Hooray Blues Traveler. A poignant statement related to today's topic. It seems that Arlen Specter is busy making a jack-ass out of himself again. I watched his appearance a few days ago on Wolf Blitzer in which he said OUT LOUD that the destruction of the illegal New England Patriot's tapes was COMPARABLE TO the destruction of CIA tapes or the destruction of White House emails. That's the kind of stuff you should think to yourself, share a laugh with your buddies, and then go home and put in the file under D for "dumb-ass things to say”.
Arlen just compared (and found more lacking) the ethics of pro-football than our own government. Are you serious? He won’t demand answers of the CIA or the White House, but he will spend thousands upon thousands of tax-payer dollars to have private meetings and possibly government hearings about the NFL. In fact, he's so concerned about the fairness of the NFL that he has suggested he may seek cancellation of the NFL's anti-trust exemption. Whether he does or not isn't really the point. The point is he's already put time and energy into this that would be better spent carrying out the business of the country. We elected him (I didn't - Pennsylvania did) to deal with issues of governance and leadership, not be the football police.
This is a prime example of what government uses for cover to make it look like they’re useful. They’re not really doing anything. They’re not addressing any of the actual problems they were elected to deal with. Those problems are hard and don’t have cheap, fast, easy solutions. The NFL is easy. It’s a single target and everyone can agree that cheating is wrong (whether or not they actually practice that agreement). Steroids in baseball, cheating in football, and the hockey strike are NOT what we expect our politicians to be spending their time on. We have far more pressing matters like a shitty health care system, a trillion dollar war, and millions of kids living in poverty.
This is yet another reason why Americans are apathetic and disgusted with their government. How can you have confidence in a government that spends its time looking into every sports “scandal” that comes along but can’t seem to take the time to agree on its own ethics or answer straight questions about its own behavior? These people cover up their actions, lie (sorry, “hedge the truth”) to the public, do not apologize when they’re wrong (Iraqi WMDs anyone?), and constantly blame the other side for the same shit they just did. Maybe I’ll be a little more inclined to believe that government intervention is helpful in non-governmental situations when they can show that their own behavior matches their rhetoric.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Terri Schiavo isn't the only one who's brain-dead
Let's talk about pro-lifers and Terri Schiavo. In case you live under a rock or think that the news is Satan, you'll remember she's the clinically brain-dead woman whose husband wanted to let her die and whose parents insisted she be kept on life support.
This case brought out the pro-life, every life is sacred, God loves life crowd. They spent months arguing that God demands we keep everyone alive. Letting Terri die would be a crime against God, Terri, and America. Apparently even letting a brain-dead woman die is an issue of patriotism. Essentially it was mass hysteria and making a medical decision tantamount to religious sin.
Here's the problem. The pro-lifers immediately assumed that God wanted Terri to live. But without very expensive, very sophisticated technology, she would die. In fact, in the most natural sense (no machines, no science, just Terri and God) Terri would have died months before she did. So it was a combination of biology, engineering, and chemistry that even allowed us the opportunity to keep her alive. In any previous era, she would have died and people would have said "God wanted it that way". Now that our science has progressed to a point that we can keep her alive (even if we don't know if she'll ever function again), apparently God says "let there be life". The point is that she was, without the technology, doomed to death. Millions of brain-dead people have died in the history of the human race. One more won't bring down the wrath of God. In fact, by your own argument, God wanted them to be brain-dead and die. Why would Terri be any different?
Of course, you can always argue that "God gave us the knowledge and equipment to keep her alive, therefore we should". This is an unprovable, untestable, and specious argument. In the end, Terri died because she was in a state that, without constant time, energy, and technological intervention, is ALWAYS fatal. Seems to me God really wanted her dead and we just kind of prolonged the process. We can argue about the sacredness of life or whether being a vegetable constitutes being alive all day long. That's a fine thing to discuss. But saying "God wants everyone to live" is a poor reason to keep a brain-dead woman on life support.
