Illinois seeks scientists to help in Asian carp fight

This headline struck me as funny because the implied message (perhaps) is, "After politicians once again find themselves powerless, clueless, and impotent. . .they turn to science. Wait could it be? Could LOGIC and reason save the day?

Again?

Catholics Take the Low Road Again

Catholic Charities in Joliet, Peoria opt out of adoptions

This decision is in conjunction with the new civil unions law in Illinois. The Catholic church doesn't want to put children in homes with homos. That's it pretty much. Forget the quality of life those kids might enjoy and take advantage of. Forget thinking about the KIDS (except in a biblical way for some priests).

I wonder if they'd place kids in homes with a heterosexual atheist couple?

I'm so sick of people living in the ancient, dark, paranoid, past when the future is really so bright!

Time to Start Bashing Sarah Palin

Here's a great link to the 9 most disturbing beliefs of Sarah Palin. Read it.

I'd like to just point out one example:

Until somebody digs up the remnants of a T. rex with an ill-fated caveman dangling from its jaws, the scientific community, along with most of the American public, will be at peace with the theory of evolution. But this isn't true of everyone. More than 80 years after the Scopes "Monkey" trial, there are people -- and politicians -- who do not believe in evolution and lobby for creationism to be taught in schools. Palin is one of those politicians.

I think this example and others are perhaps not so much an example of how stupid and un-educated Sarah Palin is but how she and a host of other conservative republicans will take ANY STAND if it means votes. I'm not sure which is scarier and perhaps she is both - uneducated and evil.

HEY! It's May 22!

Well, what do you know. The world didn't end. That means the Cubs still have a chance. . . some day.

Surprise!

But to those who believed, their money sure as hell (get it? Sure as hell?) is gone! Interestingly, Family Radio has not been updated and is still predicting the end of times. . . yesterday!

I mean really. . . why would you donate to Family Radio instead of giving your money to family members if you really thought it was the end of times. What the hell is this nut-ball organization going to do with your money if they are really sure that on the 21st they were going to heaven? HEY! You really can't take it with you, right?

On one hand I shake my head at the stupidity of people who believe some nut case can do math based on something in the bible and get more than 3 people to go along with him. Sell their houses, join a caravan, whatever.

Understand that I and other rational people were not standing by to see if the world was going to end. It never entered my world of possible things. Now that it didn't happen I don't feel smug. I didn't go "Whew!" I don't feel like 'I won'. To do that would be to fall into the whole non-thing. A non-happening that attracted thousands. In the same way I could give a rat's ass what the pope says.

No, I only feel sadness. I'm saddened by our educational system that produces people who cannot distinguish between being the ability to go to the moon and numerology. Moreover I am unable to distinguish between the few thousands who gave up a chunk of their lives for a nut case and the millions of devout Christians who basically do the same thing day after day. They give up their reason. They give up some of their money. They miss the truly amazing things about being sentient and getting to observe this amazing universe by imagining a rather boring supernatural universe with pastel clouds and unicorns.

How different is it for a guy to claim he has calculated the end of times from the bible than for some ancient priests to claim the son of god somehow died for my sins (of which I have virtually none and I have the judges decision to prove it!) and rose up into heaven where I get to go too.

Somehow.

If it sounds ridiculous it probably is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The whole fucking thing is depressing. . .

Skeptics vs. Conspiracy Nuts

Some are wanting the US to publish the photos of the dead Osama to quiet any critics who say it may be a hoax. I think this would be a mistake.

1. If he's not dead let's have a current picture of him or video holding the day's paper.
2. publish DNA evidence...that's not that hard to read.
3. Ask his wife who was there: "Is your husband dead?"

But none of this would work including the publishing the picture because a conspiracy nut takes his conspiracies as a true hobby. No matter WHAT you show them they just ratchet it up and claim that the conspiracy is that much bigger or more insidious. They are exactly like religious nuts in that they have already claimed their conclusion and facts and evidence be damned. It's a losing gambit to try to 'show' these people anything. You can't win and you just give them more air time.

As my uncle used to say: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. You only frustrate yourself and you annoy the pig"!

Let Osama prove that he is alive!

Finally, being skeptical is different than holding on to a conclusion in spite of the evidence. Being skeptical means that you withhold your conclusions until you've seen some evidence and you want a LOT of it from qualified sources. No cherry picking!

