tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31508759285649604252024-03-05T08:45:35.413-05:00Heathen ScientistHeathen Scientist is the pen name of an evolutionary biologist from Europe who is living in the South of the USA, who is astonished by the complete insane culture war over religion, evolution, homosexuality and everything else. She herself is a Heathen, a follower of the Norse Gods and Goddesses, a lesbian, and an evolutionary biologist. Welcome to the Deep South my dear.....Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-37250098500403723792013-04-21T22:20:00.000-04:002013-04-21T22:20:20.225-04:00Wikipedia, rule fetishism and megalomania!Wikipedia's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee">Arbitration Committee</a> is currently deciding how to deal with the some editors at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology">Sexology pages</a>. It is going to be a nice disaster, but that is a topic for another time. No, this evening, one of the member of the ArbCom wrote this gem in response to the editor they are going to kick of the sexology pages:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FSexology%2FProposed_decision&diff=551546418&oldid=551508932">There is nothing stopping you (or academics active in the field who disagree with how this case went or how the articles look) to publish (somewhere suitable) a critique of the current state of the articles and what they should look like.</a></blockquote>
Just wondering, would this blog be good enough? Nah, it does not fit <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS">WP:RS</a> (Identification of 'reliable' sources.....). Just let it sink in what he (she?) writes.....<br />
.....<br />
.....<br />
.....<br />
.....<br />
.....<br />
.....<br />
.....<br />
.....<br />
Did you catch it? Yes, good. No, okay, I explain.<br />
<br />
An active member of the ArbCom just suggested that Wikipedia is so important that it is worth to write an article about what the hell is wrong with some articles, and get it published in a reputable place that can pass WP:RS, after which the editors of Wikipedia can finally include it. Really, a bit of an ego problem? Leave the bit out, replace it with huge. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the consensus in the field. The consensus is that hebephilia is bogus. Not a mental disorder.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I digress.... What the ArbCom member is saying is that the rule fetishism at Wikipedia trumps the already established consensus on this topic outside of Wikipedia, and that if you feel that the article needs to reflect that consensus better, you have to write an article outside of Wikipedia that can pass the rules of Wikipedia so that in the end, the article can reflect the already established consensus on this topic. I think this is a sign of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania">megalomania</a>!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-26302241560812222082012-11-25T22:01:00.001-05:002012-11-25T22:01:32.920-05:00Soul, Science and Abortion: Some thoughtsRecently, I had an idiot try to make the 'scientific' argument that a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a human being. I think the person was just trying to wrap his ideological/religious bullshit in a wrapper of prestige and in that way try to convince people to ban abortions in all cases. Anyway, I wrote a elaborate response, and I reproduce that here.<br />
<br />
To equate a fertilized egg to a human being is the same as equating a death corps to a human being. They have exactly the same genetic material. So, what is the key difference between a living person and a death person? A theist would say a soul, but we were trying to find a scientific argument to equate a fertilized egg with a human. So, we are limited to substance monism to explain the mind. Three
versions exist: behaviorism, functionalism, and mind-brain identity theory. Behaviorism attempts to explain mental states in terms of behavior. Functionalism holds that mental states are defined by their functional role, by the effect that they have on us. Mind-brain identity theory holds that the mind and the brain are one and the same thing, and that the mind arises from the interaction of nerve cells in the brain. Once enough interactions between the nerve cells stop, you are dead.<br />
