Unsolicited Opinions

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

2008-09-15T00:35:00.008-04:00

Well, I provide the statistics (kind of), the politicians provide the lies and the damned lies. I've laregly abandoned blogging since last year (real life and other hobbies put blogging on hold) but I got some inspiration for a post from this election season.

Last week, I was having a heated discussion with a friend and co-worker at lunch over the presidential candidates. I'm an Obama supporter, and my friend is a fiscal conservative who is not wild about McCain, but is still not voting for Obama. He's since been leaning towards McCain after Sarah Palin was picked as his VP, but that's not the point of this post.

When I tried to argue why McCain and Palin are less trustworthy than Obama and Biden due to the fact they've been putting out more lies and falsehoods, he countered with the assertion that all politicians lie anyway. Of course that's true, but shouldn't we look to see who's more willing to tell us complete falsehoods rather than just exagerations and shadings of the truth? As Hilzoy said recently:

When politicians lie -- and here I mean not just putting the best spin on things, but out and out lying -- they might as well walk up to each and every one of us and say: Hello! I have no respect for the value of your time! You might have other things to do -- work, playing with your kids, taking a long hike in the mountains, whatever -- but I don't care. I'm going to put you in a position where you're going to have to research everything I say, or else just give up on your civic duty. You don't get to assume that my words are, if not exactly true, at least somewhere in the general vicinity of the truth, and decide whether or not to vote for me. If you want to be an informed citizen, you'll have to become obsessive, like hilzoy.

They might as well add: I have no respect for democracy. In a democracy, citizens listen to what each side has to say and decide who to vote for. To work, it requires that what each side says bears some resemblance to the truth. If I cared about democracy, I'd respect those limits -- maybe stretching the truth every now and then, but generally maintaining some sort of relationship between what I say and reality. But guess what? I don't care about democracy! If winning requires that I make things up out of whole cloth and hope that I'm successful enough to frustrate the popular will, then that's what I'll do. Don't like it? Think democracy is a good system, one that we should cherish? That's just too bad.

Anyway, one thing my conservative friend and I have in common is that we both trust factcheck.org as an objective non-partisan website that cuts through politicians' spin and exposes exagerations, falsehoods, and lies. So I told him I'd be willing to bet that since the primary season ended in early June, the count of McCain falsehoods called out on factcheck would be at least 2 to 1 against the count of Obama falsehoods. He brushed that off and didn't take my bet, but I was curious and took a little time this weekend to count up the claims myself.

Well, I'm glad he didn't take my bet, because I was wrong. But the ratio was still lopsided. I found 30 articles discussing falsehoods attributed to McCain or the RNC, and 18 articles discussing falsehoods attributed to Obama or the DNC (I didn't include articles from unaffiliated third parties, like the false charges about Obama's birth certificate from Jerome Corsi, or the internet whisper campaign against Sarah Palin). This is a ratio of 1.67 to 1, so not quite 2 to 1, but still significant. Furthermore, if you count the individual claims mentioned in the bullet points of each article's summary, the ratio becomes 65 to 34, a ratio 1.91 to 1.

Of course, factcheck.org isn't comprehensive, and doesn't claim to have tracked every statement and ad of the campaigns. So make your own conclusion as to whether this is a representative sample. Also, it might be relevant to compare the number of falsehoods the candidates have provided to the full number of statements and ads they've produced to compute some kind of truthfulness rate. For all I know, McCain could be putting out 1.67 or 1.91 times more statements and ads during the campaign, so his truthfulness rate would be the same as Obamas. I find this possibility unlikely, but I have neither the time or inclination to collect and process each candidate's every single word. Anyone else want to take that task?

Another site that tracks politician's statements is Politifact.com. They score candidate's statements on "truth-o-meter" scale from true to half-true to false to "pants on fire" false. Their site is not comprehensive either, but they may represent a better sample since they track both true and false statements. Take a look at the candidates' truth-o-meter ratings:

	Obama	McCain	Biden	Palin	Democratic Ticket	Republican Ticket
True	39 (34%)	25 (22%)	7 (27%)	4 (50%)	46 (33%)	29 (24%)
Mostly True	24 (21%)	20 (18%)	4 (15%)	1 (13%)	28 (20%)	21 (17%)
Half True	21 (18%)	19 (17%)	5 (19%)	3 (38%)	26 (19%)	22 (18%)
Barely True	12 (11%)	21 (19%)	4 (15%)	0 (0%)	16 (11%)	21 (17%)
False	18 (16%)	22 (19%)	4 (15%)	0 (0%)	22 (16%)	22 (18%)
Pants on Fire	0 (0%)	6 (5%)	2 (8%)	0 (0%)	2 (1%)	6 (5%)
Total	114	113	26	8	140	121

Since both VP picks have much fewer statements, I added them with the presedential candidates to produce total scores for each ticket (the rightmost 2 columns). You can see that both with and without their VP picks, McCain's been telling more falsehoods than Obama, with 6 "pants-on-fire" rulings to Obama's 0. Biden has 2 "pants-on-fire" rulings, but one is more of an insult to President Bush than a lie, and the other is a distortion of Rudy Giuliani's record made in October of 2007, long before he was selected as VP. I didn't go through all of the individual articles for each candidate, so you be the judge whether each of the candidate has committed just lies or damned lies. Be sure to also check out Politifact's flip-o-meter to see how the candidates have flip-flopped. This looks about even for both sides.

Also see a similar analysis done by another blogger based on Politifact articles, but only focusing on each campaign starting from the beginning of August.

Finally, I was debating whether or not ot make this a blog post until I saw these two articles here and here (hat tip: Andrew Sullivan) about "Republicans fault both campaigns for negative ads." It takes real gall for Karl Rove and Rudy Giuliani to complain about the campaign's negative tone, when it's clear that the Republicans bear most of the blame. And to add insult to injury, Rove used the pants-on-fire rated charge that Obama called Sarah Palin a pig as his example from the Democratic side. Sigh.

The Joy of Transformers

2007-07-03T21:28:00.000-04:00

Hello, I'm Big C, and I am a Transfan. What a Trekkie (or Trekker) is to Star Trek, a Transfan is to Transformers. The Transformers toy line, cartoon, and comics debuted in 1984, when I was 8 years old. I have been in love ever since. Unlike other pop culture phenomena, Transformers has been percolating in relative obscurity since its initial popularity faded in the 80's. Yes, for the last 23 years the Transformers toys, comics, and cartoons have continued to be produced in one form or another (see several Japanese iterations, Generation 2, Beast Wars, Beast Machines, Robots in Disguise, Armada, Energon, Cybertron, Dreamwave comics, and lately IDW's new "Ultimate" Transformers comics), but even with these successful continuations, it has never quite broken out onto the pop culture A-list. With the new movie officially released in the US today, that is about to change.

Of course, being a hardcore rabid Transfan, I have mixed feelings about this event. I want Transformers introduced to a wider audience, and I want them to appreciate it like I do. However, at the same time, I've watched Transformers evolve from its thinly-disguised toy commercial roots into a legitimate sci-fi epic in both the fan community and officially licensed fiction, and I'd like that evolution to be preserved as it transitions to mainstream pop culture icon status.

I'd been following the steady drip of information about the movie's production on the Internet for the past year, and I've had many of the same fears and criticisms that other fans had. The complete redesigns of the robots looked ugly and overcomplicated. The movie was going to give way too much screen time to the humans and the Transformers would be little more than generic movie monsters rather than legitimate characters. Bumblebee isn't a VW bug!?!?!?!

So I was both excited and a bit anxious as I went to see the first 8pm advance showing yesterday evening. I had already heard lots of positive reactions from those lucky fans who had seen the movie early either in other countries or at the Transformers BotCon convention last weekend, so I was cautiously optimistic. So here's my review from a decidedly hardcore fan's perspective.

Quite simply, the movie blew me away. It rocked. It captured the spirit of the original Transformers and put it into a real summer blockbuster action/adventure/comedy. The visual effects and action sequences were amazing. I admit I was wrong about the redesigns. The animation of the robots was very natural and fluid. When they battled, the action sequences were a treat to behold. The Autobots got plenty of screen time, dialog, and characterization. Especially Optimus Prime and Bumblebee. Optimus Prime was the anchor for this movie. He was the iconic Autobot leader we remember from the original series: noble, honorable, heroic, self-sacrificing. I'm really glad the movie-makers listened to the fans and cast Peter Cullen (the original voice of Prime from the cartoon) back into his old voice-acting role.

The human characters were well-portrayed. Shia LaBeouf stood out as Sam (Spike) Witwicky, the central human caught in the middle of the robots' conflict. The other human characters moved the story along very well, and didn't steal the spotlight from the Transformers themselves. And there was a surprising amount of comedy that worked very well with the rest of the movie.

There were also several nods to the original series in the dialog of the movie that warmed my heart. For example, Megatron (the main villain) refers to the humans as "fleshlings" which was the pejorative term for humans the Decepticons used in the original Transformers comic books. Also, Optimus Prime delivers his signature motto, "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings," and calls out Megatron at the end of the movie with his famous line from the original animated Transformers Movie in 1986: "One shall stand, one shall fall."

There was a lot to love about this movie, and I'm hoping I can get a chance to see it a couple more times in the theater this summer before I buy the DVD in the fall. It was the definition of a fun, action-packed, serious-but-not-too-serious, summer event, special effect-laden blockbuster movie. I'm biased, but I think the movie works both as a celebration of the original Transformers for fans, and a great action movie for non-fans. I brought 11 of my co-workers with me who were not die hard fans, and they all loved it.

Okay, so I've given a lot of praise, but I wouldn't be an obsessive fan if I didn't catalog all the criticisms, right? The movie overcomes its weaknesses, but there ARE weaknesses and flaws to this movie. Here's a detailed list arranged according to how much they annoyed me as a Transfan (MASSIVE SPOILERS follow; read at your own risk!):

Major disappointments:

The Autobots may have gotten decent characterization, but the Decepticons did not. They were essentially nothing more than silent malevolent antagonists with no personality. This was partially redeemed by Megatron's character during the final act. Also, Frenzy the small Decepticon spybot stole a few scenes with his hyperactive performance.
Starscream, the traitorous Decepticon lieutenant was almost completely wasted. He didn't even show up until the final act (like Megatron). But, unlike Megatron, he got only one line of dialog and that was it for the whole movie. The well-known relationship between Megatron and Starscream from the original series was completely overlooked. Which is a shame since Megatron and Starscream were the only "real" Decepticon characters included in the movie.
Jazz's death was a major letdown. It would be one thing if Jazz had gotten significant screen time, and if his death had been portrayed as a noble sacrifice to buy his comrades time during the battle, so that we might actually care about his death. Unfortunately, he just gets in the way of Megatron, and Megatron rips him in half, end of story, too bad so sad. Jazz was originally perceived as a "black" character since he was into pop culture and music, and was originally voiced distinctively by Scatman Crothers. In the new movie he is voiced by Darius McCrary, who played Eddie Winslow in the 90's sitcom Family Matters. I find it ironic that even in a movie about giant alien robots, the old slasher movie stereotype rings true and the "black" robot gets killed first.

Minor annoyances:

The Decepticon tank was supposed to be named Brawl, but there was a subtitling error and he was named Devastator. As any fan knows, there is another very well-known Devastator character in Transformers, and we were hoping the name would be saved for the sequel so that character could be done properly. Hopefully they will fix this error when the movie is released to DVD.
The humans were able to kill the Decepticons too easily. I wanted to see the Autobots getting the most licks in on the Decepticons, rather than have the humans do most of the damage. Sure the humans could help with a distraction or a critical attack, but let the Autobots be the heroes. In the final battle sequence, Ironhide and Ratchet all but disappeared while the human soldiers took out Brawl and Blackout (with some help from a disabled Bumblebee).
The fates of Barricade (the police car Decepticon) and Scorponok (the scorpion Decepticon) were left untold at the end of the movie. Neither Decepticons were destroyed (or even present) in the final battle, and after the euphoria of the action sequences wears off we're left wondering what happened to them. Perhaps this will be explored in the sequel.
I liked most of the comedy in the movie and thought it was well placed, with just a few exceptions. The masturbation joke (while funny) just doesn't fit in a Transformers movie. Likewise Bumblebee "peeing" on one of the government agents. The cell phone customer-service rep joke also fell flat for me. And the quasi-political jokes that had a bad voiceover impersonation making fun of President Bush and other jokes made about Americans who speak Spanish as well as English were inappropriate (and slightly insulting for both liberals and conservatives alike). They will make the movie seem dated 10 years in the future, and could be completely cut with no adverse effect to the movie.

Plot Issues:

The Allspark (Creation Matrix) is the source of all life on Cybertron, but if it merges with one Cybertronian's spark, it will be destroyed? Huh? That sounds like saying you can destroy an electrical power plant by hooking it up to a AA battery.
Optimus Prime's plan is sacrifice himself and the Allspark if he can't defeat Megatron? I don't think he's thought this through. If Optimus destroys himself and the Allspark but doesn't defeat Megatron, he leaves the human race at the mercy of a very pissed-off Decepticon leader, with no other Autobots powerful enough to stand in his way. That's not noble sacrifice, that a stupid plan. If Optimus wants to sacrifice himself, he needs to make sure he takes Megatron with him to ensure the safety of the humans and his fellow Autobots.
I'm still not a fan of having Bumblebee be a mute for most of the movie. It's a contrived and irrelevant change from the source material that was unnecessary to the story. And after being in that condition for the whole movie, he suddenly regains his voice at the end for no apparent reason. Presumably Bumblebee's contact with the Allspark near the end of the film healed him the same way it healed Frenzy, but there was no exposition to explain this and no visual cues to show this. And Bumblebee waited a good 30 minutes in the movie between his contact with the Allspark to his first words. Still, having said all that, I can't complain about the execution of his character in the movie. Bumblebee's actions spoke very well for him, and his radio-speak worked very well. I just have issues with the decision to make him a mute in the first place.

All of these criticisms are things that are being echoed by other Transfans. I'm hoping the movie-makers will continue to listen to the fans and address some of these issues for the inevitable Transformers sequel. Especially the lack of focus on the Decepticons as characters. I would love for the sequel to have subplot revolving around a power struggle in the Decepticon leadership with Starscream trying to take over and Megatron making a miraculous return from the dead to put Starscream back in his place. Also, I'm hoping they can feature Soundwave as Megatron's trusted right-hand bot who is instrumental in reviving his deactivated lord. Maybe even work Shockwave into the mix too. Given the bar they set for the movie in terms of the robot designs and special effects, they'll have to up the ante in the sequel with additional transformation gimmicks. I'm betting on seeing the triple-changers and/or combiners to feature prominently in the sequel. While I love the Dinobots, I don't see a way to work them into the live action universe that would make sense. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

If I may make a few wild predictions:

Transformers will win the Oscar for best visual effects next year.
It will be hailed as the best summer blockbuster this year (I hope!).

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I hope these predictions come true. Regardless, as a Transfan, I'm a very happy guy right now.

Back From Outer Space

2007-06-11T22:50:00.000-04:00

After 8 months I've managed to get a little time to get back to blogging. Several things happened that conspired to keep me from the keyboard. We got a new baby last fall, who is thankfully now sleeping through the night, and I got a Nintendo Wii for my birthday :) Okay, so maybe I could have come back to blogging a bit earlier. Oh, well.