Bin Laden. . . . DEAD!

Well, that's certainly good news and I did have a little, "In your face!" thought. I'm a little disturbed by Americans taking to the streets, waving flags, and chanting USA though. All of that seems so . . . so . . . ummmm....Middle Eastern!

I'm glad we never gave up and that this dirt bag was found and killed. Fair enough. But, I don't care for the public celebrations of death to an individual. Just seems a little tacky.

Surviving a Tornado

From CNN:

The same tornado, Amin said, virtually destroyed the tiny town of Phil Campbell, which has a population of little more than 1,000.

Those who survived the disaster thanked God or simple luck.

Just a quick note about the obvious: How can you tell the difference between God's interference and blind luck? I'll sit back and wait for my answer.

Praying for Rain in Texas

I'm for this. I'm for it raining so hard in Texas that the whole fucking state washes into the gulf of Mexico.

Seriously. . .

The Govenor of Texas, Rick (Jimmy Bobby) Perry, has proclaimed an official state wide 3 days of prayer for rain in Texas to put out the wild fires. Texas is a very big state as you know so with that kind of power behind a prayer it ought to work, right?

And yet. . .

There is not one shred of evidence that prayer works. This after numerous controlled experiments. I know, I know, I know. . . I just keep ruining the whole magical prayer thing with this fact. Notice how people actually LOVE controlled experiments when it makes for neater gizmos like air conditioning or iPhones but choose to NOT like controlled experiments when it gets in the way of believing in magic. Typical cherry picking

But let's assume that prayer does send a message to a super being. Why does more people praying help? Why three days? Why not 4 or 2? Why not pray for the wisdom to provide more money and fire equipment for your apparently outmatched fire department? To pray like this, to ask for rain from a perhaps benevolent creator is really weird to me. What then if it doesn't rain? What do you conclude? Prayers didn't get through? You and your whole stupid state are not worthy? God has a plan but you're not part of it?

I know of people praying for cures for the sick and dying. Those aren't answered either and still the praying goes on.

What a fucking waste of time. Maybe the great apes evolved from us instead of the other way round. You don't see them wasting their time like this. Oh wait, that would bring up the whole evolution thing and that's not allowed in Texas either.



From Plognark.com

Go there

Holy Oak Tree!

Recently, a disgruntled Alabama football fan poisoned the cherished oak trees at Auburn University, their arch rivals. The trees were a rallying point for celebrating Auburn's success at football where the Auburn fans would 'decorate' the trees with hundreds of rolls of toilet paper.

Pause. . .

Well, that's sad for the trees to be sure. What this shows though is what can happen when you swear your allegiance to something that is not real. Football is real enough but to live and die with the idea of the team is a different story. Being a fan is truly a weird thing. The team is different every few years, the uniforms change, coaches come and go, new stadiums are built. So, what is the thing that keeps you being a fan of a particular team? The idea of it. WE are the good guys. Everyone else is evil. Starting to sound a little familiar?

Also, the poisoner in question (now a prisoner?) is 62. That's little old for rah, rah, sisss boom bah, don't you think? I suspect, like many die hard fans, he never attended Alabama. Also, I'm interested in the whole idea of the trees themselves becoming 'holy'. The trees got connected to the football team which people had somehow become intimately connected with. (Excellent marketing?) So by association the trees were 'holy'. I say 'holy' in the same way that a chunk of ground, or a rock, a wall, a tasteless wafer, or a building can become holy by association with deep feelings about things that aren't real. To attack the physical object then is to attack someones cherished beliefs.

If one were to spit on the wailing wall or take a leak inside a mosque think of how much worse the repercussions would be while in fact it would really be about the same level of defilement as the killing of the oak trees. In fact the oak tree incident may be worse because there was the actual death of the living trees. When it's YOUR team, or YOUR wailing wall, or YOUR mosque things take on an elevated sense of importance that is way beyond what the true effect or importance is.

Oh, and none of this applies to Cub fans. We truly are the chosen ones as everyone knows and Larussa is Satan!

The Chain of Questions

Let's take Christianity. . .

Jesus was born to a virgin and rose from the dead. In between he made water into wine, fed a multitude on one box of Triscuits, brought Lazarus back from the dead (and left several more most certainly dead), walked on water, and cured the occasional cripple.