A kidney taken out of a body for transplant does not have a life on its own, nor is the soul of the donor split and partially merged with the recipient. So, where is the soul/mind located? That location would be the brain. And as I indicated above, once enough nerve cells stop contributing, you are dead. The flip side of this argument is that you cannot have a mind until you have enough interacting nerve cells in the brain to generate a mind. For nerve cells to be able to interact, they have to form synapses. Synaptogenesis happens relative late during development, somewhere after week 20. This implies that scientifically speaking, you do not have a soul/mind before that happens, because the required nerve interactions are absent.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-39503801336175557242012-09-15T15:00:00.001-04:002012-09-15T20:10:15.366-04:00Keith Weiner: Big mouth spinless living in lala landKeith Weiner is the <a href="http://www.goldstandardinstitute.com/People.aspx">US president of the Gold Standard Institute</a>. He is an objectivist in the mold of Ayn Rand, and like most of the people of the Gold Standard Institute, he likes the <a href="http://mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp">Austrian School of Economics</a>, a fringe group within the economic research field.<br />
<br />
Kieth has a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/keith.weiner.5">facebook page</a>. You can subscribe to it, but my interactions with him showed that he has no interest in pursuing the truth, the reason he has that page is to have an echo chamber for his rants against Obama and the current administration. Many dutifully oblige and sprout their own ignorant rants against him. So, why did I come to that conclusion. It started with a post about how the economy was not recovering. I saw a mutual friend post something, and I decided to read the tread. I think the economy is recovering as we are not loosing 700,000 jobs a month, but instead are adding modest number of jobs each month. Is the number of jobs added enough, no, but it is an improvement. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisVLiNYdI7fCiPQYcvDH9XiJVAu6o3gMzbPjllLfbnez2FrLkx4dUt_D-0eOyktLZqQHwZGWs3p7ij7wqJRcAwy07HrqJGI9SZiJsGN_Pn3n_M_cHuQenG7x0wwhjfWXlMGbzkxfWS4tI/s1600/PayrollAug2012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisVLiNYdI7fCiPQYcvDH9XiJVAu6o3gMzbPjllLfbnez2FrLkx4dUt_D-0eOyktLZqQHwZGWs3p7ij7wqJRcAwy07HrqJGI9SZiJsGN_Pn3n_M_cHuQenG7x0wwhjfWXlMGbzkxfWS4tI/s320/PayrollAug2012.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The reply that I got from him was that there are still many people added to the food stamp program. So I checked. It is true, but here again, the number of people added to the food-stamp program was seriously reduced.<br />
<span id="goog_991763260"></span><br />
<span id="goog_991763261"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Added3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Added3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
So, what we see is that in 2009,l about 550,000 people a month were added to the food-stamp roles, while now, that is less than 50,000, and the <a href="http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm">total number has been hovering between 46 and 47 million since last 2011</a>.<br />
<br />
So, now that we have the back ground, what happened when I pointed this out to our Gold Standard Institute president for the USA. Sounds impressive, and he just had tried to persuade me that he was obviously right with a statement about me having a PhD. he then continued with:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicf57OdPzP_XN9jNrde26xzmZXEbOCc185Phf7f0aKrxE3HBsgUDQRTj5cv5rT-RUXRNw2G77O5FR-lp_b62-1of0ZZYlJlTZ64D1d7HEtbH9_SqZ9opIE8oBOUg9gqxcQEN5v4NlT5S3g/s1600/1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicf57OdPzP_XN9jNrde26xzmZXEbOCc185Phf7f0aKrxE3HBsgUDQRTj5cv5rT-RUXRNw2G77O5FR-lp_b62-1of0ZZYlJlTZ64D1d7HEtbH9_SqZ9opIE8oBOUg9gqxcQEN5v4NlT5S3g/s1600/1.png" /></a></div>
That was the last graph I shows above. Really? So, I responded:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUzo0l_Akw9GAoojKieMPVGX2H8eLa6EaNXQ6w33LBmz0VRCM3drniS3aNZ-a9H1GeDiccwyw-tH3yAHrcStsYmn3oABMNDk7nSFMvR0Ypz2oFJB-ONuGh0zJPpk0QYrfOKm0vo8ZmyhzH/s1600/2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUzo0l_Akw9GAoojKieMPVGX2H8eLa6EaNXQ6w33LBmz0VRCM3drniS3aNZ-a9H1GeDiccwyw-tH3yAHrcStsYmn3oABMNDk7nSFMvR0Ypz2oFJB-ONuGh0zJPpk0QYrfOKm0vo8ZmyhzH/s1600/2.png" /></a></div>
the 2011 and 2012 data are under the more, but you get the picture that I explained the data oif the graph that you can see above.<br />
<br />
