Don't you mistake it for anything else. The people are mad and they're making their government take money from greedy, unethical, rich people and give it to back to the people.
In the old days, this would involve stakes, guillotines, mobs and the like.
Today you just have the government pass a bill putting a punishing tax rate on the people who profited from the destruction of the economy - a destruction they brought about.
It's brilliant. It's precise. It's vindictive.
And that throaty growl you hear from the American populace, conveyed by the 328-93 vote in Congress?
That's just the beginning.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Gary Goodyear and (micro)-Evolution
After initially refusing to state that he "believed" in evolution, Mr. Goodyear, Canada's minister for science and technology, has changed his mind. He offers the following quote:
First of all, this was on CTV? I thought CTV was averse to "do-overs"?
What Mr. Goodyear is doing here is a typical creationist trick. He's telling us that he can't deny what the creationists call "micro-evolution", the "little" changes within species (or maybe "kinds"). But he won't admit that evolution can create new species and he probably actually believes that there wasn't enough time because the Earth is only about six thousand years old anyway.
On top of that, he's ignorant on the subject of what evolution does say. Let's go over that first bit again. "We are evolving", he says and, as examples, he mentions, "walking on concrete" and "walking in running shoes."
That's really ignorant. Walking on high heels won't make our species evolve differently, at least not in the sense he means. I had an elementary school teacher once tell me that pulling on his ear lobes would cause his kids to have longer ear lobes. That's called Lamarckism and it's very painful to hear from a Minister of Science and Technology. The things you do in your life, unless they involve irradiating your genitals, do not affect the genes of your children. Period. There's no "debate" on this and there hasn't been for two centuries.
And what's this nonsense about it being irrelevant? If you told the space exploration people that you thought the earth was flat because the bible said so, wouldn't that be relevant? If you told the automotive sector that you supported the phlogiston hypothesis, would that be irrelevant? If you wanted the chemists to research Alchemy, would that be irrelevant?
Of course it would be relevant. And if you tell the biologists, the astronomers, the geologists and the paleontologists (this list is not exhaustive) that the Minister in charge of scientific research thinks that the Earth is 6000 years old and that evolution didn't happen, of course they're going to freak out.
They're going to freak out because they know an ignoramus is in charge.
On Tuesday, Mr. Goodyear said twice during the CTV interview that he did believe in evolution.
“We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant and that is why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong.”
First of all, this was on CTV? I thought CTV was averse to "do-overs"?
What Mr. Goodyear is doing here is a typical creationist trick. He's telling us that he can't deny what the creationists call "micro-evolution", the "little" changes within species (or maybe "kinds"). But he won't admit that evolution can create new species and he probably actually believes that there wasn't enough time because the Earth is only about six thousand years old anyway.
On top of that, he's ignorant on the subject of what evolution does say. Let's go over that first bit again. "We are evolving", he says and, as examples, he mentions, "walking on concrete" and "walking in running shoes."
That's really ignorant. Walking on high heels won't make our species evolve differently, at least not in the sense he means. I had an elementary school teacher once tell me that pulling on his ear lobes would cause his kids to have longer ear lobes. That's called Lamarckism and it's very painful to hear from a Minister of Science and Technology. The things you do in your life, unless they involve irradiating your genitals, do not affect the genes of your children. Period. There's no "debate" on this and there hasn't been for two centuries.
And what's this nonsense about it being irrelevant? If you told the space exploration people that you thought the earth was flat because the bible said so, wouldn't that be relevant? If you told the automotive sector that you supported the phlogiston hypothesis, would that be irrelevant? If you wanted the chemists to research Alchemy, would that be irrelevant?
Of course it would be relevant. And if you tell the biologists, the astronomers, the geologists and the paleontologists (this list is not exhaustive) that the Minister in charge of scientific research thinks that the Earth is 6000 years old and that evolution didn't happen, of course they're going to freak out.
They're going to freak out because they know an ignoramus is in charge.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
If You Seek Amy
I never, ever, ever thought that I would use this blog to defend Britney Spears. Seriously. It's fine music to bop along to but I always took her for an airhead pop-star with an electronically altered voice.
But David Hasselhoff flies at his own expense around the world for Make-a-Wish to be with kids who regard him as a hero.
And Ricki Martin runs a foundation that gets kids off the streets of Thailand.
And now Britney ...
So she wrote a song. Or somebody wrote it for her. I don't care. She sang it and it got on the radio before anyone noticed a damn thing wrong with it. It's a song, apparently about a girl named Amy, who does drugs and is otherwise attractive to both girls and boys of her age. Okay, cool. A drug-smoking, bisexual teenager. Britney is in a dance club looking for her.
That's not perfectly grammatical, is it? There's a lot of license taken by song writers in attempting to match a concept to a rhythm. Listen to Alanis Morissette sometime. I could easily argue that there are two sentences there:
"Too". Meaning "also". You could end a sentence there, if you wanted to. Everyone else is begging for Amy. They're begging, too.