In other exciting news, I was selected to appear on the TV game show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" I taped the episode last November (2 weeks after our new baby arrived), and it will air next week over 2 days, Wednesday 6/20, and Thursday 6/21. I'll see if I can get a video up on YouTube after it's on TV. It was an amazing experience. Maybe I'll get to providing more details in a future post after the show airs.

Finally, I'm going to expand the focus of my humble space on the blogosphere a little. I've recently been reading a lot of blogs by people of color (POC) that touch on many important issues. I realized that here on my space I haven't said much of anything about important issues like racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry and oppression that are all too common to our society. As a person of color myself (specifically an African-American man), in future posts I'd like to rectify that. As a start, I'll just point to some great voices in the blogosphere who can say things much more eloquently than I ever could (in no particular order):

Zuky by Kai
The Anti-Essentialist Conundrum by Sylvia
The Angry Black Woman
Having Read The Fine Print by BlackAmazon
The Unapologetic Mexican by nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez
Women of Color Blog by brownfemipower (BFP)
The Silence of Our Friends by Donna
AfroSpear: A Think-Tank for People of African Descent
The Field Negro
Francis L. Holland Blog

This is just scratching the surface, but those blogs have really got it going on. Check them out for insightful, thought-provoking material and discussions. I need to get around to adding them to my blogroll too.

I'm not going to make any promises about posting frequency, since I could never keep them, but hopefully I'll post more regularly than once every 8 months!

"Weird Al" is back!

2006-10-08T22:26:00.000-04:00

There were lots of things going on in the last couple of weeks. Former President Bill Clinton went on the attack regarding his record on terrorism. The leaked National Intelligence Estimate shows that the Bush administration's record on terrorism isn't all it's cracked up to be. The US legislature has now passed a bill that all but gives the president the authority to torture and suspend habeas corpeus with impunity. Mark Foley has disgraced himself, and revealed how the Republican leadership in Congress apparently put politics above the safety of its teenage pages. And it seems we're going backwards in Afghanistan with the resurgence of the Taliban.

I got kind of busy, but I wanted to write about more than a few of these topics. However, there was one bit of news that I couldn't ignore. "Weird Al" Yankovic has a new album out! Al is apparently a bona fide computer geek, so check out his web site and the new music videos he's put up on YouTube here and here. Weird Al's popularity has waned since the 80's, but he always seems to come back with fresh parodies of current songs. They're always funny, and sometimes are even topical and insightful. I bought the album this weekend, and I give it the Unsolicited Opinions official Unsolicited Endorsement.

The Pathology of Denial

2006-09-20T21:08:00.000-04:00

The Give Up Blog has a post cataloging the tactics of denialists. Denialists are people who, for particular ideological reasons, dispute the consensus on certain subjects despite the overwhelming evidence that supports that consensus. Denialists come in many flavors: evolution deniers, HIV causes AIDS deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Despite the particulars of what well-supported finding they deny across these groups, they all seem to draw from the same box of flawed reasoning and use of logical falacies to support their denial belief.

I've discussed this before with respect to a particular lesser-known denialist belief (Einstein denial), and Seth at Whiskey Before Breakfast has been ruminating on this with several posts trying to work out how and why this denial "memeplex" gets propagated.

As I commented on Seth's blog earlier, I think "denialism" can be adequately explained as a subset of credulous thinking. There's little difference between denying specific conclusions that are based on overwhelming evidence like evolution, AIDS, etc., and accepting pseudoscience like UFO abduction stories, astrology, and psychic phenomona with no supporting evidence. The latter enthusiasts of such credulous beliefs simply deny the overwhelming evidence that these things (UFO's, astrology, psychic powers) don't exist. And they use the same flawed reasoning and logical falacies to ignore all the evidence that points to more mundane explanations.

Still, it's illuminating to see all the common arguments laid bare for future profiling.

Ed Brayton is Reading My Mind

2006-09-12T23:00:00.000-04:00

There's no other explanation. How else could he have written a post on his blog that so clearly echoes my own thoughts? He knew I was ruminating on the recent brouhaha going on at The Panda's Thumb regarding Ken Miller and PZ Myers (see his relevant blog posts here, here, here, here, and here), and that I was planning to comment on the whole thing. He just had to put his well-written post up before I got a chance to type those thoughts out on my own blog. What a jerk!

Or, it's all just a coincidence and we just reached the same conclusions from similar viewpoints about the futility of ideological battles. OK, so I was wrong about there being no other explanation, but I like my theory better (which probably means it's wrong).

Ed's post has generated a large amount of comments, and it seems some folks are misunderstanding Ed's arguments, at least as I see them. A few points that I would focus on had I actually gotten to write my essay on this topic:

You don't have to respect someone's religious beliefs, the religion they subscribe to, or even them as a person. You do have to (at least under the 1st Amendment in the US Constitution, but I think it's a good general rule for non-Americans as well) tolerate their right to hold a religious view (or any other view or opinion) and express it freely, just as they have to tolerate your right to call their belief ludicrous.

It's counterproductive to label people who may have differing religious views/opinions than yours, but the same views/opinions on liberty, freedom of thought and expression, science, and separation of church and state, as enemies that should be excluded, ostracized and ridiculed. Unfortunately creationists, theocrats, and neo-conservatives have largely learned this lesson and put it into action with their "big tent" strategy. Of course their goal is not to encourage freedom of thought but rather to limit everyone's civil liberties and force us all to adhere to their particular moral code and religious viewpoint. They frame their struggle as one of good religious folk versus the evil atheists/secularists to somewhat successful political and cultural gain, despite the fact that all those different religious sects disagree on lots of points. As long as you subscribe to any religion, you're with us, and you're against those bad atheists. When over 80% of the US population claims to be religious, this strategy can create real political power.

We need to reframe the struggle as one of those who believe in freedom, liberty, and fairness, regardless of religious views, versus those who seek to impose the authoritarian hierarchy of their particular doctrine on everyone else. I'd be willing to wager that if the battle lines were drawn this way, the folks on the side of liberty and freedom would be the vast majority.

So I think it's unhelpful when some atheists don't distinguish between making fun of religion or the religous, and painting all people with religious beliefs as the enemies of reason, or at best, stooges or patsies of the theocrats. So it's perfectly reasonable for PZ Myers to criticize Ken Miller's views on how he blends his religious beliefs with science and rationality, even to mock it and call it ridiculous. But I think it's a mistake for Myers to label Ken Miller as a creationist and a stooge of the religious right (Myers has since backed off from his original characterization of Miller's views; good for him!).

Conversely, it is also unhelpful for some liberals to admonish their liberal atheist allies to stop attacking religion on the grounds that it hurts their efforts to get other Christians to the accept liberal values and join our own version of the "big tent". Freedom of expression is a fundamental principal, not just a liberal talking point that can be expediently discarded for short-term political gain. Atheists (and everyone else) have a right to criticize, mock, and insult any idea or person they choose. And it's hardly atheists' penchant for pointing out the absurdity, contradictions, and harmful effects of religious belief that makes them the most reviled minority group in America. Unscrupulous religious and political leaders have been demonizing atheists, and the media has been dutifully echoing their attacks, for years. Atheists and "secularists" are evil, selfish people who want to destroy your religion, steal Christmas, and remove all restrictions of morality on human behavior. This false and dishonest rhetoric is the major cause of people's distrust of atheists, not the actual views of atheists themselves.

I realize people might read the two paragraphs above and conclude that I have just made a glaring self-contradiction. How can I simultaneously complain about atheists demonizing religious people and then turn around and chastize liberal Christians for complaining about the same thing? Well, here's where I see the fundamental difference:

My position is that atheists (and anyone else) have a right to freely express their criticisms and dislike for religious views and to call out religious people on the contradictions in their religious views, even to the point of outright mockery. However, it is counterproductive for some atheists to label religious people who agree with you on issues of freedom of thought and expression, liberty, and fairness as either enemies of reason, rationality, and liberty or the unwilling patsies of those enemies. To build a "big tent" we should focus on the common ground we share. We do not ignore the places where we have fundamental disagreements, nor do we shy away from expressing those disagreements. However, we recognize that those disagreements about religion are less important than our agreements on freedom and liberty.

The position I perceive some liberal Christians taking is that we should tell our liberal atheist colleagues to shut up about their dislike of religion, and stop attacking religious views and people, so we can molify the religious folk who may have some liberal views but are wary of joining us in the "big tent." Atheists merely expressing their opinions about religion is toxic, and they should be "seen but not heard" until the Democrats win the next few elections.

I think my position is a reasonable request for a modicum of civility (that applies equally towards atheists who demonize all religious believers as well as religious people who demonize all atheists) towards building a broad coalition, while the second position is an unreasonable demand on limiting one group's freedom of expression. The goal of building a coalition is the same, but the strategy is based on a faulty premise.

Having said all that, let be me clear in stating that the problem of a very few atheists demonizing reasonable people with religious views is infinitesimal compared to the widespread demonization of atheists by religious and political leaders and the general negative attitude towards atheists in the United States. Claiming that this negative view is derived from atheists being too "militant" in stating their views seems to me like blaming the victim.

Everyone who believes in liberty and freedom, regardless of whether you are religious or not, should be willing to avow that most atheists, like most any other group of human beings, are decent, honest, moral people who contribute to society like everyone else. Liberals who want to hide atheists away as their "dirty little secret," by showing how they are "ashamed" of the atheists who support them, tacitly accept the way the Religious Right has framed the struggle of religious (good) versus secular (bad).

We need to reject this framework entirely, and form our own "big tent" around the ideas of freedom of expression, liberty, fairness, and scietific integrity. The real struggle is between those who believe in these ideas, and those who would pay lip service to those ideas but would replace them with their authoritarian doctrine as soon as they gained enough power.

Remembering 9/11

2006-09-11T23:10:00.000-04:00

Today is the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Like many Americans, this was a defining moment for me and I can clearly remember exactly where I was and what I was doing as those horrible events unfolded that day. Orac has a post up that echos some of my own feelings and expresses them better than I could. Ed Brayton also recalls the reaction of such esteemed religious leaders as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (blame the liberals, what else?).

It's ironic that the politicians spouting rhetoric about "not letting the terrorists win" are the ones most guilty of using the fear of more terrorist attacks to goad Americans into voting for and re-electing them, and are also guilty of using 9/11 as a justification for reducing our civil liberties. Don't the terrorists "hate us for our freedom?" Isn't reducing that freedom letting the terrorists win? Why has dissent of the policies and actions of our current administration morphed into the strawman of wanting to "appease" the terrorists?

I think Benjamin Franklin said it best:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Remember and honor the victims of 9/11. Stand up against terrorism and extremism. But also stand up for liberty and freedom. Stand up for accountability not only for the extremists, but for our political leaders as well. Shouldn't we beware that we don't sacrifice the very freedoms we stand for, nor that we become like the terrorists themselves in fighting them?

Unsolicitizzle Opinizzle

2006-09-10T19:05:00.000-04:00

Apparently Snoop Dogg has a search engine built just for him. Check out Gizoogle. Any page you search for will be translated into a Snoop-esque version of Jive (Wikipedia link for those unfamiliar with American culture and African American slang in particular). It's surprising how accurate the translation can be, and how little meaning is lost from the original text. As an example, you can see how my blog looks after it's been Gizoogled.

Old People are Really Nasty and Raunchy

2006-09-05T22:04:00.000-04:00

Okay, maybe that's a bit of a generalization. But that's the impression I got from watching the Comedy Central roast of William Shatner. I used to watch the TV show Golden Girls when I was a kid in the 80's, and Betty White was one of the stars. She played, the sweet, but gullible (read: stupid) Rose and really projected the persona of a nice, sweet old lady. Imagine my surprise watching Betty White roast William Shatner with the most vile racial and homosexual jokes, complete with language that would make Richard Pryor blush. Oddly, she delivered all her jokes in the same sweet, old lady voice and tone I remembered from the Golden Girls. It was absolutely hilarious (see a clip here; *WARNING* it's not for sensitive viewers).

And she wasn't the only senior citizen on this show with a foul mouth. Star Trek co-stars Nichelle Nichols and George Takei were equally raunchy and funny, not to mention the guest of honor William Shatner himself at the end.

A roast is definitely not for the easily offended or thin-skinned. The jokes pull no punches and the roasters seem to take perverse delight in outdoing each other in vileness offensiveness and profanity. The humor comes from their reveling in the vileness and the absurd extremes to which they push the material.

I expected the raunchyness from the younger comics at the roast, but watching Betty White casually join in the fun was a treat of perverse comedy. I guess when you get older and wiser, you're less concerned about how other people see you and more interested in just getting the most out the time you're given on this Earth.

Just Plain Incorrect

2006-08-28T21:40:00.000-04:00

Over at The Panda's Thumb, the contributors are doing a good ol' fashioned chapter-by-chapter ~~fisking~~ shredding of Jonathan Wells' newest ~~creationist tract~~ book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Given that Wells is the author of that textbook example of quote mining, Icons of Evolution (link goes to the TalkOrigins FAQ on the book), it's no surprise he's, shall we say, less than careful with his facts and arguments. It gets really tiresome to see ~~biblical creationists~~ ~~scientific creationists~~ intelligent design proponents recycle the same discredited arguments over and over ad infinitum, and I'm glad there are people willing to continue to take up the thankless task of refuting these arguments yet again.

But this post isn't about Wells' book per se, but rather the whole "Politically Incorrect" series. PZ Myers linked to a post on another blog parodying the series of books with additional made-up topics. It was good for a laugh and nicely illustrates how the phrase "politically incorrect" has apparently mutated (at least in the minds of Regnery publishing and their readers) from "don't be afraid to voice an unpopular opinion if you can back it up with facts" (as demonstrated by Bill Maher) to mean "any part of conventional histororical or scientific knowledge that supports a 'liberal' position is actually wrong, and all the 'real' facts support our preconceived prejudices and justify our bigotry." The supreme irony, of course, is that it seems like all the "Politically Incorrect" books rely on dishonest rhetoric and distortion of facts to arrive at the predetermined conclusion that everything "liberal" is bad.

Unfortunately, what is chilling is that the actual books in this series are just as ridiculous (if not moreso for apparently being serious arguments) as the parodies on display at that blog post on 90% True. The other books in this series besides Wells' include:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism - Women should have remained barefoot and pregnant, and their uppity quest for careers is destroying the American family.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and The Crusades) - The European Christian Crusaders were "defensively" trying to conquer the Middle East, and all Muslims are terrorists.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science - Global warming, evolution, and stem cell research are all junk pseudoscience.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History - The Founding Fathers were "conservatives" and "hundreds" of American liberals were traitor commie bastards.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature (Coming soon!) - "Dead white males rock!" (I kid you not, that is on the cover of the book) and the "greatest" English literature is "explicitly Christian and celebrates military courage."

Well, it looks like I've got my fall reading list together! And if your irony meter has survived the absurdity of these books and their "mythbusting" of conventional knowledge, here's the crowning touch: since "Politically Incorrect Guide" forms the acronym P.I.G., they apparently thought it was a great idea to use a pig as the representative icon for their book series! How appropriate for such pig-ignorant, pig-headed crap.

Evolution, HIV, Holocaust, and ... Einstein Denial

2006-08-25T22:00:00.000-04:00

Now I've seen everything. Apparently Albert Einstein did not develop the Theory of Relativity, but was in fact an "incorrigible" plagiarist who stole his ideas from every prominent scientist of the time. Needless to say, this seemed like an outrageous and unsubstantiated claim. However, this guy Christopher Jon Bjerknes published a book in 2002 detailing Einstein's supposed malfeasance.