There is nothing actually written by Jesus himself or by any of his contemporaries. Despite the red type in the New Testament (I always thought that was extra special when I looked at the bible as a kid) Jesus has never really been quoted. His words were the words of the devout put down for him (for them?) several HUNDRED years later.

OK

For example, when someone says, "I believe in life after death", you get to say,
"That's pretty out there. Why do you believe that?"
"Well, it was said to be true and promised by Jesus himself. "
"Actually, we're not sure what he said, are we"?
"It's in the bible."
"Who wrote it down?"
"It was written by the hand of God".
"Yes but somebody had to actually write it down."
"His hand was guided by God."
"That's a pretty strong claim. How do you know that?
"It's in the bible."
"Do you see a circle here?"

My point is that there is no way a theist can allow a natural, logical stream of questions - A stream of questions no more complicated than those that you'd dive into if it were negotiating the purchase of a car or a home loan. Questions on theism and faith all end in circles and pure belief. Of course the "counter argument" is that skeptics don't know everything either.

This is like saying, Soriano is a bad left fielder for the Cubs and having the counter argument be, 'lots of people have dropped baseballs.' Well, sure but still . . .

Indeed. I'd be the first skeptic to admit that I don't know everything but several have beat me too it. In fact society's general lack of knowledge in several areas is the only thing I'm NOT skeptical about. Lack of knowledge while on the quest for answers, data, and trying to understand the universe, to fill in those gaps is quite different from denying that such knowledge is possible. That reason itself is impossible. When a scientist is just short of an answer to his question he does not revel in it. He does not make it the cornerstone around which he builds his world view. Around which he builds his church. No, that would be giving up. He marshals on. He strives for understanding. He* strives to pull back that shroud of darkness and really see.

Do you see the difference? The scary theist revels in his lack of understanding and uses that to invent gods. They use that to infect our school boards. They use it to build huge money making edifices called churches. They use it to build fences: We own marriage. We own only white people. They use it in a feedback loop to reinforce they're own lack of understanding. To make it "good". The 'good' people all misunderstand together.

This in the face of the skeptic striving, with a moderately functioning brain, for understanding in what is surely a reasonable universe. To actually use that small brain, to not be afraid, to keep following that chain of questioning, bravely, wherever it might lead.

The devout Christian (or other) will always take the moral high road based on their 'faith' but I see them as people who have given up. They've surrendered that which makes them truly human - their reason. It is the only thing that separates us from the other mammals.

*Sorry to keep saying "He". You get what I'm going for, right?

Pray. . . a LOT

Recently, I've gotten tangential information about a sick child. My reading tells me that all of us need to pray for this little kid and pray a LOT. Get others to pray if you can.

Now, you can't go after someone who is trying to do good in this way and I never would. I can't help thinking of a couple of things to myself though (and gauging by comments, writing here is the SAME as thinking to myself :)). First off, if praying for a sick little kid could help it seems mean that you have to pray 'enough'. Are we to imagine a fatherly figure with the big white beard (was God ever young?) listening and counting and knowing of this little kid's suffering (God knows all) and then. . ."Nope, not enough prayers and several people didn't really pray hard enough. NO SOUP FOR YOU. NEXT!"

Is that the God people are praying to? I guess it is. Is there some sort of innate desire to be subservient to a guy with a big white beard (without being an elf) that makes us ok with just not praying enough or hard enough? That way it's our fault and not God's? This is some pretty twisted logic but of course it's not logic at all.

And of course there are the numerous tests that have shown that praying has no effect for the sick and may even have a negative effect if they know you're praying for them.

So. . . why do we keep behaving so strangely?

Miracle Mary. . .Ya Hey Der!

This just in. . .well, actually from 1859...

It seems back in 1859 a half blind, Belgian farm girl named Adele Brise had some visions of the Virgin Mary (although the vision said her name was the Queen of Heaven. I imagine her saying that the way guys from Ohio State say THE Ohio State: "THE Queen of Heaven"! Like that). Anyway, Mary told her to teach kids about catholicism (eventhough it hadn't been invented in Mary's time) and that's what she did.

Fast forward to 2010 and the bishop says that these visions have been investigated and according to the bishop 'they are supernatural and "worthy of belief."' That puts this little area of Wisconsin (Cheese!) right up there with other such places where miracles never really occur like Lourdes or Wrigley Field.

From the article. . .

