It can't be the hand of God

Posted on April 14, 2009 by Michael

Not the hand of God

This is a photo of Pulsar B1509 taken by NASA’s Chandra X-ray observatory. There is a poll which is attached to the article on this image.

What do you think is captured on the recently released NASA photograph?

  • The hand of God
  • A natural stellar formation

“A natural stellar formation” is leading because the poll has been crashed by PZ Myers. But even though atheists crashed this poll to give it the correct answer, creationists can’t possible view this as being the hand of their particular sky fairy.

Taken by NASA’s Chandra X-ray observatory from it’s orbiting 360 miles above the Earth, the recently released photo of Pulsar B1509 captures the X-Ray nebula in a state shaped like a human hand. NASA estimates the shape spans 150 light years, but is caused by a dense neutron star that’s just 12 miles in diameter.

Astronomers believe B1509 is roughly 1,700 years old and is located 17,000 light years from Earth.

If this was God’s hand, it’d have to have existed since the beginning of time (in fact, since before the beginning of time – creationists have incredible insights into the pre-Universe). It is only 1,700 years old. As we all know, if this were the hand of the particular cultural god of Christians, it would would need to exist since roughly the beginning of the agricultural revolution – i.e., the beginning of all time.

Also, it has four fingers.

Filed under: Astronomy/Cosmology/Physics | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

It can’t be the hand of God

Posted on April 14, 2009 by Michael

Not the hand of God

This is a photo of Pulsar B1509 taken by NASA’s Chandra X-ray observatory. There is a poll which is attached to the article on this image.

What do you think is captured on the recently released NASA photograph?

  • The hand of God
  • A natural stellar formation

“A natural stellar formation” is leading because the poll has been crashed by PZ Myers. But even though atheists crashed this poll to give it the correct answer, creationists can’t possible view this as being the hand of their particular sky fairy.

Taken by NASA’s Chandra X-ray observatory from it’s orbiting 360 miles above the Earth, the recently released photo of Pulsar B1509 captures the X-Ray nebula in a state shaped like a human hand. NASA estimates the shape spans 150 light years, but is caused by a dense neutron star that’s just 12 miles in diameter.

Astronomers believe B1509 is roughly 1,700 years old and is located 17,000 light years from Earth.

If this was God’s hand, it’d have to have existed since the beginning of time (in fact, since before the beginning of time – creationists have incredible insights into the pre-Universe). It is only 1,700 years old. As we all know, if this were the hand of the particular cultural god of Christians, it would would need to exist since roughly the beginning of the agricultural revolution – i.e., the beginning of all time.

Also, it has four fingers.

Filed under: Astronomy/Cosmology/Physics | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

Morality

Posted on April 14, 2009 by Michael

On morality.

There exists for those willing to see a new perspective a deeply satisfying purpose and meaning to life free from any divine influence. To glimpse this world, imagine for a moment that there is no invisible man in the sky using magical powers in “mysterious ways” to control our fate. Imagine that we can toss away the crutch of false hope and bad myth to walk unhindered down the path of personal responsibility. Without the burden of a wrathful god, we have the power to create our own meaning, our own sense of purpose, our own destiny. By rejecting the false premises of religion we are free to move beyond the random hand we are dealt at birth to pave our own road to a better life.

With freedom of course comes the obligation to act wisely and responsibly. We fulfill this duty first by taking a more modest view of our place in the world. When we see that humans are a natural part of the ecosystem, not above or separate from the environment, we will protect the resources that sustain us. When we reject the hubris and conceit of religion, we will redefine our relationship with each other without calling upon god to smite our enemies. When we understand that true morality is independent of religious doctrine, we will create a path toward a just society. We each have the power to create a life in which we no longer accept the arbitrary and destructive constraints of divine interference.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Hiking the AT

Posted on April 13, 2009 by Michael

I’ve got a friend hiking the AT right now. He’s posting (well written) updates I will be following, hence this post and the link under my blogroll.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

Distinctions

Posted on April 13, 2009 by Michael

Chris Rock has a routine where he makes a distinction between black people and niggers. He basically defines “niggers” as stereotypical black people whereas black people are simply people who happen to also be black. I think it’s a good distinction. There are people out there who fit the negative stereotypes associated with black people. Those are crappy people that mess it up for all the non-stereotypical black people (which constitutes the vast majority). I want to extend this distinction to another group, but with some deviation because the analogy isn’t perfect.

