Archive for February, 2009
Men, their perception of women, and their tools
Posted by docbushwell in Brains and Behavior, Hootworthy on February 17, 2009
Research out of Princeton University and noted at this past weekend’s annual AAAS meeting gives weight to an idea that cognitive and social scientists have tentatively considered for years: Given sufficient provocation, men view women as sex objects.
Men are more likely to think of women as objects if they have looked at sexy pictures of females beforehand, psychologists said yesterday.
Researchers used brain scans to show that when straight men looked at pictures of women in bikinis, areas of the brain that normally light up in anticipation of using tools, like spanners and screwdrivers, were activated.
Scans of some of the men found that a part of the brain associated with empathy for other peoples’ emotions and wishes shut down after looking at the pictures.
Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton University in New Jersey, said the changes in brain activity suggest sexy images can shift the way men perceive women, turning them from people to interact with, to objects to act upon.
This makes perfect sense, given that when males view pictures of NASCAR events, daffodils, and human waste, anecdotal evidence suggests that they are inclined to think of not only various power tools, but also limitless varieties of copulatory activity.
In the study, Fiske’s team put straight men into an MRI brain scanner and showed them images of either clothed men and women, or more scantily clad men and women. When they took a memory test afterwards, the men best remembered images of bikini-clad women whose heads had been digitally removed.
This is merely a symbolic leveling of the playing field. If men in lust-struck states are operating without benefit of their brains, then it is only just that the objects of their lust be rendered similarly decerebrate.
In the final part of the study, Fiske asked the men to fill in a questionnaire that was used to assess how sexist they were. The brain scans showed that men who scored highest had very little activity in the prefrontal cortex and other brain regions that are involved with understanding another person’s feelings and intentions. “They’re reacting to these women as if they’re not fully human,” Fiske said.
“Not fully human” is as likely to mean “superhuman” as “subhuman,” correct? Looks like further research is needed.
Transgender school custodian allowed to keep job; “pro-family” group outraged
Posted by docbushwell in We're Doomed on February 16, 2009
My daily e-mail updates from OneNewsNow.com–whatever their origin–are just jam-packed with stories of warmth and cheer from our fun-loving citizenry.
At the top of today’s list is proof that wackanutty outposts exist even if liberal strongholds such as the Bay State. To wit: A transgender school custodian? Fire it!
A pro-family advocate says parents in one Massachusetts town were perplexed when they received a letter from the school district explaining changes the janitor made over the summer break.
At the beginning of the 2008-09 school year, parents at the Clara Barton Elementary School in Oxford, Massachusetts, received a letter from the principal and superintendent, informing them that one of the school custodians had “changed his gender role” and is now a woman.
The school officials then informed parents that if their children, whose ages range from five-to-ten years old, ask school employees any questions concerning the custodian, they believe that “the best thing to tell them is that our custodian used to be a man. She has changed her gender and is now a woman.”
Brian Camenker with MassResistance is appalled. “Whether parents like that idea or not, [the school] decided that they were going to introduce this to kids if there were any questions. That’s extremely outrageous,” he contends. “The whole idea that someone like this should be in the public schools, of course, is beyond belief.”
That’s right–don’t tell kids crazy stuff like, oh, the truth. Tell them homosexuals and their ilk are to be not only fired from their jobs, but reviled and feared at all costs.
[Camenker] says his organization was made aware of the situation when the uncle of a student gave him a copy of the letter. “From what I understand, everybody is afraid to speak out because they are afraid that their kids will be treated badly [and be subject to] retribution by the school officials,” he notes.
So, parents are loath to foment bigotry because their kids might receive feedback that it’s wrong? Horrors.
Camenker believes parents are also fearful of liberals in the community and finds it troubling there is a climate of fear against speaking out. He adds that on the reverse side of the letter, school officials listed radical homosexual websites in order for parents to get more information on “transgender issues.”
A list of those “radical” sites can be found here.
I just love the simple-mindedness of these people. Gay, transgender, liberal–it’s all just one big teeming mass of truly awful shit, and they’re coming for your kids!
They don’t update it much, but MassResistance has a blog. I suggest leaving them a few choice comments in, uh, support.
Typical climate-change denialism
Posted by kemibe in Ninnytechnology, Spankin' the Crank on February 16, 2009
By “typical” I don’t mean the sort of programmed distortions or shady and selective treatment of data common to people who speak in scientific language, but the output of right-wing bloggers who are scientifically illiterate. After all, there are a lot more people who don’t understand the pertinent concepts than folks who do. So, although to most Science Blogs readers the debunking of a workaday rant from the sort of clown still beating the OBAMA, HE NO HAVE PROPER BIRTH CERTIFCATE! drum (apparently these guys think that they’re eventually going to uncover something that the GOP and U.S. Congress obviously did not) is a superfluous exercise, it’s perhaps worth a glimpse at how your neighbor chooses to view things.
This Porter Good/William Teach guy writes for Stop the ACLU, so you already know he’s deftly combined the literacy of a fifth-grader with the analytical powers of snot and basted the result with the objectivity of Pat Robertson. He also has how own blog, and on this blog he wrote a post called “AGW Today: Mercury and OMG WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!” (Although an attempted foray into parody, this hysterical tone is, amusingly, pretty much this writer’s natural, unwavering style.)
I left a comment under his post, and I’ve more or less reproduced it below.
Typical climate-change denialism
Posted by docbushwell in Ninnytechnology, Spankin' the Crank on February 16, 2009
By “typical” I don’t mean the sort of programmed distortions or shady and selective treatment of data common to people who speak in scientific language, but the output of right-wing bloggers who are scientifically illiterate. After all, there are a lot more people who don’t understand the pertinent concepts than folks who do. So, although to most Science Blogs readers the debunking of a workaday rant from the sort of clown still beating the OBAMA, HE NO HAVE PROPER BIRTH CERTIFCATE! drum (apparently these guys think that they’re eventually going to uncover something that the GOP and U.S. Congress obviously did not) is a superfluous exercise, it’s perhaps worth a glimpse at how your neighbor chooses to view things.
This Porter Good/William Teach guy writes for Stop the ACLU, so you already know he’s deftly combined the literacy of a fifth-grader with the analytical powers of snot and basted the result with the objectivity of Pat Robertson. He also has how own blog, and on this blog he wrote a post called “AGW Today: Mercury and OMG WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!” (Although an attempted foray into parody, this hysterical tone is, amusingly, pretty much this writer’s natural, unwavering style.)
I left a comment under his post, and I’ve more or less reproduced it below.
Louie Bellson, RIP
Posted by jim in Audio Island, Pattern Juggling on February 16, 2009
Another dismantling of the “free will” response to the problem of evil
Posted by docbushwell in Hootworthy on February 15, 2009
Theodicy has always been a major challenge for theists, who are forced to come up with reasons why why so many bad things happen under the watch of a just and caring god.
Most of these reasons are implausible at best, at least for those who think that coherent logic is a more useful ally in argumentation than bald-faced rationalizations and excuse-making. The usual theist response to the problem of evil is revolves around “free will”: If human had not been imbued with the capacity to make nasty choices, so the story goes, then they would be unable to recognize or even define good.
It does not take a philosopher to mount a battery of questions to such nonsense–for example, what about suffering that has nothing to do with conscious human action (e.g., natural disasters, fatal car wrecks)? And just how bad must things get in order for we thick-skulled humans to be able to perceive the opposite of these things as “good”?
But for sporting purposes, many philosophers do indulge the theists on their own terms. This amusing rebuttal of the “free will” argument boils down to three ideas:
1. If God values free will so much, why do only a few earthly creatures possess it?
2. If God values free will so much, why do all of us lack it at least some of the time (e.g., as babies, while sleeping, while mentally ill) and some of us (e.g., people in comas) lack it all of the time?
3. Most of all, if God values free will so much, why do people not place a similar premium on it, choosing to punish–and certainly to reject as objects of worship–people such as rapists and thieves who are only exercising the will God gave them?
Something else to consider: If God made people with the capacity to do evil, then evil inherently exists, in which case humans should be able to perceive it and thus define “good” accordingly, with free will not needed in the mix.
If these points seem superfluous, well, they are–the “free will” argument is as much an intuitive failure as it is a philosophical one. Still, it can be fun to watch people demonically bat such ideas around while the other side squirms and furrows its begodded brow in consternation.
I <3 Neil deGrasse Tyson!
Posted by kemibe in Hootworthy, Lost in Space on February 15, 2009
Nabbed via digg, check out this clip of NdGT’s wonderfully acerbic commentary on the Day of Doooooooom! That is to say, December 21, 2012.
Despondex: Hope for the pathologically chipper
Posted by kemibe in Health and Society, Hootworthy, The Medical Tent on February 14, 2009
Despondex: Hope for the pathologically chipper
Posted by docbushwell in Health and Society, Hootworthy, The Medical Tent on February 14, 2009
72-year-old former sprinter runs down purse thief
Posted by docbushwell in Hootworthy, The Running Ape on February 14, 2009
From the U.K. comes a story with vaguely Onion-esque undertones. Jean Hirst, who was the Nottinghamshire County Schools 100-yard-dash champion during the Eisenhower administration, had her handbag snatched by one in a trio of teenage girls and proceeded to catch the culprit.
As a track and field aficionado I took particular interest in this part:
“She had a head start but I covered 70 yards in about 15 seconds and was within two strides of her when she looked over her shoulder and saw me.
