The American Atheists lawsuit

Posted on August 9, 2011 by Michael

There’s a bit of a hub-bub over a lawsuit by the group American Atheists. Some of it is expected while other reactions are mildly surprising. Here’s the gist. An atheist group is suing over attempts to use a World Trade Center crossbeam as part of a public memorial. The crossbeam is a “t” and basically is viewed as symbolic of the cross of Jesus. We all know this. The atheist group knows it, Christians know it, liberals know, conservatives know it. Anyone who says the beam is not being revered because it represents a particular aspect of a particular religion is just being insincere.

As expected, most Americans find this lawsuit offensive. By and large, it is Christians who really care – this is a symbol of their religion and they believe it is okay to display it publicly while using public funding and government property. But those who are sympathetic to religion also believe the crossbeam ought to be displayed. Or, perhaps more commonly than that, people believe this is a trivial issue. Of course, if we were talking about a Mosque a few blocks away, it might be a different story.

One other reaction has been from PZ. His beef is that this is the wrong battle to pick. People aren’t going to see this at all rationally (plus he sees it as relatively trivial). September 11, 2001 was an emotional day for a lot of people. Attacking any method they use in order to cope is going to be viewed extremely negatively. I can understand that, but I still find this disappointing. PZ doesn’t tend to be one to back away from controversy. Besides that, I’m not sure when the last time it was that he cared about how people are going to react to offensive things. Jon Stewart and Richard Dawkins have also come out against the suit. Stewart did so in part because he views this as a trivial issue over which to sue, but also probably because he has so much emotion tied up in the whole day. Dawkins has posted articles on his site which defends the display as one of many.

As for myself, this seems like a fine lawsuit. Yes, it is politically difficult, and no, it isn’t going to help the image of any atheist group, but so what? The short-term effect will be negative with all the press, but should American Atheists succeed, it will represent a significant win. That crossbeam is only being viewed as special because it is being viewed as representative of the cross on which Jesus died. Atheists, Jews, Muslims, deists, agnostics, and Buddhists don’t see it as special. Why should any of us have to pay for it to be displayed? Why should we be forced to remember all the murdered non-Christians with a Christian symbol? Why can’t we just leave it at the church where it has been? I don’t see any particularly good justification for why it ought to be used as part of a public memorial. And besides, if anyone found any piece of rubble which represented the symbol of any other religion, we all know there would be an uproar against its public display.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News | Tagged: , , , | 8 Comments »

Health care vs health care systems

Posted on August 8, 2011 by Michael

When I say the U.S. has an awful health care system, one of the most common rebuttals is to point out all our great technology. Why, anybody in the world would prefer to have a major medical procedure done in an American setting versus just about any other location. That’s true enough. Our technology is fantastic, and even though our educational system leaves much to be desired, we do have many great doctors, both those bred at home as well as those who come from abroad. But that isn’t what I mean when I talk about our health care system. I’m talking about the way we deliver care, the type of care available to the average citizen, and the cost of that care. Our technology may be wonderful, but that doesn’t mean anything if it costs us exorbitant sums to get it to the average person. Take a look at these two charts:

Of the Western nations surveyed, we spend more than anyone else. Yet in terms of efficiency, we’re ranked 17 out of 19. That’s pitiful.

via PZ.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: | 13 Comments »

Thought of the day

Posted on August 7, 2011 by Michael

Why anyone would want a Jack Russell is beyond me. It has all the uncoolness of a small dog combined with constant, annoying energy. Give me a Golden Retriever or Lab. Ya know, one of those real dogs.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , | 7 Comments »

Even more abuse of science

Posted on August 6, 2011 by Michael

Roxeanne de Luca is an annoying little creature. Without even being a creationist or a Christian she manages to engage in their style of argumentation: Make a positive claim, but pretend like the burden of proof is on the opposition. Even more annoying, she attempts to claim the mantle of science (in fields in which she has no significant experience), even though the specific topic will be a subjective one that cannot be defined scientifically. I’ve written about her antics in the past.

What I’ve also written about in the past is the abuse of science. People will commonly read a study which supports something they believe, but then they will inappropriately extrapolate the evidence. For instance, Christian and other far right bigots will find studies which show that it is categorically better for children to have two parents rather than just one parent. They will then extrapolate that gay parents aren’t good for children. That is wildly inappropriate and an obvious abuse of the far more limited evidence.