There are gay people and then there are faggots. A gay person is someone who doesn’t flaunt his sexuality around in public; it’s unlikely a random gay person could be identified as being gay if he was walking down the street. A faggot, on the other hand, is nothing but identifiable. This is a person who intentionally dresses flamboyantly, speaks with an unnatural lisp, and tries to fall into all the stereotypes associated with gay people.

This distinction, it should be noted, has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. It isn’t possible for anyone who isn’t a member of the shrieking PC brigade to think it does. If this was about sexual orientation, then I wouldn’t be able to make a distinction between people with the same orientation in the first place! Exclamation marks are usually bad writing, but this case should be so obvious that it warrants one.

The distinction Chris Rock makes is more severe because the stereotypes about black people deal with violence and real safety issues. That clearly isn’t at point with gay people. Though the principle that intentionally fitting a stereotype is a bad thing does stand in both cases. It’s an act of immaturity. We see it in more apt analogies. The goth clique in high school. The frat guy with the pink shirt and popped collar. The girls wearing shorts up to their pubes and shirts they bought at Baby Gap. How often have you come across a person you would consider mature who also dressed like any of these stereotypes? It almost never happens.

The final example is the best because it deals with sexuality (though not sexual orientation). Girls who dress in overly skimpy clothes are usually called skanks. We go from a neutral term (girls/women) to a negative one (skanks). This is justified. If they are going to try and play a part or a role because they’re too immature to realize that embracing stereotypes is not a mark of adulthood, then they deserve to be derided. This is especially true for skanks because they are dressing in a way that is considered inappropriate in much of the public square. They are “expressing” their sexuality in a truly skanked up way.

Faggots are skanks by another name. They are advertising in a way that is so similar to skanky girls, a distinction is only to be made based upon the details, not the principle. That is, they are part of a different group, but they’re doing essentially the same thing.

Beyond that, a “faggot” is someone who can be identified while walking down the street as being gay. There is no need for that. Just the same, there’s no need for the asshole from the frat to dress like a complete and utter tool just so he can show off his straightness to all the ladies.

Note that there is consistency in this post. That is because I’m not reasoning based upon sexual orientation. My basis is first that intentionally following a stereotype is bad. This is because it gives a bad name to everyone else who doesn’t want to be a part of that crap. Furthermore, it is immature. Adults who fall into stereotypes are either losers or celebrities trying to keep up an image for the sake of business. If you’re an intentional stereotype, an adult, and not a celebrity, you’re a loser. Maybe most importantly (to me, at least) is the fact that this is all dishonest behavior. I refuse to believe there are so many more gay men with lisps than straight men. Surely there are gay men who honestly have lisps, but c’mon. There should be a roughly proportional number of gay to straight men with lisps. The stereotypes skew the numbers, and they do it either for attention or to fit a prefit model or for some other purely dumb reason. There is no good reason anyone should be able to identify your sexual orientation based upon how you speak. (Again, consistency tells us that the same applies to straight men trying to be overly macho or whathaveyou.)

No one is saying that people have to behave differently than what feels natural to them. But how many after school specials have said “Be yourself”? The point of this post captures that sentiment perfectly.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Beautiful Hubble image

Posted on April 12, 2009 by Michael

It completely slipped my mind that the winner of the Hubble contest had been released until I saw the absurd number of searches for “Hubble” on my stats page. The winner is ARP 274.

On April 1-2, the Hubble Space Telescope photographed the winning target in the Space Telescope Science Institute’s ‘You Decide’ competition in celebration of the International Year of Astronomy (IYA).

The winner is a group of galaxies called Arp 274. The striking object received 67,021 votes out of the nearly 140,000 votes cast for the six candidate targets.