Kieth responded with:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuauLeApqZV25nSnYetzPkfFVF6tQ4Zxm80LE_Dg9d6353QpexHdumQyq6fWOD5uhd6SjwTtftoQWQOKvZKe1ywTYTWfW7LuJa1Eda8BWKzhCUBpWqIQc3FPAQ6ZKsbOC1ZDbawV-cz2Mq/s1600/3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuauLeApqZV25nSnYetzPkfFVF6tQ4Zxm80LE_Dg9d6353QpexHdumQyq6fWOD5uhd6SjwTtftoQWQOKvZKe1ywTYTWfW7LuJa1Eda8BWKzhCUBpWqIQc3FPAQ6ZKsbOC1ZDbawV-cz2Mq/s1600/3.png" /></a></div>
Yes, I have a PhD in biology, and statistics is one of those things I am actually REALLY good with. So, I know the difference of total number and rate changes. Remember, we were having a discussion on his claim that the economy was not yet improving, and that is basically a discussion about rate changes, not absolutes. We were not having a discussion whether the economy was already good enough. So, I posted the following response (I snapped the screenshot in the middle of him deleting the comment, see below):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8mNCs9yMs4d-5nS8leZOhBoaTEX1FXmK9icljh7Z1bj3b3NufGe1cfHHug2txQBErcykXRN8vMNOW3vYXxtr7qNwWchBA6vBovhhMOSkeOJ8vEds3kcX3suHBc0sPvZ8r6WmsGNoeL7Cp/s1600/4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8mNCs9yMs4d-5nS8leZOhBoaTEX1FXmK9icljh7Z1bj3b3NufGe1cfHHug2txQBErcykXRN8vMNOW3vYXxtr7qNwWchBA6vBovhhMOSkeOJ8vEds3kcX3suHBc0sPvZ8r6WmsGNoeL7Cp/s1600/4.png" /></a></div>
This made me think, are the rates really changing, because I had eyeballed the previous graph, but what is the variation realtive to the total? This graph shows that there is pretty much no change lately:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Monthly2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Monthly2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
This data shows the same thing as the link to the website I gave above, we have some fluctuations going on but the total number is pretty much stable between 46 and 47 million. So, I posted a follow up response:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwHuxu_VGUAz3MKYxqL5cEJFMo16xrJUNSibfhyphenhyphenFGPfDL8I5cIMydeE_0WS6LbHzgsd6lF6H5qKCMoSgQ11rJ-1sAToz4Dn2odpktV_ikN0O75JBzjW-Y7rQnzFaVQ_of24rSKsYn8sEWI/s1600/5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwHuxu_VGUAz3MKYxqL5cEJFMo16xrJUNSibfhyphenhyphenFGPfDL8I5cIMydeE_0WS6LbHzgsd6lF6H5qKCMoSgQ11rJ-1sAToz4Dn2odpktV_ikN0O75JBzjW-Y7rQnzFaVQ_of24rSKsYn8sEWI/s1600/5.png" /></a></div>
<br />
50,000 on 46,000,000 is about a 0.1% change. So, in absolute sense, yes, people are till added. But that was not the point, the point was whether or not the economy was improving. And the 10 fold reduction in number of people added is definitively a sign that the economy is recovering.<br />
<br />
Kieth didn't like this. he had already said several times that I should leave because he though I had an ax to grind and shit like that, while in reality, I was following where the data was leading me.<br />
<br />
So, next thing what happens is that he start deleting the last two responses, resulting in me posting a question about it (I include the previous post of him so you can see he deleted the posts in between):<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy6iDQnn94WqFux7cD66g6FBVFVd88PPf7KgjEELK2AVTqvpiPfXJ-S4Sf-LaLsrQoU1ZhTUDSkqPD6huTWeOHqpI-lMDiy1YJEsnZB4WW4UTXt3mbA_veTeHx0s6S-pcNQGExGcq08biL/s1600/6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy6iDQnn94WqFux7cD66g6FBVFVd88PPf7KgjEELK2AVTqvpiPfXJ-S4Sf-LaLsrQoU1ZhTUDSkqPD6huTWeOHqpI-lMDiy1YJEsnZB4WW4UTXt3mbA_veTeHx0s6S-pcNQGExGcq08biL/s1600/6.png" /></a></div>
<br />
The next thing I know is that he blocks me:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqW2pxaZRDWkNF5uuyQu-xl6WgEMi7FtcoxYs-8hI4g8rQYcjD1KuGH5V39W8AZnyMsGTROPPqBQlrAq7RnRfzn34vqFJyXEd3G8E_nB9hBTCn3Cttk3t_eTmZIQmgXygDCwEFhAd52859/s1600/7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqW2pxaZRDWkNF5uuyQu-xl6WgEMi7FtcoxYs-8hI4g8rQYcjD1KuGH5V39W8AZnyMsGTROPPqBQlrAq7RnRfzn34vqFJyXEd3G8E_nB9hBTCn3Cttk3t_eTmZIQmgXygDCwEFhAd52859/s1600/7.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAaMUdacu01zl0LUoLfRDvNC37FkhC-MUNTVcUpsvuxnEa2rFnYj8HWUkuWRdU7CrlZLij74cox887ERO4CbeoM_g9dYlJfSCe4sWV1R4TKOaEr88PobrwaQLBt8Bm0TOq3Rhu_pWvfEYW/s1600/7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
So, what do we have here. I think we have a guy with a big ego (he claims he has already a PhD at the Gold Standard Institute Website ("<a href="http://www.goldstandardinstitute.com/People.aspx">He is an Objectivist who has earned his PhD New Austrian School of Economics, with a focus on monetary science.</a>"), but at <a href="http://keithweiner.posterous.com/a-free-market-for-goods-services-and-money">his own blog he writes that the professor has not yet signed off on it</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibENxYX4XNqNoYRAwP22HhTl72caC6OCrx1HrCC3qZQKsq2x4bJ-E4Y7n2WSt-dXaypEdhkdqZiyl464Et0CJo_-cAmfR-9XGYzMlFIPSuZlwXfSpRYScW0oY9OyeaqSlB0I7G45rIx7RX/s1600/PhD.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibENxYX4XNqNoYRAwP22HhTl72caC6OCrx1HrCC3qZQKsq2x4bJ-E4Y7n2WSt-dXaypEdhkdqZiyl464Et0CJo_-cAmfR-9XGYzMlFIPSuZlwXfSpRYScW0oY9OyeaqSlB0I7G45rIx7RX/s640/PhD.png" width="435" /></a></div>
I have read the thesis, or at least the abstract and introduction. It reads like a love letter to Ayn Rand. Over the years, I have seen a few PhD theses, including ones outside my field, and this one does not have the substance of a rigorous work, but instead read more like a opinion piece of his personal thoughts. I expect that for term papers discussing things, not of a thesis. My feeling was confirmed when I saw the very very short reference list, in which many of the Ayn Rand works took up considerable space. But enough about the lack of scientific rigor in the PhD, I think that point is clear.<br />
<br />
So, what we have here is a guy with a big ego, who likes echo chambers, and stifles people who do not walk the party line. This same guy has the impressive title of "President of the Institute - USA" (screenshot in case it is deleted):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCKz5kJAZJJnPb58oW8cV6mbMJlU4eMhGbNbI5iUk6k90WGvOZnv1FQrnlAQSPzcuZ-rW_UO15StM87EPjQ2zPViEZEu9tEKkP2Xfkgn-3SlYdd5nJ2SiTVSY5wq3SsVwgkfXYoAjX160o/s1600/Presidente.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="185" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCKz5kJAZJJnPb58oW8cV6mbMJlU4eMhGbNbI5iUk6k90WGvOZnv1FQrnlAQSPzcuZ-rW_UO15StM87EPjQ2zPViEZEu9tEKkP2Xfkgn-3SlYdd5nJ2SiTVSY5wq3SsVwgkfXYoAjX160o/s200/Presidente.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
Yes, despite his 'prestigious' position, he cannot handle that he was proven wrong in a claim. I think that is pathetic, and quite frankly, I think the Gold Standard Institute has invited a problem, not an asset into their organization. I think <a href="http://maxkeiser.com/tag/keith-weiner/">the booting of Sandeep Jaitly</a> is just more of the same.<br />
<br />
And oh, never ask Keith whether we should make bankruptcies impossible for people with medical debts that saved their lives. Because he has enough morals to see you do have to help someone who ends up in the ER with a life-threatening emergency, but he does not want to pay for it with tax dollars. So, he wants to get the money from the patient, no matter what. I never came to asking him how to pluck a naked chicken, or how to get money from someone who did not survive the ER and racked up loads of cost anyway. Maybe he wants to make debt inheritable and pluck the offspring. I will never know, but I do know that I think that he is spineless guy with a big ego who cannot function outside his own echo chambers. I wish him good luck with living in lala land where he can be the supreme dictator. In the meanwhile, I am going to give a damn about the people around me.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-11827178608377567192012-06-19T23:02:00.002-04:002012-06-19T23:12:03.158-04:00$850,000 study proves that sexual orientation does not change the negative effect of instable home situationsEarlier today, I wrote about how Mark Regnerus has decided to trash his academic career in order to bash some gays. The study was paid for by two right wing outlets known for their anti-gay stance, so it is not surprising that the study concludes what the master preaches. The Witherspoon Institute gave two grants, one of $55,000 and a second of $695,000, while the closely linked Bradley Foundation paid $90,000. Combined with his salary from the university, we have a study of about one million dollars. Most highly expensive high tech ground breaking medical studies do not get that much money......<br />
<br />
So, what did the Witherspoon Institute and Bradley Foundation get for all that money? They got a piece of crap, that if anything, only showed a single thing, and that is that kids in unstable situation do less good than in more stable situations. That is not new, the only thing that is new is that we now know that if there is some same-sex attraction in the other wise unstable situations, it doesn't make a dime of difference in the outcome. Well, I do not think that that was worth a million bucks.....<br />
<br />
