Archive for February, 2009

February Friday Fun

Friday, February 27th, 2009

What kinda stupid stuff has the government been doing lately? Let’s find out on February Friday Fun.

First, we start off with the imbecilic local government in Clearwater, Florida, who first fined a store owner for having upon his store wall an image of a fish of the type that he sold in the store (violating a code against store owners having on display a depiction of something the store sells — uhm, that makes sense), and then was fined yet again for him covering it up with a naked picture of his wife! No, just kidding. Actually, he was fined again for covering it up with the U.S. Constitution. According to the St. Petersburg Times, the ACLU is suing the city of Clearwater, alleging that it has violated the shopkeeper’s First Amendment rights. Pshaw. What First Amendment?

What First Amendment?

Next, Vjack asserts that a qualified apology (a non-apology apology) isn’t really an apology, especially with respect to the kind of public apology that seems expected from those responsible for what is being claimed to be a racist cartoon. Although Vjack has his points (when doesn’t he?), the most interesting part of his article is the comments, which lean toward suggesting that an apology isn’t necessary at all. Particularly in cases where either the meaning is misunderstood, or if the would-be apologizer meant to do whatever it was that caused offense. I agree with Vjack that people should take responsibility for their actions, but I also don’t think that people should apologize for something non-existent caused by a misunderstanding, when there was no intent to do harm. But I mean that as a general principle — no “default” knee-jerk apologies; that doesn’t mean there aren’t cases where it’s in everyone’s best interest for someone to make a real, formal apology. Unfortunately, though, in this world, an apology, even when there’s no actual harm or intent to harm, is often perceived as pleading guilty, and it’s possible that the idea behind not giving a “real” apology is really just a way of saying, “Look, this isn’t what you think it is, and if I apologize for it, you’ll think you were justified in thinking it was what you think it is.” Apologies shouldn’t be evidentiary (except maybe while being interrogated by police), but they are.

This burns. Jesse at Rant & Reason brings to light the fact that a sole Colorado legislator voted against a bill that would require HIV tests for pregnant women (to ensure the health of the foetus/baby), specifically because HIV “stems from sexual promiscuity” and that he didn’t want to “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” What a crock! Read the article if you want to be further disgusted by the inhumanity of some of the idiots we elect to represent our interests.

As I re-Tweeted on Twitter the other day, Christopher Hitchens was on Lou Dobbs (no, not like that!), and I’ll let PZ Myers at Pharyngula give the rundown, because I’ve had a shitty week. The issue is the UN’s proposed resolution banning blasphemy. (It’d make it a crime in the U.S. to criticize religion (specifically Islam). WTF!). Fuck Islam. Fuck Mohammed, Muhammed, Muhammad, Mohinder, whomever. Where was that First Amendment again? Oh, that’s right, we don’t have one. Fifty-fucking-seven nations supporting this!?!? If it passes, the U.S. should leave the UN. “Universal human rights exist whether religion recognizes them or not,” says Hitchens. Woot.

Oh, hey, remember when I said that there’s no First Amendment? I meant that we civilians, we “people” don’t have First Amendment rights. Apparently, though, government entities do. WTF? According to The Legal Satyricon, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously held “that a city’s government has a right to decide which donated monuments to display on municipal property.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State suggests dropping prayers and invocations at political rallies. “The only thing worse than having these prayers in the first place is to have them vetted, because it entangles the White House in core theological matters.”

And that’s it for this first and last edition of February Friday Fun, which is just some name I made up just now, because “Daily Dose” was just too alliterative for me.

Darwin and the Journey of Evolutionary Theory

Thursday, February 26th, 2009

I recently had the pleasure of attending a lecture by historian of science Dr. Michael Shermer, paleontologist and geologist Dr. Donald Prothero, and biologist Dr. Joel Smith. These men provided insights into the life of Darwin and how evolutionary theory, and the methods by which we study it, have changed since Darwin’s time. I would like to share a bit of my experience and what I learned at this event, but since I am far from a scientist, I must implore the reader to consider any errors herein to be my own misunderstanding (or poor note-taking) and not the errors of these great minds.