Arp 274, also known as NGC 5679, is a system of three galaxies that appear to be partially overlapping in the image, although they may be at somewhat different distances. The spiral shapes of two of these galaxies appear mostly intact. The third galaxy (to the far left) is more compact, but shows evidence of star formation.

Two of the three galaxies are forming new stars at a high rate. This is evident in the bright blue knots of star formation that are strung along the arms of the galaxy on the right and along the small galaxy on the left.

The largest component is located in the middle of the three. It appears as a spiral galaxy, which may be barred. The entire system resides at about 400 million light-years away from Earth in the constellation Virgo.

Hubble’s Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 was used to image Arp 274. Blue, visible and infrared filters were combined with a filter that isolates hydrogen emission. The colors in this image reflect the intrinsic color of the different stellar populations that make up the galaxies. Yellowish older stars can be seen in the central bulge of each galaxy. A bright central cluster of stars pinpoint each nucleus. Younger blue stars trace the spiral arms, along with pinkish nebulae that are illuminated by new star formation. Interstellar dust is silhouetted against the starry population. A pair of foreground stars inside our own Milky Way are at far right.

The International Year of Astronomy is the celebration of the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s first observations with a telescope. People around the world came together to participate in the IYA’s 100 Hours of Astronomy, April 2 to 5. This global astronomy event was geared toward encouraging as many people as possible to experience the night sky.

Image Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Livio and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

ARP 274

ARP 274

Filed under: Astronomy/Cosmology/Physics, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

What gay marriage is about

Posted on April 11, 2009 by Michael

There’s this insipidly stupid argument floating around conservative (i.e., non-thinking) circles. It’s that gay marriage is all about children and societal security. This argument is designed to knock down the position that gay marriage is a civil rights issue.

Societies have a vested interest in the welfare of their children because they are the future of that society. A society is more likely to flourish if these children grow up to become responsible, productive and contributing members of that society. In the last half century, social science research has overwhelmingly validated what societies throughout history have learned through practical experience: Children do best by far on every measure of development, achievement and welfare when they are raised by their married biological parents.

In truth, this is an emotional appeal. In other words, it’s useless bull that doesn’t actually mean anything. Let’s start at the top.

The most glaring issue with this is the abuse of science. Aside from almost surely not citing any specific studies, the author is intentionally destroying context. That is, the studies he cites are comparing married parents to unmarried couples, single parents, and possibly parents who adopted. None of these categories is gay parents.

He’s begging the question here. He has set out to show that gay couples will make unstable homes for children yet he assumes that very idea in his argument. That is, he is assuming gay couples are equal to any couple which is not married and the biological parents of the children involved. But if he’s trying to prove that point, he most certainly cannot assume it in his argument. It’s a logical fallacy. “Gay parents are unfit. How do I know they are unfit? Because they are gay parents.”

But here’s the gem of the pro-bigot brigade. They argue that anti-discrimination activists are wrong to compare gay rights to civil rights.

Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell also rejects the argument that sexual orientation is comparable to race. He has testified that: “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

The most interesting thing about all this is that both sides are wrong. Anti-discrimination activists are wrong because the civil rights being violated are not based upon sexual orientation. Pro-bigots are wrong because it is a civil rights issue. It just isn’t about sexual orientation.

Marriage is a secular contract between two people of sound capacity to consent to entering a legal agreement. In other words there are pertinent requirements to entering any contract recognized by the government. In this case they include being of age as determined by state, being willfull, and being able to understand the conditions of the contract. To say that two women cannot marry is discriminate based upon some external requirement to the ones listed. That “external requirement” is not sexual orientation. It is gender. Two women or two men are disallowed from entering a contract based upon gender. That is a civil rights issue. It is against the law – moreover, it is against all common sense. Pro-bigots don’t realize their rights are being trampled, too (mostly because they’re doing the ignorant trampling).

It is primarily to encourage the most positive outcomes for their children that societies encourage men and women to marry and provide special protections and incentives for this social institution. Because same-sex couples obviously cannot produce children, societies historically have never even contemplated allowing them to “marry.”