“She probably thought I was an easy target but she shouldn’t have judged a book by its cover. The look on her face was one of sheer amazement and she just threw my bag aside.”
I realize that Mrs. Hirst was only guessing at her speed, but there’s a good chance she was underestimating it. 70 yards in 15 seconds translates to a 100-meter dash in about 23 seconds. That’s well off the 70-to-74 age-group world record (15.16 seconds) for women, and over 30 percent slower than the 35th-best mark ever.
More importantly, it’s unlikely that even a thief supremely confident in her target’s infirmity would grab a purse on foot if incapable of holding 6:00-per-mile pace for at least half a minute or so. Even an untrained, somewhat out-of-shape teenage girl should be able to knock out 100 meters in 20 seconds.
We need video analysis, dammit.
Christians should amulet A-Rod’s behavior?
Posted by docbushwell in D'oh(pe)!, Hootworthy on February 14, 2009
The only reason I didn’t immediately dismiss this blog post as satire is that I got the link through one of the OneNewsNow.com e-mail updates I began receiving yesterday at the rate of one every several hours (I don’t recall providing the American Family Association with my e-mail address, but morbid fascination and cheap yuks is keeping me from unsubscribing).
For one thing, the post is dated December 16th, 2008, which is unlikely since the topic is New York Yankees shortstop Alex Rodriguez’ admission that he has used anabolic steroids. Perhaps the post really has been up for two months and represents the first documented instance of a fulfilled prophecy related in some way to Christianity.
Moreover, it’s an unintelligible wreck, and in the kind of way that hints at a capable writer making an extremely hard try to attempt looking, like he is less unintelligent then stupid. See? If I had to pick a favorite it would be “Barry Bonds denies to this day that he never took steroids” or “what I will gleam from the handling of this situation,” but there’s plenty to choose from.
In terms of the topic, the writer suggests that A-Rod’s honesty in the face of “sin” is to be praised, and that people going through their own troubles might model their actions after his.
Alex Rodriguez got busted recently for using steriods. We have all see it in the news, and we will hear and see about it for some time. But did A-Rod do something that Christians should use as an example?
One of the major problems I see in the church today is our lack of openness towards the areas in our life that we may be struggling with. It is a rare case to see someone admit openly to a sin, and then be congratulated for it. In fact, the church today is viewed as a place to go and “appear holy”. We put on our nice clothes and our smiles as we go to church and act like our lives are going great. When in reality statistics show that sin is just as prevailant in the church as it is out of the church. The only diference… outside of the church people can be honest, but in the church we are ridiculed.
The truth is until we can become open with our weaknesses, we can never fully live a Christian life. 1 Corinthians 12:9 tells us that only in our weaknesses can God become strong in our lives. We are a broken and sinful people, and we can not understand God’s grace until realize this, and that makes us strong children of God.
Folks, A-Rod is not the worst person in the world. He was one of over 100 Major Leaguers whose urine showed evidence of banned substances in 2003 in one of pro baseball’s first testing salvos. Until that year, baseball didn’t even have an official steroid policy, although it should be noted that possessing anabolic steroids (classified as controlled substances) without a doctor’s prescription is against the law. Lots of these guys cheat, and they all know it’s endemic. Sports being a multi-bazillion dollar worldwide enterprise, doping versus testing is a classic arms race, with dopers battling other dopers for supremacy in their competitive arenas of choice.
But the fact is that he confessed when he had no alternative except for the looniest of denials. His confession in the wake of repeated and vehement claims that he had never used steroids was the lesser of two significant evils–forge on with a badly tarnished reputation but a comparatively clean slate, or keep lying as documentation of his lies continued piling up and other lying athletes went to trial and, in some cases, to jail. Given the goods the feds have on him, he would basically have to possess a flat-earth mentality in order to prop up his shredded exterior of innocence.
Oddly, the writer acknowledges that Rodriguez admitted using drugs only after this became public knowledge, yet lauds him for “confessing” anyway. In theory, something has to give in the mind of a person simultaneously proposing these things, unless the mind itself has already given. Then, anything is possible.
Of course, I could simply be missing the whole point here. Maybe the writer is claiming that Christian leaders should rise up, admit what the rest of the world already knows (that they’ve been full of shit about a great many things for a long time), and return to discussing and dealing in reality only to the extent that practical and cultural forces compel them to. That I can accept.
Anyway, as a kid who grew up following the Red Sox, I suspect this was actually written not by a Christian but by a typical Yankees fan.
Good for WOOD-TV and WSXY-TV
Posted by kemibe in We're Doomed on February 13, 2009
Some of you may have seen portions of this hysterical and startlingly dishonest production (I doubt many could suffer through more than a few minutes of it) in which an assortment of god-soaked buzzard-people squawk and screech about being discriminated against merely for standing up for their version of what’s right, which in this case means shouting in public about the evils of homosexuality and essentially–no, literally–demanding it not be mentioned anytime, anywhere as something that is acceptable.
OneNewsNow, whose mailing list I for some reason wound up on, issued a release today complaining that this TV special is being “stifled.” Here’s the corresponding Web page.
The whole thing is a breathless and laughable crock, but here are some of the more ridiculous passages.
Good for WOOD-TV and WSXY-TV
Posted by docbushwell in We're Doomed on February 13, 2009
Some of you may have seen portions of this hysterical and startlingly dishonest production (I doubt many could suffer through more than a few minutes of it) in which an assortment of god-soaked buzzard-people squawk and screech about being discriminated against merely for standing up for their version of what’s right, which in this case means shouting in public about the evils of homosexuality and essentially–no, literally–demanding it not be mentioned anytime, anywhere as something that is acceptable.
OneNewsNow, whose mailing list I for some reason wound up on, issued a release today complaining that this TV special is being “stifled.” Here’s the corresponding Web page.
The whole thing is a breathless and laughable crock, but here are some of the more ridiculous passages.
Evolution for illiterates, deathmongers, and Elmer Fudd idolizers: First and last in a series
Posted by docbushwell in Spankin' the Crank, The Evolving World on February 13, 2009
“Big Dog” read this post but chose to respond only in the relative haven of his own faeces-covered kennel, and with all the erudition one would expect. I’ll leave him a trackback and see if he bothers replying with anything intelligible.
“Science to support evolution, upon reflection, certainly just like there is science to support man made global warming.”
Translated into a complete sentence, this means that “Big Dog” admits that he was lying before and that he’s aware that there is science to support evolution. He believes, however, that he’s free to discard it because this science is, just like that underlying climate change, unreliable. Notice that he doesn’t mention a single supposedly debunked or questioned point.
“Both are theories so neither has been proved … There is no scientific consensus and obviously it is not settled or it would not be a theory.”
Hmm, that sounds familiar. Where have I…ah, I know! See comment #19:
No Kemibe the idiot… it is a theory. Definition of a theory is an unproven scientific hypothesis. Evolution is far from proven. Q: Where are the missing links you’ve been searching for for decades? Answer: They don’t exist. Ergo theory.
Of course, these guys are completely wrong:
“Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.”
As for “Big Dog’s” claim that there is “no consensus,” I wonder what his definition of “consensus” is. Must it be something that even a small scattering of nutjobs–people whose “work” has been demolished by their peers and who in some cases have been exposed in court as liars–do not disagree with?
Actually, I’d like to see “Big Dog” offer a single example of a controversy about the factuality of evolution within the scientific community. Just one will do. No recourse to creationist sites, please; we’re looking for evidence of scientific dissent here, not a “Big Dog”-style “I call bullshit!” I hope he chooses carefully; it is all but assured that his fervent Internet search will only yield a specious example of a counterclaim that everyone here is already familiar with. This is what happens when you stake out an untenable position and tell lies to support it.
“I know the arguments, we share DNA with chimps blah, blah. We also share about 90% with rats and look nothing like them (well meathead looks like one).”
No, “Big Dog” clearly doesn’t “know the arguments,” none of which include the words “blah, blah.” Indeed, he’s unaware that his statement about rats–which is, not surprisingly, incorrect, as rats and humans share “only” about 25% of their genes–only puts him further in a hole.
If affirming the common ancestry of all living things relied solely on phenotype (appearance) it would be easy to dismiss the majority of organisms as being unrelated to humans. However, scientists long ago began making predictions about the relative degree of “relatedness” between humans and different animals and groups of animals–apes, monkeys, other mammals, other vertebrates (including reptiles and birds), invertebrates (such as insects), even bacteria.
These predictions have been borne out by not only by gross examination of anatomical structures but by molecular genetics and other modern techniques. “Big Dog” thinks he can just throw out the fact that humans and rats and chimps share a lot of DNA because rats and humans do not, in his judgment, look anything alike–but he’s yet again wrong.
“We have not seen one animal evolve into another…”
Oh, really? Is that the royal “we” you’re using?
“…and if the fittest will survive then why worry about polar bears or others “victims” of so called global warming … Surely we will adapt to what ever happens or we will perish.”
If the fittest will survive then why insist that they be armed? How is protecting ourselves with weapons (i.e., through a change in the environmnent rather than in the organism) any different than protecting other species through mechanical, biological, or chemical means? Consistency isn’t the moron’s strong point, is it? And how does any of this relate to evolution–the real version, that is, not the wingnut’s “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST=THOSE WHO CAN KILL THE MOST, QED” semi-private and canted definition?
“If evolution is what happens in nature and you guys believe in it then you can’t change what will happen so why worry about the world?”
Yeah, good point. Guns are perfectly natural, but what about other man-made stuff? Why build shelter for ourselves or mass-produce food? Or…hey, am I really arguing with someone who claims that evolution implies that people “can’t change what will happen so why worry”? Must be that kind of Friday.
“Ignorant? Hardly. I just disagree with what you believe which is not the definition of ignorant. Otherwise that would make us both ignorant, would it not.”
Ignorance is believing you can throw out what that element of the world that operates using facts understands because you dislike the implications. Ignorance is pretending that facts and opinions are interchangeable. Expressing violent rhetoric toward those with whom you disagree and especially toward those who actively put you in your place, while not itself ignorance, seems to accompany ignorance with uncanny frequency.
By a similar token, “Big Dog” is not an asshole for disagreeing with me, he is an asshole for a variety of other demonstrable reasons.
“I enjoy when tolerant folks stop by to call me names and be intolerant.”
I, of course, never said I was tolerant of liars and idiots in any meaningful sense, and would hate to be viewed as such.
“I don’t like meathead. If he died tomorrow I would throw a party.”
These are probably by far the truest statements in the entire comment.
The idea here isn’t to convince this guy of anything but to predict how he’ll respond. It’s unlikely that “Big Dog” can be bothered to click on the links I supplied, much less read what’s there; he often doesn’t bother reading much of what he thinks supports his positions, so the idea of him bother with material that exposes his lies and errors is far-fetched. I’m guessing he’ll dismiss the things I posted demolishing his ideas as liberal propaganda (a handy wingnut synonym for “things I can label lies no matter how well established they are) and consciously or unconsciously misconstrue something written here or in one of the linked articles in such a way as to pretend it agrees with things he’s said.
Actually, since he operates this way daily, it takes little prescience to let fly with such a forecast.
“Big Dog” on evolution
Posted by kemibe in The Evolving World on February 13, 2009
Yesterday, “Big Dog” complained that my characterization of his blogging as fact-starved was itself unsubstantiated. He, in the usual tradition, found it necessary to mention me in a post a few hours ago but has apparently blocked my comments from appearing on his site.
This need not be an extended pissing contest. To gain a sense of what this guy is about, here’s a rundown of the things he’s said over the years about evolution, easily uncovered in five or ten minutes of searching his verbal crap-heap.
“[P]eople who believe in evolution are an interesting lot. These folks believe in a theory that one species can evolve into another (though we have never actually seen this) and they believe that humans evolved from lower primates. Darwin’s theory also tells us that only the fittest survive which would include a species and individuals within a species. This seems to be where those who espouse evolution have a problem because every time a species becomes endangered they want it put on a list and they want all kinds of measures taken to protect said species. If the fittest survive and a species is not surviving then that species must not be the fittest. Seems that we would be interfering with the whole natural selection thing by getting involved … I have no doubt we can save a species if we try. The thing is, why should we. The people who believe in evolution should be forced to accept the whole thing or else they should stop pushing the evolution agenda and take it out of our schools … Besides, if Darwin was right, nature can just evolve some new primates.” (October 25, 2007)
The number of basic errors in comprehension in just this passage is alarming, but sets the tone for everything that follows.
“Though I do not believe in evolution, at least not in the Darwinian sense, I do believe that the fittest of a species survive in order for that species to continue to survive. Some creatures, unable to adapt, become extinct.” (November 23. 2007)
So how do these adaptations occur and what is the substrate for them if not genetic variation? God’s will across the board?
“I am not going to rehash the evolution idea and why it makes no sense or why people hold it as gospel truth despite the fact it has never been proven and that it is a theory. The theory of evolution is much like the theory of Global Warming in the minds of Democrats. They believe it so it must be true and they will repeat it as true so often that it will become ingrained in people. Global warming and evolution are taught in schools as if they are proven science and this is done to brainwash a generation of school kids so they grow up to be little tree-hugging liberals. The libs have to find a way to replenish their ranks because they are aborting their children thus removing future generations of liberals … [Mike] Huckabee’s position on evolution does not bother me and it would not even if I believed in evolution.” (December 16, 2007)
I admit I kind of gave up even before reaching the part about liberals “aborting their children.”
“Palin is pro life, a member of the NRA and thinks creationism should be taught next to evolution. I find no reason to be against someone who believes in the sanctity of life and who supports the Second Amendment. I also find it refreshing that someone would offer differing opinions on how we got here. Palin wants children to be given differing points of view whereas Reimer only wants them indoctrinated with an unproven, flawed theory.” (September 3, 2008)
Of course, “Big Dog” wrote this just before observing, with something less than prescience, “These people will make the mistake of underestimating Sarah Barracuda and will regret it. She is bright and fierce and will take them apart.”