Ricken opened a formal investigation into Brise's visions in January 2009, appointing a committee of three Marian experts who followed guidelines issued by the Vatican in 1978 for judging apparitions and revelations. These committees typically consult experts in psychology, church law, Scripture, history, theology, and testimony from people familiar with the visionary.

In general, church investigators are more "History Detectives," than "Ghost Hunters," to use a television analogy. Supernatural events are almost impossible to prove, said the Rev. Johann Roten, who has served on committees assessing apparitions, so the church is more interested in the consequences of the vision

Oh my. . .where to start?

Let's look at who they are not consulting: scientists, Randi, skeptics in general. You're consulting an expert in psychology? How does that work? To see if it's possible for a non-crazy person to have a vision? Testimony? 1859!!! At this point it wouldn't even be 3rd person testimony it would be 5th generation testimony.

And, my favorite, Supernatural events are almost (but not quite?) impossible to prove. OF COURSE YOU CAN'T PROVE THEM. . . THEY'RE SUPERNATURAL WHICH MEANS OUTSIDE OF LOGIC.

Jeez some people are so thick.

This is a great example of wanting your cake and your virgin too. You want the world to be magical but you'd also like to prove the magic exists using logic but, hey, it's really a faith thing but, and, . . . The Bishop is for it!

I like this. . .

In general, the Catholic Church approaches stories of supernatural visions with a mixture of excitement and caution, scholars say.

Translation: excitement - "We could make a bundle with plastic statues". Caution - "What are the risk/reward numbers?

Once the visionary is dead and gone, if the pilgrimage site continues to have meaning and value for the church it becomes less risky," Britt said, "and even sometimes desirable for the church to offer its endorsement."

Of course it's less risky! You can prop up the half blind, crazy, milk maid as some kind of mother Theresa and no one can challenge that.

What a world. Internet, Mars missions, electric cars. . .and the Virgin Mary in Wisconsin.

Dead People Say Hi!

I'll put my snarky comments in RED

This by David Kessler on Oprah.com

(OPRAH.com) -- Throughout my years of working with the dying and the bereaved, I have noticed commonly shared experiences that remain beyond our ability to explain (remember this phrase) and fully understand. The first are visions.

As the dying see less of this world, some people appear to begin looking into the world to come. It's not unusual for the dying to have visions, (read on. . .you'll find it's about 4%) often of someone who has already passed on. Your loved one may tell you that his deceased father visited him last night, or your loved one might speak to his mom as if she were there in the room at that time.

It was almost 15 years ago that I was sitting at the bedside of my teacher, Elisabeth Kübler Ross', when she turned to me and asked, "What do you think about the deceased visiting those on their deathbeds to greet them?"

I replied quickly, showing my knowledge back to her: "You're speaking of deathbed visions, most likely caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain or a side effect of morphine."What's wrong with this suggestion?

She looked at me and sighed, "It will come with maturity."

Oprah.com: 4 healthy ways to grieve

I thought to myself: "Maturity? What did maturity have to do with anything?" Now, years later, I look at the events we still can't explain that happen at the end of life and realize what Elisabeth was saying.

It would be arrogant to think we can explain everything, (Unless you can!) especially when it comes to dying. My mother died when I was still a preteen. My father remained an incredible optimist his whole life, even when he was dying. I was busy trying to make sure he was comfortable and pain-free, and at first didn't notice he had become very sad.

He told me how much he was going to miss me once he was gone. And then he mentioned how much he was saying goodbye to: his loved ones, his favorite foods, the sky, the outdoors and a million other things of this world. He was overcome by sadness I could not (and would not) take away from him.

My father was very down-hearted for the next few days. But then one morning he told me my mother, his wife, had come to him the night before.

"David, she was here for me," he said with an excitement I had not seen in him in years. "I was looking at all I was losing, and I'd forgotten that I was going to be with her again. I'm going to see her soon." He looked at me as he realized I would still remain here. Then he added, "We'll be there waiting for you."

And this can't be because of lack of oxygen, etc. to the brain because it was YOUR father?

Over the next two days, his demeanor changed dramatically. He had gone from a hopeless dying man with only death in front of him to a hopeful man who was going to be reunited with the love of his life. My father lived with hope and also died with it.

Oprah.com: Why birth is not a beginning and death is not an end

When I started compiling examples to include in my book, "Visions, Trips and Crowded Rooms: Who and What You See Before You Die," I was surprised by how similar they were. In fact, it was hard to pick which ones to use because they were all so much alike.