Well, check out Mr. Bjerknes' entry on Wikipedia. Not much more info about his theory, other than the fact that he got into a flame war with another science historian, John Stachel, over his controversial thesis (not surprising). Then we find this little tibit:

Bjerknes and Winterberg have spoken up to defend some highly controversial figures, including David Irving and Arthur Rudolph. Despite being lionized in some articles at the White Nationalist Wiki, Bjerknes disavows any antisemitic motivation for his attacks on Einstein. Bjerknes has written himself on the Holocaust for the Holocaust denial "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust", claiming that "Racist Zionists" perpetuated the anti-Semitism of the Holocaust, as well as having later used the history of anti-Semitism as "a means to control public opinion in a most corrupt and deplorable fashion". He also claims that "Jewish racists helped to put Hitler into power in order to herd up the Jews of Europe and force them into segregation", that "Jewish racists collaborated with the Nazis to kill off the weakest Jews and preserve the best genetic stock for deportation to Palestine", and that, contrary to mainstream historical opinion, that the Nazis did not plot genocide at the Wannsee Conference.

Hmmm... blaming the Jews, ... er, "Racist Zionists," for the Holocaust in some sort of elaborate conspiracy theory and defending the views of Holocaust deniers does a lot to impeach this guy's credibility in my estimation. Sort of seems like this Einstein-denial thing is just a specific manifestation of his general anti-Semitism. Still, I'd be employing the ad hominem logical falacy if I dismissed his arguments solely on the basis of his apparent anti-semitism.

So we turn to reliable source Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope to deliver a balanced view of the subject:

Questions of priority have long swirled around the theories of relativity, both special and general. Though no one thinks Einstein confected special relativity out of thin air, his 1905 paper had no notes or references, which was odd even for the times. In fact, as Einstein's critics long ago demonstrated, virtually all the better-known elements of the theory--most famously, the equivalence of matter and energy (E = mc²)--had previously been suggested by others. Two men in particular, French mathematician Henri Poincare and Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, are credited with anticipating many of Einstein's discoveries.

Some latter-day writers have seized on these observations as proof that Einstein was a fraud, notably Christopher Jon Bjerknes, author of Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist (2002). The gist of his argument: (a) Einstein got many of his ideas from his first wife, Mileva Maric; (b) Maric herself plagiarized her ideas from others; and (c) the theory is a crock anyway. Clearly, some aspects of Bjerknes's attack operate at cross-purposes--if relativity is fatally flawed, who cares if it was pirated? More importantly, though he seems to have unearthed every remark ever penned that could conceivably be construed as undercutting Einstein's contribution, he never manages to demonstrate that Einstein ventured over the line between building on other people's work and stealing it.

Still, you ask, given that Big Al was just one of a bunch of scientists sniffing around the same turf at the same time, why did the Smartest Person Ever trophy go to him and not one of his contemporaries? Poincare, for instance, gave a prescient lecture in 1904 (Einstein doesn't seem to have been aware of it) that posited many aspects of special relativity, among them the idea that the speed of light was an impassable limit. So illuminatingly did he dilate on the issues that one historian of science professes bafflement that Poincare failed to invent the theory of special relativity himself. But he didn't. His comments make it clear he was still wedded to classical physics, with its comforting notion of space and time as unchanging verities. Einstein alone was able to make the conceptual leap and realize that space and time were about as immutable as Silly Putty, paving the way for our modern view of the cosmos as a profoundly strange place.

While one doesn't want to deprecate Einstein's intellectual boldness, the fact remains that he put together a puzzle all the pieces of which were then in plain sight. He himself conceded that had he not invented the theory someone else would soon have done so. (He thought the theory of general relativity, which he completed in 1915, was a more impressive achievement--although even there, controversy still rages about who first deduced the crucial equations, Einstein or German mathematician David Hilbert.) This is not to say that Einstein was unworthy of the esteem in which he continues to be held--merely that, like every other physicist who ever lived, he stood on the shoulders of giants.

So, it seems there was nothing particularly sinister about Einstein after all (other than that he was left-handed, like me; look up the original meaning of sinister). If you go and John Stachel's critique of Bjerknes' book, you'll also find that Bjerknes employs tactics and arguments that have uncanny parallels to creationist propaganda, such as quote mining, and presenting self-contradictory, inconsistent criticisms.

Seth, if you're reading, you might want to add Einstein-denial to your list of crazy belief pathologies.

By the way, if you're wondering how I stumbled onto this little gem, I was looking for a particular science fiction story written by H.G. Wells (no, not The Time Machine), and I did a google search for "H G Wells higher dimensions." Bjerknes' website was the 5th result. However, after this diversion, I did find the story I was looking for eventually. I was looking for the Wells story becuase it was mentioned in a few comments I read on The Panda's Thumb in the Design Challenge thread. Talk about your unexpected detours!

Return from (Unscheduled) Summer Break

2006-08-22T23:34:00.000-04:00

Well, I guess I suck. When my blog-o-versary rolled around in June, I promised to deliver at least one new post a week. Well, here we are almost 2 months later. To anyone actually reading, sorry for the extended hiatus. I got a Nintendo DS Lite in June for my wedding anniversary (yes, my wife is THAT cool) and I've been neglecting the blog in favor of video games. Since my last post was in the last week of June, I figure I've got about 8 posts (in addition to resuming regular weekly posts) I've got to do to make up for my blogging-free summer. Well, given my past track record, I won't make any promises, but I'm trying to commit to this (Maybe 2 additional posts each week until I'm caught up? It's worth a shot).

Fortunately (or unfortunately) we live in very interesting times, and there's no shortage of stuff to deliver Unsolicited Opinions on. Some of the time I was supposed to spend on blogging was used perusing other blogs, and lots of stuff has caught my interest. Here's a running list, in no particular order, of potential topics I hope to turn into blog posts here in the next few weeks:

In a series of posts at The Panda's Thumb, Dave Thomas shows how genetic algorithms demonstrate the ability of evolution to produce complexity without a guiding intellignce. Are ID supporters convinced by his demonstration? Alas, no.
Mel Gibson's unfortunate tirade. I'm kind of conflicted on this. I've enjoyed many of his movies (but I haven't seen The Passion yet). He parodied himself on The Simpsons, proving he at least had a sense of humor. But it's hard to ignore his crazy remarks, even if he was drunk. I tend to agree with the phrase "in vino veritas." Alcohol lowers inhibitions, it can't make you say things you don't believe or don't think about.
Apparently, dark matter is real. Cool science results that chip away at our ignorance of the universe.
Orac reports on the Hitler Zombie's latest feeding frenzy. A documentary claiming to prove a direct causal chain from Darwin to Hitler? Yeeesh, such monumental absurdity.
Over on David Neiwert's blog, Mrs. Sara Robinson has a series of guest posts about how to deal with right-wing authoritarians (Parts 1, 2, and 3, are up so far, with part 4 yet to come). Very interesting and helpful in understanding where these people are coming from, and how to break the spell their leaders have cast on them.
From Mrs. Robinson's posts, I followed a link to an article discussing how consrvatives and liberals differ on how they view family relationships. Dovetails quite nicely with Mrs. Robinson's essays.
Seth at Whiskey Before Breakfast has been ~~banging his head against a wall~~ conversing with HIV deniers in the comments of epidemiologist Tara Smith's blog. He has an insight that there is a common modus operandi to evolution deniers, HIV deniers, and holocaust deniers, but he can't quite put a finger on what the underlying phenomonon is that makes these groups' tactics and memes so similar. I have noticed this too and I have some parallel thoughts. Hopefully I'll get around to sharing them.
I've been wanting to write a series of posts outlining my big theory of what "human nature" is and how it influences human behavior and our conception of morality. I have seen lots of different individual points being made by Seth, David Brin, and David Neiwert, and my subconscious has been synthesizing an overrarching hypothesis about how these different points could be unified. Of course, I've never studied anthropology, and I took one introductory course in psychology 10 years ago, so I'm well qualified to hold forth on such a weighty topic right? Hey, this is Unsolicited Opinions. I never promised INFORMED opinions!
BronzeDog has been doing a great job catalogueing logical fallacies with his series of Doggerel posts.
Matt at Pooflingers Anonymous has apparently contracted creationist troll-itis. Unfortunately, his commenters have been steadily feeding this troll, causing the malignancy to spread and grow stronger. I recommend immediate and continous dosages of ignoracilin to remove the infection.
The new live-action Transformers movie coming out next year will feature Peter Cullen, the original voice of Autobot Leader Optimus Prime from the TV show, as the voice of the same character in the movie. My inner 10-year-old geek squeals with delight. But my 30-year-old realist still thinks the movie will disappoint. However, my 30-year-old optimist will still drag me to see it on opening day!

This ought to be a good starting point. I'll update this post as I create new posts for each individual item. Hopefully, I'll get to discuss them before they become completely irrelevant and slide inexorably off the blog-o-sphere's radar.

Does The Left Pander to Astrology?

2006-06-27T23:30:00.000-04:00

Via Pharyngula, I came across this article by the Comissar, a conservative blogger who runs the Politburo Diktat. He asserts that there's evidence to indicate that liberals and Democratic politicians are hypocritical in their support of science since they are "soft" on the astrology proponents in their own camp while they are harshly critical of creationists and Intelligent Design (ID) proponents from the Right:

"Does the Left have a segment of their base that believes a certain pseudo-science, a segment their leaders are reluctant to antagonize? Is astrology quietly acceptable within the "progressive" community? The Left takes great pleasure in bashing Republican Creationists and ID advocates (quite appropriately, and I join them in this, as my readers know)."

He then presents the case of Jerome Armstrong, the Internet advisor to Democratic Virginia governor and potential presidential candidate Mark Warner. To be sure, this guy seems to have been involved in some nutty stuff with using astrology "predictions" to plan political strategy. Conservatives have been having a good laugh at his expense after unearthing some pretty wacky stuff he wrote a few years ago. Jerome Armstrong is also apparently closely affiliated with DailyKos, a prominent liberal blog.

I confess I'm not really plugged in to the liberal/conservative blogosphere, and there appears to be several layers of sniping back and forth between these bloggers (I spend most of my blog-reading time on ScienceBlogs and Panda's Thumb). I would consider myself a "liberal" and "progressive" but I'm not familiar enough with the positions of these bloggers to defend or criticize their positions on either side. So I'll stick to the Commissar's main argument rather than delve into the side issues of liberal vs conservative blog integrity.

So, the Commissar has presented what seems at first to be a claim worth investigating further. Does The Left tacitly give a free pass to the psedoscience of astrology while vigorously attacking creationism and ID so as not to antagonize a segment of their base? Is this a blow to liberals' pro-science image? The Commissar presents a challenge to "the Left's 'Defenders of Science'":

"An advisor [referring to Jerome Armstrong] to a serious Democratic presidential candidate is an astrologer, as well as an admitted stock swindler. [bold in original] 29% of Americans believe in astrology. I think a little distancing would be in order, from the Left’s “Defenders of Science.” (If they have in the past, I’d be delighted to correct this post.)"

He specifically calls out PZ Myers, DarkSyde of DailyKos, Ed Brayton, and Brent Rasmussen as liberal science bloggers who have not publicly denounced astrology. Curiously, he doesn't mention Chris Mooney, the author of The Republican War on Science. I'd think he'd be a prominent liberal science supporter who should be included, no? Well, searching his blog, I did find a post that conveys his attitute toward astrology. Short answer, he thinks it's crap.

Anyway, true to his word, after most of these people responded to his post, he updated his article and linked to their responses:

"Prompt posts that display real integrity on this issue from PZMyers and Brent Rasmussen. Along with his usual overdose of personal and childish invective, Myers documents his previous denunciations of astrology. Fair enough. DarkSyde contents himself with 'Bush is worse,' and declines to exercise his much-ballyhooed independence at dKos’ front page by denouncing astrology there.
Or maybe astrology is just one of 'several different predictive mathematical disciplines?'"

In fact, I found his post via the link from PZ Myers' response. Ed Brayton also has no tolerance for astrology, and is a libertarian to boot. The Commissar also admitted to mistakenly labelling Ed as a liberal and apologized in his post.

In addition to these points, the Commissar also links to a comment by Jay Ackroyd somewhat supportive of Jerome Armstrong's astrology at Glenn Greenwald's blog and to a couple of "Leftie politics/astrology sites of interest" as further evidence of the influence of Astrology on the Left: HPLeft and the Democracy Cell Project.

So, to recap, the evidence that "astrology [is] quietly acceptable within the 'progressive' community" includes:

Jerome Armstrong, advisor to Mark Warner appears to be a bit of a flake and buys into astrology.
29% of Americans believe in astrology.
DarkSyde asserts that he denounces astrology, but he has not publicly proclaimed it from the relatively large forum of DailyKos that is available to him. To the Commissar, this apparent reticence is an indication of his unwillingness to antagonize the Left's astrology wing.
A commenter on a liberal blog is okay with Jerome Armstrong believing in astrology.
There are two "Leftie" organizations that buy into astrology.

The case the Commissar has assembled seems a bit thin to me, to put it mildly. The most persuasive bit of evidence is this Jerome Armstrong guy. I would agree that in light of his apparent dabbling in astrology, I would like to see Mark Warner come out against such foolishness and make it clear that he doesn't endorse using astrology to guide policy. But is one prominent Democratic politician (even a "serious presidential candidate") having a possible tenuous link to astrology enough to indict the entire "Left" as being "soft" on astrology? I'm unconvinced.

The fact that 29% of Americans believe in astrology is an interesting data point, but it doesn't make the case. Especially when another commenter on the Commissar's blog points out:

"A quick google of a Harris poll show 21% of R[epublicans] and 28% of D[emocrats] admit to believing strology. Hardly a matter of 'our pseudo-scientists'."

Since I'm not familiar with DarkSyde, I have no idea how much his views are influential to the Democratic party or liberals and progressives. Even a prominent liberal blogger seems to be of limited influence to me. Anyway, he's already declared he thinks astrology is crap, but he hasn't put a new post on the front page of DailyKos. The Commissar finds this significant, but it's a rather weak bit of evidence on its own. DarkSyde has already responded in the comments of the Commissar's post several times with what seem like reasonable answers as to why he hasn't put a post on DailyKos.

I have no idea who Jay Ackroyd is, but if he's a mover and shaker in the Democratic Party, I'll give more weight to his comment on Glenn Greenwald's blog. Otherwise, he's a private citizen who doesn't represent the Democratic leadership or liberals in general.

Looking at the two "Leftie" organizations that are into astrology, HPLeft does appear to be a bit loony and endorses astrology as one of the "wisdom technologies" that are returning from obscurity. And the Democracy Cell Project, while saying nothing about astrology on their site, is running articles by Matthew Carnicelli, the publisher of the HPLeft site. So maybe the Democracy Cell Project doesn't endorse astrology, but they haven't gone out of their way to denounce it. Are these organizations significant among liberals or the Democratic Party? Do their members hold positions of influence among the Left? Would Democratic politicians be reticent about calling astrology crap for fear of losing the support of these groups? I see no evidence of this.

It seems to me that astrology is pretty much a non-issue for both Democrats and Republicans. Astrologers on the whole seem to be less interested in gaining political power by influencing Democrats and more interesting in separating the gullible from their money. The Commissar sees the general silence of liberals on astrology as evidence of their tacit acceptance of astrologers in their camp and of their unwillingness to "rock the boat" by denouncing astrology as pseudoscience.

