Thoughts, Theories and Rants on Everything and Anything

Duck v Duct

2007-11-09T17:37:00.008-05:00

Somewhen and somewhere back in the late, great 1950’s the US Government, in response to those silly and naïve fears festering amongst the populace regarding megadeaths by megatons of megabombs, dutifully, and with officious diligence, created the “Duck and Cover” program. Now here was a program with a purpose and, more importantly, a positive message: “you will survive, we promise!”

In order to convince everyone that the government really had their best interests at heart, and to prove the sagacity of cowering under a table or tablecloth and planting your head between your knees to kiss your ass goodbye, they dreamed up a cute little mascot, a Turtle by the name of Bert. And Bert the Turtle was very alert. When trouble threatened him he never … Sorry. The Heimweh, or nostalgia, for an era that is long gone (and mostly before my time) grabbed me by the, well, grabbed me somewhere.

My first experience with the lunacy of the D&C drill was in the first grade. 1968 to be exact. (For some reason, as kindergarteners we were immune to this exercise in gullibility as I suppose it was thought that we lacked the maturity to comprehend the gravitas of these most solemn occasions -- we might have discovered the farce though.)

Anyway, we referred to these solemn occasions as “Retention Drills”. While we dozed, er learned, in our classrooms a very loud claxon would begin its groaning cacophony of six longish death-knell-like plaints – one for each foot under, I suppose. Upon hearing the sixth bell (…when he had opened the sixth seal, lo, there was a great earthquake…) we arose en masse, went to the cloakroom to get our jackets or coats and lined up, behind the teacher who would fearlessly lead us into battle, and proceeded to our assigned spots … along the inner walls of the hallway. (Mind you, we had a fallout shelter, but as that likely would have fallen in anyway, it didn’t much matter). Once we reached the wall we assumed the position as described above and put our coats or jackets over our heads – the poor bastards without either had only their bare arms to protect them – this, we were assured by the pedagogues assembled, would protect us from flying glass.

We were then to remain in the assumed position until the all-clear was sounded. Or, had this been a real emergency, for all eternity.

You see, our school was located less than a half-mile from a Naval Depot; a site far too important to the national defense for those evil-communist-red-atheistic-materialistic-Russians-who-lurked-under-our-beds-everynight to ignore. After all, parts for ships, planes, nuclear-tipped missiles and all the stuff we needed to strike back at those evil-communist-red-atheistic-materialistic-Russian-blah-blah-blahs. Nope, Ivan simply could not leave that one alone.

After the Cold War ended, I heard that the depot had in fact been targeted for destruction by our-former-enemies-and-now-dearest-friends. A 3MT warhead (so it was assumed) was to be the hammer of the godless. While we were all cowering under our coats…boom, three megatons; everything within 3 miles is vaporized and/or scorched and/or toasted in a big ball of thermal radiation (aka fire, heat, ouch, hot); everything with 5 miles is flattened, everything within 10 miles is showered with radiation…

Did I mention that the school was a half-mile away?

Fast forward twenty-three years to September 11, 2001. OK, really to the 12th, or 13th, or whenever it was the Dubya managed to find his cojones and resume the control of the presidency and the nation that Rudy Giulliani had so kindly safeguarded.

In the ensuing panic after the attacks, one of the geniuses at FEMA – probably that idiotic judge of thoroughbred Arabian horses who did a heck of a job later on mangling another disaster – decided that we would be safe from those crazy-Islamic-Arabic-heathen-evildoers-and-suiciders-who-lurk-on-every-web-page-and-in-every-cell should they attempt to use biological, chemical, or nucular weapons on us, if we purchased duct tape and plastic sheeting and used those items to seal off a mid-sized room.

Three people suffocated in a room so prepared. Really. Fortunately, they weren’t in the school – just imagine the lawsuit.

NousEpirrhytos

2007-04-11T17:54:00.000-04:00

Well, as expected I have found that Conservapedia should really be Fascistipedia. So far I have seen that one cannot say anything, and I mean anthing that might offend the Fasciti acting as sysops and il Duce, Andy Schlafly (brother of the great Roger, son of the doyenne of right wing harpies, Phyllis).

My first warning of being blocked was for writing “rat’s behind” (yes, behind, not ass) and for saying “cold bucket of hamster spit”. Yes, I kid you not. Anyway, I got this warning from il Duce:

Please reread our rules. This is a clean site. That means users who sprinkle their words of wisdom with obscene references and epithets are blocked. I don't want to have to wade through litter and pollution to find whatever nuggets of insight may be there. This, of course, applies to our talk pages also.--Aschlafly 09:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT) for more see http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:NousEpirrhytos#Warning_of_Blocking

Then after this exchange, regarding the name of the Bible http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name , in which I noted things like

“The original meaning of biblos is indeed papyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"
BTW, the word was never Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. NousEpirrhytos 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed this: ...Greek Christians had called the Scriptures la Biblia... -- la is not a definite article in Greek, it only accurs in Romance languages as a shortening of the demonstative article illa. NousEpirrhytos 16:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT) “

and…

“Karajou, why do you assume I'm ignorant of Christian apologetics? I was raised in an evangelical church -- when I began to question many things that only received dogmatic answers I began to realise just how vapid that which they were trying to ram down my throat was. Since that time I have read score of books on all religions, and the more religions I've studied, the more I've seen the truth behind them -- the emperor is naked.
What is this hearsay of which you speak? Please, do elaborate rather than throwing cute terms around.
Now, when are you going to fix la to ta? Hey, if you want Con-pedia to be the laughing-stock of religion, feel free to leave it, but be aware that la is not a definite article either in Greek or Latin (a language bereft of a definite aticle). BTW, I would doubt Unger misheard the word -- if he knew Greek, he would have known the definite article off of the top of his head, and if he knew it not he was no true scholar of the NT. NousEpirrhytos 17:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
One other point: books on the Civil War, Babe Ruth, etc., have never been claimed to be infallible, so your analogy does not pass muster. NousEpirrhytos 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT) “

and…

Tell you what, I have a better question for both of you, Petrus and Nous: are you pushing your own religious beliefs on myself, this article, and this website? A simple yes or no will suffice. Karajou 20:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
When you explain precisely to what you refer when you say hearsay, I shall answer your question. To what specific instances do you refer? How is a charge of hearsay relevant here. What would be direct evidence? Is it not true that exegesis plays a large role in presenting "evidence" from the bible, and as exegesis relies on apologetic analysis and reconstruction is it not a form of hearsay. There are, of course, rhetorical question, but please do answer them if you wish this discussion to be of any value.
As to young earth creationism, I'm very well aware of the arguments put forth by proponents. However, in reading them critically, which is my modus legendi for all books, they simply fail scientifically and logically. The various explanations of "tired light" and "flood geology" (etc.) are too ludicrous to take seriously, violating, as they do, the laws of physics, geology and plate tectonics. Yes, I know of the argument that "god can do anything he wants", but said argument is really just a tautology.
BTW -- All ancient religions have their own creation story, what makes the bible's verson fact and the others mere myth? (rhetorical). NousEpirrhytos 06:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I incurred the wrath of Kakajuju for “attacks on the Bible...”, which, as anyone reading through the thread can see, I never did.

I was reprieved by ColinR with the note, “attacks were not made on the bible, only bible literalism, something this site doesn't explicity endorse as far as I can see/have been told by other sysops.)”

Then, good old Uncle Ed, Jackass Emeritus of Wikipedia noted, “reblock - should apologize before being reinstated” Yes, Eddie, for what? Besides, I couldn’t even if I wanted to, which I don’t, as the twits at Con-pedia have yet to mail a confirmation to my e-mail addy after 5 days (maybe I need to wait until the 6th for the big creation moment), nor can I edit even my own page. Like Duh.

Alas, it was an eye-opener while it lasted…certainly fodder for the press – especially given that it’s a wiki and is in the public domain.

Now the real fun begins.

2007-03-14T17:44:00.000-04:00

Conservapedia, PT III -- Richard Nixon

2007-03-03T17:29:00.000-05:00

Why Tricky Dicks, Batman, this must be the work of the Joker.

“Richard Milhous Nixon … was the 37th President of the Christian United States… He was the 36th Christian Vice President of the United States from 1953 to 1961, in the administration of Christian Dwight D. Eisenhower.” When did the name of the country change, and which one of my atheist compatriots kept the name change from me? (No wonder I’ve felt so dirty all these years).

Ah, but it gets better. Conservapedia notes that Nixon, “…lost his first presidential race to John F. Kennedy…” No "Christian" appellation here. Oh, I forgot, Kennedy was a Catholic.

Then there the factual clunker, which notes that Nixon “…was reelected in 1972 by a landslide, but had to resign the following year…” Uh, no, he resigned in 1974, August 9th, in fact. Unless 1973 was cancelled, “the following year” would be incorrect.

And the best (and most confusing): Nixon’s “Christian foreign policy as president was marked by détente with the atheistic Soviet Union…” Now, if you as a good Christian, sup with the atheist devil, doesn’t that consign your soul to the Infernal regions, stoking the sulfurous fires of Hell?

Conservapedia, PT II -- Xerxes the Great

2007-03-03T16:59:00.000-05:00

Next up, a Conservapedia article on Xerxes the Great, who is described in a few meager lines: “King of Persia, r: 485–465 BC, chose the biblical Esther (Hadassah) as his wife. Depicted in the 2007 film 300 as being approximately 15 feet tall.” In fact, he’s simply referred to as Xerxes, no honorific -- how anti-Persian.

Now first, Xerxes is only possibly the Ahasuerus mentioned in the Books of Esther and Ezra, nothing definitive there folks. Second, Xerxes was far more important than (maybe) just being the hubby of Esther. He was the son of Darius the Great and grandson of Cyrus the Great; he suppressed revolts in Egypt and Babylon; he brought Egypt under tight control; he invaded Greece, won the Battle of Thermopylae, and then because of his own impatience and misplaced trust in Themistocles lost to the Greeks at Salamis; hell, he even sent one of his military commanders, Sataspes, on a mission to circumnavigate Africa. .

15 foot tall hubby of Esther indeed – but maybe, in the righteous world, that’s all that really matters.

Conservapedia, PT I -- Dinosaurs

2007-03-03T11:36:00.000-05:00

Andy Schlafly, son of the doyenne of shrill right-wing Harpies, Phyllis Schlafly, and member of the “elite” Eagle Forum has started a Wiki project named Conservapedia (clever, no?). This Wiki product claims to counter the evil left-wing bias of Wikipedia (I haven’t seen the bias myself, but I’m one of them damned BHL’s).

On its main page, Conservapedia proclaims that it is “A conservative encyclopedia you can trust” – as opposed, I guess to a conservative encyclopedia (whatever that word combo means) that you can’t trust.

Conservapedia then proclaims that it “has over 3,800 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics…” Keenly interested in the righteous ramblings of the ranting right, I decided to have a look-see (after praying to Athena to protect me from inanity). I clicked on “random page” and was taken to “Dinosaur”. In the first sentence I was greeted by this factoid of wisdom, “The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Latin for "terrible lizard". Uh no, Andy, it’s from Greek. Latin would have been lacerta terribilis.

In the next paragraph we are greeted by the following, “Most scientists believe that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (except for birds, which many scientists consider to be descended from early therapod dinosaurs).” Yes, that is how long ago dinosaurs lived, but there is no “except for birds”. That they are descendants of the dinosaurs is likely true, but that has no bearing on the extinction of dinosaurs. We are descendants of the Australopithecines, but they are extinct. Our existence has no bearing on their lack of same.

Then there is the snidely dismissive, “They [scientists] claim the fossil evidence supports their beliefs.” Beliefs? Uh, no Andy. You might want to study up on Paleontology.

I could go on with the mistakes in this short but terrible article (dinolect?), but, that would be, like, really mean and shrewish in a right-wing Harpy kind-of way.

Bwa-ha-ha.

THE BIG ONE: I couldn't resist bringing up this older version -- note Jesus riding a dinosaur (no doubt on his way to Jerusalem to meet with the Guv'nor (but where are the plalm leaves? Oh, yeah, the dino ate them. ROFL)).

Next up: another Conservapedia article gets shredded.

Beware Norse Design

2007-03-02T05:23:00.000-05:00

Ah, intelligent design is all the rage -- gutting science curricula, making up proofs to fit the stories of a bunch of wandering nomads from an entirely different culture, pretending religion and the ooky-spooky supernatural Omniomnis are science. Bah!

But what of the Norse, my beloved ancestors? Check this out:

http://thepaincomics.com/weekly041229.htm

Of Breasts and Boobs, Part II

2007-02-26T16:07:00.000-05:00

On Saturday February 17, 2007, Leigh Bellini's 6-month-old son Enzo had the nerve to get hungry while the family shopped at the Berkshire Mall in Wyomissing, PA. As Enzo is breast-fed, his mother settled down on a bench beneath a tree and began to feed little Enzo. Within minutes, Mall security approached her and demanded that she cover her son (and his source of food) with a blanket. She refused. The situation escalated when these rent-a-cops advised that it would be best if she she fed their son in a public restroom or the car. When they refused, the rent-a-coppers threatened to call the police and have the couple and their son physically removed from the mall.

Of course, the mall's management said there's no policy against public breastfeeding at the Mall, and that security behaved inappropriately. But, y'know, I really have to wonder what kind of "secret" policy they have. More accurate, it turns out, would have been to state that the mall has no policy period, which is every bit as dangerous a having a policy banning public breast-feeding. Of course, "the matter is being investigated". But what will be the policy for violating a non-policy? No free donuts for the rent-a-coppers for a month?

In any case, the following week-end about 50 mothers gathered to breast-feed in public at the mall. Needless to say, nothing happened -- apparently there is power in numbers.

On another note: in response to the above events, countless mothers with MySpace accounts began putting up pictures of themselves breastfeeding their children. Note that none of these pictures were exercises in public nudity, and as I explained previously it takes a sick mind to assume that breast-feeding exists as a means of sexual titillation. Obviously, the powers-that-be at MySpace have sick minds: they deleted the images, saying they were sexually stimulating and obscene. One can only hope that by the time baby Enzo grows up, society has grown up as well.

2007-02-24T17:11:00.000-05:00

Executing the Constitution

2007-01-05T15:59:00.000-05:00

So, the Great Dubya is still living up to his promise to execute the Constitution. In yet another blatant move to usurp power and erode civil liberties, Dubya issued a signing statement when he signed the Postal Reform Act that declared that he would follow the prohibition on opening first-class mail without a warrant, but only “in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances. ...”

Of course, Bush’s lackeys noted that the signing statement was no biggie, with Chief Lackey, Tony Snow stating, “All this is saying is that there are provisions at law for — in exigent circumstances — for such inspections. It has been thus. This is not a change in law, this is not new.” This of course raises the question of, “then why bother issuing the statement?”

A number of lawmakers, both Democratic and Republican are not falling for the White House charade. Susan Collins, R-Maine noted, “I was really surprised. There was absolutely nothing in the Postal Reform bill that in any way diminished or changed the privacy protections for domestic sealed mail.” Collins was joined by Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y, “Every American wants foolproof protection against terrorism. But history has shown it can and should be done within the confines of the Constitution. This last-minute, irregular and unauthorized reinterpretation of a duly passed law is the exact type of maneuver that voters so resoundingly rejected in November.”

The big question though, will be whether the benighted citizens among us will see this abridgement of their civil liberties as “Important in Our Quest to Save Our Way of Life from the Evils of Terrorism.” I fear that this will be the case. Too many Americans fail to realize that when we give up our rights, the terrorists win. Yes, the terrorists win.

Be a patriot, don’t let the terrorists and their dupe Dubya win by further restricting our rights.

Left Behind video game

2006-12-15T16:48:00.000-05:00

For those of you who might've missed the merry announcement, a brand new holier-than-itself video game, Left Behind, has come out for the amusement of pietistic Christians everywhere (especially in the US). With this educational video game one can convert or murder all non-Christians. Kids can get Mom and Dad to help kill all Muslims, rock stars, and other Bad Guys, and teach them Real Christian Values like intolerance, bigotry, ignorance and death, gore, destruction and techniques that would maker Torquemada proud! And, it's approved by Focus on the Family. How cool is that?

And, just so the rest of us living in the real worlds won't be left behind, I've created the "Nail the Christian Hypocrite to the Cross" Game, which includes subsections like "Bring me the head of a Baptist", "Get off the cross, we need the wood for your pyre", "Kommunion Kool-Aid -- Jim Jones Recipe", "Wacky Whizzing Whetted Wafers", "Make the Holey Spewcharist" and many, many more.

Thanks to TeW/KC

Don't Understand English...

2006-11-19T15:57:00.000-05:00

...then (you dumbass) I'll talk more s l o w l y or SHOUT like a crazed banshee or flap my arms like an emu trying to fly.

Living in a large city in the Northeastern section of the US, I run across a quite a few immigrants, a sizable number of whom do not speak English well, or even at all. (Nope, this ain't gonna be one o' them stoopit conservative screeds about how these gooks, dotheads and Russkies better learn the language. My ancestors, probably like yours (unless they came from Great Britain) didn't speak English either when they came here, and the older ones never really did learn the language). No, this is about how I see Americans respond to people who can't speak English.

1. Some will insist on insulting the non-English speaker, totally oblivious to the fact that these insults don't mean diddly if the person doesn't speak English.
2. Others will slow down their speech and e-nun-see-ate...as if a non-English speaker will get English if it is spoken more slowly or enunciated. I'll type this really slowly and see if it helps you: Se soubesse que não tínhamos dinheiro não teria almoçado. Any ideas? (No, it has nothing to do with having almonds for dinner).
3. Still others will SHOUT as if LOUD Enlish is more easily understood. Doh! The non-English speakers are not deaf, they don't speak English -- volume will not help. Let's try this: WO KANN ICH HOSEN KAUFEN? (you want to cough up hoses?)
4. There's a final group that slows it down, turns it up, and engages in a spastic game of charades. Well, it's amusing to watch.

Am I going to offer any words of wisdom on how to deal with issue? Nope. Just avoid the above examples of what not to do.

Global Warming, Economics and Hearts and Minds

2006-08-06T15:56:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine noted the following in an e-mail:

[T]his'all does seem like it may be just a little slap on the wrists from Mother Nature compared to what may be coming in the future. Judging by the info that's been gathered thus far, I suspect some yet more serious challenges will becoming our way down the road, particularly for the next generation(s). (y'know, for a country that's staking its global social face on the idea of "winning the hearts and minds" of folks abroad, I personally think we're fixin' to look awfully stupid in the not too distant
future--but I'm just one guy here.) Any thoughts?

I had never truly equated the two concepts before, (Global Warming and hearts and minds), but the point was a strong one so I responded with:

Weather: yes, the weather my children will raise my grandchildren in will be substantially different (no matter what Ann Coulter and Michael Crichton and the Bushites say). The only question will be "in what way is it different?" If the weather warms sufficiently to increase polar ice cap melting, the infusion of fresh water will likely mean that the gulf stream will move to the east, and we may actually be cooler, but with bitter and dry winters. Europe, in that case, would get appreciably hotter. If not, we'll be having barbecues in January in northern Minnesota and we won't need grills.

Either way, energy costs would likely break the world economy (same economic scenario for overall global warming and no gulf stream shift). And that's where the shortsightedness of the Bush administration comes into play. They ditched Kyoto because it would "cost too much", but the future costs are potentially so much higher. The Administration reminds me of Wimpy -- I'll gladly pay a dime tomorrow for a five-cent hamburger today.

In any case, the only real dispute I see with GW is to what extent humans are responsible -- however I'm not among the deniers who say we're barely responsible and it's all because of farting cows, and I'm not even so sure the percentage of responsibility that lies at our feet is all that relevant anyway. Let's say it's only 40% (personally, I think it's much higher, 95% or so), we can still take action on that 40%. Hell, we have the ability to ameliorate Global Warming, period, and thus we have a responsibility to both our species and our planet to do so.

Hearts and Minds: I'm not sure if that phrase is merely a PR term, or if the Bushites are so oblivious to reality that they don't realise that not everyone worships our way of life, and that the America of today was built by ideas and ideologies cobbled together over more than 200 years by immigrants from all over the globe. The Administration seems not to realise that one cannot merely impose democracy and expect it to stick -- the target nation has to want democracy, has to be ready for democracy, and has to earn it. And, even in cases where one can guide a nation into democracy -- ala post-war Japan and Germany -- the form of democracy must match their social structure. Merely expecting a nation to swallow our form of democracy and government hook, line and sinker is the ultimate folly for fools.

On the environmental front, we have no credibility at all, and it will take the next president, if he/she is so inclined, years to restore any credibility. Pulling out of Kyoto while still expecting the rest of the world to abide by other treaties was utterly asinine, and Bush's Clear Skies policy was seen for the sham it was. Tying emissions to GDP and pretending you were reducing them was one of the most dishonest uses of math I've ever seen: today we emit x tons of greenhouse gases per y billion dollars of GDP; in 15 years we'll emit 2x tons or greenhouse gases per 3y billion dollars of GDP (assuming a growth rate in GDP of 200%). Yes, as a ratio, emissions are lower, but as a function of actual crap spewed into the atmosphere our pollution rate is twice as high.

The time to act is now if we are to live up to the great American vision of securing "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

Of Breasts and Boobs

2006-07-30T10:59:00.000-04:00

The August 2006 edition of Baby Talk magazine featured an article on breastfeeding – that would be a big “so what?” were it not for the cover: a picture of a baby breastfeeding. The shock! The outrage! The disgust! The Horror, the horror!

Outraged babbling idiots weighed in with their puritanical profundity:

1. Noted a mother who didn’t want her 13-year-old son to see such horror, "I shredded it. A breast is a breast - it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that." She went on to state that while she supports breastfeeding, "I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see."

2. Another, engaging in significant over-generalisation based on stereotyped behaviour, noted that, "Men are very visual, when they see a woman's breast, they see a breast - regardless of what it's being used for."

3. "Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob,"

4. "I just think it's one of those moments that should stay between a mother and her child."

5. Additionally, in poll taken of more than 4,000 readers, roughly a quarter of the responses to the cover were negative, calling the photo - a baby and part of a woman's breast, in profile - inappropriate.

Let’s take a look at those statements:

1. First, I recall being a 13-year-old boy, and I’m pretty damned sure I would’ve been able to differentiate between an image of a breast being used to promote breastfeeding and the image of a breast used for titillation. Second, a breast is not inherently a sexual thing – its primary purpose is for feeding the young of the species, that it developed a secondary purpose (really an imagined purpose) of sexual titillation says more about the mind of man than about the intent of nature.

2. But men are too stupid to note the same difference I’d’ve noted as a 13-year-old? Doubtful. Moreover, if you find a man who fits that category, you might want to pay a little closer attention to him – he has issues.

3. Any grossness or obscenity is in your head honey, might want to see a shrink about that.

4. It will be, if you stop staring and gawking.

5. Inappropriate? If the lead article were about quantum mechanics, they would have a point (other than the one on top of their heads), but as the lead was about breastfeeding the picture is quite appropriate.

Yet, the five above quotes from outraged prudes seem to echo those of the vox populi -- A 2004 by the American Dietetic Association, showed that only 43 percent of the 3,719 respondents said women should have the right to breast-feed in public places. One doubts that one would find the same poll results in the more intellectually developed nations of the world.

But, in all honesty, the average American is an intellectual cipher: nearly half do not know that it takes a year for the earth to orbit the sun (that is the definition of a year, by the way) and a sizable number still think the sun goes around the earth – nearly 500 years after that theory was shot to shit. Additionally, 41 percent believe, against all evidence, that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. With stupidity like that running rampant, it’s no wonder so many see breastfeeding in public as “gross”. In fact, some of these prigs have gone so far as to try to ban breastfeeding in public, or to force breastfeeding women to use the restroom when feeding.

As one mother, who regularly breastfeeds in public noted, “My kid [needs] to eat; I don't send people to the bathroom when THEY want to eat."

Think about that at your next meal. Better yet, all those opposed to breastfeeding in public should try this little experiment: eat all of your meals for the next week in the bathroom. The smell of shit mixing in with your Big Mac and fries should do wonders for your digestion.

Is Gas Worth What You Pay?

2006-07-11T05:12:00.000-04:00

That was the top headline on AOL this morning. The answer is relatively simple:

Do you you need to get your ass from point A to point B? Are their other modes of transportation you are willing to consider? If you answered yes and no respectively then gas is worth what you pay for it. Simple economics folks.

True, you can bitch about the price all you want, but unless you're willing to make significant lifestyle changes, just pay the damned bill and drive away (probably in your petrol-sucking SUV).

Resting in Pieces

2006-06-14T17:23:00.000-04:00

When I went to school, the process of learning how to write progressed along these lines: learn how to write the letters; learn how to write words; learn how to put the words together to form sentences; and finally, learn how to create paragraphs out of the sentences. It worked, in a way, much like the growth of a tree: first, the seed is planted; then the seedling sprouts from the soil; then the branches feel their way outward from the trunk; and last comes the foliage bringing it together in a beautiful whole. Sadly, these days it seems that the tree has no leaves; the paragraph is dead.

Whether in print or on the internet, the providers of our daily news prefer to dole it out in crumbs, writing single sentences, one after the other, almost as if leaving a trail to …well, to nowhere (but that’s a separate issue). Anyway, once in a while, they may daringly decide to string two sentences together into something that almost resembles a paragraph. Even less frequently, (be still my heart) they allow three sentences to share the same space, making a true paragraph – or so it would seem.

All too often, the second or third sentence, the sentence that gives the word cluster a paragraphic look, doesn’t actually follow the sentence(s) to which it is joined. Conversely, the single sentences that are busy dancing with themselves could very easily have been combined to form full-fledged paragraphs. For example, let’s look at this example from the Putzville Gazette:

Mayor Charlie Dingleheimer lost his bid for reelection to his fourth term last
night, being defeated by Mrs. Irma Flocker.

Mrs. Flocker received 80 of the 120 votes cast in what is thought to be the biggest landslide in the history of Putzville.
When told of her victory, Mrs. Flocker said, “Oh dear Lord, I only did it as a lark, I didn’t expect to be elected.”
The death of her husband, Homer, is still fresh on her mind.
Said Mrs. Flocker, “If only Homer hadn’t eaten those mushrooms – I told him not to, you know.”

OK, I made that story up. The format, however, I copied from a story published by a major news outlet (I can’t say which one, other than to note that it has something to do with a TV Network and a software monopoly). In any case, would it really have been all that difficult to write the story is paragraph form? Would it have killed anyone? What would have been so hard about writing:

Mayor Charlie Dingleheimer lost his bid for reelection to his fourth term last night, being defeated by Mrs. Irma Flocker, who received 80 of the 120 votes cast in what is thought to be the biggest landslide in the history of Putzville. When told of her victory, Mrs. Flocker said, “Oh dear Lord, I only did it as a lark, I didn’t expect to be elected.”

Noting the recent death of her husband, Homer, Mrs. Flocker said, “If only Homer hadn’t eaten those mushrooms – I told him not to, you know.”

Rest in Pieces, O Great Paragraph, and lie beneath a tree bereft of leaves.

Of Gods and Gaps

2006-06-14T14:11:00.000-04:00

In 1770, in Systéme de la Nature, Paul Heinrich Dietrich, Baron von Holbach wrote:
"If a faithful account was rendered of Man's ideas upon Divinity, he would be obliged to acknowledge, that for the most part the word "gods" has been used to express the concealed, remote, unknown causes of the effects he witnessed; that he applies this term when the spring of the natural, the source of known causes ceases to be visible: as soon as he loses the thread of these causes, or as soon as his mind can no longer follow the chain, he solves the difficulty, terminates his research, by ascribing it to his gods...When, therefore, he ascribes to his gods the production of some phenomenon...does he, in fact, do anything more than substitute for the darkness of his own mind, a sound to which he has been accustomed to listen with reverential awe?"
Therein, we have one of the first true definitions of the God of the Gaps that still pervades our thought 236 years later. In fact, this God of the Gaps argument is the basis for the pseudoscientific fraud that is Intelligent design. Unable to grasp the concept that in a certain sense evolution is agglutinative, with seemingly disparate biological elements merging in symbiotic relationships with other elements to form something new that is far greater and far more functional than the sum of its parts, IDists look backwards from the “completed” form and are incapable of discerning any way in which random mutations and combinations could have produced the level of complexity we see today. Note too, that I have put “complete” in quotes as any assumption that the current version of the biological mechanism being studied is the final version, the ne plus ultra, merely verifies a staggering intellectual blindness and an absolute inability to apprehend even the fundamentals of evolution.

Having thus failed in their comprehension they turn from scientific research and substitute in its place pseudoscientific ephemera to ascribe that which they cannot grasp to their gods. Michael Behe formulates his simplistic concept of irreducible complexity, which in essence states that if one part of an item he has declared to be irreducibly complex is removed the item fails. William Dembski, working backwards using some rather questionable mathematics delivers his “theory” of specified complexity. In any case, the methodologies and results are the same: “I shall prove, by eschewing the scientific method, that what we see had to have been designed by God, because any other answer is beyond my ken.”

That none of Behe’s examples has withstood the scrutiny of science is not so much noteworthy as it was inevitable: bad science, especially that which has a large dose of supernatural nonsense thrown in, is always disproven, and Dembski’s specified complexity has fared no better. Although he has stated that his theorem will work in myriad other fields, he has yet to prove this to be the case, while others have shown his claim to be blatantly false. In addition, as a product of working backwards in order to prove his conclusion (a method that is anathema to science), he has developed a process that is eliminative, i.e., it carefully eliminates any possibilities other than design, and is thus guaranteed to support his foregone conclusion that life must have been designed. And while Behe and Dembski pay lip service to the notion that Intelligent Design does not name the designer, and that the designer(s) might even have been aliens – a proposition that is breathtaking in its inanity – their voluminous quotes (especially on the part of Dembski the theologian) prove otherwise.

Behe and Dembski are in essence merely parroting Anselm’s ontological argument. They have in effect ascribed to their god the production of the phenomenon of life, substituting for the darkness of their own minds a sound to which they have been accustomed to listen with reverential awe.

Out of ignorance man invented the gods; now, comfortable in his ignorance, he has forgotten that he invented them.

The Anointing of Intelligent Design As A Science

2006-05-26T07:24:00.000-04:00

(Note, I wrote this six months ago, but the primary points still hold).

It is Divinely Devout Dayton all over again – eighty lost, fruitless, aberrant years later. The Bible Thumpers, Holier than even God Himself, have managed to push through legislation in a number of states that is heaven-bent on introducing religion – and a very specific one at that –into the public school system via creationism. Of course, these devilishly clever Christians don’t call it creationism: they claim it is an alternative scientific theory, one known by the angelic appellation, “Intelligent Design”. They even take great pains to point out that it is supported by at least ten or fifteen brilliant, well known (amongst the wine and wafer crowd, anyway) and pious scientists. And, if those prominent purveyors of scrupulous scientific principles feel comfortable anointing ID as a science, then, by God, it must be one. Never mind the stench of simplistic superstition turned religious reality wafting from every pore of ID – that stench is not noticed by the right-minded, to them it is an aroma as sweet as a concoction of milk and honey.

Thus armed with a cleverly christened theory carefully canonized by sacred standard-bearers of science, the Kansas School Board, channeling God’s infinite wisdom, has decided that it is best to offer to the misguided youth of today’s unrepentant world pseudo-scientific ideas that are at odds with Darwin’s crazed theory that we might even be remotely related to “lower” life forms, or any of “God’s creatures” for that matter. Not the noble horse, not the majestic elephant, and certainly not some amorphous amoeba swimming in an imaginary primordial ooze. No, we are above all that, images of a God who did it all in six short days.

Note that I said “a God”: I assure you that there will be scant mention of the creation myths of the Hindus, the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Hittites or any other unholy cabal of confounded and confused pagans. No, ID is very much focused on one alternative reality, and that is the story of creation as found in the Bible and somewhat uncomfortably, in the Qu’ran.

Thus, ID is not as science. But, this is not merely because it is derived from the aforementioned religious mythology, but because it lacks they one key element by which all true scientific principles must be judged: disprovability. The theory is not testable. It cannot be proven or disproven. It is simply a matter of belief and as such, it is not science. Say what you will about Darwin’s theory, point out that it has weaknesses (and it does), note it’s difficulties if you wish, and in so doing you will have shown why it is a science and why ID is mere pietistic piffle.

Originally, I was going to end this piece by noting that in the final tally on this Day of Judgment it seems that Darwin was wrong; some people will never evolve: they lack the requisite intelligence to open their minds to reality, preferring instead to dance in some sacred cave of religious ignorance, for, as has been said by so many, ignorance is bliss. However, shortly after I had written that epitaph, voters in Dover, Pennsylvania fired the eight fired-up fundamentalists who had foisted ID on that little suburban town. So, Darwin was right – but sadly, it seems that evolution is even more selective that he thought. But, what bothers me the most about this whole debate is that the pushers of this piffle, smug in their sanctity, fail to grasp on of the great tacit implications in believing that there was a creator at work: what makes humans different from all other species is our ability to think, and this ability is a gift that these holy hucksters seem almost too willing to return unused. Thus, when they spit in the faces of those atheistic folks who seek a scientific solution to all mysteries, they are, in effect, spitting in the face of their God. One of these eschatological days, he just might decide to spit back.

No Child Left Untaxed

2006-05-21T08:13:00.000-04:00

On May 18, 2006, the great No-tax-and-spend-way-more-than-you-have non-fiscal-conservative George “Dubya” Bush, signed yet another “tax-relief” bill. Well, almost. A cute little catch in the bill increases taxes for “teenagers age 14 to 17 with investment income” who will now “be taxed at the same rate as their parents, not at their own rates.” In other words, according to the NYT, “Long-term capital gains and dividends that had been taxed at 5 percent will now be taxed at 15 percent. Interest that had been taxed at 10 percent will now be taxed at as much as 35 percent.”

Aside from the fact that this new bill effectively breaks Dubya’s 1999 promise to “veto any bill that raises taxes”, and that this bill is clearly at odds with the alleged intent of his “No Child Left Behind” pseudomasterpiece, the White House response to getting caught with its hand in teenagers’ pockets is rather telling.

Initially, the White House had crowed that Dubya had “reduced taxes on all people who pay income taxes.” Caught taking candy from babies, the Truth-lite House retracted the original statement and modified it with, “reduced taxes on virtually all people who pay income taxes”.

Now, in order to see what I’m on about, let’s parse this sentence:

First, people are not taxed, their income is. Yet, by using the preposition “on” rather than “for”, the Bushites clearly want to propagate the myth that “Taxes don’t tax income, they kill people” (or something like that).
The use of “virtually all” when talking about tax reductions makes it sound as if the status quo has been maintained for the rest, not that taxes have actually tripled on income that was to be used so that no child really is left behind.
The use of “income taxes” is deliberately misleading: there is only one income tax. It may have different facets, but there’s only one tax. Saying income “taxes” creates the opposite impression.
“…people who pay income taxes” is also a bit nebulous. True, it is correct to note that not all people pay income tax – but the reason is never specified, leading the reader to draw their own conclusion, which, given the average American’s lack of knowledge of the Internal Revenue Code, is likely to be the wrong conclusion. The reason is that some people make too little for their income to be taxed, but the wording suggests that some people are getting away with something. (And some are – mostly Dubya’s “Rangers” and “Pioneers”)

Bottom line? The statement is a masterpiece in misinformation (or, perhaps, disinformation) well in keeping with the overall all tendency of the Bushites, who started their tax disinformation program by misrepresenting and propagandizing Estate Taxes, which they were quick to call “Death Taxes”.

P.S. – Although I noted above, “Aside from the fact … that this bill is clearly at odds with the alleged intent of his “No Child Left Behind” pseudomasterpiece…”, I should touch on that aspect, too. Are too many lower- and middle-income kids now able to afford a college education, thus creating problems for the children of privilege who might actually have to compete for jobs based on their college GPA? Could the kids born with plastic spoons in their mouths actually supplant those born to the silver spoon set? The horror, the horror.

Epigramania

2006-05-19T17:08:00.000-04:00

"Truth" is becoming as subjective as beauty these days. No one wants to look at anything objectively – doing so is too scary and one might learn that a cherished belief is untrue.

Why is it that the most pietistic areas of this country tend to be those in which counting to five and putting one's shoes on the proper feet are considered major accomplishments?

A wise man sometimes thinks himself a fool but a fool always thinks himself a wise man.

One day, a Christian anthropologist will find Jesus’ body; he will then be stoned to death by a mob of his fellow Christians.

Fear and narcissism fuel our search for gods and aliens: fear that we are alone and without purpose; and a narcissistic belief that we are important and interesting enough to be the center of other beings’ attention.

Demeter is the mother of all gods, for it was agriculture that gave us the leisure to create pantheons.

All who wish to be the New Rome must bear one thing in mind: Rome fell.

Among many modern Christians one only turns the other cheek in order to spit upon another infidel.

Beware the man who says he is a “uniter not a divider”: his dream of unity can only occur if all believe as he does.

If you do not wish to watch something, change the channel; if you do not wish to hear it, turn the dial; if you do not wish to read it, cast it aside: but do not deny my right to watch, to listen, to read – or to learn.

Taking the high road, while lauded as the civilized thing to do, is actually quite suicidal: it merely makes one an open target for the snipers hiding in the bushes below.

Hasn’t the term “compassionate conservative” ever bothered you? After all, it is clearly a de facto admission that true conservatism knows no compassion.

Bullshit, when backed by money, talks; truth, without a dime to its name, walks.

Requiem for a Language Part I: Pet Peeves of the English Police

2006-05-09T16:29:00.000-04:00

For the past few days, several friends and I have had an ongoing discussion regarding the examples of English language abuse that drive us absolutely bonkers. Here's the list:

Me: "chose" in place of "choose", "loose" in place of "lose", the "their/there/they're" triad, as well as the "your/you're" befuddlement. And, "I should of...", or "for all intensive purposes", or "supposably", or "irregardless". Finally (for the nonce), "free bonus gift".

Choo-Choo Freddie:
* Incorrect use of superlative when a comparative should have been used.
* Incorrect use of comparative when a superlative should have been used(classic example;a list of >2 things, author then refers to the last thing as the "latter")
* The word "data" is a plural
* "stadiums", "referendums" and other non-plurals.*
* it's/its
* "none" used in the plural
* The plural of "index" is "indices".
* criteria is plural, its singular is criterion.

Dendrophile: My pet peeve is "most unique". Unique means singular, it can't take comparators.

Canis Rabidus: "censor" when one means "censure"

Pussy Willow: "got" instead of "have"

I'm sure we'll come up with more. If you have any thoughts, leave a response.

Texas crude

2006-04-30T20:45:00.000-04:00

A county in Texas (of all places) has initiated a boycott of Exxon Mobil until "until gas is down to $1.30 a gallon". 72% of the residents of this rural county have said that they will support the boycott. On the plus side, obesity in the county should drop considerably as all that walking should burn off the burritos. On the other hand, wandering around for 40 years on foot will not bring them to the land of milk and less money for gas. While the oil companies are no doubt reaping windfall profits, they aren't the only drivers (no pun intended) of the market.

The flap with Iran over whether or not they can break the same non-proliferation treaty the US and the rest of the nuclear club has is one biggie. So is increasing demand from China and India. Then there's instability in Argentina and Nigeria. And, the Iraq war isn't helping any either. And there's market speculation to boot -- but hey, that's Capitalism, good, glorious, all-American Capitalism, at its best.

So, unless the boycott will resolve all those issues, these folks will be wandering the Texas brush following cloudy reasoning for generations -- or until their feet start hurting.

The Death of English, Pt I

2006-04-30T16:50:00.000-04:00

Let's face it, English is a dying language, especially in the States where it suffers the slings and arrows of prose that is both tortured and tortuous. In an effort to sound oh-so-important, too many writers make verbs of nouns (I will partner with him...), adopt words and phrases that mean nothing, but "sound good" ("crosswalk", "airlift", "stand up", "ready-mode posture"), and take glee in writing in the style of this paragraph from The Oregon Health And Science University which I recently came across:

"Third generation strategy maps have been designed to overcome the limitations that have made balanced scorecards notoriously difficult to implement...The strategy map begins with a strategic goal, is followed immediately with a strategic value proposition and ends with a cause and effect systems diagram that outlines what needs to be done to achieve results."

I'm none to sure what that means, but to prove that meaning is irrelevant to writing such glittering gibberish, I have crafted the following from a pre-modern data source and applied the paradigm of post-modernistic information dissemination:

Upon the incipience of the temporal dimension a deific potency incepted the differentiation between the celestial and terrestrial planes.

However, the terrestrial plane was a vacuous paradigm devoid of structural expanse as a state of nonluminosity was superimposed upon the veneer of the chasmic substrate. Thus the non-corporeal synergy of the deific potency kineticized itself over the obverse plane of the accretion of hydrogen dioxide-based molecular cumuli.

The deific potency then undertook the initiation of a verbalized communicative strategy and noted that a systematic arrangement of luminosity needed to attain successful implementation.

Upon visual inspection of this systemic arrangement the deific potency percepted that it was of beneficence and implemented bifurcative dissimilation of luminosity and non-luminosity.

Thus the deific potency designated the luminosity to be a diurnal half-epoch of a durational length approximating a 12:1 structured schedule and the non-luminosity to be a nocturnal half-epoch of similar durational structure. The two half-epochal periods were agglomerated into the initial comprehensive epoch representing the successful fulfillment of both half-epochs.

Uggh. As Aeschylus once said, "A great ox stands on my tongue."

Is the Illusion of Reality the Reality of Illusions?

2006-04-17T08:30:00.000-04:00

New-Agers, philosophers, Buddhists, New Age Philosophers (oxymoron?) and others desiring to lend an air of profundity to their musing are keen to note that Reality is an Illusion. In other words, what we perceive as reality is not really reality but is really just our perception of what reality really is, if, of course anything is (really). Of course, this is what I think “they” mean, but that just might be my perception. Hell, “they” might not even exist, they may just be figments of my faulty perception assuming that my doors of perception have yet to be cleansed…assuming I have such doors (they too may be an illusion), and assuming that I really exist. For all “I” know, cogito ergo sum may be better rendered as cogito cogitem ergo cogitavi cogito sim. Maybe.

In any case, I think the whole Reality is an Illusion bit is nonsense. But then, maybe that’s just my perception. But if reality is indeed an illusion, then how do I know that I “perceive” anything, I might just be making the whole damned thing up. In fact, I might not even be writing this, and you may not be reading it. Assuming you exist. Maybe you are yet another construct of my mind (assuming a “mind” is an extant entity – of course if it isn’t, then wasting one, especially if you never had one is no biggie). So if you really are a construct of my nonexistent, unperceived mind, the question becomes, why am I writing this at all? I don’t really expect a real answer because answers are just illusions too. Probably.

May the pieces of past understanding be swept away by the comfort of an illusion, OM Shanti, Shanti, Shantihi, OM.

What, pray tell, is a "skeptical point-of-view"?

2006-04-15T11:18:00.000-04:00

On one of the projects in which I am engaged, I was "accused" by another project member of having a "skeptical point-of-view" (which means that my refusal to accept his age-old spiritual point-of-view is simply incompreshensible in his version of reality).

Of course, this appellation with which he labelled me leads one to the pose the following:

What is this "skeptical point-of-view" other than an oxymoronic neologism, a paradox, a contradiction in terms?

After all, "skeptical" comes from the Greek word ςκεπτικος (''skepticos''), which means "thoughtful, inquiring" -- the antithesis of a point-of-view.

Obviously, to many in these benighted times, this process of thinking, of inquiring, of refusing to accept things on blind, mindless faith alone is not merely anathema, but also ''bad''. This view, to me, would be the absurdist view, a viewpoint driven by fear of knowledge -- for knowledge, driven by thought and inquiry and inspection and the gathering of data, unfettered by the constraints of mythology, destroys mystery and is thus "uncomfortable" to those who revel in the warm, menticidal embrace of such mystery.

If this then is the "skeptical point-of-view" -- the desire to know things rationally -- I consider the other project member's intended insult actually to be quite the compliment.

Razing Grace

2006-04-09T20:57:00.000-04:00

The other day, an older handicapped gentleman shuffled by cane-assisted, his legs barely moving, his breathing laboured, and after he had passed by, the usual “there but for the Grace of God go I”, hosannas and amens were unleashed into the crispness of the morn. Such a common thought, so respectful, so thankful, so humble. Or is it?

I mean, let’s think about this, “there but for the Grace of God go I”. Thus, “that would be me, were it not for the fact that God has blessed me; I am special, God loves me, and my God is benevolent.”

OK, the respect is born of fear, the humility nonexistent, and while the sentiment might be thankful, it is so more in a gloating way than anything else.

By extension then, the old, shuffling, wheezing guy is not on God’s good list, has not been blessed, but has been cursed in fact. Ah, what else could it be, what else could one conclude, in the Manichaean world of religious platitudes?

Interesting concepts, those of benevolence and grace. Amazing.

Iran is not Iraq

2006-04-09T05:38:00.000-04:00

Every day it appears clearer that Iran is on the verge of developing or acquiring nuclear weapons, the fourth regional non-hyperpuissance to do so (after Israel, Pakistan and India, all of whom just happen to be US allies of the moment).

Thus, the Bushites are planning to attack the Iranians, "to convince them this is more and more serious." Of course, missed by the Bushites is that the issue became "more and more serious" because while Tehran yearned and learned, Dubya fiddled, hoping to gain imperial glory by invading a fourth-rate country with a fifth-rate military, accomplishing a mission that seems to have been the fulfilling of a vendetta against a single man, and plunging a poor but relatively stable country into a bloody civil war.

Well, let them plan. I hope though, that for the sake of our service persons they plan far better than they did for Iraq, as unlike that fifth-rate military power, the Iranians have a very real and very capable military. And, as bogged down as the US is in Iraq, a decision by the Iranians to retaliate and widen such a conflict into a full-scale war does note bode well for the US. (Neither does possible Iranian economic retaliation -- the turning off of the oil spigots).

Ah, but, why be a bringer of doom and gloom, I should look on the bright side: with Bush and Cheney and Rummy and Rice in on the planning surely all will go well, and we will be treated to another aircraft carrier photo-op, Mission Accomplished II.

Oh, one other question keeps nagging at the back of my mind: "what about North Korea?"

(See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12225188/ )

Welcome

2006-04-07T09:29:00.000-04:00

Welcome to my blog. I'll be back later to post thoughts on a few things, but for now, I just wanted to get the blog started.