Liar. Or he’s stupid. Societies have never contemplated allowing gay marriage because societies have historically been filled with bigotry. It has nothing to do with children. But at any rate, this argument is only valid if it is extended properly. Infertile couples must be forbidden from marriage. Elderly couples beyond the ability to reproduce who do not already have children and grandchildren must get divorced; they do not fit the reason for marriage and are thus being rewarded with special protections and incentives without justification.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would so radically change the existing social institution of marriage that it would destroy its time-proven ability to provide essential benefits to society. It would transform marriage from a primarily child-centered institution into something that would be little more than governmental recognition of the professed affection of any two people for each other regardless of their gender.

This is just a bad argument. How does a married gay couple do anything to change the status of a married straight couple? Any interest there is for children in this secular contract can be maintained precisely the same as it has been for so many decades. It is nice, however, that he says “regardless of gender”. It’s good that there’s a twinkle of hope he realizes that this civil rights issue is centered around gender, not sexual orientation.

The link will eventually go dead (unless you want to pay $2.99 for access to old articles from a paper that normally costs $0.75), so I’m posting the article in full here.

Gerald Talbot (“Civil marriage about equal protection of all under the law”) is certainly entitled to his own opinion that allowing homosexuals to marry is a civil rights issue similar to the black civil rights struggle. But he appears to be outside of the mainstream thinking of most U.S. black leadership.

Barack Obama opposes same-sex marriage and he is not only the most prominent black political leader in the world but a former constitutional law professor. No one would seriously argue that he is not a champion of true civil rights.

Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell also rejects the argument that sexual orientation is comparable to race. He has testified that: “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

Dee Garrett, a black civil rights leader in the South in the 1960s, also rejects the claim that this is a legitimate civil rights issue. In an eloquent statement that is posted on YouTube and was widely circulated in the California black community, she said, “It’s (same-sex marriage) not about civil rights. Racism was about civil rights. Marriage is about society, the future and about our children.”

In California, seven out of 10 black voters agreed and voted for Prop 8, which amended the state’s constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage. Many credit these black voters for passing the amendment.

Garrett understands what Talbot clearly does not. Marriage is not about adult needs, desires or convenience, whether for social and governmental recognition and acceptance, for economic advantages and tax breaks or simply to make their life easier. As she points out, marriage is primarily about children and the future of society. Understanding this fundamental truth allows us to place the demands of this tiny minority to be allowed to “marry” into the correct and socially responsible perspective.

Societies have a vested interest in the welfare of their children because they are the future of that society. A society is more likely to flourish if these children grow up to become responsible, productive and contributing members of that society. In the last half century, social science research has overwhelmingly validated what societies throughout history have learned through practical experience: Children do best by far on every measure of development, achievement and welfare when they are raised by their married biological parents.

It is primarily to encourage the most positive outcomes for their children that societies encourage men and women to marry and provide special protections and incentives for this social institution. Because same-sex couples obviously cannot produce children, societies historically have never even contemplated allowing them to “marry.”

Given the critical role of marriage in society, it is easy to understand that defending man/woman marriage is not discrimination. There is no inherent “right” to marry and societies have always regulated this institution for the best interests of society. Brothers and sisters or parents and children cannot marry, for example, nor can minors.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would so radically change the existing social institution of marriage that it would destroy its time-proven ability to provide essential benefits to society. It would transform marriage from a primarily child-centered institution into something that would be little more than governmental recognition of the professed affection of any two people for each other regardless of their gender.

There is absolutely no assurance that this new social institution of “genderless marriage” would, or even could, provide these same essential societal benefits. If it cannot, society and future generations will suffer serious harm. Whether to legalize genderless marriage is much more than a minority “rights” issue.

Bob Emrich, Plymouth, is director of the Maine Jeremiah Project, a grassroots coalition of social conservatives, organizations and churches who support “the sanctity of life, traditional family values, freedom of religion and educational choice” and a state constitutional amendment to protect marriage in Maine; http://www.mainejeremiahproject.com.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Ignoring points

Posted on April 9, 2009 by Michael

People prefer rhetoric. They do not care about the details. That is why creationism thrives. It’s why global warming denialists still have a place. It’s why Republicans get elected (Democrats, too). It’s so much easier to paint life with a broad brush – black and white colors only – than to actually delve into the nuance of existence.