However, if we are to take this assertion seriously, we must eliminate the alternative hypothesis that Democrats don't address astrology because astrology is simply not a pressing political issue that deserves attention. And if we're going to posit that the analogy that astrology is the "Left's Creationism" then we need to show that astrologers have an organized lobby that has significant influence in the Democratic agenda that is equivalent to how much influence creationists and ID proponents have on Republican politicians. Well, let's compare creationists on the Right to astrologers on the Left.

Creationists and ID proponents ...

... have school boards in Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Alabama trying to insert their ideas in public school science classes.
... have Republican politicians introducing legislature in several states to get their pseudoscience taught in public school science classes.
... have a Republican senator (Rick Santorum) trying to insert "criticism" of evolution into national education legislature.
... have the Republican president of the United States endorsing "teaching the controversy" between ID and evolution. He also supported "teaching the controversy" between creationism and evolution when he was governor of Texas.
... have the full-fledged support of the influential Religious Right.

Astrology proponents ...

... have the ear of an advisor to Democratic presidential hoepful Mark Warner. Well, not exactly. This advisor dabbled in astrology, but he doesn't seem to be affiliated with any astrology organizations. It's also unclear whether Mark Warner himself endorses astrology.
... have two liberal organizations that somewhat support astrology with unclear (but apparently marginal) influence in the Democratic Party.
... have anything else?

The score sheet seems a bit uneven to me. Downright one-sided in fact. These criticisms of the Commissar's arguments have been made in the comments of his post. He brushes them off with this response:

"My visitors from Pharyngula are unanimous: 'Our pseudo-scientists are not as bad as your pseudo-scientists.'

and, oh yes, 'Nancy Reagan … Nancy Reagan .. Nancy Reagan'"

Oh yeah, did I forget to mention that the most well-known story of astrology's impact on politics seems to be the fact that Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer to plan her appointments while her husband was president? But that bit of data is apparently irrelevant.

The point that the Commissar seems to miss is that astrology is not a partisan phenomenon. Astrologers aren't the "Left's pseudo-scientists," as the Harris poll shows. Astrology adherents cut across the entire political spectrum relatively evenly. Creationists and ID proponents, on the other hand, are firmly aligned with Republicans and are pandered to by Republican politicians. This seems to be a significant difference that undermines his argument.

Well, at least I do agree with the Commissar on two points: creationism and ID are bunk, and astrology is bunk. But I fail to see the point of trying to tie liberals to astrology in the same way conservatives are linked to creationism and ID. The evidence he's presented just isn't compelling and doesn't support his thesis.

Coulter Makes Me Cringe

2006-06-19T23:36:00.000-04:00

I like to think of myself as a pretty reasonable guy. I try not to make snap judgments or let my anger get the better of me. I try to think things through and draw conclusions based on the facts as I see them. I'm always willing to admit I could be wrong about the facts, that I might have made a logical error, or that I let my prejudices blind me to the truth. I'm also willing to say "I don't know" when I don't have all the facts and haven't done enough research on a subject to come to a conclusion. But, once in a while, something really gets under my skin, and I just have to respond. Few things can set me off, but Ann Coulter just makes me see red.

Never have in my life have I encountered such a combination of disregard for facts and truth coupled with towering arrogance and self-righteousness, with a dollup of extreme hate-mongering thrown in for good measure. But this isn't what really rankles me. There are lots of odious people spewing lots of lies, distortions, and hateful rhetoric all over the place. And they have the right to do so. Freedom of speech is a concept I wholeheartedly endorse. Even when the speaker is Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh, or even the execrable Fred Phelps (the link goes to his Wikipedia entry; I can't bring myself to actually link to his hate-filled website).

The problem with Ann Coulter, and what personally frustrates me, is that she is treated with kid gloves by the "liberal media" and regarded as a mainstream pundit, when her views and rhetoric put her to the far right of Pat Robertson. Coulter's rhetoric should be marginalized, ignored, and dismissed by the media and the public in the same fashion that hate groups like the KKK and neo-nazis are ignored. Her writing is just as offensive and filled with untruths, but no one calls her on it. And any righteous indignation directed at her just adds fuel to her fire. Which is why I'm conflicted about writing this post. I guess I can take comfort in the fact that very few people read my blog anyway, so I can safely vent in relative obscurity.

Well, looking back at what I've written so far, I guess it's not really Ann Coulter than makes me so mad. It's the state of rational public discourse in America. We've become so polarized that people will support a horrible demagogue regardless of whatever outrageous lies they tell, as long as that demagogue can convince them that he or she is on "their" side. The fact that Ann Coulter's latest book is a bestseller is a symptom of the disease afflicting American politics.

Journalist David Neiwert has insightfully identified Coulter as one of several right-wing "transmitters;" someone who can take the outrageous views of the extreme far right, package them up and put a nice pretty bow on them, and present them to the mainstream as normal, reasonable "conservative" views. This has the effect of radicalizing the right more and more, since "mainstream" conservatism becomes increasingly extreme. This also creates a polarizing effect which contributes to radicalizing the left as well, as Coulter surely generates as much, if not more, contempt as she does admiration.

The net effect is that we're left with an untenable catch-22 situation. Sure, I can ignore Coulter and dismiss her rhetoric, but a significant portion of the population is swallowing her crap like it's filet mignon, and the media is giving her national TV coverage. If no one speaks out against her propaganda, she stands completely unchallenged to reach as many people as she can with her "arguments." On the other hand, if we refute her work and call it the hate-mongering BS that it is, we're feeding into her notoriety and will be marginalized simply as "Coulter-haters." Is there any way out of this?

Well, maybe, just maybe, if we can refute her work with the facts alone, calmly, rationally, even dispassionately, that may convince enough people that she's not worth listening to. Stick to all the errors, distortions, and half-truths she spins, and refrain from name calling or speculation about her gender traits and/or sexuality, and these rebuttals might just be able to get through to some people. I know, I'm dreaming right?

Currently, all the press is reporting on her vicious statements about the 9/11 widows. While this is another lovely bit of hateful rhetoric from Ms. Coulter, her critics' indignation is still just feeding her fire. I can't believe some New Jersey lawmakers didn't realize how much they played right into her hands with that talk of banning her book in New Jersey. Now she can claim she's a "victim" of liberal censorship!

A better avenue of attack may be what the folks at the Panda's Thumb are doing; they're shredding the third of her book she's devoted to "debunking" evolution. I have little direct familiarity with Coulter's work, but my observation of her past attacks is that she's limited herself to political targets. Thus, she may distort the truth and misrepresent people's views and political agendas, but she doesn't directly challenge objective reality and call it a "liberal myth." Well, it seems now that's exactly what she's doing with her screed on evolution. And the evolution guys aren't calling her names or getting pissed off; they're calmly, rationally, and dispassionately dissecting her statements one by one and exposing the crapload of errors and distortions to the light of day. In the wake of the Dover decision outlawing the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes, this has to put at least a little bit of a dent into her credibility with her fans, right? I know, I know, I'm still dreaming. But go read the rebuttals to her writing on evolution. They're very informative with links to several resources on the science of evolution.

Happy Blog-O-versary!

2006-06-15T23:43:00.000-04:00

Today, Unsolicited Opinions is a year old! I haven't been posting as frequently as I 'd like, but I'm glad I was at least able to keep this hobby up for whole year (please ignore the lack of posts from September to December). Anyway, to commemorate this happy occasion, let's take a look back on some memorable (to me at least) posts:

I'm VHEMenT-ly opposed to human extinction
Is agriculture humanity's biggest blunder?
I'm one of the cool people now, since geek is the new chic
The non-war against Christmas
Is weather forecasting all that different from evolution?

My traffic has grown appreciably since I participated in the 35th Skeptic's Circle last month. Thanks for stopping by, and I hope you find my ramblings interesting. My resolution for next year: stick to a schedule of at least one new post per week. Hopefully in 2007 I'll still be around spewing opinions no one asked for.

P.S. Another significant event today: My son went poo-poo on the potty for the first time! It was a real relief for his mom and me, since he's almost 18! Kidding! Kidding! He's such a great little 2-year-old kid.

35th Skeptics' Circle: Special Creationist Edition

2006-05-25T10:00:00.000-04:00

The 35th Skeptics' Circle is up, and I submitted one of my posts for inclusion. This is my first participation in a blog carnival, and I'm glad I got a chance to contribute. This week the Skeptics' Circle is hosted by Skeptico, who's been having a bit of trouble with a creationist blog doppelganger lately. Gracious guy that he is, Skeptico let his doppelganger narrate the posts in the Skeptics' Circle (not really). Well, creationists are skeptical of evolution, so this Skeptico doppelganger is on to something right? Er, um, yeah. So anyway, check it out and enjoy!

The Da Vinci Code Spectacle

2006-05-22T00:30:00.000-04:00

There's a saying we have here on the IntarWeb: Don't feed the trolls. Trolls inhabit all corners of the Net. On message forums, newsgroups, and blogs you can find people who post inflammatory messages for the sheer goal of provoking nasty responses from other posters and generally antagonizing everyone else. The only way to defeat a troll is to ignore it; if you don't respond to their messages, they have no means of provoking a fight, and they will eventually get bored and move on.

So what does this have to do with The DaVinci Code? Well, it appears the people who most strenuously object to its subject matter have managed to generate enough controversy to push the movie to a huge box office take on its opening weekend. If they had simply ignored the movie, I doubt so much hype would have been created. Hollywood is laughing all the way to the bank. I wouldn't call author Dan Brown a troll for the Catholic Church, but he, and Columbia Pictures, certainly are making lots of money off of the major controversy all these upset people are stirring up.

If you're screaming about how blasphemous The Da Vinci Code is, you're only feeding the troll (I know, I just contradicited my previous sentence, but it's a metaphor people!).

I read the book and thought it was entertaining. It was a good fast-pased thriller/murder mystery with an interesting twist at the end. The conspiracy theory proposed by the book, and apparently the author, is bunk (don't click this link if you haven't read the book yet and don't want to be spoiled), but it's still a fun story. I'll probably see the movie on DVD though. I don't get to the movies often these days, and I'd like to save my summer movie outings for the biggies like X-Men, Superman, and Pirates of the Caribbean. Does anyone want to complain about the unfair portrayals of genetic mutants, extraterrestrial vigilantes, or 17th century pirates?

The Legacy of Jeff Foxworthy

2006-05-18T22:10:00.000-04:00

Okay, this post isn't actually about Jeff Foxworthy. But his trademark comedy routine poking fun at rednecks ("You might be a redneck if ..."; audio link requires RealPlayer) has inspired a couple of amusing lists in the blogosphere:

And just to be fair, the list for intelligent design was a response to a similar list for "Signs you might be an intelligent design critic" posted at the ID-friendly blog Telic Thoughts. Personally I think the list lampooning ID supporters is more on target and funnier, but of course I'm biased.

(via Respectful Insolence)

Party Like It's Nineteen Eighty-Four!

2006-05-08T00:20:00.000-04:00

I just read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four last week. If you haven't read it before, I strongly recommend it (there's a free online version here). Orwell's cautionary tale of a dystopian future still resonates today as it did in 1948. I now fully understand what it means to call something "Orwellian" and how his ideas have influenced us today (However, I still have no idea how the Apple MacIntosh was supposed to save us from Orwell's future in that Super Bowl commercial).

When I got to the end of the story, it struck me how utterly deranged the members of The Party (the political organization that controlled the government of the fictional superstate of Oceania) were. The only goal of The Party was to attain and keep power over everyone else. All of their actions were focused on this goal, regardless even of the effects on the members of The Party themselves. Orwell's insight was that absolute power not only corrupts absolutely, the pursuit of that power drives you insane. Here are couple of passages from near the end of the book. Winston, the main character, is a low-level member of the Party and has secretly developed a hatred of the Party's oppression. He's been caught by The Party as a traitor, and O'Brien, a higher-up Party member, is torturing him. Here is O'Brien's explanation for The Party's motives:

"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"

And here is one of the more famous passages in which O'Brien describes the future of humanity under the dominion of The Party:

[O'Brien asks Winston] "How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?"

Winston thought. "By making him suffer", he said.

"Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery is torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but MORE merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy - everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Pretty scary stuff, huh? After reading the book, I felt like Scrooge when he was pleading with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol:

"Before I draw nearer to that stone to which you point," said Scrooge, "answer me one question. Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only?"

Still the Ghost pointed downward to the grave by which it stood.

"Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead," said Scrooge. "But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me!"

Scrooge learned the True Meaning of Christmas and changed his life. Have we learned from Orwell's warning? I hope so. Even today I see disturbing trends in our political and economic systems. The insanity of The Party and its dedication to power also ties into David Brin's ideas about satiability (see this series on his blog: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV). Satiability, he argues, is the difference between those who gain wealth and power and can use them wisely, and those who become slaves to the power they covet. It's an interresting parallel to Orwell's narrative.

As I said above, if you haven't read 1984, read it. And see if you can see some of the tactics of The Party being applied, albeit in much weaker forms, by modern-day politicians and media pundits. Scary stuff, indeed.

Illegal Immigration, the Economy, and Statistics

2006-05-04T22:17:00.000-04:00

Update 5/25/2006: This post is featured in the 35th Skeptics' Circle, hosted by Skeptico. Welcome, fellow skeptics!

I was inspired by MarkCC's Good Math, Bad Math blog to examine more closely what looked to be a fishy use of statistics. On the continuing illegal immigration debate, I found this New York Times article about the economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States (discovered via David Neiwert's, Daniel Drezner's, and Kevin Drum's blogs). The main thesis of the article is that economists have analyzed the effect of illegal immigration on the American economy, and discovered that the actual impact has been much lower than expected. To quote the article:

As Congress debates an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, several economists and news media pundits have sounded the alarm, contending that illegal immigrants are causing harm to Americans in the competition for jobs.

Yet a more careful examination of the economic data suggests that the argument is, at the very least, overstated. There is scant evidence that illegal immigrants have caused any significant damage to the wages of American workers.

The article also presents a graphic showing a comparison between the percentage of illegal immigrants versus the median hourly wage for high school dropouts in 9 selected states.

Okay, so this article seems to refute the claim that illegal immigrants are a significant drain on the American economy, right? However, Steve Sailer disagrees with a post on the VDARE blog entitled: The Uselessness of Economists on Immigration. He notes:

An accompanying graphic shows that a high school dropout in California, where supposedly 6.9% of the population are illegal immigrants, averages $8.71 per hour in wages versus merely $8.37 in Ohio, where only 1.0% are illegal immigrants.

Case closed!

Well, no, not exactly. What about the cost of living difference between California and Ohio? Don’t they tell you in Econ 101 and in Journalism 101 to always adjust for the cost of living?

According to the data gathered by the nonprofit organization ACCRA, which measures cost of living so corporations can fairly adjust the salaries of employees they relocate, California has the highest cost of living in the country with an index of 150.8 (where 100 is the national norm). Ohio is below average at 95.4. So, relative to the national average cost of living, high school dropouts in Ohio average $8.77 versus $5.78 for the equivalent in California. That means they are 52% better off in Ohio.

He then lists the numbers from the article's graphic and adds in the median wages corrected for the cost of living index (corrected wage = 100 * wage/(cost of living index)):

State	Illegal Immigrant % by Population	HS Droput Median Wage	Cost of Living Index	Adjusted HS Dropout Median Wage
Nevada	7.5%	$10.05	111.8	$8.99
California	6.9%	$8.71	150.8	$5.78
Florida	5.2%	$8.99	100.3	$8.99
Maryland	4.5%	$9.84	125.8	$7.82
New Jersey	4.1%	$9.03	134.2	$6.73
New York	3.3%	$9.02	123.5	$7.30
Nebraska	2.3%	$9.08	93.3	$9.73
Ohio	1.0%	$8.37	95.4	$8.77
Kentucky	0.9%	$8.73	91.2	$9.57

He precedes this table with the following comment:

Here’s the data from the NYT’s graphic, in which 9 states were cherry-picked to make it look like the higher the percentage of illegal immigrants in a state’s population, the better off high school dropouts are (r=+0.58). I’ve added the two right hand columns to adjust for the big cost of living differences. We then find a negative correlation of r = -0.46 between the percentage of illegal immigrants and the cost-of-living-adjusted median wage for high school dropouts. Quite a difference!

But does this actually refute the point of the article? "Cherry-picking" aside, the article never claims that "the higher the percentage of illegal immigrants in a state’s population, the better off high school dropouts are." Also, I doubt the actual studies done by the economists mentioned in the article only encompasses the data for these nine states.

Mr. Sailer has a point that the newspaper article should have corrected the median wage numbers for cost of living across different states. However, the corrected figures don't exactly prove his contention that illegal immigrants are significantly depressing the high school dropout median wages. He points out the disparity between California and Ohio when the numbers are corrected for cost of living, but ignores the fact that Nevada has a higher percentage of illegal immigrants than even California, and *still* has a higher median wage than Ohio, even after the numbers are adjusted.

In fact, just glancing at the table, it appears to me that the biggest effect on the corrected median wages is in fact the cost-of-living index. Of course, this is not surprising given that the corrected median wages are calculated by and thus dependent on the cost-of-living index. But what about the correlation coefficients Mr. Sailer calculated? Can we draw any meaningful conclusions from them? (If you're unfamiliar with correlation coefficients and their use in statisitics, check the Wikipedia article for a helpful summary.)

Let's calculate the correlation coefficients between every pair of columns in Mr. Sailer's table (numbers and figures generated by UCLA Dept of Statistics' Correlation and Regression Calculator):

Illegal Immigrant Population % vs HS Dropout Median Wages r = 0.58	Illegal Immigrant Population % vs Adjusted HS Dropout Median Wages r = -0.46
Cost-of-Living Index vs Adjusted HS Dropout Wages r = -0.96	Illegal Immigrant Population % vs Cost-of-Living Index r = 0.63
HS Dropout Wages vs Adjusted HS Dropout Wages r = 0.09	Cost-of-Living Index vs HS Dropout Wages r = 0.16

The first row of the table shows the correlation coefficients Mr. Sailer calculated. The values 0.58 and -0.46 seem significant until you look at the data plotted in a graph. Looking at the graph, this data doesn't convince me that there's much of any causal relationship between illegal immigrant population and high school dropout median wage, regardless of whether or not you correct for the cost-of-living index.

In the second row, as I predicted, we see a strong correlation between cost-of-living index and the adjusted HS dropout median wage. But perhaps the illegal immigrant population adversely affects the cost-of-living index, and thus we'd be justified in claiming that the illegal immigration population indirectly affects the high school dropout median wage? Well, the figure on the right graphs the illegal immigrant population vs cost-of-living index. The correlation coefficient is a slightly higher (than the coefficients in the first row) 0.63, but looking at the graph, the data points still look all over the place. That doesn't seem like a convincing causal relationship either.

In the third row, for completeness, I've added the correlation calculations between the other combinations of data columns. These columns do not have relevant relationships to each other and thus it is not surprising that their correlation coefficients are low.

Of course, the real problem is that it's unreasonable to draw any substantial conclusions about illegal immigration's affect on high school dropout median wage from nine measily data points. And I don't think the Times article was trying to do that. The graphic is a supplemental material, and the caption states:

The estimated number of illegal immigrants in a state's population shows no apparent correlation with the median wage for less educated workers in that state.

This is a much weaker statement than Mr. Sailer's interpretation that the graphic "cherry-picked" the data to try to make it look like "the higher the percentage of illegal immigrants in a state’s population, the better off high school dropouts are."

I do have to agree that it is misleading to not correct for the cost-of-living index for the median wage figures. But even it that were done, as the analysis above shows, that doesn't invalidate the graphic caption's assertion.

I think a substantial critique of the Times article would address the data actually used in the studies published by the economists. It seems unfair to claim economists are "useless" on immigration without addressing the studies they published, rather than the snippet of data published in the article.

A significant criticism I have with the Times article is that they don't reference the actual studies done. They mention a bunch of economist researchers but don't provide citations to help actually track down the studies. Fortunately we live in the age of Google. For the interested, here are links to the studies mentioned in the article:

George J. Borjas and Lawrence F. Katz, The Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States
David Card, Is the New Immigration Really So Bad?
David H. Autor, Lawrence F. Katz, Melissa S. Kearney, The Polarization of the U.S. Labor Market

I'm neither an economist nor an expert on illegal immigration, and I haven't reviewed these articles in depth. Therefore, I can't claim direct knowledge that these studies are accurate and support the conclusions of the Times article. But you can't dismiss their findings by dismissing the numbers in the Times article without bothering to investigate further. It's also misleading to claim an analysis of 9 data points in isolation is significant. That's just plain bad math.

Avoiding the Perils of the Internet

2006-04-15T21:25:00.000-04:00

I don't think it's an understatement to say that the Internet is as much a revolution in human communications as television, radio, or the printing press were when they were first introduced. The Internet puts the entire wealth of accumulated human knowledge at your fingertips. No previous generation had such immediate access to so much information. And the poplarity of the World Wide Web, combined with the proliferation of blogs, homepages, etc. truly makes free speech real for the entire population. In principle, anyone can publish anything they want on the Web and have it potentially be read by everyone else.

OK, that's the rosey, naive utopian vision of the Internet. The unfortunate reality is that the Internet is equal parts amazing universal knowledge database, cess pool of lies and misinformation, welcoming communities for people to find other people with similar interests, outlet for still other people to exercise their worst anti-social impulses anonymously, forum to debate and discuss important issues, and platform to spew the most vile propaganda and smear campaigns.

The truth is the fact that the Internet makes free speech real is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. You can't blindly trust every web page you visit or every email you receive. To make the most of the Internet, you have to put a bit of work into making sure the information you're getting is accurate.

So, in the interest of helping my fellow web surfers, here are some sites that I think are trustworthy and can help you avoid getting sucked into the cess pool:

Snopes Urban Legends Reference Pages - Ever get an email with a story that's too unbelievable to be true? Well, you're probably right. Check this site to find out which stories are just urban legends, and which are based on facts.
FactCheck.org - It's a given that all politicians lie, right? This site researches the public statements politicians make and determines what's factual, what's exaggeration, and what's just plain false. Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, this site doesn't play favorites. This site focuses on US politics, so it's maybe only relevant for American citizens.
The Straight Dope - Cecil Adams answers readers' questions about a wide range of topics. He and his staff always provide background references and research so that you can verify their findings. If you have a question that no one seems to be able to answer, check here. If they don't have the answer already, you can ask them.
How Stuff Works - We live in amazing times where technology provides us with so much convenience in our everyday lives. But we rarely take the time to understand how all these marvelous machines and tools work. This site solves that problem. Each article provides clear explanations with lots of pictures and diagrams on a variety of human technology and the workings of the universe. You don't need an advanced science or engineering degree to understand how stuff works, just plain old human curiosity.

One thing all these sites have in common is that they provide external references so that the interested reader can check their facts independently. This is a pretty good indicator as to whether the site is actually trying to provide good information. In contrast, many sites that try to spread false information or distort facts will make intentionallly vague statements that are difficult to verify, and provide no references to back up their position. This is not a perfect test of a site's veracity, but it is a good starting point. In general, it's always a good idea to remain skeptical of anything you see online that can't be easily independently verified.

What Kind of Flame Warrior Are You?

2006-04-14T22:38:00.000-04:00

You may have seen this already, but I just discovered a great website that describes the many types of flame warriors on the Internet. If you've ever hung out on a newsgroup, bulletin board, message board, online forum, or comment thread on a blog, you've probably encountered many of these types of personalities. Among the more antagonistic types you may encounter are the Troller, Troglodyte, Ferrous Cranus, Evil Clown, and Ideologue.

Looking at myself, I think I'm a composite of a few different warriors:

I'm 75% Lurker - mostly I read the messages, but I generally don't comment that often.
I'm 10% Diplomat - I've tried being a peacemaker a couple of times in an effort to resolve heated disputes calmly and rationally (see here and here) - with little success.
I'm 15% Eagle Scout - I generally try to be polite and calm when I do participate in any online fora. It helps for me to wait an hour before typing out any argumentative messages. This prevents letting my emotions unleash any unnecessary nastiness.

Hopefully, I'll continue to be reasonable and I won't turn into a Jekyl and Hyde in the future. If you do detect a personality shift in my posts here, please let me know before it's too late!

Those Huddled Masses Still Yearn To Breathe Free

2006-04-13T22:47:00.000-04:00

I recently discovered (via PZ Myers' Pharyngula) Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez's blog, La Queen Sucia, and this post about facts vs. myths regarding illegal immigration. I can't confirm all the details and statistics she cites, but it is certainly worth a read to put the issue into perspective.

Reading her post reminded me of a Simpsons episode that addressed this very issue (that originally aired almost 10 years ago, on May 5, 1996). In the episode, Much Apu About Nothing, Springfield's Mayor Quimby needs as issue to distract the voters from his administration's financial mismanagement. He picks, rather arbitrarily, illegal immigration:

[An angry crowd has gathered outside Mayor Quimby's office to complain about the recent tax hike. Quimby and his aides are discussing the problem behind closed doors.]

Quimby: Are these morons getting dumber or just louder?
Assistant: [checks his clipboard] Dumber, sir. They won't give up the bear patrol, but they won't pay taxes for it either.
Quimby: [thoughtfully] Ducking this issue calls for real leadership.

[The mayor exits his office to address the angry crowd of citizens.]

Quimby: People! Your taxes are high because of illegal immigrants! That's right, illegal immigrants! We need to get rid of them!

[The angry crowd calms a bit and starts muttering.]

Moe the Bartender: Immigants! [sic] I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!
Helen Lovejoy, wife of the pastor: [hysterically] Ohhh, won't somebody *please* think of the children!

Quimby: In one week the town will vote on a special referendum whether or not to deport all illegal immigrants from Springfield. It shall be known as Proposition 24.

[The crowd (including Mayor Quimby) erupts into cheers]

Now, I'm not trying to claim that illegal immigration is a non-problem, or that we don't have problems with the current immigration laws in the US. But what I do see as pretty blatant is that we have some politicians using illegal immigration as a wedge issue to distract voters from the bigger problems in our government (coincidentally caused by the policies of those same politicians). Additionally, I see the immigration issue being used as a scapegoat for all US economic problems. That Simpsons episode demonstrates and satirizes these tactics quite nicely.

I think it's pretty unrealistic to think that we can build a magic wall around the US to keep "undesirables" out, or that immigrants (legal or illegal) of today are somehow of a different breed than those of previous generations, and that they don't contribute to America like previous waves of immigrants did.

I don't claim to be very knowledgeable about this issue, so I'll point you to journalist David Neiwert's blog and a recent post about proposed solutions to US illegal immigration problems. I think he provides a more reasonable approach than what is being offered by our politicians. Also, check out a short comment that Andrew Sullivan recently made on the topic.

As a nation that is mostly composed of the descendants of immigrants, we should be smarter about welcoming and incorporating new arrivals and helping to put them on the path towards citizenship.

Blog Distractions

2006-04-08T22:26:00.000-04:00

Since my posting frequency has been quite pitiful, I figure I can at least provide some lame ass excuses as to what I'm doing with my time instead of blogging.

Kingdom Hearts II - Just came out for Playstation 2. You got Disney in my Final Fantasy! You got Final Fantasy in my Disney! This most unlikely combination creates a surprisingly great game series, and I'm working my way through the sequel. (See game reviews here, here, and here)
Civilization IV - If crack was a computer game, it would be Civilization. Just...one...more...turn...!
Lost - This TV show is addictive. I've recently managed to hook friends in Germany to this weird, ensemble, character-driven, sci-fi mystery. Apple should give me a cut of the iTunes download money that came from my referral.
Deal or No Deal - A game show where people pick random numbers to try to win money. No special skills or knowledge required. I know it sounds brainless, but it can actually be entertaining watching people ignore probability theory.
The Office - TV comedy gold. I think the American version is even better than the British original, but of course I'm a bit biased.
Veronica Mars - More quirky TV drama/mystery. I don't know how the writers come up with such interesting mysteries and puzzles every week. Check out this great fan site that keeps up with all the show's mysteries and clues.
Brightness Reef by David Brin - First book in his second Uplift trilogy series. I've only recently started reading David Brin, so I'm playing catchup on his sci-fi novels.

So as you can see, I'm wasting far too much time on pointless entertainment when I should be wasting time writing blog entires for a nonexistant audience. And clearly I watch too much TV. I should probably add my DVR to the list of distractions. It's completely changed the way I watch TV, and I think I'm watching *twice* as much as I did before (my poor brain cells).

There just aren't enough hours in the day! By the way, stuff like family and work already get top priority before all this other stuff, so I'm not neglecting them! Hopefully I'll get to writing a real blog post this week. Cross your fingers!

Personality "Tests"

2006-04-05T21:17:00.000-04:00

I found a site that has several online quizes that "test" whether or not you belong in a particular category. So here are my scores from the tests I took:

I am 20% Idiot.

I am not annoying at all. In fact most people come to me for advice. Of course they annoy the hell out of me. But what can I do? I am smarter than most people.

Take the
Idiot Test
@ FualiDotCom

I am 25% Geek.

You probably work in computers, or a history deptartment at a college. You never really fit in with the "normal" crowd. But you have friends, and this is a good thing.

Take the
Geek Test
@ FualiDotCom

I am 34% Internet Addict.

I could go either way. Deep into the madness of nights filled with coding CGI-Scripts and online role playing games, or I could become a normal user. Good luck!

Take the
Internet Addict Test
@ FualiDotCom

I am 60% Video Game Addict.

Video games are a big portion of my life, maybe too big of a portion. They are not a means of social interaction, despite what I might think. I should just go outside.

Take the
Video Game Addict Test
@ FualiDotCom

I'm a bit disappointed in my geek and Internet addict score. Even my video game addict score is barely passing, and I've been playing video games for 25 years. I guess I'm just not hardcore. Just for fun, I also took a couple of tests that don't exactly apply to my demographic. Those results are particularly amusing:

I am 11% Metrosexual.

I need some advice. I need to STOP BUYING MY CLOTHS AT WAL-MART!!!! I will never land a decent woman unless I shave this nasty facial hair, and spend more then $5 on a haircut.

Take the
Metrosexual Test
@ FualiDotCom

I am 5% White Trash.

I, my friend, have class. I am so not white trash. . I am more than likely Democrat, and my place is neat, and there is a good chance I may never drink wine from a box.

Take the
White Trash Test
@ FualiDotCom

Apparently I'm not classy enough to be a metrosexual, but I'm not lowbrow enough to be white trash (well, I'm also black, so that might put me out of the running anyway).

