If Andromeda were brighter…

Posted on December 31, 2013 by Michael

…it would look like this:

Andromeda

Filed under: Astronomy/Cosmology/Physics | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Stephen’s Quintet

Posted on December 30, 2013 by Michael

Stephen's Quintet

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

Get vaccinated

Posted on December 30, 2013 by Michael

It never ceases to amaze me just how many anti-vax people there are out there. Every time I bring up the topic it isn’t the pro-vaccine people who come out in support. No, instead it’s almost exclusively the anti-vax quacks. I suppose the same thing happens with circumcision, 9/11, and a history of Obama’s life: the anti-circumcision crowd, truthers, and birthers are going to immediately overwhelm the discussion. But even with this massive selection bias, the sheer number of nuts out there is incredible. I suspect to see as much regarding this post, should it garner a response at all. However, as a decent human being with a little bit of knowledge, I feel duty-bound to present a few vaccine facts.

Vaccines are incredibly safe. This is true of all vaccines, but especially of the flu vaccine. The most likely side effects anyone is going to suffer are mild soreness or a low grade fever. A study from about 10 years ago did find that one version of the swine flu vaccine from the mid-70’s was associated with a tiny increase in Guillain-Barré syndrome, but correlation is not causation. No one knows why there was such an association, but for this reason those with a history of the syndrome are cautioned and should speak with their doctor to assess their exact situation. Also, those with severe egg allergies are cautioned, plus those who are currently sick with one thing or another should wait.

Vaccines change each year because of evolution. From time to time I’ll hear an objection to the fact that the flu vaccine is different each year. Why, the argument seems to go, scientists are just guessing. That’s not true. While they are making an educated guess, it’s more than just throwing up a prayer and hoping they get it right. Each year’s vaccine is based upon the most recent research and information available. This is necessary because of the speed of a virus’ evolution.

Everyone over 6 months old should get vaccinated. This, of course, takes into account the caveats I’ve already presented, but for the vast majority of people, vaccination is recommended. Vaccines save lives, and if that’s not important enough to you for some crazy reason, they also save money by cutting down on sick days.

The flu vaccine is effective. Exactly how effective the flu vaccine is will vary from year to year, as well as from age group to age group. A person’s overall health is also a factor. In general, though, the vaccine’s effectiveness ranges from 50-80%. The most common (and most annoying) ‘counter’ to this is to look at absolute risk reduction. A person who does this is usually either a quack or has gathered information from a quack. It isn’t that absolute risk reduction is invalid. It’s a perfectly good way to understand how wide-spread a disease or sickness is and how our health policies are dealing with it. For the flu vaccine, the actual reduction in risk is about 1.5%. That sounds miniscule, but we can make a lot of things sound miniscule. What’s happening here is we’re looking at the total population and calculating the number who would get the flu without any vaccine. That’s a very small percentage. Then we’re looking at how likely it is that of the percentage that actually gets vaccinated is going to not get the flu as a result. Again, this is useful. However, when presented in the context of this discussion, it isn’t useful. It would be as if someone argued that since the absolute risk of contracting HIV in Tanzania is very low over, say, intercourse with 5 different partners, the 97-99% effectiveness of condoms is moot. Why, who needs condoms? You probably won’t contract it anyway! Pshaw.

Vaccines, not sanitation, have eradicated or nearly eradicated disease. While it’s obviously true that increased bathing, hand washing, and better filtered water have made us healthier and less likely to contract various diseases, these alone cannot get rid of disease. Smallpox has been eradicated for over 30 years now because of vaccines, not because more people than ever are buying bars of Irish Spring soap. Polio is nearly eradicated because of vaccines; India was recently declared polio free – that isn’t a country exactly known for its impeccable sanitation practices. Yellow fever persists because so many people go unvaccinated (even though the vaccine is 99% effective), and no amount of sanitation is going to change how many people die from it each year since its primary vector is the mosquito.

There are far more thorough sources out there that have vaccine facts covered in much better detail than I have here, so this is far enough for me. I simply wanted to address some of the issues that bother me the most about the vaccine misinformation floating about. For nearly every single person, vaccination is the smart option. The caveats are small and specific, the side effects minor and manageable. Get vaccinated.

Filed under: Evolution, Science | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Thought of the day

Posted on December 30, 2013 by Michael

What I’ve learned from the Internet:

  • Everybody supports Ron Paul
  • No one has ever come up with a valid analogy for anything. Ever.
  • Everybody is a feminist
  • Obama was born in Kenya
  • Vaccines have never worked except to cause autism and, hell, why not AIDS too?
  • All chemicals are bad
  • There has never been a supporter of circumcision ever
  • Only people who eat processed foods get cancer
  • Doctors are only interested in money, not making people better
  • “There”, “they’re”, and “their” are interchangeable

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

An example of the downfall of journalism

Posted on December 27, 2013 by Michael

There was once a time when journalists did their research. They fact-checked themselves or, at the absolute least, had someone else fact-check their articles. My degree isn’t in journalism so I’m not sure if they covered that tidbit in the first or second class of Journalism 101, but I have no doubt it was covered. Well. I have no doubt it was covered prior to the 90’s and early 2000’s before our current crop of ‘journalists’ came about. I suppose I’m not really sure what they’re covering now; I’d ask a journalist, but I’m not really convinced that’s a legitimate source nowadays.

At any rate, I bring up this basic of journalism because I visited a blog by an alleged journalist, Michael Hartwell. As some of you may recall, I had him on my blogroll for some time, but I had to take him off. The simple fact was he didn’t fact-check his material. I don’t know as I expected any change after such a relatively short time, but I went back to his blog at least hoping for something interesting. Instead I found a post about that bigoted, racist Duck Dynasty guy. I’ve done a decent job of avoiding even talking about that garbage, but I admit I’ve been reading about the situation. First, for those who don’t know, a guy from a reality show said this:

Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson is making anti-gay comments in the January issue of GQ.

In statements that threaten the A&E reality hit’s wildly popular and uplifting brand of faith, family and hunting, the Robertson patriarch said: “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

And if that wasn’t explicit enough, the “Duck Commander” added: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

He also said he has never seen the mistreatment of any black people, but I guess we’re all ignoring his racism for this one. At any rate, Hartwell had this to say in his ‘coverage’:

During my workday today I heard three conservative talk radio show hosts defend Phil Robertson, the 60-plus conservative Christian who was fired from the show Duck Dynasty by A&E after he explained his opposition to the gay lifestyle in a magazine interview.

In all three cases, the radio hosts started off their defense of Robertson by saying this was not a free speech issue…

The hosts in question were Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Pat and Stu, co-hosts of Glenn Beck. Beck himself had retired early for the day.

So imagine my surprise when I got home and every left winger online had written about how Robertson’s defenders, and therefor (sic) all conservatives, are all claiming A&E violated his freedom of speech.

Hartwell, upset that “every left winger” is generalizing Robertson’s defenders – he said this without intentional irony – was able to find only a few conservatives who made ridiculous statements:

Truth be told, there were some real examples of folks who said that, including Sarah Palin and apparently, Glenn Beck. There were also some nobody-guests on Fox News at some point during the day and nobodies on Twitter and Facebook pages.

Worry not, everyone. It turns out those filthy liberals are wrong again. Yessirree, deys just be makin’ them things up.

It’d be a real shame if someone did some, ya know, research. Let me pick a few choice quotes from around the Interwebs:

But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment.

That one comes from Bobby Jindal, Republican creationist governor of Louisiana.

If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson. Phil expressed his personal views and his own religious faith; for that, he was suspended from his job. In a free society, anyone is free to disagree with him–but the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree.

You knew one of these quotes would have to come from Ted Cruz. Well, that’s the one.

Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.

Give Hartwell credit for this one because it comes from Sarah Palin.

Of course, there’s more. A Facebook page, for instance, has 60,000 people who are ‘standing for free speech’. I know Hartwell attempted to dismiss these “nobodies”, but he doesn’t get to have things both ways: If he’s going to say things like this – “There’s no evidence to suggest that a majority of conservatives made that too-common error. Some people certainly did, but please don’t tell me that an entire group did it. Even Rush Limbaugh dismissed the idea; that’s not trivial.” – then he has to own up when a large swath of right wingers come out of the wood work to support a stupid idea.

But let’s continue. Another Facebook page, which has a “not trivial” 1.5 million “Likes”, has a picture bragging that they got over a million likes for free speech in just 24 hours. And in case one is so inclined to chalk that up to whoever the random admin on the group happens to be, the picture currently has over 600,000 likes and nearly 75,000 shares. “That’s not trivial.”

Have I made my point yet? Journalism is in dire straights and this is a good case study of that fact. Yes, Hartwell’s blog is just that, a blog. However, he has made it clear in the past that he uses his blog as a sort of showpiece in addition to his regular articles for his career; his blog is there, in large part, so future employers can get an idea of how he covers a story. (That’s why the sentences are simple, usually short, bunched in two or three line paragraphs, and why he very strongly attempts to portray a certain objectivity.) I’m convinced he isn’t doing so hot. His fact-checking hasn’t matured since last year, nor, indeed, has it really changed from his college days when he wrote an article urging biologists to give intelligent design a chance. To his credit he has since figured out why he was so wrong, but that largely came by due to the response from his school’s biology department. Ya know, that department just down the hall, perhaps a building or two over. Ya know. That department he apparently didn’t bother to visit.

Let me end by addressing a detail of Hartwell’s very first sentence in the post in question:

During my workday today I heard three conservative talk radio show hosts defend Phil Robertson, the 60-plus conservative Christian who was fired from the show Duck Dynasty by A&E after he explained his opposition to the gay lifestyle in a magazine interview.

Emphasis mine. Fact-checking also mine:

The network issued the following statement to [Entertainment Weekly]: “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

An A&E spokesperson confirmed this statement means exactly what it says: Robertson is off the show for an as-yet-undetermined period of time. The rest of his family will continue on the reality series.

Emphasis mine.

In other words, he wasn’t fired. He was suspended. Perhaps he’ll never come back. Perhaps he’ll be ready to go next season. Who knows? All we can say is that he was suspended, not fired.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Christmas music

Posted on December 27, 2013 by Michael

I realize I’m a little late, but I make a post about Christmas music every year. Unfortunately, that nasty ice storm cut me off from the Internet for a few days (plus I’ve been busy with Christmas stuff). So that’s why you’re seeing this now. Also, I’ve come to appreciate Judy Garland’s voice quite a bit lately:

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

Merry Christmas

Posted on December 25, 2013 by Michael

One of these days I’m going to update this picture.

Merry Christmas

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

Definitions

Posted on December 19, 2013 by Michael

The feminist definition of sexism is ‘discrimination based upon sex + power’. In other words, the more powerful of the sexes is the only one which can be ever be sexist. Just the same, this definition is appropriated for racism: a power asymmetry is key in determining what is and is not racist. This means that in looking at the US as a whole, only white people can be racist. But this opens up some questions about more specific interactions.

Let’s say we’re in the US southwest. Most of the residents are Hispanic. The city council is Hispanic. The mayor is Hispanic. Most businesses are Hispanic-owned. In this area, the local power is undeniably in favor of Hispanic people. Does that mean a white/black/Asian person cannot be racist here? If not, and if they can be racist a few miles away, what happens in the gray areas? That is, if they can’t be racist in neighborhood A because they aren’t part of the powerful group, but they can be racist in neighborhood C where they are part of the powerful group, what happens in the middle in neighborhood B? Do we defer to national socioeconomics?

And what of minority interactions? If, say, Asian people have greater power as a group than, say, black people, can black people not be racist towards Asian people?

This all seems like a major problem to me. An anonymous statement simply written on a piece of paper apparently may or may not be racist. We can’t know until we’ve found out the skin color and power dynamics of where we are. And then that same statement said by someone of a different skin color suddenly becomes non-racist. I guess I don’t entirely get it. There’s certainly context in statements, but saying “This racial group is less intelligent than that racial group” strikes me as racist no matter who says it.

It seems as though it would be easier to just say sexism is discrimination on the basis of sex, racism is discrimination on the basis of race, and mindsets which force us to view people not as people but as segregated groups defined by their outward characteristics are fundamentally toxic and simply a reverse of the problem, not a fix.

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

Should polygamy be legal?

Posted on December 17, 2013 by Michael

A judge in Utah recently ruled Utah’s anti-polygamy laws unconstitutional:

Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties on Saturday hailed a federal judge’s ruling that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional, saying it will remove the threat of arrest for those families.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

The ruling was a victory for Kody Brown and his four wives who star in the hit TLC reality show ‘‘Sister Wives’’ and other fundamentalist Mormons who believe polygamy brings exaltation in heaven.

This ruling doesn’t legalize polygamy, but if upheld it would decriminalize it. I have no doubt that is the correct ruling, whether due to religious freedom or individual liberty. In either case, I see no reason why any government can tell people with whom they can and cannot live. (Utah didn’t even stop at that rights violation: the state went so far as to say people couldn’t claim to be married to multiple people.) However, the question of legalization is a different one.

It’s hard to see a reason why one should care about the lifestyle choice of consenting adults. I don’t. It doesn’t affect anyone else in any way whatsoever. However, that doesn’t mean the government should necessarily go about endorsing contractual agreements that bestow various rights, privileges, and tax conditions.

The fundamental question concerning the legalization of same-sex marriage is one of equality: the government can’t invent/endorse a practice that it limits on the basis of an inherent human condition like race or sexual orientation – at least not since the 14th Amendment. That’s exactly what it has been doing (and in many states is still doing) by barring same-sex couples from marrying. With polygamy, however, that is not what’s happening. The basis for barring polygamous marriages is rooted, right or wrong, entirely in a moral stance which passes judgement on the preferences, not orientation, of individuals. Polygamous marriages and same-sex marriages are apples and oranges.

None of this – to this point – is to say one way or another whether or not I’m in favor of legalizing polygamous marriages. Up until now I’ve only discussed what it is. So with that said, let me state: I don’t think it should be legal. I have two primary reasons for my position.

First, I believe one of the most important rights bestowed upon couples who get married is one of spousal privilege where a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against another spouse in a court. Aside from the fact that any right which prevents the government from gaining any evidence against a person for any reason is a fundamentally good thing for freedom, spousal privilege is necessary to fostering healthy relationships. Allowing the government to force a spouse to turn on another spouse can only serve to prevent married couples from free discussion, thus weakening their marriages. This right is to marriages as the ecclesiastical privilege is to religious freedom. Just as forcing clergy to divulge information told to them by penitents would weaken a person’s ability to freely practice his religion, forcing a spouse to divulge information gained via marriage would weaken a couple’s marital bonds. Now, the reason I bring this up is that there is absolutely no circumstance in which I believe this right should be destroyed, yet that is exactly what would be necessary if polygamy was legalized. If any number of individuals could marry, there is nothing stopping a criminal enterprise from conducting a mass marriage, thus gaining spousal privilege for any number of thugs. This would be great for their freedom, but it would be very bad for everyone else’s safety. (In a weeks-old discussion from Facebook someone made the point that if just one person wanted a divorce, it would become necessary for all the other spouses to divulge all financial information, which no crime organization would want. I was asked if I really thought such people would expose themselves that way. The answer, of course, is yes. First, it’s a risk, to say the least, to divorce one’s self from a crime organization, whether in a symbolic sense or in this fictional legal world. Second, crime organizations aren’t exactly known for their well reconciled check books.)

Second, it’s hard to fathom how the tax code would cope with this change in law. A fundamental overhaul would be necessary, which could be done I suppose, but no doubt people would take advantage of it for the sake of saving a few bucks, no matter how careful the changes were. I know I would. This isn’t an insurmountable objection to polygamy (hence why it’s my second, not my first, point), but it’s definitely a huge issue.

At any rate, criminalizing polygamy is just making up a crime. And being against polygamy on moral grounds is some pretty weak sauce. However, simply due to a single, fundamental right bestowed upon married couples, I can’t possibly support legalized polygamous marriages. I imagine there are actually a host of rights to be considered here, but I see no need to go beyond just the one given its importance. We can’t get rid of it – that weakens marriage and individual freedom – and we can’t grant it to everyone – the exploitation would be insane – and we can’t grant it to one group of married couples while denying it to another – that’s no different from what we’re seeing now with the non-legalization of same-sex marriage. The only solution is to keep legal marriage defined to two individuals.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social, Religions, Rights, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: | 4 Comments »

Hawaii eye candy

Posted on December 15, 2013 by Michael

I have designs on at least visiting Hawaii in the near future. The purpose of my visit will be, in part, to see how much I might enjoy living there. The rest of my purpose will be, well, look:

Kalalau Lookout, Kauai, Hawaii

via Flickr

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

Next Page »