“If Dr. Joan is right about evolution (no science to support it but…) then the fittest need to survive.” (February 12, 2009)
Note that in a quote posted above, “Big Dog” argued that animals bound to go extinct without humans intervening should in fact be left to die, but here is claiming that certain animals (wingnut humans, in this case) should be armed to protect their “fitness advantage,” just in case. Sheer brilliance.
As expected, there is lots of hand-waving here, but no attempt–not even a bad one–to explain why evolution is flawed, unsubstantiated, or whatever. Considering that “Big Dog” seems like the kind of science junkie who loses himself in Talk Origins and books by Lewontin and Dennett when he’s not masturbating to Rambo movies or attending gun shows, I’m as surprised as I am disappointed.
So rather that await further inevitable lies and bullshit from “Big Dog” and comment on them, I will wait for him to point if he chooses toward evidence that evolution is “an unproven, flawed theory” (as opposed to creation, which of course is supported by reams of well-corroborated evidence, or so I assume based on “Big Dog’s” bold statements). I doubt he will try, so I rather and pester him further as I’ve done for little good reason with Gribbit and others, I’ll write him off as a humorless joke.
Actually, the more material I dug up here, the more I realized that “Big Dog” is more plain stupid than dishonest, although he possesses both traits in such florid abundance that distinguishing which is the more crippling to his ability to generate meaningful verbiage is like deciding whether Peter Griffin is a worse father than Homer Simpson. The junk I harvested on evolution alone is bad enough, but it’s hard to not pause and gawk at the wrecked trains of logic and analysis that stuff piled atop. When any of these assholes starts preaching with the undiluted confidence of the howling moron about what Obama will do to ruin the country, I just point to their own equally confident bleatings about how Palin would be just the thing to guarantee a McCain victory in November. This shit will never stop, but it might get funnier.
“Big Dog” on evolution
Posted by docbushwell in The Evolving World on February 13, 2009
Yesterday, “Big Dog” complained that my characterization of his blogging as fact-starved was itself unsubstantiated. He, in the usual tradition, found it necessary to mention me in a post a few hours ago but has apparently blocked my comments from appearing on his site.
This need not be an extended pissing contest. To gain a sense of what this guy is about, here’s a rundown of the things he’s said over the years about evolution, easily uncovered in five or ten minutes of searching his verbal crap-heap.
“[P]eople who believe in evolution are an interesting lot. These folks believe in a theory that one species can evolve into another (though we have never actually seen this) and they believe that humans evolved from lower primates. Darwin’s theory also tells us that only the fittest survive which would include a species and individuals within a species. This seems to be where those who espouse evolution have a problem because every time a species becomes endangered they want it put on a list and they want all kinds of measures taken to protect said species. If the fittest survive and a species is not surviving then that species must not be the fittest. Seems that we would be interfering with the whole natural selection thing by getting involved … I have no doubt we can save a species if we try. The thing is, why should we. The people who believe in evolution should be forced to accept the whole thing or else they should stop pushing the evolution agenda and take it out of our schools … Besides, if Darwin was right, nature can just evolve some new primates.” (October 25, 2007)
The number of basic errors in comprehension in just this passage is alarming, but sets the tone for everything that follows.
“Though I do not believe in evolution, at least not in the Darwinian sense, I do believe that the fittest of a species survive in order for that species to continue to survive. Some creatures, unable to adapt, become extinct.” (November 23. 2007)
So how do these adaptations occur and what is the substrate for them if not genetic variation? God’s will across the board?
“I am not going to rehash the evolution idea and why it makes no sense or why people hold it as gospel truth despite the fact it has never been proven and that it is a theory. The theory of evolution is much like the theory of Global Warming in the minds of Democrats. They believe it so it must be true and they will repeat it as true so often that it will become ingrained in people. Global warming and evolution are taught in schools as if they are proven science and this is done to brainwash a generation of school kids so they grow up to be little tree-hugging liberals. The libs have to find a way to replenish their ranks because they are aborting their children thus removing future generations of liberals … [Mike] Huckabee’s position on evolution does not bother me and it would not even if I believed in evolution.” (December 16, 2007)
I admit I kind of gave up even before reaching the part about liberals “aborting their children.”
“Palin is pro life, a member of the NRA and thinks creationism should be taught next to evolution. I find no reason to be against someone who believes in the sanctity of life and who supports the Second Amendment. I also find it refreshing that someone would offer differing opinions on how we got here. Palin wants children to be given differing points of view whereas Reimer only wants them indoctrinated with an unproven, flawed theory.” (September 3, 2008)
Of course, “Big Dog” wrote this just before observing, with something less than prescience, “These people will make the mistake of underestimating Sarah Barracuda and will regret it. She is bright and fierce and will take them apart.”
“If Dr. Joan is right about evolution (no science to support it but…) then the fittest need to survive.” (February 12, 2009)
Note that in a quote posted above, “Big Dog” argued that animals bound to go extinct without humans intervening should in fact be left to die, but here is claiming that certain animals (wingnut humans, in this case) should be armed to protect their “fitness advantage,” just in case. Sheer brilliance.
As expected, there is lots of hand-waving here, but no attempt–not even a bad one–to explain why evolution is flawed, unsubstantiated, or whatever. Considering that “Big Dog” seems like the kind of science junkie who loses himself in Talk Origins and books by Lewontin and Dennett when he’s not masturbating to Rambo movies or attending gun shows, I’m as surprised as I am disappointed.
So rather that await further inevitable lies and bullshit from “Big Dog” and comment on them, I will wait for him to point if he chooses toward evidence that evolution is “an unproven, flawed theory” (as opposed to creation, which of course is supported by reams of well-corroborated evidence, or so I assume based on “Big Dog’s” bold statements). I doubt he will try, so I rather and pester him further as I’ve done for little good reason with Gribbit and others, I’ll write him off as a humorless joke.
Actually, the more material I dug up here, the more I realized that “Big Dog” is more plain stupid than dishonest, although he possesses both traits in such florid abundance that distinguishing which is the more crippling to his ability to generate meaningful verbiage is like deciding whether Peter Griffin is a worse father than Homer Simpson. The junk I harvested on evolution alone is bad enough, but it’s hard to not pause and gawk at the wrecked trains of logic and analysis that stuff piled atop. When any of these assholes starts preaching with the undiluted confidence of the howling moron about what Obama will do to ruin the country, I just point to their own equally confident bleatings about how Palin would be just the thing to guarantee a McCain victory in November. This shit will never stop, but it might get funnier.
“It isn’t just the nego”
Posted by docbushwell in We're Doomed on February 12, 2009
Most atheists prone to bantering online have dealt with people who confidently tell them they’re in for a big surprise when their earthly days are over. This brand of faithstruck person isn’t content to just pass along this untenable wisdom, perhaps with a touch of real, if misguided, sadness; he says such things as if he himself will actually be there to catch, and indeed relish, the look of horrified surprise on his godless interlocutor’s face when the nonbeliever discovers, far too late, that the deity he rejected his whole life is about to dispatch him to Hell for an incalculable duration of boundless torment.
Militantly dissatisfied bloggers such as “Big Dog” remind me of these kinds of exchanges. His type is everywhere these days: a crude and rockheaded brand of jingo-essayist steeped in apocalyptic and unsubstantiated ideas about the current administration, a frightfully unsophisticated observer with a voting card whose only concern is firing off as many would-be and genuine slurs (“socialist,” “Marxist,” “communist” “terrorist sympathizer,” “anti-American,” and of course “magic Negro”) as time, space, and inspiration from far-right media outlets permit.
It’s with this post in mind that I make these observations. Commenter Adam asks “Big Dog,” “So how are you coming up with this ‘TRILLION’ term[?]“ The same way he “comes up with” everything else, of course–he either lies about what he reads or, better yet, flat-out invents what he needs. Just look at this and any other randomly selected “Big Dog” post; it’s full of phrases like “Early word is” and “The three traitors…will see their work undone” and “[the package] will spend a TRILLION dollars on a plethora of Democratic pet projects but create very few jobs” and “it is going to get bad” and more.
The Gribbit and Kender Show: a postmortem
Posted by docbushwell in Hootworthy on February 10, 2009
Last week I mentioned that a couple of standard-issue right-wing bluster machines, Andrew “Gribbit” Richardson and Kender MacGowan, would be staging a two-hour Internet radio show on Saturday night. I listened in, and I couldn’t have enjoyed myself more in the 25 or so minutes I followed along before being booted from the virtual premises.
You can listen to the two-hour crapcast here. If you choose to listen using iTunes or another media player, you may be able to fast forward to the comparatively salient points.
When I loaded up the page about five minutes before the start of the program, I discovered to my delight that there was a “chat room” visible alongside the inline audio player, and that I could participate if I registered. I signed up as “kemibe,” a handle that would allow Gribbit to immediately identify me as a contributor to this blog, and settled in for the ‘cast.
“A billion fewer people is a great place to start”
Posted by docbushwell in Habitats and Humanity, Hootworthy on February 9, 2009
Want to hear an unpopular opinion: I think we should put Nadya Suleman in jail. Perhaps you don’t recall the name. Perhaps you don’t even believe a crime has been committed. Perhaps you think I should be locked up along the way. Fine. But someone has to start saying things aloud, so here goes:
STOP HAVING CHILDREN.
Nadya Suleman had 14. And they should all be taken from her and raised by fit parents. Seriously, I could care less about the fact that she’s unmarried, unemployed, unable to convince herself that she’s not Angelina Jolie.
She’s a criminal. She’s a murderer. She’s not only guaranteeing her kids a very hard life, she’s killing all of us.
Not too long ago, one of my readers pointed out that I’m pretty good at pointing out what’s wrong in the world and lousy about pointing out solutions. So here’s my simple solution: Stop Having Children.
I call it the 5 Year Ban. For the next five years let’s not have any kids. All of us. The whole freaking planet.
I don’t think this should be a top down approach. I don’t mean a literal government ban. I mean a grassroots movement of responsible adults behaving like responsible adults. I mean a populist moratorium on childbirth.
Why 5 years? Because it’s a manageable number. Because it would mean a billion less people. Because a billion less people is a good place to start.
If everyone living on the planet today were really serious about, well, there being a planet left to live on, a planet left for our children to actually occupy, a planet that can actually sustain life. If we were serious then we would all be using birth control.
All the time. And we would never stop using it.
As always, the most entertaining part of this is the comments from people who believe the writer, Steven Kotler, is completely serious. (OK, so he should have used “fewer,” not “less,” in his post title; I fixed that here.) This one is my favorite, but the various hotheads that urge Kotler to kill himself because they equate a call for fewer new people with a directive to snuff out existing ones are fun to read too.
I see Kotler as mocking, in a timely manner, the banal hypocrisy of those who oppose birth control and abortion yet scream about Suleman. The latter’s addition of eight kids to a ramshackle and already oversized brood is–while unfortunate at best–a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of babies born into dire circumstances the U.S. every day, in large part as a result of backward religious “education” and related solecisms, including the logically indefensible idea that since each of us was given the “gift” of life ourselves, we “owe” it to…well, to something to keep the chain reaction going.
Why aren’t the same people railing against the Duggars? Is someone really going to claim that these kids, no matter well they may be provided for financially (and exactly how the family feeds these hapless crotch-crickets-Christ is unclear but seems to relate to a religious Tony Robbins-style DVD), are growing up in a nurturing environment? They certainly aren’t growing up bright or beautiful–at least these big-ass Mormon families generally have that going for them.
“If you’re going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking.”
Posted by docbushwell in The Evolving World on February 8, 2009
These are the words of, in no particular order, a Christian, a halfwit, and a Florida state senator. Stephen Wise (and God sure does have a sense of irony when He hands out surnames, don’t He?), who represents the district that includes one of the fifteen most populous cities in the U.S., is apparently unaware that “have” and “obliterate” are not synonyms.
The issue itself is nothing new–Jesus-soaked politician agitates for end run around basic but (to many of the faithful) uncomfortable facts about the world and invokes variants of the usual backwater talking points: “Evolution is only a theory,” “Teach all sides,” and, of course, “I get a lot of hate mail so I must be doing something right.” But Wise’s use of a term he has heard but clearly misunderstands has me wondering how he would respond to the following statement:
“If you’re going to teach kids there was really a Jesus who rose from the dead, lives in your thoughts, and can save you, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking.”
Absolutely appropriate (inasmuch as the godless have any inclination to waste time trying to divest brainwashed people of their mythological ideas) and one hundred percent guaranteed to make goofball politicians like Stephen Wise balk.
Not surprisingly, Wise may not have been the dumbest person quoted in the article. Here’s what yet another Florida legislator, this one a state representative, had to say:
Hays said part of his beliefs come from his training as a dentist, which involved an extensive education in anatomy.
“How can anyone study the human body and deny that it was created by a higher power?” he said. “It is one magnificent collection of genius.
“It is not an accident that happened to come together.”
That’s right, the culmination of billions of years of adaptations–processes about which hypotheses were formed well before humans knew about DNA and have been resoundingly confirmed and demonstrated–is just too grand to consider, so let’s just declare “It’s no accident!” and be done with it. After all, what we’d expect in a godless world are organisms surviving and thriving despite the form and function of their organs, right? Hell, why don’t engineers build cars with the wheels on top?
How can this man’s patients trust him not to jam a dentist’s drill through their temples?
-
You are currently browsing the archives for February, 2009
- Doc Bushwell is a biochemist and a medical writer who serves as a slavering minion of the dark lords of Big and Little Pharma; Jim is an engineering professor with a fondness for running shoes and drumsticks; and Kevin Beck is a self-exiled member of the clan who refuses to stay gone.
<-- Subscribe to our dreck
Sort by Tribe Member
kemibe
docbushwell
jim
What Hominids are Saying