Stephen Hawking: Brilliant Astrophysicist, Hardcore Gangsta Rapper

2006-03-01T20:32:00.000-05:00

It's absurd. It's juvenile. It's offensive. And it's hilarious. Check out the website of MC Hawking and his music video and album trailer. This seems to be a few years old, but I hadn't seen it until now. You can even buy MC Hawking's greatest hits CD: A Brief History of Rhyme. MC Hawking is representin' for the scientists, yo.

DISCLAIMER: If you're deeply offended by gangsta rap, profanity, and/or disrespect towards religion, don't click the link.

This clearly isn't the way to advance science education and awareness, but it struck my twisted sense of humor. I couldn't help laughing.

For a less controversial but even cooler hip-hop animated music video, check out Danger Doom's ode to Cartoon Network's Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

Did I Do That?

2006-03-01T00:30:00.000-05:00

And the drama continues. The war of words between dlamming and Ed Brayton continues to get more heated. Since my last post covering their opposing arguments, they've both posted new entries on the subject (see dlamming's here, and see Ed's here).

Previously I said I thought it was unlikely that Ed Brayton found dlamming's original post via one of my blog entries. Then Ed left a comment to my post confirming that he had, in fact, gotten to dlamming's post from my blog. He used a Firefox extension that links to Google's blog search engine. So, since I bear partial responsibility for igniting this turmoil, I figure I should try to capture and summarize the arguments as I see them for posterity.

I'm attempting the "paraphrasing challenge" based on David Brin's idea of "Disputation Arenas" to make sure I've accurately captured both sides of the argument. If either dlamming or Ed wishes to offer corrections here, I'll gladly incorporate them. I've seen the same arguments going back and forth several times, so this is an attempt to nail things down.

First, let's take Ed's original post about the Discovery Institute's (DI) list of scientists "dissenting from Darwin." As I understand it, Ed made two main points:

The DI's statement and list is a sham, because it is being presented as proof that there is a controversy/debate in the scientific community over the validity evolution, when the language of the statement itself is so wishy-washy that it doesn't even reject evolution outright. Let's look at the original DI statement:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
As Ed, states, any scientist who supports evolution could agree with this statement just as much as those who reject evolution. The statement is vague and noncommittal, and doesn't even address whether or not evolution occured or whether or not all life is related by common descent. It also ignores the fact that other evolutionary mechanisms besides natural selection have been discovered since Darwin's day.
Even if the statement was better worded to indicate a true rejection of current evolutionary theory, only presenting a list of scientists as proof that there's a controvery over evolution without any actual evidence or substantive arguments is an attempt at a falacious argument from authority. This fallaciousness is further compounded by the fact that the list's members don't even primarily consist of scientitsts who could be considered legitimate authorities on evolutionary theory. Rather, fewer than 25% of the signers on the list of 514 scientists are from fields in biology.

Now, let's look at dlamming's original post decrying elitism. His major point is that it is elitist to claim that for any particular field, only experts can discuss the issues of that field, and only the opinions of experts should be considered valid on any subject. He further claims that this position is the "logical extreme" of the second point in Ed's post. In addition to Ed's post, he also presents additional examples from Mike the Mad Biologist and Tim Lambert as demonstration of other bloggers' elitism in this regard.

This is where I came into the discussion. I made several comments on dlamming's original post, because I didn't (and still don't) see the logical connection between the elitism dlamming rightly disdains, and the original points in Ed's post (or the other examples, for that matter). To clarify, here is a list of possible positions one could take on the topic:

It is elitist and wrong to reject out-of-hand the opinions of non-experts just because they aren't experts in a field. It's possible non-experts can be knowledgeable in a field.
The opinions of experts and non-experts should be treated equally on a subject because the experts may be biased, and the non-experts may have studied the subject in detail.
Without additional information, it is appropriate to give the opinions of experts more consideration than the opinions of non-experts, because experts are more likely to be knowledgeable in the field.
Ultimately, opinions must be judged on the merits of the arguments and evidence presented, regardless of the source (expert or non-expert).

dlamming argues against (1), and I agree with him. Ed argues against (2), and I agree with him as well. Is that a contradiciton? No, because I agree with (3) and (4), which are reasonable positions between the extremes of (1) and (2). I'd wager both dlamming and Ed would agree to (3) and (4) as well. At least, when I brought up (3) in my arugments on dlamming's blog, he never argued against it. I don't think there's any room for debate on (4).

So why all the fuss? It seems dlamming continues to claim that Ed's statements argue for (1), when they actually argue against (2) and in favor of (3). This is where I see a fundamental disconnect.

The arguments spiraled around this disconnect on both Ed's and dlamming's blogs, with other commenters chiming in. Later in the discussion, Ed made the statement that he doesn't "believe that educated people in general have a good idea what evolution is about." dlamming responded with "Well, I believe that a basic knowledge of evolution is widespread among scientists (and lay people) of many fields, and certainly those of biology, chemistry, and medicine. And, as I did in my first post, I hold your unwillingness to believe this as evidence that you and others believe that 'only experts should talk about scientific issues.'"

This is another disconnect. Ed's statement is descriptive, claiming that educated people in general don't understand evolution. The position dlamming argues against and claims Ed is holding is prescriptive; that only experts should hold forth on scientific issues. One does not have to support the latter position to agree with the former.

Ed's statement about educated people is a question of fact that can be verified or falsified with sufficient observation. He's formed that opinion based on direct extended interaction over many years with educated people from various fields on the subject of evolution. Hey may be right or wrong about this statement, but he never used this assertion to imply that only expert opinions should be considered for any topic, or that some people can't talk about a particular topic because they're not experts.

The second statement is a position that argues in favor of only considering arguments from authority and rejecting all other arguments regardless of their merit. This is clearly the "elitist" position that dlamming derides, but it has no direct connection to Ed's assertion, and Ed expressly denied that he supported it.

After going through the various posts repeatedly, it seems to me that the arguments are driven by dlamming's continued refusal to recognize and acknowledge the disconnects in his arguments, and Ed and other commenters getting increasingly frustrated and hostile toward this refusal.

Unfortunately, Ed and other commenters have added some vitriol to their replies to dlamming, stemming from their growing frustration. I commend dlamming for remaining relatively polite in his responses. Unfortunately, that's the only merit I see in his arguments. And his continued refusal to acknowledge the disconnect between the positions he argues against and the positions his opponents actually hold is not helping.

But that's just my non-expert opinion.

The Blip Becomes a Tremor

2006-02-27T21:50:00.000-05:00

Well, since my post yesterday, there's been a bit of back and forth between dlamming and Ed Brayton on the DI Statement. Ed responded to dlamming's original comments, then dlamming responded to that on his blog, and Ed followed up with a second response.

Since dlamming, others, and I already had a long discussion in the comments to his blog post last week, the fact that Ed's reply appeared today almost suggests he found dlamming's post via my blog (as dlamming suggests in a comment to my previos post). However, I find this unlikely, as my Site Meter logs indicate the traffic to my blog puts me about 5 levels below "pathetic nobody." Anyway, I'm still convinced dlamming misinterpreted Ed's original argument about the DI statement.

If I get time, in a future post I'll try to make a detailed summary of the arguments on both sides thus far.

A Blip in the Blogosphere

2006-02-26T22:48:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the extended absence. Too much celebrating after the big Super Bowl win for Pittsburgh! I've also been busy stirring the currents of the blogosphere commenting on other blogs. In particular, I had an interesting discussion with dlamming on his blog, Saccharomyces, about elitism and hypocrisy. Also, check out the original post from Ed Brayton's blog that we were disagreeing about. I, of course, think my arguments were correct, but read the whole discussion and judge for yourself.

I found my way to his blog from a comment dlamming left to a post on PZ Myers' Pharyngula. Also, dlamming made a similar comment on a post at Orac's Respectful Insolence blog, and Orac actually quoted me in his response to dlamming's arguments. Cool! It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who finds my arguments convincing ;)

I also found something interesting to comment on at Cognitive Daily, about what the best type of evidence is for convincing people of a proposition.

Additionally, a while ago I participated in a discussion on sci-fi author David Brin's blog about Intelligent Design (Part 1, Part 2). One particular comment I left on Part 2 actually impressed Dr. Brin.

Wow, that's a lot of links for such a short blog entry. Have fun clicking around the blogosphere, and I hope there's something interesting here when you get back!

Here We Go Steelers!

2006-02-04T20:35:00.000-05:00

If your a fan of American Football, you're looking forward to tomorrow evening. Super Bowl XL is this Sunday. I live in a suburb of Pittsburgh, I'm hosting a party, and getting ready to see the Steelers kick the Seahawks' tails. The Super Bowl has grown to become an unofficial American holiday. It's the biggest American TV event of the year. Even if you're not into football, advertisers put on their best commericials to show off products during this coveted TV viewing time. The Super Bowl also means a feast of junk food. Apparently, this is the biggest American eating holiday behind Thanksgiving Day. Get your grub on, but don't overdo it! And cheer for the Steelers!

Can You Trademark a Blog Title?

2006-01-30T21:28:00.000-05:00

I was curious to see where my blog ranks if I tried to search for it in Google. I typed unsolicited opinions into Google to see how popular my little piece of the Internet was. Unsurprisingly, this blog didn't even make it into the search results. Surprisingly (or not), I found another Blogspot blog using a similar title, with a slight twist. That blog is named Unsolicited Opinion (with no s). This blog is Unsolicited OpinionS.

Needless to say, my illusions of being at least somewhat original were shattered. The guy even uses a tag line to end most of his posts: "But that's just my ... Unsolicted Opinion." Why didn't I think of that? We do share at least one opinion on the inanity of the so-called "War on Christmas" (I wrote about that last month here) and a brief sampling of his posts indicates some interesting thoughts. This, of course, crushes my ego even further.

Finally, I checked his archives to see when his blog started. Even though my blog wasn't as cool as his, maybe at least I could claim that my blog was first on the block. My first post on Unsolicted Opinions was on Wednesday, June 15, 2005. The first post on Unsolicited Opinion: Thursday, June 16, 2005. SCORE!!!

So now I can say, with confidence, thanks for visiting to the first, the ORIGINAL, Unsolicited Opinions. ;)

The Weather and Evolution: An Interesting Analogy

2006-01-26T20:22:00.000-05:00

I've been following the whole evolution versus intelligent design political battle for the last few months, and I see that scientists face a huge challenge in getting a fair representation of evolution in the media. The major ID organization, The Discovery Institute, has a massive PR apparatus that can spin falsehoods and anti-evolution propaganda faster than a runaway ferris wheel (can anyone give me a better metaphor?). The supporters of science have no such PR machine, and many of the arguments for evolution involve explaining a significant amount of detail on what evidence for evolution exists and how scientific conclusions were made. This amount of information doesn't really fit that well into a short newspaper article or a few pithy soundbites.

Most people don't seem to be inclined to listen to a boring science lecture with lots of minute uninteresting details (well, *I* don't think they're uninteresting, but then, I'm a geek). So below I present an argument for evolution that perhaps might do better at capturing the general public's attention while still being interesting. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated (as if anyone is actually reading this!).

Do you rely on the daily weather forecast? I do. Every morning before work, I watch the news to hear what the day's weather will be like. I even look at the 5-day forecast when there's a special outdoors event coming up that I want to attend. As we are all aware, weather forecasting isn't perfect. Sometimes meteorologists get it wrong. It rains when they said it would snow. We get a sunny day instead of the expected rain. However, on most days, the weather forecast is reasonably reliable. And meteorologists continuously collect data so that they can modify their predictions as new information becomes available.

Most people would consider meteorology to be good science, despite scientists' inability to predict the weather with 100% accuracy. I'm no expert on the science behind weather modeling, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't grounded in physics and chemistry. Despite the significant increase in our knowledge of both physics and chemistry in the last few centuries, we still are unable to make semi-reliable weather predictions beyond more than 2 weeks into the future. We can't predict where tornados will touch in down in the midwest early enough to warn people to evacuate. Most people would label the weather as "random" in the sense that people, with our limited understanding and simplified models, cannot predict weather changes with complete certainty.

Now suppose there was a hypothetical group of people who looked at meteorology and decided it was flat-out wrong. "The weather displays amazing complexity," they say. "The weather cannot just be the product of natural forces acting randomly! The very existence of the weather and its complexity implies that there must be an intelligence that designed the weather!" What would you say to that? Would you agree or disagree? If you disagree, you might argue that scientists have been able to make predictions about the weather based only on natural forces, and have found no evidence for a designer. "Those predictions don't prove anything," your opponents would say. "Why can't the meteorologist models predict weather more than a few days in advance? And even then, sometimes those predictions are wrong. Long-term weather trends can't be predicted, and natural disasters are almost never recognized by meteorologists! How do we explain this complexity without the existence of a designer?"

At this point you might ask your opponents to explain why this intelligent designer makes natural disasters that kill people, such as lightning strikes that can cause fires and burn down buildings. "We can't know the purposes or mechanisms of the designer," the intelligent weather design (IWD) proponents say. "Perhaps the designer was displeased with the people in those particular buildings, and decided to punish them. But look at the complexity of the weather! Look at snowflakes! Such complex patterns *CANNOT* have arisen by random chance! Meteorologists are just blind to the facts that all evidence points to an intelligent weather designer. Their theories only work in limited cases, and can't explain all weather! They have an inherent bias to philisophical materialism, and that means they've excluded the possibility of a designer a priori! They're blind to the real evidence!"

"Uh, Okay. Well, who is this intelligent designer, according to your theory?" you might ask. The IWD proponents' answer: "Well, we're doing real science, so we can only use empirical evidence to make a conclusion. The evidence clearly points to the existence of an intelligent weather designer, but we cannot determine the designer's identity. However, given the majesty and complexity of the weather, it seems completely logical to assume that designer is God." You ask, "But you said meteorologists excluded the possibility of an IWD. Does that mean they think meteorology proves God doesn't exist?" And they reply, "Exactly! Meteorologists are part of a consipiracy to get God out of public life. Their meteorology is a flawed theory that denies the glory of God! With IWD theory, you can see that science proves God's existence!"

These guys don't seem to be making sense. You ask another question: "Well, wait a minute. I've watched the weather report countless times on the news, and it's reasonably accurate. Sure, I've never heard a weather announcer claim God controls the weather (they keep talking about things like "warm fronts" and "cold fronts") but I've never heard a weather announcer claim meteorology proves God doesn't exist. Why have you reached that conclusion?"

The IWD proponents' response: "Those meteorologists never talk about how the weather is intelligently designed, do they? They claim the weather is just "random and unpredictable." They claim they know everything there is to know about the weather, but their models can only make limited predictions, and even those are often wrong! How can anyone who believes that the weather is random also believe in an all-powerful God who controls the weather and the entire universe! They are athiests trying to use meteorology to destroy your faith in God!" At this point, you smile, nod, and back away slowly, avoiding eye contact.

Okay, I know, this story sounds really over the top. Weather science has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God, right? No one would really be silly enough to dispute that meteorology is "flawed" or that scientists who study the weather are motivated to prove that God doesn't exist by showing that the weather is "random and undirected." I'm just making a flawed analogy to defend my misguided support of evolution as science, right?