But this post is about another favorite topic of the far right: abstinence. They have this cockamamie idea that teenagers can be widely prevented from having sex with each other, therefore it’s okay to keep them ignorant about birth control. We’ve been seeing the deadly effects of this thinking in Africa and to a lesser extent South America thanks to the Catholic Church concerning condoms. Unfortunately, Roxeanne reflects this sort of backward thinking. Responding to a CNN article about the worth of casual sex, she says this:

Later in the CNN article, we are told – brace yourselves, conservatives, this is a shocker – that ‘protection’ is not all its is said to be: “[T]he rate of increased use of a condom does not seem great enough to offset the higher risks of infection.”

The above quote actually has nothing to do with the effectiveness of condoms. What it is saying, just after the article points out that increased sexual partners means increased STD risk, is that more people are using condoms, but they are not using them at a high enough rate in order to combat the frequency of infection. Roxeanne not only got this one dead wrong, but she did some very minor quote-mining. Here is the full excerpt:

“The more partners an individual has,” according to “Sex in America,” “the more likely he or she is to have sex with people who themselves have many partners, the more likely he or she is to have sex with virtual strangers, the more likely she or he is to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol during some sexual encounters, and while it is more likely that a condom was used, the rate of increased use of a condom does not seem great enough to offset the higher risks of infection.”

The obvious solution here is to encourage greater condom use while educating teens and others about their effectiveness. Abstinence is not the answer, nor has it ever been effective on a large social scale.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, I work with troubled teens. It isn’t uncommon that some of them will have kids of their own – sometimes multiple kids – even though they may only be Freshmen or Sophomores in high school. One of the reasons for this is their ignorance about condom usage. During an educational group not too long ago they were being told about the need for such protection and their reactions were along the lines of, “Oh, I never knew that. I’ll start using condoms more often now.” I actually doubt many of them will unless forced by their partner, but the fact that they genuinely didn’t have this basic knowledge is indicative of the need for broad-based educational programs and protection promotion. No one can stop kids from having sex, but we can stop them from being ignorant.

But back to Roxeanne’s inappropriate and embarrassing extrapolation. The article clearly states that the increased rate of condom use is not high enough to combat the higher risks of infection. In other words, while condoms are effective when used properly, they are not being used frequently enough. More common usage can dramatically cut down on the rates of infection, but this will only be achieved through education and safe-sex promotion. At no point is it said that condom protection “is not all its (sic) is said to be”. No one doubts the effectiveness of condoms. The problem is with the effectiveness of educational campaigns and the spread of needed knowledge. People like Roxeanne who, in a willing abuse of science, put out misleading and false information are part of the problem; their promotion of ignorance contributes to increased rates of infection and even death.

Filed under: Politics and Social, Science | Tagged: , , , , | 22 Comments »

State prayers

Posted on August 6, 2011 by Michael

A number of states will be endorsing prayer today. I believe I heard about this awhile ago, perhaps even made a post on it, but it had slipped my mind until I saw a status update on Facebook. Now, as I’ve pointed out here before, Christians love to cherry-pick the parts of the Bible they quote, usually grabbing something from the Gospels. (Funny how they ignore the evils of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, huh?) But thanks to a post at The A-Unicornist, we can all play these selective games. From Matthew 6:5-6:

5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Problem, Christians?

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

New Cosmos

Posted on August 6, 2011 by Michael

A new Cosmos is in the works:

In partnership with Sagan’s colleagues Ann Druyan (who is also his widow) and Steven Soter, Seth MacFarlane — yes, that Seth MacFarlane — is going to produce a new 13-part series to serve as a sequel and modern update to Sagan’s masterpiece.

Taking over the hosting duties will be none other than well-known astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who has served as host of NOVA ScienceNOW on PBS for the past five years, so he has plenty of experience making science accessible to the general public. It would be difficult to think of anyone who would be better able to succeed the late, great Carl Sagan.

The folks working on it will take their time and do it right — it’s not scheduled to air until sometime in 2013.

It will unfortunately be airing on FOX, which means the commercials will be ridiculous, but I suppose it’s good that it will be given a broader audience than PBS gets. And it’s hard to go wrong with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Filed under: Astronomy/Cosmology/Physics, News | Tagged: , , | 7 Comments »

Punching bags

Posted on August 5, 2011 by Michael

I really don’t read Neil’s blog very often. I usually scoot over there for a peak when I’m writing a post for FTSOS and I need to reference an old post. Those old posts often have links back to Neil’s and so I take a glance. And what do I see every time? Something wildly wrong:

The explicit reason for both the junk DNA error and the vestigial organs error was the need to find evidence for Darwinism in the form of stuff in life forms that doesn’t work. Without that need, these errors would not have been made. For many kids, mid-twentieth century, it was an error that resulted in needless, risky surgeries, removing supposedly vestigial tonsils and adenoids.

Neil is quoting from Uncommon Descent, a creationist blog that demonstrates the same understanding of biology as Neil has – none. That’s why this is such an easy one.

First, most DNA still is junk, i.e., non-coding and without use. It’s largely unneeded and has no developmental use or phenotypic effect. What was once labeled “junk” may have regulatory business to go about, but that is not the majority of DNA. Deal with it, creationists.

Second, I can’t believe creationists are still confused about vestigial structures. It was never the argument that these structures used to have a function and now they don’t. The argument was – and is – that they evolved to have a particular function, but they have since lost that function. They may well have been co-opted into having other uses, but that is not important to whether or not they are vestigial. Uncommon Descent and Neil ought to be hugely embarrassed.

Third and finally, tonsils were historically taken out for a number of reasons. One reason has to do with the availability of medicine to treat inflammation. It wasn’t until the middle of the previous century that penicillin and erythromycin were put into wide-spread use. Without that treatment option, surgery was a very viable solution. Second, improvements in surgical techniques plus the 19th century discovery of anesthesia made surgery that much easier. Third, long-term statistics were not particularly available concerning the effectiveness of the surgery. It was clear that it improved a person’s well being in the short-term as far as inflammation and soar throats were concerned, but beyond that it was a bit of a mystery. What was clear was that it did not pose significant long-term risks. Finally, the practice of removing one’s tonsils dates back approximately 2800 years prior to Darwin. The procedure is not based upon evolutionary thinking, nor was it ever utilized in an attempt to justify any claims about the vestigial nature of tonsils.

This is getting to be too easy.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Apparently I’m a conservative

Posted on August 5, 2011 by Michael

I know, I know. I had no idea either, but as it turns out I’m apparently a conservative. I discovered this fact about myself when I did one of my periodic checks of Without Apology. As many of you will know, it is the online version of a publication I produced primarily from the fall of ’09 to the spring of ’10. I also created a version earlier this year in which I featured an article by Michael Hartwell titled “Why Buying Local Doesn’t Work”. As the title indicates, it is an economics piece about the “buy local” movement. I had in the past called the movement reasonable, but Michael’s piece actually convinced me otherwise. That doesn’t mean I would refuse to buy locally produced items – I’m going to buy what appeals to me – but I certainly will not buy any local items for the sake of helping the local economy. (Furthermore, in the piece where I called the movement reasonable, the author to whom I was referring indicated that local farmers especially use antibiotics responsibly. That isn’t particularly true. Perhaps they are responsible, but so are millions of other farmers around the nation.)

But back to my personal discovery. When doing my check on the FTSOS sister site, I noticed a pingback from a Marc Levy concerning Michael’s article:

There’s an essay making the rounds about “Why buying local doesn’t work” that might give the buy-local fans in Cambridge and Somerville pause — right up until they finish reading the essay and think, as I did, “That’s it?”

Because it was posted on a sober-looking site and written in a sprightly but informed manner by someone obviously conversant with current and historical economics, I read the piece expecting to come out of it with my beliefs shaken, looking for reassurance. But my dread was unfulfilled. There’s something a little off about the piece, and it only seemed a little more off when I followed the author’s name from the essay, which was reposted on a blog curiously named “Without Apology,” to his own site, the even more eyebrow-raisingly named “Young, Hip and Conservative: A Skeptical Blog.” Both do that thing where conservatives boldly assert their bold conservativeness, which is actually a form of assuming the role of victim before anyone has attacked. Who is asking Michael Hawkins for an apology? Who said Michael Hartwell was gullible? It also seems a bit gauche to declare yourself hip.

Emphasis mine.

It’s one thing for me to discover at this age that I’m actually a conservative, but it’s a real mind-blower to find out that I’m a bold conservative. I don’t know what to do with myself.

Oh wait. That’s right. This is just a case of someone not doing his homework. But that isn’t the worst of Levy. In response to an analogy Michael made between creationists and localists, Levy tosses out this assemblage of words:

The problem with Hartwell’s comparison of economics to biology by way of rejecting creationism is that creationist theory relies on a supreme being, and there is no god in even moderately serious economics — unless you include the god conservatives themselves seem to keep praying will make supply-side economics work the next time around, even though it never has before. If that doesn’t take faith, I don’t know what does, although applying it that way also comes parlously (sic) close to the definition of insanity being “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” But that’s economics for you.

If there’s one thing anyone should know about the Internet it’s that nobody is willing to accept anyone else’s analogies. The most common tactic of rejection is to draw distinctions within the actual subject to show that the analogy is invalid – and that is correct and proper. But another tactic is to take the analogy beyond its intentions and show where it fails. And of course it will eventually fail. Analogies are only designed to go so far. In this case, Michael’s analogy was to compare the ignorance of creationists to the ignorance of localists. But then Levy dons either his dunce hat or troll mask – I really can’t tell – and mangles the whole thing, bumbling his way into a failed stock retort involving deities and faith.

I’ll let Michael respond to the rest. (He could really just copy and paste much of what he has already written since Levy doesn’t seem to take much of it into account in his reply.) I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew – most of all myself – that I’m apparently a conservative. May the Lord bless Reagan’s dear soul, may FDR continue to burn in hell, and let it be known that FOX News is totally fair and balanced.

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

Another one no theist can adequately answer

Posted on August 4, 2011 by Michael

Filed under: Humor | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Macho chest beating

Posted on August 4, 2011 by Michael

I feel I have this interesting mix of emotions when it comes to fitness, if only because I know people tend to be willing to overlook important distinctions. On the one hand, I very much enjoy weight lifting and athletic competition. I want to be as strong as I can be, and I want to always win at whatever I’m playing – I never going into any game willing to lose. I like to discuss form, breathing, technique, and everything else that comes with lifting. And I’m not afraid to ask others what is they bench or squat or whathaveyou, provided I know they also go to a gym. But on the other hand, I hate macho chest beating. I’ve seen it on FTSOS at least twice, and I hear it at the gym from time to time. It’s annoying and immature and it shows a lack of appreciation for what weight lifting is about.

Just today I saw someone on the bench press (monopolizing the friggin’ thing) working out of form – wildly. I saw him pressing 200lbs for his sets and doing fine, but when he went up in weight to 220lbs, he began arching his back higher than I’ve ever seen anyone go. His toes were the only thing touching the ground and he was clearly using his full body – not just the muscles the bench press is meant to target – in order to get through the exercise. He was probably trying to impress his friend, which was ridiculous since his friend never went above 130lbs anyway. Besides that, he did not improve his bench press in any meaningful way.

For another example, just last week I heard two guys making disparaging comments about others in the gym who were under tutelage or doing simply, relatively easy exercises. They kept it to themselves, not directing any comment to any one person, but it was still annoying, and on three levels. First, it was stupid macho chest beating. Second, it was mocking people who were putting forth an honest effort to better themselves – I disapprove of those who are willingly fat and out-of-shape, but there is nothing wrong with being fat while attempting to become healthy. And third, these two guys were acting as though they were the toughest thing that gym had ever seen. They weren’t. Aside from the massively strong – and generally humble – guys I’ve seen around there, I was out-lifting them. And they each out-weighed me by about 30lbs.

And then there’s this example from Yahoo! Sports writer Jeff Passan:

There is an umpire problem in Major League Baseball, and it has nothing to do with blown calls or instant replay. It’s about a distinct lack of respect and baseball players’ cowardice in treating umpires as some subspecies, knowing the worst thing that can fly back at them is a suspension instead of a fist.

Most MLB players are far larger and far stronger than MLB umpires. I doubt they would be afraid to engage one of them in a fight if they could. After all, most teams get into a few brawls on the field every year – and that’s against other baseball players. Ya know, those guys who are professional athletes. It’s ridiculous to not only place false bravado on the players but to also pretend like an umpires fist is a big threat to these guys. It’s Passan who is throwing out the made up bravado, not the players.

So yeah, it bugs me when people try to play up the macho card. It’s worse when it’s done so by those who aren’t actually the strongest in the room – they deserve to be put in their place simply for getting their facts so wildly wrong – but it’s stupid when anyone does it. None of this should take away from a good appreciation for what weight lifting or athletics is about, but I do think it is good to maintain a distinction between being a macho jerk and just being a person who cares about fitness.

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »