
12:30pm
Park Central Square in downtown Springfield

For other rallies in other cities or states, visit this website.

Keith Olberman rules all

2008-11-11T16:18:00.000-08:00

And here's the proof:

Oh, and, p.s.-

"Country First" my ass...

2008-11-11T16:13:00.001-08:00

The shrieking about Obama’s election has still not ceased from the losers of this last election. In fact, it seems as though so many of them are emotionally invested in the failure of Barrack Obama, even two months before he has taken office. This strikes me as odd, since President-elect Obama can only possibly fail if the nation fails. That is the measuring stick for Mr. Obama. If you want our nation to excel, you must want Obama to excel. Likewise, you cannot uncouple yearning for his failure from yearning for the failure of America. And we know which one you’re doing, you’ve made no bones about it. Country first…yeah, right.

No, if Obama succeeds, and the nation thrives, it means that you were wrong…and you can’t have that, even if it means the return of our nation to the prominence it enjoyed about eight years ago. It’s the same reason you can’t let gay people get married. If you do, and the world doesn’t crumble, it means you and your silly book were wrong.

I can think of very few people I know, especially “liberals,” who opposed our entrance into Afghanistan when Bush wanted to chase Osama Bin Laden. We may not have voted for Bush, but we stood behind him – we wanted him to be right, for the sake of our country. We turned on him when he turned on us with his ridiculous invasion of Iraq. We absolutely did give Bush a chance. We took on the role of the loyal opposition, and we stood behind him as our President when he rightly reacted to the horror of Sept 11th.

He asked America to put the sword in his hand and trust him, and that is exactly what we did. But we also expected him to do the right thing and he didn't. He said he would use the power we handed him only if it were necessary…and he lied. It was then and only then that we questioned his judgment and actions and started speaking out about it.

With that in mind, I call on those of you who opposed Obama to at least give our new President a chance. Refusal to do so is just not the American way, and it belies your giddy anticipation for each time the United States might stumble over the next four years – only because it would make you “right,” even at the expense of our country.

You droned it for over a year: “Country first.” Time to own up to it.

Thanks to my father and a friend for the inspiration, and portions of this blog.

Playing Chess With Pigeons

2008-11-11T13:42:00.000-08:00

The Title of this blog made me giggle. I'm sure it will have the same effect on anyone who's ever attempted to debate a person of faith.

Umm...

2008-11-10T04:29:00.000-08:00

Jesus-fuck-nuts.

Now we are blowing shit up in other countries, without telling them, who we claim we aren't at war with???

The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States.

I knew this shit was probably happening. But it still is startling to see it in the Times today.

Awesomeness

2008-11-08T17:53:00.000-08:00

This should happen in Springfield

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/reverse-graffiti-activist_n_138621.html#

Oh California...

2008-11-06T09:11:00.000-08:00

After the rather shocking (to me, anyway) pass of Prop 8 (which bans gay marriage) in California, I was happy to learn that thousands are protesting and rallying against such blatant hatred.

Favorite protesting signs include, "Stop the H-8" and "Would You Rather I Married Your Daughter?"

Additionally, Arizona and Florida passed similar laws this past election. Arkansas banned gays from adopting children.

This proves that we still have a long ways to go, people.

Oh, Hai

2008-11-05T17:04:00.001-08:00

P.s., everyone....

OBAMA WON!

*ahem*

Back to rocking faces.

VOTE - Carly Ann's Thoughts on the Issues

2008-11-03T22:18:00.000-08:00

Please vote Obama! Here are my other endorsements:

*Please note that these are only MY endorsements and not the endorsements of the entire Juggernaut team. I have no idea how they are voting on any of these things. Except they better vote for the renewable energy proposition or I will cut a bitch. :) Love you guys!

Sara Lampe is running for State Rep in the 138th district, which is my district. Nancy Hagen is running for State Rep in the 135th district, further south in Springfield. Both women are endorsed by PROMO, Missouri's only Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender advocacy organization. And they don't give out endorsements lightly. So I will be voting for Sara, but if you are in the 135 vote Nancy Hagen!

No on Amendment 4. It's confusing, it has special interests in mind and it's not worthwhile in any way from what I've heard.

No on Amendment 1. What's the point?

No on Proposition A, casino tax to schools. I don't think it's what they're making it out to be on the commercials. Check this blog for more info.

Yes on Proposition B, home health care.

Yes on Proposition C, renewable energy ftw!

Jay Nixon for governor.

Check out SmartVoter.org if you would like to see what will be on your ballot before you go and double check the wording on the issues.