You know, we have 2 legs, 2 arms, spleens, hearts, etc. Why should it be surprising when humans have something in common?

Now I realize the very thing that makes them repetitious is also what makes them unique. As someone who has spent most of my life writing, teaching and working with the dying, I can't prove to you that my father's vision was real. I can only talk about my experience as a son and about countless other occurrences that take place every day.

I don't doubt the vision was real. I only doubt that real dead people were 'visiting'.

I used to believe the only thing we needed to alleviate was the suffering of the dying by providing good pain management and symptom control. I know now that we have more -- we have the "who" and "what" we see before we die, which is perhaps the greatest comfort to the dying.

Some interesting and unexplainable items about deathbed visions:

There's that word again. Unexplalinable? or Unexplained so far?

• Visions people experience at the end of life are remarkably similar.

already spoke to this.

• The dying are most often visited by their mothers. It shouldn't be too surprising that the person who is actually present as we cross the threshold of life and take our first breaths once again appears at the threshold as we take our last breaths.

Wow, how very scientific. First off, what's the sample size and how was the research done to allow for 'most often'. How about orphans? Who visits them? What about mothers who beat their kids. Do they still get to visit? And, what's with the flowery language there? Oh wait, this is from Oprah.com. Next!

• Hands passionately reaching upward to some unseen force is witnessed in many deathbed encounters.

That's data?

• Visions mostly occur toward a corner of the room.

• Those family members at a deathbed are not able to see the vision or participate in the conversation.

• Visions usually occur hours to weeks before death.

• Visions don't seem to appear in other frightening situations where death is not likely, such as stuck in an elevator, lost in a foreign city or lost hiking.

• Unlike traditional healthcare, the law treats a dying person's last words as the truth.

I don't get this sentence at all. Help me.

Oprah.com: Using technology to get through tough times

If you find the concept of a dead loved one greeting you on your deathbed impossible or ridiculous, consider what I finally realized as a parent: You protect your children from household dangers. You hold their hands when they cross the street on their first day of school. You take care of them when they have the flu, and you see them through as many milestones as you can.

Now fast-forward 70 years after you, yourself, have passed away. What if there really is an afterlife and you receive a message that your son or daughter will be dying soon? If you were allowed to go to your child, wouldn't you?

I would. Wait, is the Bear's game on?

While death may look like a loss to the living, the last hours of a dying person may very well be filled with fullness rather than emptiness. Or not! Sometimes all we can do is embrace the unknown and unexplainable and make our loved ones feel good about their experiences.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Possible Responses and Tips

• There's really no point in telling your dying father you think he's hallucinating or that his mom has been dead for several years and can't possibly be there.

Of course not that would be mean but I'll tell you you're full of shit.

• Instead of disagreeing, try asking him, "What is your mom saying?"

• Say, "Tell me more about your vision." Perhaps Aunt Betty is telling your father that it's okay to die or maybe they're reminiscing about growing up together.

• Say, "It's great that Aunt Betty is here with you," or "I knew that Mother would come to meet you," or "I'm so glad that Mom is with you now."

• Denying their reality will only separate you from your loved one. So join and explore this profound time of life.

The saying goes, "We come into this world alone, and we leave alone." We've been brought up to believe that dying is a lonely, solitary event. But what if everything we know isn't true? What if the long road that you thought you'll eventually have to walk alone has unseen companions?

What if monkeys fly out of your ass? Jesus H. Christ! Anyone can write a bunch of drivel by saying 'what if' over and over again!

I would welcome those of you who have had an experience of your dying loved ones being comforted by those already deceased to share these stories here with others. In sharing our stories, we will see that the journey at the end of life is not a lonely path into eternity.

How about sharing stories of no visions. My mom slide into a coma after a long illness and died. Period.

Rather, it may be an incredible reunion with those we have loved and lost. It reminds us that God exists and birth is his miracle that carries us into life. A deathbed vision is his miracle that carries us though the transition of death into the next part of our eternity.

Now we get to it. The whole premise is based on the unprovable existence of (probably the Christian) God. Also, we never hear why the hypothesis of lack of oxygen to the brain is wrong. Nice piece Oprah. America is doomed.

------------

Here's another website with the same kind of "research" in other words they ONLY look at dying people who DO see visions but they don't look at how many dying people overall see visions. That's not research.

Here's someone doing actual research. This doctor interviewed cardiac arrest patients as they are very near dead at some point with no pulse, etc. He found

Out of the 63 cardiac arrest survivors that Parnia interviewed, 56 had no memories of any lucid experience. Seven, however, did. Parnia narrowed these down to four who clearly met all the criteria.

Also:

For me, the biggest question is why no more than a few percent have the experience, given that the circumstances seem to be the same.

And Finally:

It is unlikely that many sceptical scientists will be convinced. The science writer Susan Blackmore has researched the subject, having considered many case histories, but says, 'All things considered, I can see no reason to adopt the afterlife hypothesis ... The dying brain hypothesis, for all its shortcomings, does a better job of accounting for the experiences themselves'. Because we do dream and (sometimes) hallucinate, it might seem hasty to posit an afterlife on the basis of these experiences if there is a simpler explanation.

Notice that the writing of reasonable investigations of this phenomena is lacking in the flowery prose of the article in Oprah. We WANT to believe so the writing panders to that need.

Heaven is Intergrated!

This just in from CNN.

Well, that's nice. Since heaven is integrated (according to the pastor) then churches should be too except there is no way to know what the pretend place called 'heaven' is like. We have a human need to think there is a better life after this one but not one shred of evidence on which to base such a way of thinking.

So good idea to integrate your church but maybe just do it because it's the right thing to do.

Heaven can wait!

Wiccan? Pagan?

Article in the Trib this morning about a Wiccan minister. He says the religion is getting more acceptance in the mainstream and why not?

Their beliefs are no crazier than any other religion. From the Trib. . .

"We honor the ancestors by casting a magical circle of protection and invoking the divine powers in the form of a god and goddess," said Larson, a white-haired 63-year-old with a professorial air. "And there's chanting to create and build energy within the group, and sometimes a bonfire."

Is this crazier than thinking a guy somehow died for you sins? Is it crazier than thinking you are eating his body when you have a cracker? Is it crazier than thinking that someone rose up from the dead? And, who doesn't like a nice bonfire?

Also from the Trib.. .

"There's no formal book or scripture that's considered divinely revealed," Larson said. "Pagans don't have to reconcile a creation story written millennia ago with the findings of modern science. Consequently most pagans are quite comfortable with a scientific world view including such specific ideas as evolution."

Well, that's cool. You know, have any crazy ass religion you want but just don't think you then have some moral upper hand and for Darwin's sake. . .DON'T RUN FOR OFFICE. WE'RE BUSY!

Tony Danza?

So, here I am minding my own business watching re-runs of Criminal Minds and what comes on but a 'reality show' with that BIG star Tony Danza apparently being a REAL teacher in Philly (I can only hope he got booed). I watched a little bit and then turned it off. Like all "reality" shows, it's as real as it gets. . . with a fucking videographer, sound, and light man following you around!

Actually, I've never watched any teacher shows. Room 222, Coach, ok maybe a little Mr. Cotter but that was totally for laughs. I think most of my fellow teachers are with me on this. No teacher show has ever come close. It's like turning a novel into a movie. Always comes up short. Every year, the job of teaching is another novel.

The good news about the Tony Danza opening episode was how scared he acted. Not was but acted and that's ok. The point is how completely terrifying teaching high school kids is. I don't mean at some 'tough' high school in Philly. I mean just teenagers in general. I taught at a very nice high school in a Chicago suburb and I'd have friends or associates who weren't in the teaching biz come visit sometimes and just walk through the halls with them at passing period and watch their faces. Oh my. That's a lot of teenage bizness right there in your face. You'd see the fear in their eyes. It's just too much for the un-initiated. I'd stop and tease the occasional kid. Acknowledge the occasional greeting from a student. Stop and stare at kids swapping spit. It's all good. But oh my. . . if you're not of this world. . . well, it's really something.

And if you're not shitting your pants before your first day of teaching EVERY fall then for fuck's sake go get your realtor license and get the hell out of Dodge. This IS scary. This IS important. A great teacher has to really believe that the works of Plato, Galileo, Sarte, Jefferson, Euclid, Hemingway, ARE important. The parents are depending on you. The KIDS are depending on you because in the face of having a long list of boring teachers under their belts they, like Cub fans, always hold out hope that this will be the year.

Do Not Disappoint

Now you may think that that means that you have to be Mr. friendly or Mr. fun or Mr. Funny. . . probably not. A good friend that I taught with was being eaten alive, EATEN ALIVE, by lower level kids who had pretty much given up on school. After a semester of that he went out and bought several suits of clothes and ties. He became the Hitler of science education. He had crazy rules and stuck to them: NO one goes to the bathroom . . . EVER! GO IN YOUR PANTS! No one can cross this line. . . EVER. Homework is due or I'm calling your parents...EVERY TIME. And so on. And you know what? They loved him. It was the direction they had been looking for for maybe 15 years.

15 years! Are you listening to this?

I quit teaching physics because I wanted to go sailing but that's only partly the reason. I quit teaching because I realized that I couldn't quite do it to the level I wanted to do it at any longer. For whatever reason. Burn out? I'll never know. Schools change. Administration changes. Kids change and it was all just too far for me to stretch. I quit for the good of education in general and for my own mental health. I never wanted to be THAT teacher and I felt I might be becoming him.

What is the commitment of nation's current teachers? That's probably too big a question with answers all over the place. The lure of teaching will always draw some and always draw some of the best but are those numbers diminishing? As long as we evaluate students, schools and, now, teachers via the standardized test I think we'll get fewer and fewer 'good teachers'. You know, a 'good teacher'. Hopefully, we've all had one or two and if you think back to them do you think they were driven by test scores or by their own love for Plato, Galileo, Sarte, Jefferson, Euclid, Hemingway, and the rest of the gang.

Senate Republicans

This is an update on an earlier blog. I learn today from Phil Plait that EVERY republican senate hopeful is against taking any action on global warming. This is the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Why?

VOTES

American is broken. When you have evidence in front of you confirming an important topic like global warming but you sense that your team can get more votes by appealing to stupid people, well then the great experiment in democracy is broken.

When your support group is basically people who don't accept evolution, think God lives in the sky, deny global warming, and basically suspect anything that is supported by data. . . well, that's a nice little scary political party you have there.

I'm sad.

Baby Scientists

My daughter revealed to me the other day that young children and scientists are exactly the same. The same in how they go about doing what they do. A young child, say 1 year old or less, is constantly testing, trying, eliminating that which doesn't work, expanding on what does work, generalizing, hypothesizing, and then re-testing again and again. This is what science does. I know we are all supposed to learn the 'scientific method' in school (purpose, procedure. . . ) but I'm not sure any working scientist gives a hoot about it when she is busy testing, exploring, hypothesizing, etc. It's much messier than that and yet every bit as rational and logical in its approach.

I'm going to invent a pretend child who grows up being supported in their explorations by an experience explorer (teacher). As this child grows up they would gain knowledge about how the world works via the myriads of tests they perform every day and they would also become better explorers. They will take fewer turns down blind alleys and maybe suspect earlier on that a particular journey is going to bear little fruit. I know well seasoned physicists who can smell a rat in a proof (they've seen similar) way earlier than an apprentice will. The point is that if you ask reasonable questions, test possible answers, test again and so on, nature will 'teach' you naturally. It can do this because the workings of nature are based on repeatable, testable mechanisms. While they might be complicated they are always there waiting to be unraveled.

If you could let all that exploration with a qualified leader just go on and on would there be any point where the explorers would come up with God as an explanation to any phenomena? Understand that this explorer is my pretend person who has never even been given any idea about existing religions or the God idea. Their explorations would ultimately come up with all the laws of physics, evolution, DNA, the Copernican system, Big Bang, etc, but what phenomena would you unearth and come up with God. In what context would that happen? What would they be puzzled about and then go, "Ah. . .must be an invisible being living in the sky that caused this."

God exists in society because we teach it to very small children when they are too young to think critically. Even worse is that very small children's brains are wired to accept ANYTHING that adults say. This was a very key evolutionary trick to keep the kids with the herd. Using this wiring to infect kids with the God idea is, to me, a little cruel. This is key. You could NOT teach about god successfully to someone who was already thinking critically and skeptically to fantastic claims. They would keep asking annoying questions like, "Where is heaven"? Does God have a dick? Really? A virgin? How did that work? How does Jesus getting nailed to a cross do anything for me? And so on. . .

Understand that when people thought that God or the gods actually were the cause of everything from the origins of the earth to lightning, floods, and weather it would make sense to teach this to the kids. If God was your only idea of what caused things to happen, well, then might as well pass it on. But now we KNOW differently! We do because we are not ignorant shepherds any longer and yet we persist in teaching the God idea. Why do we do that?

Now you might say that as one explores one would naturally read the books of explorers that came before. One doesn't really have to sail around the south seas, re-tracing Darwin's journey to understand Darwin's theory and more importantly, one can read and understand that what is being claimed is testable and if one so chooses they can test the claims for themselves. Many have so chosen and THOSE findings can be read as well. So, you say, why can't one read the bible for it's lessons and learn about God from those that came before? Isn't that really the same thing? No. You can but nothing you read is TESTABLE. That makes a huge difference! What started out as the re-telling of lore and folk tales finally got written down at some point and became THE bible. This is a completely different document than any other investigative bit of writing. By its very nature the bible is to be taken as the true word of God because God (through man) says so. . . somehow.

As long as parents, and in most cases in an unthinking effort to be 'good' parents, drag their kids to Sunday school religion and the God idea will live long and prosper. You can put up all the billboards you like but I fear that you are preaching to the choir!

Republicans Have All the Nuts and none of the Balls

Is it just me or does it seem that all the nut-ball groups have gravitated (for those who believe in gravity) to the Grand Old Party? Why does is seem that the hysterical among us align themselves with conservative ideals, ergo, the Republicans. This must drive the reasonable among the Republicans (yeah, they have to be there!) crazy. In researching this post I find an exactly matching post with a better title...

Not all Republicans are science deniers but all science deniers are Repupblicans

Let's look at a few groups that tend to align themselves with the Republican party to illuminate my point

1. Evangelicals, like Terry Fox or the late Jerry Fallwell (do all their first names end in Y?) who preach the wickedness of abortion, evolution and homosexuality.

2. Global warming deniers. From that link. . .

Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

And then there's this:

Every GOP NH Senate Candidate Is A Global Warming Denier

And from Phil Plait. . .

Every single Republican senate hopeful is against climate change action

Evolution: War on science: Alabama’s “True Republican” TV ad mocks evolution

Young Earth Believers - Yep Republicans again.

This is getting very depressing. It's one thing to just be uneducated. It's another to use that stupidity to get votes. A true denier has to deny actual scientific data a priori and WANT things to be different than they actually are. They have an ax to grind and by God they are going to fucking grind it! Individually they are harmless and equivalent to the flat earth society. But, to PLAY to the audience whether you are a denier or not in an attempt (which might be successful!) to get votes is bordering on evil. What is to be gained by your real or feigned denial except your own elevation to a post to which you are poorly trained and with which you cannot possibly do good.

And then there's the whore, Sarah Palin who truly doesn't know shit from shine-o-la and has demonstrated that on national TV. Depressingly her convincing act as a typical American stupid person has endeared her to. . .well, to the millions of stupid Americans who seem to all be in the Republican Party!

Here's the question: When did it get to be OK to have an OPINION about scientific data and results. You can have an opinion about abortion, say but you can't have an opinion about evolution. . . or fucking gravity. Do your own experiment. Publish in accepted journals. Everyone is free to do that but you can't just look at the evidence for the earth being 4.5 billion years old and say, "I just choose to not believe that". Actually you can. Who cares. Be stupid but don't make that your platform for running for fucking office! Sheesh.

Jesus H. Christ, is it so much to ask that we deal with national problems on a rational level and leave the religious and crazy rhetoric outside the meeting room?

I guess it is.

If you travel at all you'll find people chuckling at the things that America gets all stirred up about. They ain't perfect either but they mostly don't go around voting based on whether or not you BELIEVE in a well proven scientific theory.

Stoning in Iran

This woman may or may not have already been given 99 lashes as the reports vary. I guess the lashes are to get her ready for the stoning which is a death penalty. Gee, with that it seems like they could skip the lashes but who wants to miss a good time like that.

She is being punished for not wearing a head covering (hence the lashes) and for committing adultry (death by stoning). Can you imagine any society based on reasoned thought and discussion coming to this conclusion? No. Only a backward society based on a distorted view of their own religion could make themselves think that a fellow human HAD to be stoned to death.

It's not that this particular religion is bad it's that forfeiting your reason in favor of ANY religion is bad. It takes you nowhere as a person and it holds society back in general.

There is no God. . . let's move on to problem solving PLEASE!