On top of all that, I would hazard to guess that most people can't afford that kind of treatment. Most types of insurance have lifetime caps. And when the money runs out in a hospital, so does your life support. So I would say that in many cases, even if people wanted to keep loved ones alive, they simply do not have access to the resources (monetary and otherwise) necessary to do so. Are all of these people sinners because of circumstance? No. And stop making it sound like they are. Go back to your magical book and your other crusades and leave the medical decisions to people who've spent their lives dedicated to its art and practice.
This case brought out the pro-life, every life is sacred, God loves life crowd. They spent months arguing that God demands we keep everyone alive. Letting Terri die would be a crime against God, Terri, and America. Apparently even letting a brain-dead woman die is an issue of patriotism. Essentially it was mass hysteria and making a medical decision tantamount to religious sin.
Here's the problem. The pro-lifers immediately assumed that God wanted Terri to live. But without very expensive, very sophisticated technology, she would die. In fact, in the most natural sense (no machines, no science, just Terri and God) Terri would have died months before she did. So it was a combination of biology, engineering, and chemistry that even allowed us the opportunity to keep her alive. In any previous era, she would have died and people would have said "God wanted it that way". Now that our science has progressed to a point that we can keep her alive (even if we don't know if she'll ever function again), apparently God says "let there be life". The point is that she was, without the technology, doomed to death. Millions of brain-dead people have died in the history of the human race. One more won't bring down the wrath of God. In fact, by your own argument, God wanted them to be brain-dead and die. Why would Terri be any different?
Of course, you can always argue that "God gave us the knowledge and equipment to keep her alive, therefore we should". This is an unprovable, untestable, and specious argument. In the end, Terri died because she was in a state that, without constant time, energy, and technological intervention, is ALWAYS fatal. Seems to me God really wanted her dead and we just kind of prolonged the process. We can argue about the sacredness of life or whether being a vegetable constitutes being alive all day long. That's a fine thing to discuss. But saying "God wants everyone to live" is a poor reason to keep a brain-dead woman on life support.
On top of all that, I would hazard to guess that most people can't afford that kind of treatment. Most types of insurance have lifetime caps. And when the money runs out in a hospital, so does your life support. So I would say that in many cases, even if people wanted to keep loved ones alive, they simply do not have access to the resources (monetary and otherwise) necessary to do so. Are all of these people sinners because of circumstance? No. And stop making it sound like they are. Go back to your magical book and your other crusades and leave the medical decisions to people who've spent their lives dedicated to its art and practice.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Hypocrisy? Wasn't he a Greek dude?
This is why the rest of the world hates America: we are planning to shoot down a spy satellite that is falling out of orbit. That in and of itself isn't the problem. The problem is we just got done bitching and throwing hissy fits at China for doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. The only difference here is: 1) we're letting people know ahead of time (although that changes exactly nothing about the consequences of the action) and 2) it's us and that makes it ok.
Our government is in the business of saying one thing and doing another (e.g. we're not torturing prisoners when they're actively water-boarding them, we're not spying on our own people while actively tapping phones, etc. etc. ad infinitum). It's also in the business of telling other countries what to do while we do the opposite (e.g. not making nuclear weapons while we design new ones, reducing carbon emissions while we increase our own, etc. etc. ad nauseam). And this is, among many other reasons, why the rest of the world would love nothing more than to see the bully on the block get its comeuppance. You cannot expect another sovereign government to not do something if you are actively doing the same thing. It makes you look like an asshole.
To add insult to injury, the US has offered to pay for any damage to other nation's satellites that may result from the destruction of ours. (I'm tired of every news story being some fucking video I have to watch and sit through commercials, so you
don't get a link). But the expense isn't the point. The point is we made a big stink about China doing it and now we're going to do the same thing. Whether we pay for it or not, we're still going to fill satellite orbits with extra debris when we know that orbital debris is already a major problem. This could easily be avoided by either 1) letting the fucker fall out of the sky (the original plan) or 2) take the next shuttle crew up, attach a rocket, and do a controlled crash into the ocean.
The argument for destruction is that it's a spy satellite, so we have to do it to protect "national secrets". I don't buy it. I might if this were the first such thing to happen during this particular administration and if we hadn't busted China's balls for it. But it's always a "national security" argument with this administration. And my chances of dying because of a breach of national security are the same as they were yesterday and last year: 0%. That makes this a specious argument. It's only advantage is that it can never be proven wrong and so will act as a cover for any other nation that legitimately asks why we're being two-faced about shooting down satellites.
Fuck this hypocrisy. I'm going to get a donut.
Our government is in the business of saying one thing and doing another (e.g. we're not torturing prisoners when they're actively water-boarding them, we're not spying on our own people while actively tapping phones, etc. etc. ad infinitum). It's also in the business of telling other countries what to do while we do the opposite (e.g. not making nuclear weapons while we design new ones, reducing carbon emissions while we increase our own, etc. etc. ad nauseam). And this is, among many other reasons, why the rest of the world would love nothing more than to see the bully on the block get its comeuppance. You cannot expect another sovereign government to not do something if you are actively doing the same thing. It makes you look like an asshole.
To add insult to injury, the US has offered to pay for any damage to other nation's satellites that may result from the destruction of ours. (I'm tired of every news story being some fucking video I have to watch and sit through commercials, so you
don't get a link). But the expense isn't the point. The point is we made a big stink about China doing it and now we're going to do the same thing. Whether we pay for it or not, we're still going to fill satellite orbits with extra debris when we know that orbital debris is already a major problem. This could easily be avoided by either 1) letting the fucker fall out of the sky (the original plan) or 2) take the next shuttle crew up, attach a rocket, and do a controlled crash into the ocean.
The argument for destruction is that it's a spy satellite, so we have to do it to protect "national secrets". I don't buy it. I might if this were the first such thing to happen during this particular administration and if we hadn't busted China's balls for it. But it's always a "national security" argument with this administration. And my chances of dying because of a breach of national security are the same as they were yesterday and last year: 0%. That makes this a specious argument. It's only advantage is that it can never be proven wrong and so will act as a cover for any other nation that legitimately asks why we're being two-faced about shooting down satellites.
Fuck this hypocrisy. I'm going to get a donut.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Belief Vs. Science: Round II
Stop cherry-picking your science based on your religious beliefs. This is particularly true when discussing evolution, but also applies to astronomy and biology, to name two examples. Here's the way it often works:
Scientist 1: "Electrons flow through the wire and make your tv work"
Believer 1: "I like tv. Now I can watch EWTN"
Scientist 2: "Gravity is the invisible force that pulls masses toward each other"
Believer 2: "Oh good. Now I won't float away when I go to church"
Scientist 3: "Humans are animals and evolved from previous species and animals"
Believer 3: "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...GOD DID IT! GOD DID IT!"
I'm not saying that every religious person holds this view, which is, admittedly, a bit extreme. I'm talking about the most vocal and hence most advertised. These are the people that come out every time some new evidence is presented and scream about how we're destroying America with heathen beliefs. We all cherry pick to some extent since science is presented in a social setting and sometimes the evidence challenges our beliefs. But often those beliefs were based on assumptions that turned out to be bad.
Science is based on evidence and observations. After the evidence is studied, a theory is put forth to attempt to explain the observations. Theories are evaluated for consistency and the one that explains the most is the one used. When contrary evidence arises, the theory is revised or thrown out. But until a better theory or contrary evidence is presented, evolution stands as the best explanation of where we came from. It accounts for the observations and is consistent with what we observe both today and in the fossil record. The theory isn't perfect. But then again neither is the theory of gravity and we don't seem to have a problem with that.
It's true that saying "God did it" is a viable hypothesis. But since it can never be proven (by definition) it should not be presented as such. There is NO evidence you can bring that will show that God did or did not create humans. Therefore, your argument can never be validated and hence, cannot be considered scientific. So stop brining it into the science classroom and into the scientific discussion and literature. Keep it in the realm of philosophy where it properly belongs.
I'm of the opinion that if you want to cherry pick science to conform to your religious views rather than using your brain to look at the world in front of you, you're essentially saying "I'm not going to use the logical thought processes that God gave me." How is it that it's acceptable to understand electricity, magnetism, why the wind blows, how to build a house, and how babies are made but it's not ok to look at the past and understand where humans came from? Evolution in no way negates your religious views. Knowing that the universe started with a big bang should not effect your conviction that God set the wheels in motion. If your beliefs are so easily eroded by examining the natural world (that your God ostensibly created), then I could easily reach the conclusion that your beliefs weren't that strong or that accurate in the first place. We'll discuss this idea more in the final round tomorrow. For now, I want you to think about why some science is considered "good, moral science" and other science considered "inappropriate, atheist propaganda" when all science is an attempt to explain what we see around us and all science is based on observing what is happening right in front of you.
Scientist 1: "Electrons flow through the wire and make your tv work"
Believer 1: "I like tv. Now I can watch EWTN"
Scientist 2: "Gravity is the invisible force that pulls masses toward each other"
Believer 2: "Oh good. Now I won't float away when I go to church"
Scientist 3: "Humans are animals and evolved from previous species and animals"
Believer 3: "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...GOD DID IT! GOD DID IT!"
I'm not saying that every religious person holds this view, which is, admittedly, a bit extreme. I'm talking about the most vocal and hence most advertised. These are the people that come out every time some new evidence is presented and scream about how we're destroying America with heathen beliefs. We all cherry pick to some extent since science is presented in a social setting and sometimes the evidence challenges our beliefs. But often those beliefs were based on assumptions that turned out to be bad.
Science is based on evidence and observations. After the evidence is studied, a theory is put forth to attempt to explain the observations. Theories are evaluated for consistency and the one that explains the most is the one used. When contrary evidence arises, the theory is revised or thrown out. But until a better theory or contrary evidence is presented, evolution stands as the best explanation of where we came from. It accounts for the observations and is consistent with what we observe both today and in the fossil record. The theory isn't perfect. But then again neither is the theory of gravity and we don't seem to have a problem with that.
It's true that saying "God did it" is a viable hypothesis. But since it can never be proven (by definition) it should not be presented as such. There is NO evidence you can bring that will show that God did or did not create humans. Therefore, your argument can never be validated and hence, cannot be considered scientific. So stop brining it into the science classroom and into the scientific discussion and literature. Keep it in the realm of philosophy where it properly belongs.
I'm of the opinion that if you want to cherry pick science to conform to your religious views rather than using your brain to look at the world in front of you, you're essentially saying "I'm not going to use the logical thought processes that God gave me." How is it that it's acceptable to understand electricity, magnetism, why the wind blows, how to build a house, and how babies are made but it's not ok to look at the past and understand where humans came from? Evolution in no way negates your religious views. Knowing that the universe started with a big bang should not effect your conviction that God set the wheels in motion. If your beliefs are so easily eroded by examining the natural world (that your God ostensibly created), then I could easily reach the conclusion that your beliefs weren't that strong or that accurate in the first place. We'll discuss this idea more in the final round tomorrow. For now, I want you to think about why some science is considered "good, moral science" and other science considered "inappropriate, atheist propaganda" when all science is an attempt to explain what we see around us and all science is based on observing what is happening right in front of you.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Belief Vs. Science: Round I
No, we're not discussing the deity/no-deity hypothesis. Arguing about whether there's a supreme deity or not is kind of like arguing about whether or not John Edward can talk to the dead - it's a waste of time because you can't prove one way or the other. Although it's a great way to give your more gullible friends apoplexy.
Today's round is about that misunderstood and generally maligned topic GLO-BAL WAR-MING (for the pronunciation, just imagine I'm discussing the dreaded gum disease GIN-GI-VI-TIS). It's a popular pastime for people that don't know better (and some that do) to go on national television and say some shit like "I don't believe in global warming". Here's the problem: it's not a question of belief. Scientists aren't asking you to believe in the volcano god or that Gaia is pissed. There's nothing to believe or disbelieve. There's only evidence. By definition, a belief requires no evidence. Hence, there's no rational way to argue that there is or isn't a volcano god. Go Vulcan!
You can, of course, have different interpretations of evidence. But when all of the evidence is consistent with only one hypothesis, that hypothesis wins by default until a better one comes along or until contrary evidence shows up. So...does the evidence point to warming? Yes. Does the warming correspond almost one-for-one with increases in industrial activity and agriculture? Yes. Can the amount of warming be explained by natural processes (changes in sunlight, ocean circulation, Earth's orbit, volcanic acitivity)? No. Therefore, simple logic tells you we are responsible. Humans are the cause of the warming. There's nothing to believe. And so far, there is no explanation that has been put forward that is as consistent with the evidence. So stop bitching about it and start doing something to change it.
If you don't "believe" in global warming then I guess you don't believe in electricity, the ozone hole, or gravity (or as its known to those in the loop "God's magical fall-down formula" - wish I could take credit for that, but it's all Ben). So instead of spreading misinformation, pseudo-science, and poorly supported but loud and authoritative-sounding rhetoric, why don't you crawl back under your rock and let the people that want to face reality do so without you.
Today's round is about that misunderstood and generally maligned topic GLO-BAL WAR-MING (for the pronunciation, just imagine I'm discussing the dreaded gum disease GIN-GI-VI-TIS). It's a popular pastime for people that don't know better (and some that do) to go on national television and say some shit like "I don't believe in global warming". Here's the problem: it's not a question of belief. Scientists aren't asking you to believe in the volcano god or that Gaia is pissed. There's nothing to believe or disbelieve. There's only evidence. By definition, a belief requires no evidence. Hence, there's no rational way to argue that there is or isn't a volcano god. Go Vulcan!
You can, of course, have different interpretations of evidence. But when all of the evidence is consistent with only one hypothesis, that hypothesis wins by default until a better one comes along or until contrary evidence shows up. So...does the evidence point to warming? Yes. Does the warming correspond almost one-for-one with increases in industrial activity and agriculture? Yes. Can the amount of warming be explained by natural processes (changes in sunlight, ocean circulation, Earth's orbit, volcanic acitivity)? No. Therefore, simple logic tells you we are responsible. Humans are the cause of the warming. There's nothing to believe. And so far, there is no explanation that has been put forward that is as consistent with the evidence. So stop bitching about it and start doing something to change it.
If you don't "believe" in global warming then I guess you don't believe in electricity, the ozone hole, or gravity (or as its known to those in the loop "God's magical fall-down formula" - wish I could take credit for that, but it's all Ben). So instead of spreading misinformation, pseudo-science, and poorly supported but loud and authoritative-sounding rhetoric, why don't you crawl back under your rock and let the people that want to face reality do so without you.
Monday, February 4, 2008
The word tragic is thrown around a lot today...
Am I the only person that is tired of seeing the word tragedy used to describe situations that aren't tragic? It's like the word hero. Not everyone is a fucking hero. And not every car crash and cancer diagnosis is tragic. Let me see if I can help illuminate the difference.
When teenagers or college students get drunk and kill themselves or their friends in a collision, it's NOT TRAGIC. They fucking knew better. Every school teaches kids that drunk driving is stupid. Every school and every alert parent tells their kids never to get into a car with a person who's been drinking. So when they do it and end up dead it's not tragic. They were being stupid. And when you do stupid things, don't be surprised when stupid things happen.
When you build your house on the edge of a cliff overlooking the ocean and your house then falls into the ocean it's NOT TRAGIC. Are you retarded? The house has nowhere to go but over the edge. And you do not control the ocean or the weather. So whenever I see this on the news, I laugh.
When you smoke for 30 years and get lung cancer it's NOT TRAGIC. You're stupid. You have no one to blame but yourself and no one should feel bad for you. You knew the risk and you should accept the consequences. So don't come crying to the news station to do a story about your "tragic situation". Fuck you.
When a drunk driver kills OTHER drivers, that IS TRAGIC, particularly when that person walks away with no injuries. Those people were killed because of another person's idiocy, not their own. They had no control over the situation. So you empathize with them. This also applies to situations in which people kill or injure other people because they can't be bothered to slow down in fog, ice, snow, heavy rain, or any situation where common sense tells you to slow down.
When a natural disaster happens and you're too poor to afford to leave the area you're in (a la New Orleans) or live in an area that is too poor to have facilities for early warning (a la Indonesia 2004) IT'S TRAGIC. When the government then fails to help the affected citizens, IT'S TRAGIC. Notice the pattern. When you have control over your situation and choose to do something dumb, it's not tragic when you get fucked up. When you have no control over the situation and other people are responsible for what happens to you, I'll empathize with you.
As a last example, when your house burns because your Christmas tree caught on fire, it's NOT TRAGIC. Every year, there are more than 10,000 fires across this country on the three days from Dec. 24-26, a large number of them due to trees. That should tell you not to bring a dry, dead tree into your home and surround it with electrical wires. So I don't feel bad when your house burns down.
If people just used a modicum of common sense, there would be far less need to describe any situation as tragic in the first place.
When teenagers or college students get drunk and kill themselves or their friends in a collision, it's NOT TRAGIC. They fucking knew better. Every school teaches kids that drunk driving is stupid. Every school and every alert parent tells their kids never to get into a car with a person who's been drinking. So when they do it and end up dead it's not tragic. They were being stupid. And when you do stupid things, don't be surprised when stupid things happen.
When you build your house on the edge of a cliff overlooking the ocean and your house then falls into the ocean it's NOT TRAGIC. Are you retarded? The house has nowhere to go but over the edge. And you do not control the ocean or the weather. So whenever I see this on the news, I laugh.
When you smoke for 30 years and get lung cancer it's NOT TRAGIC. You're stupid. You have no one to blame but yourself and no one should feel bad for you. You knew the risk and you should accept the consequences. So don't come crying to the news station to do a story about your "tragic situation". Fuck you.
When a drunk driver kills OTHER drivers, that IS TRAGIC, particularly when that person walks away with no injuries. Those people were killed because of another person's idiocy, not their own. They had no control over the situation. So you empathize with them. This also applies to situations in which people kill or injure other people because they can't be bothered to slow down in fog, ice, snow, heavy rain, or any situation where common sense tells you to slow down.
When a natural disaster happens and you're too poor to afford to leave the area you're in (a la New Orleans) or live in an area that is too poor to have facilities for early warning (a la Indonesia 2004) IT'S TRAGIC. When the government then fails to help the affected citizens, IT'S TRAGIC. Notice the pattern. When you have control over your situation and choose to do something dumb, it's not tragic when you get fucked up. When you have no control over the situation and other people are responsible for what happens to you, I'll empathize with you.
As a last example, when your house burns because your Christmas tree caught on fire, it's NOT TRAGIC. Every year, there are more than 10,000 fires across this country on the three days from Dec. 24-26, a large number of them due to trees. That should tell you not to bring a dry, dead tree into your home and surround it with electrical wires. So I don't feel bad when your house burns down.
If people just used a modicum of common sense, there would be far less need to describe any situation as tragic in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)