Rather than address specific points, people give responses filled with rhetoric. When did this happen? When did we become a nation based upon the best zinger? Look at Joe the Plumber. That asshole was nothing but a political tool (and real life tool). America ate up that fecal deposit.

Go on to any random message board or comment section for any article. If people are disagreeing about an issue (and they are), they aren’t going point-by-point. They aren’t saying “I disagree with this statement and here’s why”. They’re saying “I disagree with your primary position and for that reason do not care to address anything you say”. It’s vapid.

(By the way, my post title references the final episode of “Band of Brothers”.)

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: | 8 Comments »

More victory

Posted on April 7, 2009 by Michael

The conservatives get knocked down – hard – and all of a sudden, bigotry starts to peel away.

Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature’s vote.

The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote, the minimum needed, to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.

Douglas called override “not unexpected.” He had called the issue of gay marriage a distraction during a time when economic and budget issues were more important.

If this is a distraction, that means it must be taking valuable time away from other, pressing issues. So why did Gov. Douglas veto the legislation? That means that all the work done to get it to him in the first place was wasted. Of course, one could argue that a bill coming to him is largely beyond his control. But he claims he expected an override. In other words, he knew what he was doing was going to take up more time while 123 total non-bigots fixed his error in moral judgement.

“What really disappoints me is that we have spent some time on an issue during which another thousand Vermonters have lost their jobs,” the governor said Tuesday. “We need to turn out attention to balancing a budget without raising taxes, growing the economy, putting more people to work.”

More stable couples help to grow the economy. Idiot.

Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.

“It’s been a very long battle. It’s been almost 20 years to get to this point,” Dostis said. “I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we’re a couple like any other couple. We’re as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we’re good members of our community.”

I have to disagree with the notion that any married couple needs to prove themselves to anyone. This is about principles of equality. If they are contigent upon being good members of a community, they are not principles.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Your kid is a reflection of you

Posted on April 7, 2009 by Michael

It looks like Huntington, Virginia may be losing its title of most disgusting place in America. The new title holder will be…the rest of America.

A striking new study says almost 1 in 5 American 4-year-olds is obese, and the rate is alarmingly higher among American Indian children, with nearly a third of them obese. Researchers were surprised to see differences by race at so early an age.

Overall, more than half a million 4-year-olds are obese, the study suggests. Obesity is more common in Hispanic and black youngsters, too, but the disparity is most startling in American Indians, whose rate is almost double that of whites.

The lead author said that rate is worrisome among children so young, even in a population at higher risk for obesity because of other health problems and economic disadvantages.

“Economic disadvantages” is the biggest cop-out. It is wholly possible to eat healthy without spending a load of money on food. Beside that, it’s really quite easy for most people to go for a fucking walk, even if they do decide to have that diarrhea-inducing chalupa from Taco Bell.

Dr. Glenn Flores, a pediatrics and public health professor at University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas, said the research is an important contribution to studies documenting racial and ethnic disparities in children’s weight.

“The cumulative evidence is alarming because within just a few decades, America will become a ‘minority majority’ nation,” he said. Without interventions, the next generation “will be at very high risk” for heart disease, high blood pressure, cancers, joint diseases and other problems connected with obesity, said Flores, who was not involved in the new research.

The thing is, the numbers released are alarming no matter the ethnicity or race. They are all absurd. No 4 year old should be obese. In fact, no person without an uncontrollable medical condition should be remotely close to obese.

Willingly fat and obese people are immoral monsters. They are willfully throwing away a human life due to laziness. This is hardly any different from being able to prevent a person from being shot in the face but deciding that the re-run of Seinfeld is just too good to pass up. Both instances are wastes of human lives due to being a lazy fuck-up. Overweight people who do not put forth any effort to become healthy and thus save a human life (their own) deserve absolutely no respect. These people should be helped as much as possible until it becomes clear they have no desire to be good individuals. At that point, they deserve all the scorn we would give an attempted murderer. If they die due to their obesity – without ever having attempted a healthy lifestyle – they deserve to be remembered as killers.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »