I just read a rather interesting idea, that I had to share. Many non fundamentalist religious people claim that the follow the teaching of their holy book primarily has metaphor rather than literal truth. This article brings up some good points concerning the use of religion has a metaphor. It argues that practice is no more than an escape from the same logical traps that fundamentalist try to ignore. The author mentions the example of secular Jews has an ideal for metaphorical practice.

If religious teachings were truly treated as a metaphor then the author argues people who practiced these beliefs would be more similar to the culture of fandom then fundamentalist religion. The author mentions specifically Trekkies, but I think you could apply his view to fandom in general. I know that some may find that idea offensive, but I beg them to read the article with an open mind. She is not trying to be mocking of either Trekkies or religion. I admit it sounds kind of weird, but I think it is something many of us practice every Christmas. How many people talk about the how great it is that the birth of Christ was moved to help convert pagans,(I joke) and how many of us give gifts, tell stories to kids about Santa Claus, and try to be a bit more decent to each other? How many of us would like to argue about the actions of Jesus Christ the same way we argue about the use of the "prime directive", or the motivations of Dumbledore?

This is an excellent article about the problem stemming from scared people confusing coincidence with cause.  Autism is a disease that we have few answers for.  For all the research being done, there is frustratingly little that can be said about it, and none of it really helps those who have to deal with family afflicted with autism.  It is no wonder that people will start looking for anything to help them understand and deal with the situation.  People can and will create causes and cures on the most dubious of evidence if it will give them hope.  They will look for saviors to help and villains to blame for this sad condition. 

There is a movement among those people dealing with autism that is endangering peoples lives, by spreading unproven and completely unsubstantiated allegations about vaccines.  Vaccines that clearly prevent deadly diseases, and by unfortunate happenstance are usually administered to children around the same time symptoms of autism become apparent.  These vaccines save thousands of lives, and beyond the minuscule risk of allergic reaction have no other proven dangers. 

The article discusses this problem in more detail and sheds light on those groups who are propelling the anti-vaccine movement.  This story also investigates a man who has become the villain to this movement, Paul Offit.  Offit is a physician who develops vaccines, worked for the CDC, and writes books in which he debunks both vaccines myths, and snake oil treatments for autism.  If you have any questions about the dangers of getting or not getting children vaccinated, then you should definitely read this article and some of the related links.

It seems that the Governor of Texas is trying to slow the Texas Forensic Science Commission's investigation into the Arson conviction of Cameron Todd Willingham until at least after his re-election run is concluded. He could hypothetically be worried that he would be running a tight re-election race a few weeks after being declared the first Governor in history to preside over the death of a man innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The specifics of Governer Rick Perry's recent actions concerning the Texas Forensic Science Commission can read about here. Does anyone have thoughts about the implications of this finding? Is it significant socially or politically outside of Governor Perry's re-election hopes?

I am a not a fan of the death penalty. I believe that there are some people who should never have the opportunity to return to society, and executions would eliminate the possibility of these individuals harming other inmates, or escaping. The reason I no longer support the death penalty is for reason such as this.  I just have read too many cases of the death penalty being using too casually, or for purely political reasons to continue to support it's use. I know I have been harsh to the Texas Corrections Department before, but here this case is starting to make some news since the New Yorker article that discuss how a man innocent beyond a reasonable doubt was executed. The article really puts a human face on the problem with how the death penalty is used in this country. Even if this topic has no interest for you, at least read the New Yorker article. It is an well written, emotional story.

For the not so curious I will give a brief synopsis. A house fire claims the lives of three small children. The father escaped with minor injuries, and the arson investigators find clues that indicate the fire might have been arson. They can only prove one person besides the victims were at the scene, the father. They can discover no motive, but prosecutors use mental illness as a possible motive with rather flimsy support for this theory. The father is convicted on what I am guessing is the strength of the arson experts' testimony. While the father is on death row, the evidence for motive is cast in to serious doubt. His appeals run out before some of the nations top experts start looking at the arson report. The experts discover that the evidence proves that no arson took place and that the arson investigators were basically incompetent. The fathers lawyer brings this evidence to the Texas Governor's clemency board who deny clemency to the father. Some on the board admit that they basically ignored the reports' findings.

Edit: Sorry I hit post by accident and had to do final edits after posting.

I understand that former Vice-president of the United States Dick Cheney really believes that his policies could have made the country safer from terrorists. But now that nearly all the analysis of the program has been revealed and the consensus is that they did provided nothing crucial or even really useful; why does he continue to defend it and blatantly misrepresent what happened? His actions go beyond mere defense of his actions, as he still actively promotes these policies. He talks of the discipline and oversite that was used, and the key information that was extracted being one of the main reasons no other large scale terrorist attacks have occurred. The reports from people who participated, and the analysis of the majority of experts seems to give the exact opposite conclusion. His need to sell this so badly he even described former President Bush soft on terrorism.

Reading this article, give me some insight, but I do think it's premise goes to far. Cheney's actions seem to finally make sense to me from the perspective of someone who uses inferred justification when forced explain their actions. (Something he is not fond of doing.) But while the phenomenon of inferred justification explains the actions of Cheney, I still have trouble believing it can also explain this movement against Health Care Reform. I know I have complained about some of the reckless sheep-like opponents to President Obama's reform attempts.

What are your thoughts, people? Am I wrong about Cheney? Am I wrong about the opponents of Health Care Reform? Do you have other theories, or criticisms? The exception to this being the morality of torture. I am not discussing whether torture is ever morally correct (to me it is not), but whether it was effective in the prevention of terror attacks during the last administration.

I know some people wanted to know what songs are going to be on Rock Band Beatles. Here is the confirmed list of of songs. Songs in bold are the most recently confirmed. The full album for Abbey Road will come in October, Sgt. Pepper's will come in November, and Rubber Soul will come in December. I am pretty jazzed about the game obviously. What about you my reading audience?




( The list is after the cut )

With political debate going on these days, I can see why our last president weeded out any dissidents from his speeches. He must of been afraid that all Americans were like his supporters. I get that some people are not going to these town hall events on health care to question the policy in a logical manner. They do not want to win a debate, they just want things to go there way. But this blind spewing of insipid rhetoric needs at least a little bit of tact and context. I know that statement seems ironic but I digress...

The current tact of equating Obama's health plan to Nazi party policy is a bit childish. It seems to be everywhere, but most officials treat for what it is. The problem starts to bother me when these people try to use the same tactic with foreign supporters of government health care. (Sorry, to any Canadian and British readers out there. I do not support these attacks and respect your countries health care system, and sacrifices against fascist dictators.) I have seen more than a few examples of these interactions, but the one that strikes me has particularly egregious was this one. A woman yells "Heil Hitler" to an Israeli man who was talking about Israel's government health care system. When he tried to have a discussion about it she blew him off. When this very upset man called her on her behavior, her response was "boo-hoo". It has been noted in the article that she may have been wearing an Israeli Defense Force t-shirt which makes her cattiness even more reprehensible. Do they even know what they are fighting for? Do they know what is happening outside their own personal little worlds?

Elisha Strom does not like the Drug Enforcement Task Force in her area.  She thinks they are "arrogant thugs."  She decided to blog about their activities. She decided she would investigate this unit and publish the results on her blog. The police decided to put a stop on her activities by using a statute that bans identification of officers for the purpose of harassment. The statue is broad, and ill defined act that allows law enforcement to arrest people who they feel harass them and charge them with a felony.

Her blog contains no type of expressed or implied threat against the police or their associates that I could discover. She seems aware of her legal limits. Can one person harass a group of police without threats, or use of non public information? She did post the home address of one of the officers, but that is public information. I agree with the article that this lady is not the most sympathetic person, but she seems more a watchdog for the cops rather than an obstructer of justice. The legal system seems to agree with me. They have not charged her with obstruction, just "harassment by identification." What do you guys think?

Here is a quick one for you. A Baptist seminary has courses that give 20% of the course credit for put 10 posts defending Intelligent Design on what it considers 'Hostile" websites. These courses are at an undergraduate and masters level. They do not seem to have any requirement for the content besides the fact that it defends ID. People can now troll the internet for college credit. This might have been a little bit reasonable if maybe you had to create some original content, or engage in intelligent debate,(No pun intended) but I could find no such standard. In the spirit of the site mentioned, I will ask you now to create an argument for or against these practices in an educational setting. Sorry, I am afraid I can offer no course credit, but I hope you will answer anyway.

A weird article for me to post, but I found it interesting. This article discusses the spleen. Yes, I know exciting stuff, but look closer. While the article mostly concentrates on the newly discovered functions of the spleen, and the health benefits of not removing the spleen, it also goes on to briefly bring up a point about medical advice. Many doctors advise patients to remove certain organs to prevent disease, discomfort, or a more costly treatment. The long term health effects seem not bare this out in many circumstances. I usually trust the opinions of the experts, but sometimes you gotta check it out yourself.

Hey Everyone,

Here is another long delayed, and overly serious post from yours truly.

Our first piece is about the very broken music industry. This article discusses the sad fate of recording industry, and how it might now go from demonizing piracy to demonizing internet radio. I admit that I disagree with the editorial's thesis that access will suddenly replace acquisition in the new digital era. I do agree with the point that legal streaming is becoming a new area that the recording industry has again taken bad missteps. It seems  for the last several years, major record labels can do no right when it comes to actually selling music. I could go on and on about the mistakes the labels have made, but we can save that for the comments. Makes you wonder how the music industry will look in a few years.

The next article concern big evil corporations, and their attempts to censor journalist. Not that new of idea, but definitely a new execution. Fox News and MSNBC decided they did not like the collateral damage created by the rivalry between Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann. They took a meeting and censored their own journalists to prevent too much of each others dirty laundry from getting out. Things are grim in TV land if good ratings, and accurate, powerful reporting on a corporate rival are things worthy of censor. Some people are probably not too surprised, but somehow I thought this was a line not yet too be crossed so openly. Hopefully I will get the energy to do this more than once a month.

Yeah, I know the title sounds like a pre-law student's senior thesis, but it just happens to accurately describe the article that I was reading. The general argument concerning where to draw the line between personal safety and privacy on one side, and the freedom to publish information on the other has been debated in the U.S. since at least the beginning of the twentieth century. This article asks a lot of new questions about this dilemma along with the relevance of the old standards in the internet age.


The situation discussed concerns a journalist who was kidnapped by the Taliban, and was being held for ransom. The New York TImes managed to maintain a media blackout of the journalists capture, and even convinced the founder of Wikipedia to keep the journalists page empty of any news concerning his capture. The management at the New York Times believed that any reporting would increase the reporters value to the kidnappers, and lessen his chance of survival. All major news outlets seemed to have agreed with this assessment, and participated in the blackout.

There are some other factors to consider. He was a war correspondent on assignment where he had to know getting killed, or kidnapped was a strong possibility. The New York Times had a monetary interest in keeping this news quiet while negotiation for release were ongoing. This fact may have encouraged them to overestimate the danger of reporting the journalist being taken hostage. It seems the abuse of censorship will always be a factor to consider, no matter the situation in which it is used.

Then there is the question of Wikipedia administrators' responsibilities versus those of management from traditional news outlets. Wikipedia being edited by a community of its members who are promised a vast amount of discretion concerning what they contribute is a entirely different structure than the New York Times. Should this website have a vastly different measure of what can be removed or temporarily blocked than what newspapers or television have?

Where do you stand in this? Do you edge more towards personal safety or community freedom in this case? How about in general?

Kind of a switch from the public safety vs. individual freedom articles that I was posting a couple of years ago.

I have a feeling this will be anti-climatic but...

I have not done a meme on LJ for a good long while, so let us see what happens.

1. Your Name:
2. Age:
3. Single or Taken:
4. Favourite Film:
5. Favourite Song or Album:
6. Favourite Band/Artist:
7. Dirty or Clean:
8. Tattoos and/or Piercings:
9. Do we know each other outside of LJ?
10. What's your philosophy on life?
11. Is the bottle half-full or half-empty?
12. Would you keep a secret from me if you thought it was in my best interest?
13. What is your favourite memory of us?
14. What is your favourite guilty pleasure?
15. Tell me one odd/interesting fact about you:
16. You can have three wishes (for yourself, so forget all the 'world peace etc' malarkey) - what are they?
17. Can we get together and make a cake?
18. Which country is your spiritual home?
19. What is your big weakness?
20. Do you think I'm a good person?
21. What was your best/favourite subject at school?
22. Describe your accent:
23. If you could change anything about me, would you?
24. What do you wear to sleep?
25. Trousers or skirts?
26. Cigarettes or alcohol?
27. If I only had one day to live, what would we do together? (If you have no idea, just say something crazy, it'll entertain me!)
28. Will you repost this so I can fill it out for you?

I now know a secret, that I am not sure I wanted to know. It is part of a long complicated story of my immediate family so bare with me.

( Read more... )

How was your Memorial day?

I found this little video and just had to post it.  I first heard the overview of this law suit, and was disappointed to hear that someone had gone too far in debunking Creationism, but then I watched it. I know people complain about how bad Fox news is but, I think this might be new territory.

The kid recorded hours and hours of audio, then went to a lawyer, and managed to win his suit on only one comment about Creationism.  The "objective" reporters read off what I am guessing were supposed to be the juiciest bits that they forgot to mention do not apparently step over the line according to the judge. They reporters talk about dozens of comments they could have used, and it taking hours for them to discuss, but only 20 comment were brought to the judge, and he found only the comment concerning Creationism being "religious superstitious nonsense" to be an infringement of the students religious rights.

I do agree that bashing conservatives is not appropriate in class, but his comments about Aristotle and peasants while a bit rough, were things that this kid is going to hear often in any college level philosophy and/or history class. I think the reporters are what really annoy me. They are obviously pushing an agenda without the slightest attempt at objectivity. The reporters seemed to have decided that this teacher was a wack job, but they only provide a few comments with limited, if any, context. Some of which, while not sensitive to his audience, were at least logically accurate. I also wonder why they ask an obviously biased minor what is appropriate in a classroom and not by a qualified member of any school system.

Comments, questions?

My uncle David died early this morning. He had made it through a quintuple bypass surgery a couple days before and was doing quite well when he went to bed last night. I am sad for my cousins and aunt, but... I feel sad in the way you feel sad when your friend's uncle died. I did not know him really well, and I do have a complicated past with that part of my family. I feel so distant from this, while my mother and brother are much more affected by it.

That part of my family had three major components to it. The group that did not like my father, and consequently did not like me because I was his son. The group that did not care one way or the other, and generally went with the flow, and lastly uncle Gilbert ,and Joey who rebelled with the family quite often, and were quite kind to me when it was not a popular position to take. My uncle David's family fell into the middle category. They were never cruel, but they did not want to be put in an awkward situation, so they just tended to be rather distant. When my parent's divorced they completely vanished from my life until a few years ago.

David and his family did take care of my Grandmother after her stroke, so I tried to visit more often, but she passed on a little while ago, and I seriously wondered if I would ever return to see other members of my family. They are nice enough to me now, but no one has ever apologized or even brought up how I was treated before. It is only after years of me coming through for my mother and uncles, and my critics coming up short that opinion started to change. When they welcomed me back into the fold, I no longer cared. I went to support the few family members who supported me, and to make peace with my grandmother who tried to reach out to me a few years ago.

I do not know if I should play the part of the grieving nephew and race down with my mom for the funeral, so I can see people who used to treat me poorly and run my name through the mud? Should I respect his memory enough to stay home and not put on an act for strangers who happen to share my lineage?

One of the things that fascinates me about the internet is the ability it has to collect the weird and grant random people access to information that we might never have found otherwise weird or no. With this idea in mind I present my weblinks of the strange.

The first one link is about a fascinating new military tool that shows just how much society has changed in the last few decades. Where once military technology influenced civilian culture, now civilian technology influences the military. Who would have guessed that the must have tech toy is now becoming the omni-tool of our military. I-phones, and I-touches now have custom apps for a variety of military functions. It is hard to imagine that en vogue smart phone is starting to become a key piece of equipment for snipers, squad leaders, and military police.


The second piece is more of a history of the unusual. It involves a monolithic structure that was erected to survive an apocalypse and provide guidance to any survivors who find it.The structure  has some interesting characteristics, such has the instructions being in 8 languages, some of which are considered dead. The structure can serve has a fairly accurate compass, calender, and clock.

The story of its construction is even more intriguing. The structure is also build in a fairly isolated part of Georgia, and was funded by a mysterious man who managed to actually only let one person know his real identity, and that was only after the person signed an agreement never to reveal that identity. It has sparked many peoples imaginations for better or worse. Read on.

Damn it, I hate when my post gets lost by a bad connection. I had something more polished and with more analysis but this will have to do.

I been reading up on the Chinese space program when I came upon this article recently. It discusses how China is drastically increasing it's manned space flight program, and developing it along the lines of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program that the U.S. military tried in the late 1960's. The MOL program was canceled rather quickly as remote satellite technology and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) programs proved much more efficient for meeting the needs of reconnaissance and technological development. So why are the Chinese attempting a similar program 40 years later?

I know that the propaganda value for such an operation would be high since the Chinese government is trying to accomplish these mission between 2010 and 2015 when NASA will be between the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the launch of its replacement the Orion spacecraft, but it seems to be a extremely expensive time table especially considering that China has been no less immune to the economic downturn that has occurred recently. Considering the the use of the China's Anti-Satellite Device (ASAT) a couple of years ago that created a huge no-fly zone in Earth's orbit, and was later followed by the United States performing a similar act with similar results, this seems like more than a mere publicity grab. Could the United States be entering a Cold War style Space Race with China?

Maybe I have just read Maoist era histories too recently. What do any of you reading this think? Does the aggressive pursuit of manned military space stations, and the concerning use of anti satellite technology constitute the beginnings of a costly and serious technology race between the U.S. and China? Am I just paranoid, and the Chinese are willing to spend a massive wad in the hopes of winning a propaganda victory?

In Oklahoma, a celebration of Charles Darwin at the University of Oklahoma is causing an uproar because they invited prominent atheist Richard Dawkins to speak at the event. In an interesting bit mental gymnastics, members of the state legislature are attempting to pass a bill strongly opposing his speaking at the University. The reason being that Mr. Dawkins does not apparently respect cultural diversity, is biased, and does not represent the views of the majority of Oklahoma. Apparently applying political pressure on the university to prevent a person from speaking is in line with diversity, objectivety, and popularism. While I can not speak for the latter, I have trouble reconciling the first two. You can read more about it here.

On a rare moment when I agree with the Catholic Church, here is another story concerning Charles Darwin.

The Vatican is hosting a conference on Darwin has well. They are in trouble because they did not invite the Discovery Institute to come. The main proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) claimed there was conspiracy against them being invited, mostly because some of the backers of the conferences support Evolutionary Theory! How weird that they would all have that viewpoint at a conference on Darwin. The Vatican denies that any funding came with strings attached, and have invited groups who do dissent with Evolutionary Theory, but they felt that ID did not have the scientific, theological, or philosophical perceptive to participate in a vigorous intellectual debate.

I have also heard that this guy is upset he was not invited, sorry I could not find a reliable source for Oktar's displeasure at not being invited. For those of you who do not follow the links. Adnan Oktar is a critic of evolutionary theory that suggests a theory more in line with the words of the Koran.

Sorry for the lack of updates, but I have been busy, and unmotivated. Not a good combination for posting a blog; even one has lazy has mine. Some interesting news lately.

For those of you following the Prop. 8 battle here in California, it is still not been decided. Both sides are getting their share of victories and defeats in front of the state supreme court, however it looks like the ban will likely remain legal. If this is the case then it will be an uphill battle to get the ban removed from the state Constitution. The good news is that the Justices seem unanimous in declaring the same sex marriages that were performed before the ban legal. You can read about the details here.