2008-11-03T21:40:00.000-08:00

Hey! It's me, yeah, you're friendly local neighborhood Juggernaut. Just wanted to drop by and tell you that, believe it or not, the Presidential Election is tomorrow and you should go vote.

So....

GO VOTE!

Photoshop N00b

2008-11-03T21:23:00.000-08:00

While this picture could have been photoshopped better, I thought it was worth sharing anyway.You can find the original here.

Letter to the Editor 11/2/08

2008-11-03T09:52:00.000-08:00

Submitted to The Standard:

My Vote is a Weapon

How is it that when a child needs health care it’s “redistribution of wealth”, but when Sarah Palin is redistributing money directly to the citizens of Alaska it’s not? How is it that when we want more money for education it is socialism, but a $5,000 tax credit for health care is not? Exactly how stupid do you think we are?

You have also selected Sarah Palin as your running mate. Never in the history of our political system has such a flagrantly inadequate person been within reach of such an important office. No single person possesses the spectrum of knowledge required to lead this country, this is why they have a panel of various experts (their cabinet). This is why the most important facet of a candidate is their judgment. How better off we’d be if George Bush had appointed somebody competent to the head of FEMA rather than his friend, Mike Brown? By choosing Palin, McCain has approved of her qualifications to feasibly sit at the helm of the most powerful army on the planet. The appointment of Sarah Palin is McCain’s first appointee on the Presidential playing field, and it should rightly be his last.

Your campaign admitted that if it continued to talk about the economy, Obama would win. That’s not a good sign, sir.

We live in a technological age in which we are dependent on the findings of science. Look around you – see the light bulbs, the air planes? Like medicine when you’re ill? Like the fact that we can wrest the paths of hurricanes from a mute nature? Science is far and away our best weapon for surviving in an indifferent, pitiless universe, and your campaign is thoroughly anti-science. You have taken a running mate who believes in witches, thinks the Earth is thousands of years old, speaks in tongues and worse, all while she derides scientific research. This is unacceptable.

You have made an issue of Obama sitting on an education board with a professor from the University of Chicago. You have also tried to tie him to Rashad Khalidi, when you are the chair of the International Republican Institute that funded the Palestine Center, which had Khalidi on the Board of Directors at the time. Anybody who has done a little bit of homework will catch you when you do things like this. It follows that you must be counting on voters not to do their research. That is what you think of us.

To all you voters, ask yourselves what you want with this election. John McCain’s campaign has depended, at every turn, on you being uninformed and eager to make this very important decision based on 30 second sound bites without doing any fact-checking. He has played to your prejudice, he has played to your fear, and he has counted on your ignorance in order to accomplish both.

I am better than that and so are you. Today, the last eight years will come to a merciful end. Today, my vote will be a weapon.

Gonna go vote tomorrow morning... WoOt...

2008-11-03T06:18:00.000-08:00

We all know about the "Bradley Effect". People say they will be voting for a black candidate, but just can't pull the lever when they get into the voting booth.

An interesting possibility is being discussed that this might shift in this election. Perhaps the individual racist tendencies of one person will be overrun by the self-interest for that person. Yes, Obama is (half) black. But he is going to help the economy, get my son out of Iraq, help the working man, and try to improve healthcare.

Sure, they may be racist, but at some point self-interest may override the racism.

An article over at Salon recently referenced a canvassers experience:

A man canvassing for Obama in western Pennsylvania asks a housewife which candidate she intends to vote for. She yells to her husband to find out. From the interior of the house, he calls back, "We're voting for the nigger!" At which point the housewife turns to the canvasser and calmly repeats her husband's declaration.

Something similar happened to Ryan this weekend when we were canvassing. Seems it may be a common trend.

You know... I am 1000% opposed to prejudice. But it does make me happy that people are beginning to look past it, if only for their own self interest.

Ah, Evolution, it's super awesome

2008-11-02T11:05:00.000-08:00

Photo: Sharon Hill

Scientists have recently discovered a new species of Vampire Moth in Siberia. There is evidence that this is a species on a 'new trajectory'...meaning they're evolving.

Evolution at work! Who knew?

(Suck it, conservatives!)

Sarah Palin Disney Movie Trailer!

2008-11-02T00:05:00.000-07:00

Remember what Matt Damon said about Palin's story being like a bad Disney movie? Well someone made a trailer for that bad movie.

Obama + Springfield = <3

2008-10-30T20:33:00.000-07:00

Obama is coming to Springfield on Saturday.

This is very exciting news. If anyone hasn't caught on, Obama is sorta a big deal.

The event is planned for Saturday evening. It is going to start at 6:00 pm over at JFK stadium at Parkview High School.

My plan is to get into town early Saturday morning and keep an eye on the site until people start lining up, and then assume position in the line. I am pretty sure that the rest of Teh Juggernauts will be there vibrating with excitement. You will probably also see a whole array of other honorary team members, assorted Pastafarians, and a few radical parents. =)

This is a first-come-first-serve event and I would encourage getting there early if anyone wants to join into the fray!

Bus Campaign in England

2008-10-30T00:08:00.000-07:00

Oh, My!

Ok, so, here's the lowdown, an atheist group in England raised some money to buy ads on the sides of buses that say "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

They've raised more than double what they needed are are plastering both the insides and outsides of buses all over London.

Atheism ftw!

This isn't political or (a)theological... it just makes the geek in me happy.

2008-10-29T12:06:00.000-07:00

Just in time for Halloween...

Zooilogix, over on ScienceBlogs, posts this National Geographic video:

Great Ad...

2008-10-28T17:49:00.001-07:00

America the Gift Shop

2008-10-27T23:06:00.000-07:00

America the Gift Shop

Photography by Phillip Toledano

(It's political.)

One more week...

2008-10-27T10:37:00.000-07:00

There is a great post over at MudFlats.

The Sarah Palin fairy tale...

Death and Taxes 2009

2008-10-26T12:09:00.000-07:00

You all know I have a love of all things visual. Well, check this here thingy out!

It's a huge, mapped out web of government spending.

From their website:

"Death and Taxes:2009" is a representational poster of the federal discretionary budget; the amount of money that is spent at the discretion of your elected representatives in Congress. Basically, your federal income taxes. The data is from the President's budget request for 2009. It will be debated, amended, and approved by Congress by October 1st to begin the fiscal year.

The poster provides a uniquely revealing look at our national priorities, that fluctuate yearly, according to the wishes of the President, the power of Congress, and the will of the people. If you pay taxes, then you have paid for a small part of everything in the poster."

Best Commercial Evar

2008-10-26T10:56:00.000-07:00

I know what you're thinking, 'Bringing back Wassup?! Totally dumb.' But, seriously, watch this commercial. It's great.

I <3 Fruit Flies

2008-10-25T06:22:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Sarah Palin visted Bass Pro Shops headquarters, nestled in the heart of Springfield, Missouri. Filled with statues of dead deer and growling grizzly bears, it is the literal meca of hunters and outdoor enthusiasts everywhere.

Considering Springfield’s position as a college town, it is reasonable to note that Palin choose not to speak at an academic arena, when there were five highschools, the state university, the private university, and several smaller religious colleges around.

Reading the transcript of the event you begin to understand why she might not go over well with a crowd that follows world events and follows the scientific literature.

As every politician is doing right now, Sarah Palin spent time talking about the budget, where we could cut spending. And she starts talking about pet projects. You know, the pet projects that have "little or nothing to do with the public good".

And you have to ask yourself, where does all that money go? It goes to projects
sometimes having little or nothing to do with the public good, things like fruit
fly research in Paris, France. And I kid you not.

Wait.... fruit fly research in France? That doesn't sound like something American tax dollars should be going to, right? Yet the scientificy-political-sort-of-blogs are getting pretty riled up.

The assumption is that the reference was aimed towards olive fruit fly research based in France. The bill came from a democratic senator out in California. California grows olives, and is being torn apart by a plague of the little critters. According to University of California’s Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program the fruit flies “poses a severe economic threat for the state’s commercial olive growers. The olive fruit fly is considered the most devastating insect pest of olives in the Mediterranean region, where it has occurred for over 2000 years.”

So… democratic representative Mike Thompson directed $742,764 to research on the prevention of infestation. Preventative research that could save an entire agricultural base, considering that 100% profit losses are visible in some table growers, while oil manufactures can suffer 80% losses.

If she was attacking the methodology of the allotment of funds, it would be reasonable. That is not what she is doing. She is attacking the science. “It goes to projects sometimes having little or nothing to do with the public good, things like fruit fly research in Paris, France.” She does not understand how scientific research can have anything to do with the public good.

The focus of the research was on the species Bactrocera [Thanks, anonymous poster, for the information on the fruit fly subspecies, and correcting my attempt to lump them all together]. There is something even scarier underlying this message, however. It is Palin’s complete intolerance for the idea that scientific research is invaluable to our future as a society.

It is especially odd that she would show such intolerance for fruit fly research, considering the importance of fruit fly research in our understanding of human genetic variables. Drosophila... one of the most useful animals for laboratory testing out there... is a subspecies of the fruit fly. Their short lifespan, mapped genomes, and propensity to breed like mad are all things scientists love.

Moments before Palin attacked the funding of fruit fly research aimed at Bactrocera, she spoke about her quest to understand the purpose behind Trig, and her sister's struggles with an autistic son.

“Every child is beautiful before God and dear to Him for their own sake and my
sister Heather who has an autistic teenage son she and I we know that we have
been so blessed with the large and strong family that helps us out, but not
everyone is lucky enough to have that strong network of support and their
experiences then point the way to a better policy in the care of children with
special needs. In a McCain-Palin administration we’ll put the educational
choices for special needs children in the right hands. The hands of parents.”

The odd thing about this overlay of comments is that highly promising leads on the genetic mutations leading to many diseases is coming from drosophila fruit flies. This research survives off government grants, is starting to lead us to a better understanding of many diseases. Diseases like.... you know it is coming... autism. I have an idea. Perhaps her problem isn’t with pork barrel spending. (I mean... Palin doesn't exactly have a history of avoiding pet-projects.)

Perhaps the problem is that Palin is so backwoods-evangelical-nutcase-crazy that she thinks we should all be on our knees instead of out spending our days in laboratories doing research. Perhaps she thinks that God will protect us, so there is no reason to attempt to prevent global warming. With the impending resurrection, do we really need to worry about a pest infestation on of California’s major agricultural crops? We need to be praying for the ill, not actively pursue scientific answers. Actually, lets throw another quote in the fray...

"When I learned that Trig would have special needs I to be honest with you I had
to prepare my heart and I had to do a lot of praying and asking for
understanding and for strength and to see purpose... "

You know what? Prayer, as a placebo, may help the parents but it isn't going to do as much good as the scientific research. Period.

We need to be pouring funding into scientific preventative research.Palin's complete disrespect for science, for our understanding of the human genome, our understanding of evolution, our understanding of genetics, is astounding. If Palin had the best interest of those children, of our entire culture, at heart, she would be pumping money into the research. She would be pumping funds into the scientific community, filling the universities with grants.

Instead she has shielded herself into a cocoon of idealogical fluff. She can't imagine that fruit fly research can have any real world impact. She stands next to McCain as he mutters about the useless "three million dollar overhead projecters". She ignores the National Academy of Science when it openly criticizes her states barbaric practices.

She is bad news for science, bad news for research, and bad news for special needs children. Just because she is able to get up there and rally a crowd doesn't mean she has the credentials to lead our country, or steer us in the right direction.

Watch the clip... Get pissed. Vote against this loon.

[Thanks, again, anonymous poster!]

Sometimes you are just left speechless...

2008-10-20T09:11:00.000-07:00

I don't even know what to say about this one...

The One Million Signatures Campaign is a project by the Iranian Women's Movement in an attempt to gain equality.

Esha Momeni is a graduate student from California who is doing her Master's thesis on the project.

She was recently arrested, and is currently detained in the Iranian intelligence prison.

People tell me that religion does no harm.

Tell me that her arrest has nothing to do with religion. Tell me that this has nothing to do with the blind faith of the Iranian leaders.

My heart goes out to her, and her friends and family.

Photo, and initial heads up, from Feministing.com

Muslims Ruin Everything

2008-10-20T05:36:00.000-07:00

Little Big Planet's soundtrack had a song that had a couple of expressions found in the Qur'an. A Muslim got angry, and Sony decided to take it out.

Apparently Muslims don't like their holy work in pop music.

Muslims ruin everything.

More and more this is becoming a political blog... only two more weeks, kids...

2008-10-19T16:39:00.000-07:00

WTF.

A counter balance to the liberal feminist agenda?

Can someone please explain to me

a. What the liberal feminist agenda is?

b. Why it is hurting America?

**goes to bang head against the wall**

Sarah Palin was on SNL last night

2008-10-19T09:51:00.000-07:00

And she was...okay. I give her props for making fun of herself, but that surely doesn't make it any better than she is dumber than a rock.

I fear that people will think her being on SNL was beneficial for her campaign and that they will wrongly think she is super hip and cool for being on the show.

She didn't really do much other than her usual shit. The cast definitely had to carry her.

I don't know. Crap.

Good Ol' George in Art

2008-10-17T21:12:00.000-07:00

Why I Will Never Get Married, Part One

2008-10-17T20:53:00.001-07:00

Would you allow your husband to name your baby girl Sarah McCain Palin and live?

I certainly wouldn't.

Funny, Yet Frightening

2008-10-16T15:17:00.000-07:00

Ever wondered what Palin's Oval Office would look like? Well, now you know. *shudder*

Know what day it is?

2008-10-13T11:33:00.000-07:00

Happy "America has a long long history of oppressing other cultures" Day!!

Remember what our forefathers did to get here.

I love this country. It is because of my love of this country that I believe that we shouldn't forget the blood that was shed to gain this land, the cultures that were displaced, or the atrocities that our country has committed.

The only way we can avoid making mistakes in the future is to understand our sins of the past.

Hilary Duff does something...good?

2008-10-09T15:39:00.001-07:00

Savage Chickens Cartoon

2008-10-09T15:25:00.001-07:00

McCain calls Obama "That One"

2008-10-08T17:36:00.000-07:00

This comment...disturbed me. I don't really know why...but it was a very, very powerful. It was like McCain was trying to pull some kind of weird grade school bullying but ended up just coming off as super creepy. Check it out for yourself:

Live Blogging the Second Presidential Debates

2008-10-07T17:22:00.001-07:00

7:22pm

Tension mounts as we anticipate seeing McCain get pwned like a mofo. In the meantime, Bigfoot for president!

I think we need to elect Maddox for President. He's the man - and he would own this debate if he were running.

Ryan is 97% erect. (This means that his one inch penis is "erect.") He also wants Lauren to stop transcribing. She won't. Bitch.

7:32pm

We've caught the last few minutes of 8 Mile. Yay. (Sarcasm from Lauren and genuine from JT and Ryan.)

Jt and Ryan say that Eminem is a poet. One of the greatest of our times.

7:36pm

KEITH OLBERMAN RULES! Right now he is pwning McCain. I think it's safe to say we would all do him.

Face off in 22 minutes!

JT predicts that McCain will say 'maverick' 14 times overall.
Ryan predicts that he'll say it 15 times and will be horribly offensive.
Lauren predicts that McCain will blow goats. 16 times.

7:42m

We're back to watching 8 Mile. Joy. (Sarcasm from Lauren and seriousness from JT and Ryan.)

Best scene in the movie! End scene! ZOMG! Transformation from boy to man! *splooge*

Questions that we hope are asked:

In your personal opinion, do you believe that Yaweh will damn all non believers to an infinite afterlife of pain? -Ryan
To Obama-Most economic experts agree that the foundation of this economic crisis began in 1995 with Democrats and Republicans, but mostly Democrats, implementing policies that allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lend to essentially anybody. I realize that the plan was muddled by the Bush administration, but can you at least accept, on behalf of your party, at least some culpability? -JT
To McCain-You say that we cannot take Barak Obama's word on what he is going to do. You say we need to look at his record (of course, his record confirms what he will do). You, on the other hand, are now running on a campaign of change as well, after you have voted with George Bush 90% of the time and 95% of the time on economic issues which have run our economy into the ground. Can you defend your record against your promises of change? -JT
At what point is violence towards the American government an acceptable means of political change for the American public? -Ryan
Why did you choose your VP candidate? Are you fully confident in their abilities? -LA

8:01

Debates starting! Omgz!

The moderator kind of looks like a corpse. He says that I don't have to be constrained at home! Hah.

McCain looks intense. But that's probably because his arms don't ever move. Like a robot's.

Obama looks smexy.

First question is a softball for Obama, he's gonna rock faces! Obama is dodging the question and attacking McCain. Schwoops. Oh....ok, he eventually got around to it. He's starting off on the offensive, good work, Obama!

PUDDING TIMESSS!! Yay.

McCain looks awkward and is being super creepy. He started with platitudes....gah. He talks about accountability in the same breath he says we are going to fix the economic crisis by lowering taxes on *everybody*. Wow.

McCain: "I know how to do " No real explaining how...just saying he knows how. Lower taxes? Affordable houses? I like all these things! ...how are you gonna do it?

McCain's overall speech seems vulnerable and shaky while Obama seems pretty calm and confident. Bones!

Obama has finally grown some claws. Good job, Barrack. They're both using a LOT of fluff, and I hate it.

McCain: Bailout = Rescue. Symantics. Tries to justify suspending his campaign.

Lauren reminds JT that having a laptop on your lap lowers your sperm count. Protect your nutjuice!

McCain wisely calling Obama on the Democrats culpability for subprime loans. Doing so dishonestly though, and still not answering the question. I hope Obama bites back - he has more ammunition.

Same as above - we're gonna have to stabalize home values. Yes...how?

Obama - Demonstrating a solid understanding of the subject matter, ignoring attacks, answering the question. Kudos to Obama.

Still no "Mavericks". JT is likely to beat Ryan's prediction at this point.

Obama calling McCain on the Republican's deregulation (which fucked up Clinton's plan on subprime mortgages). Again, good. Obama has facts at his fingertips and is speaking less in platitudes at this point. This is the Obama I'm excited to vote for.

Brockaw: Are you saying it's gonna get worse?

Obama: Going back to fluff. Damn. Also, it IS going to get worse. Stop telling them what they want to hear and tell them how it is.

McCain - Talks about buying up bad loans. This is a bad idea.

Lady asked how she can trust either of them when both parties are culpable. Seems like an easy response for Obama: "I wasn't there. He was though." Instead, he's hitting talking points on solutions. He's also shooting down McCain's counterarguments before McCain gets the mic. I like seeing that.

McCain: "I've taken on special interests" Bullshit. No senator has received more from oil companies. Also, McCain is terrible with bipartisanship. He's not defending his involvement or responsibility. "Liberal spending record". Good god, please use more buzz words.

Please, everybody - research what this jackass is saying. Factcheck.org owns McCain, and you'll see it all tomorrow.

omg, Obama wuntz a planutareeum - scienz is teh wtf devul - ask Palin.

McCain: "I know how to fix the economy." - THEN WHY HAVEN'T YOU BEEN DOING IT YOU LYING SON OF A BITCH!?!?!?!

McCain resembles some sort of cross between a turtle and Jabba the Hutt.

"I know how to reach across the aisle." Wow, something else he knows how to do but, strangely, hasn't been doing. Weird!

Obama - Admits that being free of Middle Easter oil is a goal without a plan. Ug. At least he's honest. Obama says we need to dump money into education. I like him more now.''

Ryan and Lauren are going to attempt to shoot a fly on the wall with his air soft rifle. This can't go wrong, right? Lauren totally hit its wing! Suck it, Ryan!

Stupid Obama wanting to support science, doesn't he know science is just supported by the Devil? Geez...

All kinds of none-to-subtle implications about Obama and Democrats conducting business in the middle of the night.

"We'll get to work right away" WHY NOT GET TO WORK NOW!?!

Obama - He is winning. Hands down.

Brockaw - How would you beat bad financial habits?

Obama - Empty speaking. We have to fix the problems. Yes, we know that...how?

On to attacking McCain. Not answering per say, but doing so eloquently and with the force (ie facts) as his ally.

McCain - "Last President to raise taxes in economic difficulty was Herbert Hoover". Bullshit. Remember "No new taxes" Bush Sr.?

"I've got some news Senator Obama, and the news is bad" What's the news, jackass?

"I don't support reducing taxes for the wealthy." Bullshit. Click here.

Brockaw should have let Obama respond. McCain knew he had the last word and flat out lied.

Obama throws a straight-talk express dig. Good. Obama talking about how he's going to provide health care now. Using facts, explaining HOW. That makes me happy. In the pants.

McCain - "It's not that hard to fix social security. We know the problems and we know the solutions" WHAT ARE THEY?

McCain still using buzz words - primarily "liberal" Those kids who are playing drinking games are probably halfway there to being under the table. MAVERICK!

Holy shit..."We have to get smart people together and come up with solutions" Three sentences ago you said we KNEW the solutions!

"We'll get our economy going again" HOW!?!

McCain seems to get more dishonest and bitey when he knows he has the last word. He is flat out insulting the moderator as well. Cockbite.

"We can...clean energy...millions of jobs...we as Americans...best workers...etc" HOW??? HOW YOU MERITLESS SACK OF ROBOTIC SHIT!?!?!

Obama just had a home run! Yays.

Ohhhhh....they're getting feisty. This 60 second time limit is tough to enforce. Kind of makes me feel bad for Brockaw.

McCain keeps pulling petty punches against Obama, which he seems to be handling with grace. Wootz.

McCain - "Obama voted for the alternative energy bill loaded down with goodies" Yes, it was - Obama tried to get them stripped, and tried to get them stripped in a subsequent bill. Ultimately, it was too good for alternative energy not to vote for. So this claim is disengenous.

Obama is super awesome. Orgy! Butt orgies!!! (These last two words have been the only two that Ryan has written this entire time!)

McCain keeps giving the people who ask questions blowjobs....Ohhh you're sooo smart! Thanks for the zomg awesome questions! *splooge* ...Puh-lease.

Yup. Companies who can afford to give their employees healthcare do so. Like Walmart.

I'm worried that Obama's pushiness on time, in contrast to John McCain's overemphasized passivity, may work against him.

"How will this current economic hardship affect America's ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?"
Well, first we'd have to do that in the first place, which we don't. Then we'd have to get the UN's approval, which we don't have.

9:02pm

Man, I wish Lauren's "2" key wasn't so fucked up. I also wish that we could have a 30 second per round freestyle battle rap instead of debate. That would be much more entertaining. Maybe they'd come up with something original, instead of just paraphrasing their speeches.

We're cookin' a pizza! WOOOO!

Ryan is not trying to get JT to play hoops with him tonight. It ain't workin'. Sucka!

You know, just 'cause we have this fuckin' laptop doesn't mean that you can't turn your goddamn head and just fucking say whatever the fuck you want me to understand.

I am super cool and can type really fast so FU!

Jt says that's true.

Ohhh the nominees are getting all schoolgirl bickery again! Follow ups, follow ups, follow ups!

P.s.-Obama is kicking McCain's ass. Oh snaps!

Ryan and JT just fist bumped hardcore after seeing Obama's reply to McCain's "speak softly and carry a big stick" shenanigans.

Oh no. Oh HELL no. McCain did NOT just say that he knows how to get Bin Laden. Blackmailing your country into voting for you because you "know how to get him" is fucking unethical! See Keith Olberman's eloquent spiel on the whole thing here (fucking brilliant!).

Look, Iraq is a clusterfuck! We have not won there! Gah.

The fly is back! We're shooting at it with the airsoft gun! Take that, bug eyes!

9:28pm

We're running out of blogging steam....this live blogging stuff is tough business. No joke.

LAST QUESTION! YAY!

Looks like Claire McCaskill is sitting next to Michelle Obama, cool!

We is eating pizzas now....yayyyy....

Well hot damn, McCain can't predict the future! Who knew?

McCain's wife is super young, yikes.

9:35pm

End of debate comments:

McCain handled himself as though he were a high school bully. Obama handled the debate well and was agressive only when necessary. I think McCain spoke primarily in platitudes and fluff while Obama yeilded facts with ease. Obama easily won this debate. -JT

Obama was obviously better than McCain. Between the two, he won. However, it was not his best speech. While he provided lots of substantive facts, he spoke in political rhetoric. Fuck his international policies (Then he threw up the double deuce). -Ryan

Obama did very well in the debate. He was articulate and offered his stance on the issues. I liked how he was agressive and blew apart McCain's obviously unsound arguments and blatant lies. I was a little worried getting into this but he totally pwned McCain's face. Plus, McCain insulted the damned moderator, what a fuckface. -LA

Live Blogging Prez Debate #2

2008-10-07T17:11:00.001-07:00

We're doin' it.

Stay posted!

Ok... I can't hold it back any more...

2008-10-06T09:27:00.001-07:00

I AM SO EXCITED THAT PZ MYERS AND RICHARD CARRIER ARE COMING TO SPRINGFIELD...

EEEEEKKKKS...

Ok. I'm done. Back to statistics.

Wanda Sykes on Sarah Palin

2008-09-28T17:50:00.001-07:00

YAY!

I think I'm in love!

2008-09-28T17:20:00.000-07:00

Listen to this speech. It's FUCKING brilliant.

Mary Kaptur is my hero for speaking her mind. And way to go Ohio for electing a total BAMF rep! YEAH!

An Explanation of Global Warming, Part I

2008-09-24T13:38:00.000-07:00

During the last century, we averaged .07 degrees C warmer per decade (which lept to .13 degrees in the last 50 years). This is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Our concern should be that even a little bit of warming exacerbates the problem. This is because CO2 does not function in water the same way most molecules do. Most molecules are more soluble in warmer water, but CO2 is less soluble in warm water. This means that by even increasing the temperature a little bit, we are reducing the ability of our oceans to hold CO2. This creates a positive feedback situation with our atmosphere that begins a self-perpetuating cycle in which the C02 not absorbed by our oceans helps our atmosphere to trap more heat, which causes the oceans to be able to hold less C02, so on and sof orth. The figures atop this paragraph represent that little bit of warming that will catalyze an exponential increase in temperature in the troposphere (where we live).

For more on this, read here.

Here are the relevant graphs:

The consistent warming of the troposphere is a fact. Period.

So, how much are we contributing to this? First, see this graph.

That is how much we are augmenting the problem. Remember, even a little increase creates an exponential increase, and it's clear that such an increase is precisely what we have. We can cross reference the above research through a variety of methods such as examining the C02 inferred from polar ice cores.

They all point to the exact same conclusion. We can also measure the ppm (parts per million) of C02 in the atmosphere, and we have gone from a pre-industrial average of 280 ppm to 385 now (and this trend is continuing). The only way you could shrug this off is if that addition 105 average ppm didn't make a difference, which I've already established for you it does.

Now, onward to basic physics.

Blackbody radiation:

Suffice for now that a blackbody is a perfect radiator, and thus absorbs energy at all wavelengths and thus reflects none.

You'll also need to have an elementary understanding of Planck's Law, which deals with emission vs. wavelength at a particular temperature. There are several forms of this law, but the one most relevant here deals with wavelength in terms of microns (the reason will become apparent later).

I'll also be using the Wien Displacement Law (the 1st derivative of Planck's Law), which provides us with the peak emission for a specified temperature.

Lastly, you'll also need to be marginally familiar with the Stefan-Boltzman Law (the integral of Planck's Law), which gives us our total emission intensity for a specified temperature.

So, let's start with Solar Irradiance. The surface of the sun runs at about 5,780K - this all must get distributed to our planet somehow. We determine this by using Planck's Law:

(5.67 * 10^-8 Js^-1 m^-2 K^-4)(5,780K)^4
= 6.3 * 10^7 Js^-1 M^-2
= 63 MW per M^2

We can also find the peak wavelength we receive from the sun via the Wien Displacement Law:

Wavelength (in um [microns]) = 2,898um * K/5,780k = .501um = 501nm

These numbers will come in handy shortly. I'll take a moment to point out that it should be clear in this case that we cannot make science say whatever we want. Science points directly, and unequivocally, to very specific conclusions. I say this because I am composing this primarily as a response to somebody who asserted that we could, in fact, make science say whatever we want.

Now, the total amount of energy reaching our outer atmosphere is 1,370 Wm^2. From this, we derive two different figures.

1. The energy delivered to our cross section (pi * r^2)
2. Total amount dispersed over Earth's surface area (4 * pi * r^2)

The total of 1 divided by the total of 2 should give us the average energy reaching our outer atmosphere. This comes out to 342 Wm^2.

Now, go back to blackbody radiation - this is how the Earth works. If the Earth had no atmosphere, it would absorb 342 Wm^2. What temperature would this predict, that would radiate that same amount of power?

342W/m^2 = (5.67 * 10^-8 * w/m^2K^4)T^4
T = 279K or about 6 degrees celsius.

This is pretty damn cold, so something must be missing.

What's missing is the Earth's Albedo. This encompasses what solar irradiance gets reflected from things like clouds, ice caps, water bodies, light colored land, etc. For the Earth, our Albedo is about 30% of solar irradiance.

Figuring out how much energy reaches our surface is pretty easy after we have our Albedo. It's Solar irradiance * (1 - a), with "a" being our Albedo, which comes out to about 240 Wm^-2. So, to attain a stable temperature, we need to balance incoming energy with emitted energy. The 240 Wm-2 in, must be balanced by 240 Wm^-2 out via blackbody radiation of the Earth's surface.

We can use the Stefan-Boltzman Law to determine what surface temperature we would expect to find in this case.

T ={ [240 Wm^-2] / [5.67 * 10^-8 Wm^-2 * K^-4]}^-1/4 which comes out to be 255K (or -18 degrees C).

So, the 255K represents -18C, but we observe the average temperature of the Earth to be about 15C. This predicts 390Wm^-2. How can this be?

It's because about 150Wm^-2 never escapes back into space. It gets absorbed by the atmosphere and re-emitted to the surface. The primary variable in this is greenhouse gasses.

Before I go on, I'll stop to say that I hope you're getting a feel now for how science is not simply a matter of guesses. It is a very precise process of using what we know to wrest our circumstances from a mute nature.

Additionally, before we go forward, it's really not important that you understand any of this (or that I understand all of it which, allow me to assure you, I do not). All that is important is that the experts do understand it. They have dedicated their lives to this, and understand it better than anybody else on the planet. That is why they are in consensus, and it is the reason that people like John Coleman, non-scientists masquerading as experts, are not present in peer-review - their arguments would simply never survive it.

Part II will be coming shortly.

Get ready to feel even more revulsion...

2008-09-24T08:19:00.000-07:00

McCain's campaign manager was being paid $15,000 per month until last month. BY FREDDIE MAC.

Yes. You should be appalled.

Publish Post

Sarah Palin Withdraws From Her VP Spot!!!

2008-09-21T20:20:00.001-07:00

I'm shocked.

Watch the video here.