Well, no. It turns out, some people in the 18th century refused to put up lightning rods to protect their houses from lightning strikes. They saw lightning as the manifestation of God's will, and lightning that destroyed peoples' houses was divine punishment. Then Ben Franklin came along with his electriciy experiments. He invented the lightning rod, and it was surprisingly effective at preventing fires due to lightning strikes. People were skeptical at first, but couldn't deny the practicality of Franklin's invention. Eventually, some churches were the only major structures that did not have lightning rods. Some religious leaders saw the lightning rod as blasphemy, because it thwarted God's will, and refused to install them in their churches. In the end, ironically, the only buildings to continue to suffer "God's wrath," were those same churches. Of course, people eventually came to their senses and realized that lightning wasn't divine judgement, but a result of natural physical processes. They also didn't conclude that this therefore proved God doesn't exist.

We can look back, and see how foolish those people were being. Ben Franklin used science to invent something that would help prevent loss of life and property damage. Why would anyone cling to superstition in the face of good science? Why would anyone claim that one must either accept the glory of God, or the conclusions of science, but not both, with no exceptions? Why, indeed.

But what is the difference between evolutionary theory and meteorology? Evolution describes the process by which species change over time. Genetic mutation, a major process behind evolution is "random" in the sense that we cannot predict what mutations will occur. But natural selection is a process that acts on these mutations in predictable ways. Similarly, the weather is based on the well-defined processes of physics and chemistry, but is unpredictable due to "random" variations. All the data that's been collected, from anatomical similarities across animal groups, to the fossils of extinct animals and plants, to all the genetic information in DNA, supports evolution. Evolutionary theory explains quite well the diversity of life on Earth. Like any other scietific theory, it is not complete. Scientists don't claim to know everything about evolution. Finally, evolution is a conclusion based on a vast amount of empirical evidence, not a religious commitment to atheism. Evolutionary theory does not imply atheism any more than meteorology does.

The only difference between my weather story and evolution is that evolution lacks a "killer app" like a lightning rod that would obviously and conclusively demonstrate its use to most people. Things like bacteria resistance to antibiotics has been shrugged off by creationists and ID proponents as "microevolution," and evolutionary predictions like the eusocial behavior of naked mole rats are too dry and abstract for most people to relate to.

Perhaps, with the sequencing of both the human and chimpanzee genomes complete, scientists will discover some insight about humans by examing the chimpanzee genomes that couldn't be explained without evolution. This might lead to some treatment for genetic diseases or cancer that would be based on the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA due to their close relation via common descent. Of course, this is just speculation. I think the weather analogy makes the point that evolution is science and is not out to destroy reigion. The story can be easily grasped by someone who is not a science geek, despite there not being a good evoultion "killer app" example. What do you think?

P.S. I didn't invent the weather analogy. A commenter on The Panda's Thumb linked to the lightning story in a discussion. I've merely tried to dress it up a bit and make it entertaining. Although, I admit, I might have failed miserably.

MLK and Ben Franklin: American Heroes

2006-01-18T21:00:00.000-05:00

On Monday, January 16, in the US we observed the holiday commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday. Yesterday, January 17, was the 300th birthday of Benjamin Franklin, one of America's founding fathers. Okay, I know I'm a little late, but these are two Americans who contributed so much to the ideals of liberty, justice, and knowledge, that I think they still deserve a belated shout-out.

Ben Franklin is perhaps best known for his slightly foolish experiments with static electricity, but he accomplished quite a bit in helping foster the ideals of what would become the United States of America. He was a distinguished scientist, inventor, diplomat, and statesman. It's hard to imagine how one guy could do so much in one lifetime. Check out this website commemorating Ben's big 3-0-0. It's got lots of links to info on his life and achievements.

King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech is an inspiration that still resonates today. He fought not only for the rights of Black people, but for the rights of all Americans. The Civil Rights Movement changed so much in such a short time. I can't comprehend the things my parents went through, a mere generation ago, and the opportunities that have been available to me because of the sacrifice of so many. King is largely responsible for moving America so much closer to living up to the grand statements set forth in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There's a show on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim late night programming called "The Boondocks." It's based on a controversial comic strip by Aaron Mcgruder that deals quite bluntly with race and politics in America. I never read the comic strip before, but I like the show. The satire is very funny, and if you can stand excessive use of the N word, I recommend checking it out. What does this have to do with Martin Luther King Jr.? Read on.

This week's episode dealt with an "alternate history" in which Dr. King was not killed when he was shot in Memphis in 1968. He went into a coma for 30 years and reawoke in the year 2000. Thus, he was alive to witness the events of September 11 and the dramatic change in America that has taken place since. Shortly after 9/11 he participates in a TV interview in which he is asked about what he thinks America's response to the terror attacks should be. The show has the King character respond in the way I think King, as a minister and an advocate of non-violence would; he talks about Jesus and turning the other cheek to our enemies rather than responding with escalating violence. These comments are not well received. The 21st century media brands him a traitor and anti-American. He is attacked and denegrated by the media and the American people turn their backs on him.

What really struck me as I watched this show was that this scenario, as weird as it sounds, seems quite plausible. If King were alive today, what would he say about the direction America is headed in? Somehow I doubt he would approve. And would his opinions be carefully considered as the words of an American icon and champion of civil rights, or would they be ignored and dismissed, with King branded as a liberal (when did that word become an insult?) un-American traitor? Given the degeneration of public discourse in American politics and the climate of demagoguery and mudslinging from both the left and the right, I don't think it's an unreasonable speculation. It got me thinking, which prompted me to write this post.

How to talk to a Modernist

2006-01-10T02:53:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year!

I regularly read David Brin's blog. He's a science fiction author who's got some really interesting ideas about modern civilization. Unfortunately, on one of his latest posts, there has been bit of a dustup between him and another blogger, Whiskey1, in which they've both gotten angry and disgusted with each other. I personally think both these folks are smart, thoughtful people, who would benefit more from continuing rational dialog with each other. I posted this message to both their blogs in an attempt to get them to see things from a neutral perspective. Yeah, I know, it probably won't do any good, but I had to give it a shot. Oh, well. Here's my two cents:

Ugh. Is it too late to plead for calm and forgiveness from both sides? David, Whiskey1, you guys have let a series of small misunderstandings mushroom into fullblown mutual disgust that I think is unwarranted and unhelpful.

Stop inhaling the indignation fumes and look at what the other guy is telling you! David, a couple comments up you mentioned the "Paraphrasing Challenge" that I actually think is a great way to have a constructive argument, but then you didn't do it regarding Whiskey1's arguments. In an attempt to bring the situation into perspective from a neutral observer, I'll try it for both your arguments. Let me know if I don't accurately represent you.

The pragmatist in me tells me that this won't do any good mending fences between two strangers on the Internet. Why should you guys listem to me anyway, right? However, the optimist in me tells me that at the very least I'll improve my own arguing skills, and I can't make the situation any worse. The worst that can happen is that you both, in addition to hating each other, hate me as well, right? :) Well, here we go:

David:
You're upset because you perceive Whiskey1 leveling a personal attack at you by "putting words in your mouth" and asserting that you hold positions that you don't actually hold. You're also miffed that he has missed the main point of this particular blog post to rant about your use the phrase "aristocratic tax cuts."

Whiskey1:
You're upset because David doesn't address the substance of your critiques and chooses instead to respond with insults. You perceive hypocrisy when the guy who espouses that we should avoid falling into the trap of false dichotomies and vilifying one's enemies resorts to nothing more than personal attacks when confronted with counter arguments.

Did I get your positions right? For what it's worth, here's my perceptions on both positions:

David:
When I look at Whiskey1's posts, I see some good constructive criticism in there. Granted, he makes some claims about your position on tax cuts that seems like a big leap from your one "aristocratic tax cuts" statement. However, I could also interpret this as a rhetorical device to get you to see what effect your words might have on people with different perceptions and assumptions than your own. Even though you are against "class warfare," the "aristocratic tax cuts" language can evoke that perception in some people, particularly the rational conservatives and libertarians you want to reach. Whiskey1 pointed this out to you, and perhaps overreached by claiming that you actually are against tax cuts for anyone. However, you didn't calmly refute that claim, or respond to the critique that maybe your use of "aristocratic" langauge was a poor choice. Yes, the body of your writing on this blog and elsewhere refutes this, but your direct responses didn't address Whiskey1's substance, which is poor form in an argument.

I also submit that, as the guy who is shouting warnings at every opportunity about avoiding the "indignation high" and trying to see your opponent as a fellow rational human being rather than an evil monster, you have some high expectations from the peanut gallery. Speaking for myself, I expect you to "practice what you preach" and show us how it is done when you argue. Not that I expect you to be perfect (you are still human after all) but I do expect that you should have a better-than-average perception that distinguishes mere misunderstandings from pure malice. And I know, you have time constraints, this blog is a hobby, and you're not as careful in the comments as you are in the main post. I'm willing to give you plenty of consideration for all those factors. Still, I think you missed an opportunity here not to indulge your anger.

And Whiskey1's opinions of you are not hidden away behind your back, they're two clicks away on his blog. And they're not slander (or I guess libel, since it's in print). Other than some profanity, they're no worse than anything he's said "to your face" in your blog. He also gave you some substantial compliments.

Whiskey1:
I think you could have addressed the point about "aristocratic tax cuts" better. I think your constructive criticism would have been better received had you not made the assertion that David was calling regular people aristocrats. At least, that's the way I initially perceived your comment. And, come on, you know David isn't espousing the traditional liberal "tax and spend" canard.

Yes, he was wrong to call you a moron and not address the substance of your criticism. But, minus the moron (point in your favor) isn't that what you've done with his main post? You've ignored his major point about tyranny to focus on a poor choice of language regarding the Bush tax cuts, and then expanded that to claim that David is against tax cuts for the middle class. Isn't that a bit of a leap? In previous exchanges, you've seen that David is rather impulsive, even rude, when responding to comments on his blog. He's got limited resources, and sometimes he'll overract to statements that on further consideration can be interpretted less hostilely. But haven't we all done that sometimes? I also realize that it seems like pretty hypocritical behavior for the guy who coined CITOKATE to insult you rather than address your criticisms. I'm not defending that. But rather than trying to resolve his misunderstandings of your position, you've added fuel to the fire by holding on to your own misunderstandings of his position regarding "aristocratic tax cuts."

----

... So does any of this make sense? Do you think maybe you both are overreacting to perceived insults? I realize that this is maybe too late since the real insults have already started flying on both sides, but I thought it was worth a shot to try and make peace. Maybe the "indignation high" has worn off?

I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode "Two Bad Neighbors" in which George H.W. Bush moves into a house across the street from the Simpsons. Homer and Mr. Bush immediately dislike each other, much to the chagrin of their wives. When Marge invites Mrs. Bush over for tea, they discuss their husbands' behavior:

Barbara: I really feel awful about your lawn, Marge. George can be so stubborn when he thinks he's right.
Marge: Well, Homer, too. They're so much alike.
Barbara: Too bad they got off on the wrong foot. It's just like the Noriega thing. Now, he and George are the best of friends.

There is much wisdom in the Simpsons. :)

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: No Contest

2005-12-20T22:36:00.000-05:00

If you've been following the evolution versus intelligent design (ID) debate in the media, you've probably heard about the court case in Dover, PA. The school board there instituted a policy to inject ID language as a criticism of evolution into the 9th grade biology curriculum last year. Some parents sued the school board, asserting that ID is not a scientific alternative, but rather an attempt to sneak creationism back into science under a different name. The trial lasted 6 weeks through the end of September, all of October, and early November. Got a lot of free time? Check out the complete trial transcripts on the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) website here and the evolution information Talk.Origins Newsgroup Archive website here.

Today Judge Jones released his decision. If you want to read the entire 139-page document (in PDF), click here. To summarize; ID is a religious proposition, not science, certainly not a scientific alternative to evolution, and cannot be taught in US public schools due to that pesky Establishment clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. All around, a victory for the integrity of science and science education.

Since you probably won't go read the whole 139-page document, here is a direct quote of the conclusions that sums up why ID is a load of horse puckey:

From pages 136-138:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

I don't have much to add to the general celebrations on all the evolution blogs on the web, but here's a collection of links:

The Panda's Thumb is the go-to site for the evolution "controversy." The've got several posts on the Dover decision. In particular this one has a bunch of information resources that was continually updated throughout the whole trial.
Pharyngula is a blog run by PZ Myers, a practicing biologist who has little patience for creationist dishonesty. Check out his comparison of what the judge thought of the testimony of Michael Behe, one of the leading proponents of ID as a scientific theory, and how Dr. Behe himself viewed his own testimony.
Ed Brayton's Dispatches From the Culture Wars blog has commentary on the decision with more excerpts from the document here and here. The killer just quotes don't stop! This judge was really on the ball.
Of course, the Discovery Institute, the main organization pushing ID as science, released a press release about the decision. Of course, they make themselves look extremely silly by calling Judge Jones an "activist judge." The guy's a Bush appointee and is good friends with former PA governor and ex-Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge. Aren't activist judges supposed to be liberal? Oh, and scroll back up to the last paragraph in my direct quote from the Judge's decision. Judge Jones saw their predictable response coming.

One word of caution: although this is certainly a great victory for science, the forces behind ID are not going to go quitely into the night. Some folks will try to use this decision as a political wedge issue. ID is primarily about politics, spin, and deceiving the public, and they've been somewhat successful at it. Some people will likely try to take advantage of politcal backlash from the ire of religious conservatives. The Religious Right has always cast the evolution debate as "atheistic, immoral" science versus religion, knowing that many voters will vote for candidates who pledge to "protect" their religion from those evil "Darwinists." This is a false dichotomy and a complete distortion of reality.

The whole "debate" is really about science versus anti-science. Scienctific theories are accepted based on evidence gathered via repeated observation and experimentation. Thus, science can only be concerned with what can be repeatably and reliably tested against observations of reality. Religion, by definition, deals with things outside of observable reality, and therefore science has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of the divine. It's a matter of faith. I and many other people are perfectly happy to continue to believe in God and accept the facts discovered by science. Evolutionary theory is no more atheistic or immoral than weather forcasting, particle physics, chemistry, or forensic science. In contrast, ID is every bit as scientific as astrology, fortune telling, and the Psychic Friends Network.

If you feel there is an inherent conflict between your religous beliefs and evolution, check out what this scientist and Christian has to say about it. You might be surprised.

Is There a War Against Christmas?

2005-12-16T20:38:00.000-05:00

Hello all 1.5 of you still reading this blog! After a fall 2005 hiatus I'm back. Sorry to have been gone so long. With the holiday season upon us, I've stumbled onto a strange phenomenon that apparently I'd been ignorant of. On my wanderings through the Web and flipping past those 24-hour news channels on TV, I've heard mention of a war against Christmas. Some notable media personalities, such as Bill O'Reilly from Fox News, claim that there is a movement to drive Christmas out of the public square, as the first step in getting rid of Christianity and religion from public discourse in America. The first sign of this war is that department stores use "Happy Holidays" and "Seasons Greetings" in their displays instead of "Merry Chritsmas."

Huh? Wha?

Naturally, this assertion perplexed me. I've seen no sign of the Christmas holiday being stifled. All the decorations, TV specials, and sales have been all over the place for the past month, with no indications that things have been put on hold. You can buy any kind of Christmas decoration you want at any department store in the country. Is it really an issue what's written on their signage when you can buy any Christmas icon you want in the store, and they're piping in Chritsmas music all day?

But maybe I just hadn't been paying attention. Perhaps I was an unwitting pawn in the "Struggle for Christmas" and didn't realize how bad things are. Sometimes I'm late picking up on current events. So I thought I'd ask my wife if she'd heard anything about this. This morning the conversation went something like this:

Me: "Honey, have you heard about the war against Christmas?"

Her: "No, what's that?"

Me: "Apparently people are saying there's a war against Christmas because some people want to force public displays to have messages like 'Happy Holidays' or 'Seasons Greetings' instead of 'Merry Christmas' and they're trying to get rid of overt mention of Christmas."

Her: "Well, I've never said 'Seasons Greetings' in my life!"

Me: "Yeah, but apprently some people think this is a big problem..."

Her: "Where'd you hear about this?"

Me: "I read a story on the Internet. I think it came from Bill O'Reilly."

Her: <Dismissively> "You can't trust anything *he* says. He's a jerk."

Well, I do have to agree with her sentiments. I find myself disagreeing with 90% of what Bill O'Reilly says. Anyway, my wife was just as oblivious as I was to the whole issue. However, I can't come to a conclusion by only asking one person (even if she is my lovely, intelligent wife) so I needed to do more research. Of course, I turned to the one place where all of the answers to life's great mysteries can be found (though they're usually wrong answers): Let's go Google! I typed in "war on christmas" into the search engine and got over 58 million hits. Whoa! Here's a sample:

Media Matters Story - This has a debunking of Bill O'Reilly's thesis and quotes directly from his program when he interviewed John Gibson, author of The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. The statements O'Reilly and Gibson make seem pretty silly. And the conspiracy theory seems a bit over the top. However, a few of their anecdotes about removing public Christmas dispays are a bit chilling. I needed to look further.
War On Christmas Fraud Exposed - Well, apparently (are you counting how many times I use the word "apparently" in this post?) this little anecdote was a complete distortion of the truth. This "War on Christmas" is looking a lot less credible. Still digging...
A conservative journalist blogger is charting the "war" - She links to another blog charting the complicity of the US Post Office refusing to issue religous-themed Christmas stamps. We have conflicting reports, but it seems the Post Office is primarily concerned with selling all of its stamp inventory, not destroying Christmas. Is this the whole story? Let's look a little further...
In a follow up post from that same blog, it looks like the USPS hasn't changed its policy it all, and will continue to issue religious-themed stamps. It just so happens there weren't any produced this year, but another stamp is planned for 2006. No big deal.
Finally, I find this Salon.com article about the non-war on Christmas, and I've made up my mind. If you think Salon has a "liberal bias" go read the article anyway and check their sources if you think their reporting is inaccurate (you have to watch an advertisement first if you don't have a subscription to the website). Their conclusion: there are a few anecdotal cases of people trying to be ultra-politically correct and oversensitive by removing public Christmas displays, but it is far from a vast liberal conspiracy to reject Christmas. Ironically, the article asserts that some public officials may be spooked into overreacting by the media warning them that they'll be sued by the ACLU boogeymen, when in fact the ACLU has no agenda to force the removal of all public Christmas displays left and right. So this "war on Christmas" myth is a self-reinforcing, self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, according to the article, the "war on Christmas" is not a new phenomenon. In 1921, Henry Ford blamed Jews for trying to steal Christmas, and in 1959, the John Birch Society blamed Communists and the UN for ploting to undermine American values, with the first step being to destroy Christmas. Now, in 2005, we have folks led by Bill O'Reilly claiming "secular progressives" are out to get rid of Christmas as the first step toward the removal of all religion from public discourse. The "bad guys" change, but the conspiracy theory stays the same. And, like most conspiracy theories, it's a load of crap.

Bottom-line: The first amendment works both ways. The US government is prohibited from promoting or endorsing any religion. The US governement is also prohibited from preventing any private citizens from expressing their religious beliefs, including school kids. Public Christmas displays are fine as long as any citizen can contribute to the display. Christmas ain't going anyware, and no one's trying to take it away from you. Whew! That was a close one! (Well, not really. It seems to be an overblown media myth that has little basis in reality. But now I'm just quibbling)

So, in the spirit of the season:
Merry Christmas!
Happy Hanukkah!
Happy Kwanzaa!
Happy New Year!
And, yes, even Happy Holidays and Seasons Greetings!

More Simpsons Goodness on DVD!

2005-08-16T22:13:00.000-04:00

The Complete Sixth Season of The Simpsons has come to DVD! Of course I picked up my copy today. The Simpsons is one of those shows that can always find humor and satirize any situation. It is also known for turning many TV conventions on their heads. This season has some particular gems, including the Who Shot Mr. Burns? season-ending cliffhanger. This season also contains my wife's favorite episode: And Maggie Makes Three. For more episode synopses, check out the Season 6 page at the Simpsons Archive. Anybody find any Easter eggs on the DVD's yet?

Geek is the New Chic

2005-08-04T20:18:00.000-04:00

Apparently, it's no longer a crime to be a nerd. This article indicates that we're living in a geek golden age. No longer will I have to hang my head in shame because I like Star Trek, Transformers, comic books, and video games! No more do I have to hide my science and math journals that I read for pleasure behind a TV Guide or Sports Illustrated! I am free to be geeky as I wanna be, and I'll get respect for it!

... Oh, wait a minute, I never cared if other people thought I was weird for liking that stuff anyway. I guess this doesn't change much, except now my wife suddenly wants to be a geek too, whereas she used to (and still does) laugh at my geeky ways. We both took the True Geek Test and of course I passed while she ... didn't. She was a little disappointed until I reminded her that she really didn't want to be a geek anyway. She has no interest in Sci-fi, Dungeons and Dragons, or video games, so why bother? I love her just the way she is, even if she isn't a geek. It doesn't hurt that she's drop-dead gorgeous either ;)

One of the major positive things that I think defines a self-proclaimed "geek" is not being afraid to enjoy the things that interest you, regardless of whether or not they're popular. Sure, I like the traditional "geeky" hobbies, but I also like American football (Go Eagles and Steelers!!), musical theater, Law & Order, and romantic comedies. I think if everyone considered themselves a "geek" in this sense, people would be a lot happier, because they would have accepted themselves as they are, and not feel self-conscious about fitting in with the crowd.

Of course, there are lots of negative traits associated with geeks as well, such as the tendency to become an ossessive fanboy/girl of your hobbies and harrassing the people who create your favorite toy/game/book/TV show/movie to the point of being slapped with a restraining order. Also, being socially inept doesn't help you relate well to other members of the human race who aren't into the same things as you are.

However, I think geeks, like everybody else, can realize that they're not perfect and work towards improving these negative traits while retaining the high self esteem and confidence that comes with accepting who you are. At least, that's what I'm trying to do. To all you geeks out there, carry on!

Agriculture: Worst Mistake in Human History?

2005-07-14T21:56:00.000-04:00

I recently came across a link to an article while reading the talk.origins newsgroup. The title of the article is "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race" by Jared Diamond. He makes a convincing case that the development of agriculture caused a significant decline in quality of life for prehistoric human beings going from hunter-gather societies to agrarian societies. Based on this he concludes that agriculture was a terrible, horrible mistake for human beings. Is this right? I posted my opinion in the discussion thread on talk.origins, and thought I'd also put the meat here. Read on:

I definitely think Jared Diamond's on to something with his thesis, but I disagree with his qualitative assessment. Yes, there are lots of problems plagueing the world today, but I think it's a leap to call agriculture "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race" because we have problems. It seems to me the criteria for calling agriculture a mistake would require balancing all human achievements which can be attributed to agriculture versus the problems.

Additionally, how would I compare the world we have now with a hypothetical one where humans stayed hunter-gatherers for the last 10,000 years? Surely such a world would also have different problems to balance its successes. All I can do is speculate, but wouldn't such a world still have some significant amount of misery? Hunter-gatherer societies wouldn't have overpopulation worries, but wouldn't that mean there'd have to be some enforced population control? The article mentions that H/G societies necessarily practiced infanticide because monthers couldn't have children close together (less than 4 years apart) because they couldn't be managed in a nomadic society. Would 10,000 years of H/G socities mean 10,000 years of infanticide in the absense of reliable contraception? Would every twin birth mean you'd have to kill one of the babies?

And then there's the obvious point that in a world of hunter-gatherers, most of us wouldn't exist (well, all of us wouldn't exist simply because history wouldn't have happened the same way, but for sake of argument let's say we could form today's H/G societies with a subset of the people who exist today). I'll make a wild conjecture that H/G societies might only support 1% of today's current population of 6.4 billion people. So 99 out of 100 people currently alive, wouldn't be.

Of course, I can't be sure that we wouldn't be better off as hunter-gathers without agriculture, but my point is that we can't be sure that we wouldn't be. And the game's not over yet. Human misery has been proportionately on the decline in the last century or so, and it looks like our children and grandchildren just might make it out alive and better off, as long as we continue to work on solving all those problems that still plague us. Personally I think increased conservation and environmentalism efforts coupled with development of cheap, renewable energy sources will be a winning combination that can eventually allow everyone to get close to a lifestyle Americans currently enjoy (maybe not *quite* as decadent; Americans would
definitely have to give up all those SUV's). Of course this won't be easy, but I think it's still achievable, with a lot of hard work. You can put me in the category of "cautiously optimistic."

Let me add a further point. It's easy for us to look back and say agriculture was a "mistake" because it led to a lot of human suffering, but didn't it also lead to the extreme proliferation of our species? By nature's standards, we're an extremely successful species. *Individual* quality of life may have been worsened (and from the looks of it, we've already reversed this trend for much of the world today), but the species has triumphed. From the essay and Diamond's analysis, we can see natural selection in action:

Ice age ends. The environment gets milder, and flora and fauna that humans depend on for sustinence increase.
Hunter-gatherer societies have increased food supplies, leading to increases in population.
H/G societies reach the point where they can no longer sustain their increasing population levels.
Some tribes choose to limit population growth. Other tribes develop agriculture to maintain food production for their population.
Tribes with agriculture outcompete tribes that stay hunter-gatherers. Due to larger populations agriculture tribes can force H/G tribes into smaller and smaller niches while they take over more resources.
Agriculture tribes dominate all over, leading to civilization.

Put yourself in the shoes (mocasins?) of those tribespeople 10,000 years ago who had to choose between agriculture and population control. Even if you knew more people would suffer, wouldn't you pin your hopes to agriculture? Population control only works if every other tribe picks that strategy. If even one turns to agriculture, they will grow and outcompete every other tribe (given the right location, with the right combination of resources). It seems to me that I as a prehistoric tribesman would choose agriculture on the hopes that my descendants may eventually live better than me, rather than gamble on remaining a hunter-gatherer and possibly having no descendants at all. Can we fault those tribespeople for not anticipating overpopulation 10,000 years later?

In short, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't judge agriculture so harshly because it led to lots of bad things. Yes, agriculture may have led to starvation, war, tyranny, class hierarchies, and subjugation of women. Agriculture may also have led to science, democracy, justice, the Internet, and having a really good chance of living to see your grandchildren grow to adulthood. Sometimes you gotta take the bad with the good.

All around the world the geeks get the girls...

2005-06-29T20:24:00.000-04:00

I ran across this interesting tidbit today. According to this article, nerds make the best romantic partners. Also see this page that describes why geeks and nerds are worth dating. Cool! I didn't know I was such a hot commodity. But, sorry ladies, I'm already taken ;) So fellas (and ladies), if you obsess over star trek, play video and computer games, and can write computer programs in more languages than you can speak, you should have an excellent shot at finding that special someone. But seriously, doesn't everyone have one thing they "geek out" over? For me the Transformers (Robots in Disguise) from the 80's hold a special place in my heart. Of course I also love video games and star trek. Real science is also something that piques my interest. These are all stereotypical geek pursuits, but I'm sure everyone obsesses over some hobby or pasttime that for the uninitiated looks extremely "geeky."

Unified Simpsons Theory of Everything

2005-06-28T20:24:00.000-04:00

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a huge Simpsons fan. Although the quality of the show's writing and comedy has somewhat declined in recent years, there's always something wickedly ironic and funny in each episode. The Simpsons is a great reflection of American culture, and I highly recommend that people from other countries and cultures watch it if you want to gain a little insight to us crazy Americans. Of course everything on the Simpsons is satire and extremely exaggerated, but many of the situations the Simpsons get into have a kernel of truth in the hyperbole. It's been a favorite game of mine to try to link any real-life event with an analogous stiuation portrayed on the Simpsons. With the help of the great Episode Guide at the Simpsons Archive, I can also get the reference info on the particular show. If anyone out there thinks they can stump me with a real-life event that can't be paralleled in the Simpsons, bring it on! I love a challenge!

The Future is Now

2005-06-28T20:07:00.000-04:00

Wonder what will be in the news in 2056? Check out last week's (or is it the week of June 22nd 51 years in the future?) edition of The Onion. For anyone unfamiliar with The Onion, it's pure hilarity. This satirical fake newspaper is inspired.

Natural Selection in Action

2005-06-16T18:10:00.000-04:00

Ever hear of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? Me neither. Until I saw this website. They don't advocate anything so radical as mass suicide or genocide. They merely want to convince all human beings everywhere to stop having children. Then, when everyone currently alive dies, the human race will quietly go extinct, and the planet and all other living species can recover from our horrible abuse of the environment.

Wow. Of course, the solution to all our ecological problems is to get rid of the source! Humanity is the source of all problems, thus humanity should be destroyed! Genius, pure genius! (to echo Homer Simpson in this episode, "In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.")

I think you've got an unreasonably pessimistic view of humanity if you think we are inexorably headed to ruin for both ourselves and the Earth. Rather than giving up and saying we're no longer worthy to exist, shouldn't we focus on fixing our problems and cleaning up our messes? Polution and population growth are problems, but they are not unsolvable and insurmountable. I'm not an expert and I'll have to look up the statistics, but isn't population growth slowing or even negative in developed countries? As more and more people rise above poverty in India and China, won't these countries as well get to the point where their populations stabilize?

Admittedly, we're not doing enough to protect the environment. But aren't we doing more now than we did in the 80's and 90's? Haven't aerosol spray cans stopped using CFC's so that they don't continue to harm the ozone layer? Don't we recycle more than we used to?

I'm not saying there is no problem, or that all problems are easily solved. But I think it's a bit premature to throw in the towel on humanity. Human beings are just as much a part of nature as any other species. Don't we deserve to give ourselves a chance?

Of course, I think the result of VHEMT's efforts won't be the extinction of humanity. I doubt they'll convince more that 0.00001% of people in the world to actually stop reproducing. And the people they do convince won't have any kids they can pass their beliefs and ideals on to. Natural selection wins again, and humanity goes on.

The Post Read 'Round The World (or not)

2005-06-15T23:16:00.000-04:00

Welcome! Here's my first official blog post. I don't know if I'll really keep this up, but let's see if I can come up with anything interesting to say. To start the ball rolling here's an interesting blog I read regularly:

www.davidbrin.blogspot.com

David Brin is a science fiction author that has plenty of interesting ideas about modernism, science, and civilization. The discussions on his blog are very interesting and usually very civil, so I highly recommend it. You can also check out his website at www.davidbrin.com

On a lighter note, check out:

www.shortpacked.com

This is a webcomic that centers around a group of employees in a toy store and their encounters with obsessive toy and comic book fans. Being an obsessive fan of Transformers myself, I find the humor very pointed.

If anyone out there is actually reading this, feel free to comment. If there's something you'd like to talk about, let me know. I'd love to post solicited as well as unsolicited opinions ;)