Dr. Prothero can speak about as quickly as he can think, and he managed to fit an enormous amount of information into his brief allotted time. Dr. Shermer later quipped that Prothero is the only man he knows “who can fit a three hour lecture into thirty minutes!” Dr. Prothero took us on a frenzied tour of the entire history of evolutionary theory, from Darwin to today. During Darwin’s life and the following years, evolution was widely accepted as fact in the scientific community, but acceptance of Darwin’s method by which it occurred, natural selection, was hard-won. Even after the importance of Mendel’s findings in the field of genetics was realized in the early 20th century, the majority of scientists still did not view natural selection as plausible. George Gaylord Simpson’s book, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, began to change this view by demonstrating a consistency between the facts of paleontology and those of natural selection and genetics. However, Simpson believed that genetics alone was sufficient to explain what was observed by paleontologists.

By the late 1950s, there was little controversy or dissent about the methods by which evolution occurred, but in science this is not a good thing; science gets better through being challenged. This challenge came in the 1970s, when the theory of punctuated equilibrium was brought to fruition, demonstrating the inaccuracy of the “Galapagos finch” idea that organisms are infinitely flexible in their ability to adapt, evolving in one gradual, smooth line. Rather, long periods of stability are observed, even during extreme environmental changes. In fact, there was close to no observable response to the largest climate change in the last 65 million years, the Oligocene cooling event. Darwin’s friend, Hugh Falconer, actually warned Darwin that stability of Ice Age Mammoths through glacial cycles was common. The majority of Pleistocene mammals display stasis. Yet, this does not mean that the concept of phyletic gradualism is entirely incorrect. Punctuated equilibrium is actually a form of gradualism, and when huge geological time scales are taken into consideration, the tiny incremental changes from one generation to the next become apparent.

According to Prothero, Neo-Darwinism, and the idea inferred by George Gaylord Simpson that genetics has made paleontology somewhat obsolete, still dominate in classrooms. To paraphrase the late Stephen Jay Gould, ‘A revolution has occurred, but the textbooks don’t show it!’ Neo-Darwinists don’t distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, and geneticists working with fruit flies simply can’t take into account the massive time scales that paleontologists and geologists work with. When “species sorting” is considered to be on a different hierarchical level than individual natural selection, a much more accurate picture can be drawn.

Next up was Dr. Joel Smith, who gave us a peek into systems biology and some of the work he has been doing with genome sequencing, gene expression profiling, and perturbation assays. Systems biologists are able to graph the genes of an organism, knock out or “perturb” one individual gene, and observe the effect. In working with sea urchin embryos, they have been able to synthetically recreate evolutionary change. Sea urchins and sea stars share a common ancestor and at some point, sea stars ceased to develop larval skeletons, while sea urchins did not. By transplanting the regulatory sequences of a sea urchin’s genes into a sea star embryo, they have been able to cause the sea star to develop a larval skeleton. Dr. Smith believes that this method of experimentation may help us draw more general rules for how evolution takes place and help us make predictions about how evolution will occur in the future.

The delightful Dr. Shermer finished up the event, beginning by showing photos from his recent trips to Darwin’s stomping grounds in the Galapagos Islands and England, and the Creation Museum in Kentucky. He shared some of the “wisdom” he acquired at the Creation Museum, such as the real age of the earth (4004 B.C. – about the same time the Mesopotamians invented beer), the real reason we have viruses and diseases (The Fall), and the real reason T-Rex had such fearsome and sharp teeth (so that it could crack coconuts!)

In Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England, Dr. Shermer visited Darwin’s home and school, and he shared some of Darwin’s life story with us. Darwin’s mother died when he was eight years old and, since his father was very aloof, he was essentially raised by his sisters. Although his father wanted him to follow in his own profession, medicine, Darwin was distressed by the fact that, at that time, surgery was a bloody, screaming affair, without benefit of anesthesia. Darwin had a fairly liberal religious upbringing, and while studying at Christ’s College, Cambridge, he became engrossed with many of the then popular works of natural theology, which sought to unite nature with religion. Later in life, Darwin lamented on the “cruel works of nature,” and this observation of cruelty, in addition to the death of his young daughter, led him to disbelief. He adopted the label of “agnostic,” which was a term coined by his friend, Thomas Henry Huxley.

Although it is commonly believed that Darwin discovered the theory of evolution while he was in the Galapagos, he did not begin to put together these ideas until much later, in the years following his five year voyage on the HMS Beagle. In fact, rather than noting the differences in the various tortoises while there, Darwin ate these tortoises on his journey! At that time, it was commonly believed that all truth could be derived from merely thinking about it. Testing and observation were not the norm.

Darwin was a gentleman scholar, but he was also competitive. He had planned to postpone the release of On the Origin of Species until after his death, in part to protect the sensibilities of his evangelical Christian wife, but after he became aware that Alfred Russel Wallace had reached similar conclusions about natural selection, he decided to proceed with the announcement of his findings. His theory was given its first public exposure at the Linnean Society meeting of 1858, and its legacy has endured.

As many of you know, Darwin would have been 200 years old this month, and I can only imagine how awestruck he would be to see the journey his theory has taken. Happy Birthday, Darwin!

-Laura

Carnival of the Godless #111 at The Atheist Blogger

Monday, February 23rd, 2009

Check out the latest Carnival of the Godless at the Atheist Blogger

cotg

And, yes, I’d still be promoting it, even though it didn’t include a State of Protest article (Would You Lie About Your Faith to Save Your Life?)

Also, State of Protest will be hosting COTG #112 (not as cool a number as 111, but it’ll do), so get your submissions in HERE.

Rick Santelli says, “Let them eat cake!”

Saturday, February 21st, 2009

Free Markets. That’s what we are supposed to have: free markets. Free markets are where one person can exchange something of value with another person, all without any encumbrances by the government. We have never had free markets, nor will we ever. Worse, you wouldn’t want a truly free market.

If you buy a car, the purchase has the encumbrances of sales taxes, license fees and insurance. The two former are required by the government, the latter one is required by both the government and your bank (if you have a loan).

If you buy a car, I assume you want to drive it on a roadway of some sort, and you have become accustomed to free roadways as a right. Without the sales tax, you would have to pay to use private roadways. Would those roadways always go where you need or want them to go? Would they always be accessible? I assume that you appreciate that others who drive their cars have some training prior to taking the wheel and some sort of penalty if they use their car improperly, like hitting you in the rear when you are stopped at a traffic light. You hope the driver gets a fine for improper driving and you hope the owner’s insurance will repair your car so that you don’t have to do it yourself. This is why there is no such thing as “free markets”. These encumbrances are designed to protect innocent bystanders from consequences of misuse of a vehicle, but also to allow the drivers more choices about when and where they can use their cars.

Recently, if you haven’t heard, Rick Santelli of CNBC had an on-air conniption fit over the mortgage relief plan issued by the Obama Administration: Rick Santelli video rant.

The Obama Administration responded.

Rick has a point. In economic theory, it should be a “buyers beware” system. Each individual is supposed to understand the choices he makes and suffer the consequences of poor choices or poor planning. This assumes that every individual participating in the market has access to the same information and has the capacity to understand the choices presented. In an earlier time and in the face of minions, Marie Antoinette supposedly pronounced “Let them eat cake” as a solution to the starvation faced by her people. She obviously was not operating in a free market environment, but she certainly acted like she was. Basically, she didn’t give a damn because she had a “buyers beware” attitude. What Marie failed to realize, as did the monarchy of France when the revolution came, is that just because your position is golden you shouldn’t rest upon your riches.

Does anyone among us really enjoy the thought of somebody getting a forebearance on $100,000 of the $500,000 mortgage the owner took in order to acquire a house that is now worth only $385,000? I don’t think any of us like that idea. But, what is the alternative?

Rick would like to see these homeowners go into foreclosure. He would like to see these people kicked out of their homes, have houses sit in potential disrepair until a time when other buyers appear, have the banks’ assets decline rapidly (for that is what a failed mortgage represents to a bank), and have hyperinflation set in. As Rick said, he has an Ayn Rand view on this situation. Free markets are enjoyed by those for whom they work.

The fact of the matter is that many individuals and banks, along with the deafening silence of disinterest from the Bush Administration, set about to engage in a multi-year, multi-billion dollar game of Who Can Be The Bigger Capitalist. Are these the only ones who will suffer from this stupid, unencumbered game of mortgage roulette? No. There are plenty of other people suffering right now, some just a little, but for a few, much more.

The situation has caused demand for all goods and services to drop drastically. If this situation continues, many millions of people will be out of work. Let them eat cake. The interest rates have dropped to zero, essentially, which means that the meager interest from CDs that grandma and grandpa thought they were going to get has evaporated to nearly nothing. Let them eat cake. This means that those who are retired and anticipated having a few bucks in their retirement accounts have just witnessed their nest eggs vanish, almost. They are forced to go back to work at low wages because the pool of potential employees is high and the pool of available jobs is low. Let them eat cake.

If you were to examine the people who will suffer from this doomsday mystification of the “free markets”, you will find that the vast majority of them took no particular risks but will suffer the consequences in various ways, right along side of those who did take the risks. If this financial crisis had hit at the beginning of the second term of the Bush Administration, I would shudder to think of the reaction to King George’s pronouncement of “Let them eat cake”. The cake-eaters may have reminded George of how Marie ended her career as the Queen of France.

Could true free-market forces intercede and provide quick corrections to this crisis? Perhaps, but at what cost? Do we wish to have a precipitous drop in the financial foundations and the spirits of every American? Or, do we wish to engage in a slow decline that allows the most adjustments for everyone? I choose the latter because the former is what caused the Great Depression.

Dear Rick, if we all lived in a bubble where we could and should correct for every mistake we made, we all would be living rather hardscrabble lives. We have a government that was supposed to protect us from the threats we face, but that government was too busy occupying a country that never threatened us directly at all. Since we all realize that we really don’t live in a free-market environment and never have, why wasn’t our government acting to limit the markets from doing further damage to our country and the individuals that occupy it? Oh, I guess the Bush Administration was actively engaging in the laissez-faire free-market philosophy that got us into this mess in the first place, right?

Today, I am here to protest the rich and ignorant royalty of society who cannot see the damage done to others by their feudal free-market philosophies, and to the arrogance they display when pronouncing, “LET THEM EAT CAKE!

Protest to take Tamil Tigers off Terrorist List

Friday, February 20th, 2009

There was a marching protest today in front of the White House where activists shouted out for President Obama to “help us”; meaning to take the Tamil Tigers off the terrorist list.

The Tamil Tigers, according to Wikipedia:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, Tamil: தமிழழவிடுதலைப்புலிகள் ISO 15919: tamiḻ iiḻa viṭutalaip pulikaḷ), commonly known as the Tamil Tigers, is a militant terrorist organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign since the 1970s to secede from the Sri Lankan state in order to create a separate Tamil state in the north and east of the island. This campaign has developed into the Sri Lankan Civil War, one of longest running armed conflicts in Asia. Due to the tactics employed by the Tamil Tigers, including the extensive use of suicide bombing and their recruitment of child soldiers, they are currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by 32 countries. The Tamil Tigers are headed by their founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

The Tamil Tigers are notorious for their well-developed militia cadre, atrocities against Muslim and Sinhalese civilians, and high profile attacks, such as the assassination of several high ranking Sri Lankan politicians, and the former Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi. They also have the distinction of introducing suicide bombings as a tactic, and have carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda combined. The LTTE have repeatedly been accused of recruiting child soldiers. The LTTE are the only rebel organization with aircraft.

In January 2009, Canada and the EU notably refused to take the group off its terrorist list, even while the EU agreed to remove the Mujahideen Organization of Iran. The U.S. has had the Tamil Tigers on its terrorist list since the 1990s.

European states agreed on Monday to remove exiled Iranian opposition group the People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI) from an EU list of banned terrorist groups, an EU official said.

The official confirmed that EU foreign ministers approved a decision to take it off a list that includes Palestinian Hamas and Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers.

The PMOI is the group which exposed Iran’s covert nuclear program in 2002. It began as a leftist-Islamist opposition to the late Shah of Iran and has bases in Iraq.1

Waving today in the march were the flags of the U.S. and Canada, among others.

(link to short video clips of part of the procession)
Tamil Tiger Protest

tamil2

tamil3

tamil4

(Thanks to sanhedrin and waxpoet at Reddit for corrections/suggestions)

  1. http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3661977,00.html [<]