The line following is then finishing the thought, putting the thing they're begging for after the word "too", which is weird. The only people who can talk like that are poets and 900 year old Jedi Masters.
But really, if you listen closely, you can hear what she actually meant to say. As clearly as any priest speeding along to the part of the bible where it tells you to pay him money, she gets to the chorus and you know you're not hearing "If you seek Amy" but four letters and a word.
And you know what. I just gotta respect that. Dunno why. I just do.
But David Hasselhoff flies at his own expense around the world for Make-a-Wish to be with kids who regard him as a hero.
And Ricki Martin runs a foundation that gets kids off the streets of Thailand.
And now Britney ...
So she wrote a song. Or somebody wrote it for her. I don't care. She sang it and it got on the radio before anyone noticed a damn thing wrong with it. It's a song, apparently about a girl named Amy, who does drugs and is otherwise attractive to both girls and boys of her age. Okay, cool. A drug-smoking, bisexual teenager. Britney is in a dance club looking for her.
Love me hate me
Say what you want about me
But all of the boys and all of the girls are begging to
If You Seek Amy
Love me hate me
But can't you see what I see
All of the boys and all of the girls are begging to
If You Seek Amy
That's not perfectly grammatical, is it? There's a lot of license taken by song writers in attempting to match a concept to a rhythm. Listen to Alanis Morissette sometime. I could easily argue that there are two sentences there:
But all of the boys and all of the girls are begging too.
"Too". Meaning "also". You could end a sentence there, if you wanted to. Everyone else is begging for Amy. They're begging, too.
The line following is then finishing the thought, putting the thing they're begging for after the word "too", which is weird. The only people who can talk like that are poets and 900 year old Jedi Masters.
Many are seeking this too, if you seek the Force.
But really, if you listen closely, you can hear what she actually meant to say. As clearly as any priest speeding along to the part of the bible where it tells you to pay him money, she gets to the chorus and you know you're not hearing "If you seek Amy" but four letters and a word.
And you know what. I just gotta respect that. Dunno why. I just do.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Religion and Anxiety ... Another Theory
The more conservative and religious you are, the more likely you are to subscribe to online pornography.
There's a pretty straightforward bar graph there that demonstrates the results of the survey, putting Utah at the very top of the list for per capita online porn consumption.
This leads me back to yesterday's announcement of a study that indicated religious people are less anxious when they undergo stress testing. The theory is that religion provides a certainty about life that reduces your stress levels.
I have another theory.
Of course they're more relaxed! They just finished masturbating.
It all comes together.
h/t Galloping Beaver
There's a pretty straightforward bar graph there that demonstrates the results of the survey, putting Utah at the very top of the list for per capita online porn consumption.
This leads me back to yesterday's announcement of a study that indicated religious people are less anxious when they undergo stress testing. The theory is that religion provides a certainty about life that reduces your stress levels.
I have another theory.
Of course they're more relaxed! They just finished masturbating.
It all comes together.
h/t Galloping Beaver
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Religion Prevents Anxiety?
I suppose that might be a comfort to a religious person, that his beliefs make him calmer. It would be hard to explain, I suppose, if religious people were more agitated. Why does your god want you be so frazzled all the time? I'm sure they would have an excuse.
The headlines are a bit over the top:
Religious brains more calm in face of anxiety: study
Religion protects against stress, study suggests
Believers stay calmer than atheists in trying situations, study suggests
That last one comes closest to the truth, in terms of headlines. From the conclusion of the actual study, which you can find here.
So, yes, religious people are less anxious. I don't know how far to take the significance of the results when the sample size is 28 people and only four are "non-religious", but I'll point this much out anyway: the anxiety they're measuring is the anxiety experienced after making a mistake.
Yes, you read that right. The primary and most significant conclusion of the study is that atheists and other non-believers experience a sharper pang of anxiety or stress in the milliseconds following an error.
Frankly, I find that disturbing but not surprising. It means that religious people make mistakes and don't seem to care about it as much. If you've ever studied any history, you certainly won't find it hard to believe that religious people gloss over their mistakes more easily than others.
Maybe it just takes practice. After all, if you can read all four Christian gospels with their accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ without feeling anxiety about all of the direct contradictions, I suppose you just build up an immunity to facts or something.
I'll take my anxiety over their certainty any day of the week - even Sunday
Update: A more thorough analysis The Neurocritic: Atheists Are Neurotic and Religious Zealots Are Antisocial
The headlines are a bit over the top:
Religious brains more calm in face of anxiety: study
Religion protects against stress, study suggests
Believers stay calmer than atheists in trying situations, study suggests
That last one comes closest to the truth, in terms of headlines. From the conclusion of the actual study, which you can find here.
Our results indicate that religious conviction is associated with reduced neural responsivity to uncertainty and error on a generic decision-making task.
So, yes, religious people are less anxious. I don't know how far to take the significance of the results when the sample size is 28 people and only four are "non-religious", but I'll point this much out anyway: the anxiety they're measuring is the anxiety experienced after making a mistake.
Yes, you read that right. The primary and most significant conclusion of the study is that atheists and other non-believers experience a sharper pang of anxiety or stress in the milliseconds following an error.
Frankly, I find that disturbing but not surprising. It means that religious people make mistakes and don't seem to care about it as much. If you've ever studied any history, you certainly won't find it hard to believe that religious people gloss over their mistakes more easily than others.
Maybe it just takes practice. After all, if you can read all four Christian gospels with their accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ without feeling anxiety about all of the direct contradictions, I suppose you just build up an immunity to facts or something.
I'll take my anxiety over their certainty any day of the week - even Sunday
Update: A more thorough analysis The Neurocritic: Atheists Are Neurotic and Religious Zealots Are Antisocial
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Sigh and Grimace: 111
You can make a milestone out of anything, I suppose. It's only an accident of our numbering system that makes the year 2000 significant, the Unix time 1234567890 what it is, or the milestones of thousands or hundreds of deaths in war.
Warrant Officer Dennis Brown, Corporal Chad O'Quinn, and Corporal Dany-Olivier Fortin have the undeserved mark of bringing Canada's toll of blood to one hundred eleven. 111. If we were speaking in binary, it would only be seven.
War is a sad and stupid thing. If we can spend so much blood and money to bring people half way around the world to kill each other, why can't we spend a fraction of that to be at peace?
Even Stephen Harper, our intrepid Prime Minister, has admitted that we can't beat the Taliban by killing them. Not only are they entrenched and invisible amongst the populace, they also get recruits every time anyone from NATO kills the wrong guy. The level of precision required to kill more Taliban than are created is simply impossible.
But, in her grief, in her ardent desire to believe that the fighting, killing and dying - especially the dying - has not been in vain, the widow of one of the deceased wants us to go on. Even acknowledging that we can't beat the Taliban, she would have us go on anyway rather than give up.
I don't want to criticize a woman who has so recently been handed the news of a loved one's death. There's no need. It's what she says further on that gets to me.
I know they're working hard. I've never been to war, never held a gun against someone come to kill me. But I know enough to know it isn't easy.
And no, as nasty as it sounds, I can't support what they're doing. They're following orders and I can hardly hold that against them. They've been told, and believe on reasonable grounds, that they're on a moral mission.
They've been misled, which I do not hold against them, but rather against two dishonest governments who have put them there, misleading both us and them.
Do I support the troops? Of course I do. I support them by demanding their withdrawal from a mission which is worth neither their noble service nor their blood. I support them by demanding that they be brought home.
Warrant Officer Dennis Brown, Corporal Chad O'Quinn, and Corporal Dany-Olivier Fortin have the undeserved mark of bringing Canada's toll of blood to one hundred eleven. 111. If we were speaking in binary, it would only be seven.
War is a sad and stupid thing. If we can spend so much blood and money to bring people half way around the world to kill each other, why can't we spend a fraction of that to be at peace?
Even Stephen Harper, our intrepid Prime Minister, has admitted that we can't beat the Taliban by killing them. Not only are they entrenched and invisible amongst the populace, they also get recruits every time anyone from NATO kills the wrong guy. The level of precision required to kill more Taliban than are created is simply impossible.
But, in her grief, in her ardent desire to believe that the fighting, killing and dying - especially the dying - has not been in vain, the widow of one of the deceased wants us to go on. Even acknowledging that we can't beat the Taliban, she would have us go on anyway rather than give up.
I don't want to criticize a woman who has so recently been handed the news of a loved one's death. There's no need. It's what she says further on that gets to me.
Ms. Brown said she understands there are those who don't support the mission. “But you can support what they're doing. They're trying and they're working hard,” she told reporters in St. Catharines, Ont.
I know they're working hard. I've never been to war, never held a gun against someone come to kill me. But I know enough to know it isn't easy.
And no, as nasty as it sounds, I can't support what they're doing. They're following orders and I can hardly hold that against them. They've been told, and believe on reasonable grounds, that they're on a moral mission.
They've been misled, which I do not hold against them, but rather against two dishonest governments who have put them there, misleading both us and them.
Do I support the troops? Of course I do. I support them by demanding their withdrawal from a mission which is worth neither their noble service nor their blood. I support them by demanding that they be brought home.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Can They Even Spell Transparency?
Wasn't that one of their big promises? Transparency?
Right before Harper muzzled all of this ministers?
Yeah, well, here you go.
I'm sure they'll tell us it's for "national security", but really, we know they're just trying to hide all those hand-written listeriosis crisis notes from us.
Right before Harper muzzled all of this ministers?
Yeah, well, here you go.
The Harper Conservatives now routinely delay requests for government documents – a right of Canadians under the law – well beyond the 30 days that the Access to Information Act requires.
I'm sure they'll tell us it's for "national security", but really, we know they're just trying to hide all those hand-written listeriosis crisis notes from us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)