Or maybe it is. Lets see. There are already plenty studies showing that kids in stable same-sex families are doing at least as good as their counterparts in heterosexual families. Now we know also that if the same-sex families are less stable, they do less good as well. So, if we want kids to do well, we need to provide them with stable environments. And what is the best form for that, marriage. Same-sex marriage. So, what the Witherspoon Institute and Bradley Foundation have gotten for their expensive study is additional proof that what they want is BAD! Congratulations.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-66547851487002124452012-06-19T10:34:00.001-04:002012-06-19T10:34:16.304-04:00Mark Regnerus' slide into the abyssLast week, Mark Regnerus, managed to publish an abysmal bad and politically motivated study on how kids of gay parents are doing worse than kids of intact biological families. I have read the article, and it is a master piece of gay bashing. Yes, there are the mandatory caveats, but really, the study design is so abysmally bad that you have to wonder how the hell passed his tenure review. Well, I have an idea, by staying away of the highly controversial topics till he had tenure.This means two things.<br />
<br />
1. The study was not bad because he does not know better. He knows the ropes of the field, and the bad design has to be deliberate.<br />
<br />2. As he has not yet published anything before on the topic is same-sex parenting, so one can wonder whether he had a long time plan to do this distorted research in order to make his point.<br />
<br />
Anyway, his name is now widely linked to abysmal bad research that has the smell of homophobia and deliberate distortion. The academic fall-out will only become visible in the years to come, when researchers prefer to stay away from him because of his overt anti-gay agenda.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-62733344810776873402011-10-10T14:10:00.005-04:002011-10-10T14:53:23.437-04:00Education reformEducation is the key to the future. Most people will agree on this. But can be capitalize education and get the result we want. Like a previous post about why <a href="http://heathenscientist.blogspot.com/2011/03/paying-through-nose-for-emergency-room.html">health care</a> is so outrageous expensive in this country, capitalization of education fails for similar reasons.<br /><br />The key problem with the dropping effectivity of education is that it serves the wrong customer. Colleges and universities serve the students. And the state and federal government encourages that for the same flawed logic. They demand certain graduation rates, or they cut the budget under the idea that low graduation rates means bad education. I argue that it is much more likely that the opposite is true. Let me explain.<br /><br />When you measure universities and colleges by their graduation rates, there are two ways to achieve that. One is to do a better job at teaching (which is the hope), and the second is to lower the requirements for graduation. When two options to achieve the same arbitrary goal exist, what does a system do? It finds the easiest way to a solution. And in this case, that is often by lowering the requirements for graduation. Because if you lower the requirements by 1%, you will have instant increased graduation rates. Try doing that by improving teaching.<br /><br />The core of the problem under all this is the wrong focus on who is the client. As I indicated above, the focus is on students as the client. And rule number one in business is to satisfy the client. So, what to do when too many students fail their class and become dissatisfied clients? Lower the requirements so they can graduate.<br /><br />But this problem goes deeper. A standard aspect of teacher evaluation at universities is student evaluations. Sounds great. Let the students evaluate the teacher. The client gives feeback to the producer about the quality of the product. Perfect example of consumer driven evaluation. Very capitalistic! And it works. Bad teachers get bad evaluations. And that is how it is supposed to be. Right? really? Does it?<br /><br />It doesn't. It doesn't because it focuses on the wrong client. Universities traditionally have as a task to produce people who can do certain professions in society. Whether this are public of private institutions, even the later receive most money from the government through grants and loans to students (independent of the student can actually pay those loans back).<br /><br />So, why is the government paying so much for education? To subsidize the dreams of individuals? No. When dreams of students match up with their major, nice, but ultimately, governments spend money on education to educate people so they can contribute to society. And with that in mind, we should realize that the client the universities need to serve is society.<br /><br />And what would that change? Well, if we take the needs of society as the benchmark for education, graduation rates as a primary measure of success are useless. Graduation rates are nothing if those students cannot find jobs at the level they are supposedly being trained for. But that should be the criteria for success.<br /><br />This criteria contains two factors. One is the level at which they are supposed to be trained and the second is whether the university was successful in doing exactly that. Once we step away from student driven quality norms, and go to society driven quality norms, we get a handle to actually reform education and bring it to the level it needs to be at.<br /><br />Instead of having teachers lowering their standards so they have 70% of the students pass the class, we have to get to setting a priori standard of what students should know, and if 80%, of the students fail for a class, so be it. The students that survive will at least know what they need to know. And once we measure universities by how well their students do instead of have they jumped the hoops in the proper order, maybe we can stop the gradual decline in oblivion.<br /><br />PS, don't get me going about the practice of grade curving, which is the ultimate tool for students as a group to lower the standards for a class by collectively sitting back and do nothing. Because in the end, if you are just a tad better than the 20% losers, you have a good grade. Students don't compete against each other, they find the best strategy to passing grades that leaves most time for partying.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-28715799077346065282011-03-29T10:00:00.002-04:002011-10-10T14:13:52.681-04:00Paying through the nose for emergency room visits so that Americans can proclaim they have freedom of choice when it comes to health care insurance!Last weekend, I had a wonderful discussion with one of my hard-core republican neighbors about health care insurance and Obama care. She was very much opposed to socialized health care because it was socialism. Eeeuuuwwwwww..... No, you should take care of that yourself, and if you are not working, tough luck, because everybody who can work can have healthcare insurance. Right...... (That's a blog post on its own, I leave that for another time)<br /><br />Anyway, she was very much surprised when I told here that the <a href="http://www.lean.org/common/display/?o=1274">socialized health care in the Netherlands was cheaper per capita than in the capitalized US health care 'system'</a>. Of course she didn't believe me. O well.<br /><br />But the most interesting part was the discussion about why the costs for health care per capita in the US are larger than any other country. There are of course a whole slew of reasons for that, but one that I like to discuss here is the use of Emergency Rooms as last ditch primary care. People without health care insurance often wait with going to the doctor when they are sick in the hope that it will go away with home remedies, over the counter medication, or that the body deals with it by itself. But when that does not happen, people end up in the room when the situation worsens and they need urgent care. That is were the costs come in, because a 100 dollar visit to a primary care physician has now multiplied itself to a 1,000+ dollar bill. A bill they cannot pay anyways.<br /><br />Here is the crux. My neighbor, who vehemently opposed ObamaCare because it was ugly socialism, really really agreed with the statement that we could not let people die. At the same time, she really really didn't want to have socialized health care because it is evil socialist yuckyness.... This dual choice results in lack of primary care (which is cheap) for many people and racked up emergency room bills (which is really expensive) for those waiting too long in order to avoid large health care bills. So, who is paying those emergency room bills? Well, not the people who tried to avoid using the health care system in the first place because they don't have the money to pay for it. They are more likely to go bankrupt because of it. Wna when that happens, who pays the bill? Exactly, the taxpayer.<br /><br />In short, her choice to have 'freedom' in whether to have health care insurance resulted in higher costs for society because we were not consistent with our mantra that everybody should take care of themselves. Because when it comes to the point of letting someone die, society at large has decided that letting someone die of a curabvle medical issue is not accaptable, hence we allow gthem to flock the increadible expensive emergeny rooms, but we refuse to provide them with a cheaper option because it infringes on the perceived 'freedom' of choosing yourself whether you want to have health care or not. This inconsitency results in far mo0re tax payer dollars to go to health care then when we would be consistent in our choice. Either we choose to have the freedom to be insurced or not buit we let people die who do not have health care insurance, or we provide a meaningful option so that everybody can have affordable health care. This hybrid system of denying health care when you are not yet almost dead but allowing to use the emergency room as a last ditch effort to prevent someone from becoming a carcass is the most expensive compromise you can imagine. But try to tell that to someone who listen only to the republican propaganda channel to Fox News.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-3466125336036369412010-09-23T21:39:00.011-04:002010-09-27T21:16:54.869-04:00Pedophilia whitewash at WikipediaAs some of you know, I regularly edit wikipedia articles. Just for fun. Occasionally, I get dragged into articles far outside my own field. In the recent weeks, while being incapacitated with a <a href="http://heathenscientist.blogspot.com/2010/09/snap-said-bone.html">replaced hip</a>, I ended up in the discussions related to pedophilia. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia">Wikipedia article about pedophilia</a> is pretty much a wet dream for lawyers. It is so unilaterally focused on the medical <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization">operationalization</a> used by <a href="http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm">the DSM IV of the term</a>, which by definition will leave out many cases that I would consider pedophile's. For example, if a person has many sexual explicit fantasies about how he has sex with a 11 year old, but those fantasies do not cause him either distress of interpersonal difficulty, guess what, he is not a pedophile.<br /><br />But it gets better. If you have to believe the people of the <a href="http://www.camh.net/">Clarke Institute</a>, he would not have been a pedophile even when it had caused him distress, because <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/7j127536573h5q8t/">the child is too old</a>. <a href="http://www.camh.net/research/scientific_Staff_profiles/bio_detail.php?cuserID=51">James Cantor</a>, an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_Cantor">active</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_Cantor">wikipedia editor</a> who not always knows the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest">limits of self-promotion</a> as in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_addiction&diff=prev&oldid=384112579">this edit</a> where he links to <a href="http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/leading-edge/dr-james-cantor-sex-addiction/">an interview with himself related to the topic</a>, regularly comments on the talk page of the article. In and by itself, that is a good thing. Wikipedia needs expert editors. The reason you want expert editors is that they often know the field much better than the lay editors that are the bulk of the workforce at wikipedia. When you have such an expert editor, you see it in the width of the sources they use, the nuances they can express, and the skill with which they put in words the controversies, differences of opinion, and unresolved issues in the field. So, when someone added a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources">so-so source</a>, James <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia&diff=prev&oldid=383495353">proposes to replace it with....... You guessed it, an article of himself</a>. A primary source as well. if that had been the ONLY article available, o well, than I understand, but when there are multiple second and <http: org="" w="" title="Talk%3APedophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=383634296&oldid=383495353">tertiary sources available, this is not acceptable.<br /><br />This provides us with some idea why this article is so biased towards the medical operationalization of the term as used in the DSM IV, and not towards the more general usage of the term which generally is defined as something like:<br /><blockquote>"sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object" <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophilia?show=0&t=1285295939">Merrian Webster online</a></blockquote><br /><blockquote>"a person, especially a man, who is sexually interested in children", <a href="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/paedophile">Cambridge Dictionary online</a></blockquote><br />or how many more examples can be given.<br /><br />To illustrate how US biased the article is, lets look at the World Health Organizations definition in the ICD10:<br /><blockquote>"A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age", <a href="http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/index.htm?gf60.htm+F654">ICD 10 F65.4</a></blockquote><br />Lets see, if we use this definition, our pedophile friend example in the beginning would be properly diagnosed as a pedophile, even when his interest was in somewhat older children. As it should be.<br /><br />The pedophilia article at wikipedia makes a classic error. It goes completely overboard by focusing on the medical operationalization of the term at the cost of common sense and general definitions that are far more generally used. A good article would start with the general term, and then work towards the more specialized definitions. Wikipedia does it the other way round. When you start reading the wikipedia article, you might think that most people we normally would label a pedophile are just not that. And that is wrong. Medical operationalizations are necessary for research, but they should not eclipse the more general used term and basically free many pedophiles of the label they despise and would like to get rid of. Thanks to wikipedia, an ever increasing primary source of information, they are no longer pedophiles. Good job!<br /><br />Disclaimer: I tried to change some things for the better, but one editor specific, and several more in general pretty much block any improvement of the article that is not in line with the medical operationalization of the term.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-53993179362090559022010-09-17T10:00:00.000-04:002010-09-17T11:40:44.902-04:00Moving on.....I am amazed. Six days ago, I splintered the head of my left hip by falling of a horse. Due to the severity of the fracture, the doc advised to not even try to fix it, and replace the hip joint immediately. After the surgery, he told me that if he had tried to fix it, I probably in two months time would be back for a replacement anyway. Carolyn saw my X-rays when they were made, and she could even see it was just over with the joint.<br /><br />This makes me wonder, what the heck did people do in my situation before hip-replacement?<br /><br />In the meanwhile, I am enjoying the modern wonders of the medical technology that will make it possible for me to basically do the same things again as before the fracture. Like <a href="http://www.sutterhealth.org/about/news/news09_hipreplacement.html">horseback riding</a>. Or <a href="http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Elch/back_to_JTree.htm">climbing</a>.<br /><br />The day-by-day drill is getting better. Which means, doing the exercises of the physical therapist, drinking enough, taking my blood-thinner shot in time, and give it enough rest so it heals quickly enough.<br /><br />The day after the surgery, I was already taken out of the bed by the physical therapist to walk a few paces and sit in a somewhat reclining chair. I was very dizzy and sitting up made me nauseous. Nausea turned out to be my biggest issue the next day, because it prevented me from actually doing my walking exercises. After cutting the narcotics, and going on only Tylenol, this problem was solved, but it was not enough because my muscles would cramp up a bit. First a muscle relaxant was added, and now I am on Vicodin, a somewhat stronger painkiller than Tylenol (Paracetamol), but <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opiate_comparison">substantially weaker than the Hydromorphone</a> they had me previous on.<br /><br />Wednesday, 4 days after the surgery, I was discharged from the hospital because I had mastered all the things I needed to know before I could go home. Most people who's hip is replaced go home later, but keep in mind that that most hip replacements are in elder people who break a hip after a low energy fall in combination with osteoporosis. I am the minority, in which high energy trauma results in such a replacement. And I am in excellent physical condition as well as reasonably strong. So, being ahead is somewhat expected.<br /><br />Now I am planning <a href="http://health.ucsd.edu/specialties/ortho/joint/faq_totalhip.htm#work">when to go back to work</a> (part-time!), <a href="http://health.ucsd.edu/specialties/ortho/joint/faq_totalhip.htm#drive">when I can drive a car again</a>, etc. Longer term recovery includes getting back on the horse's back (I might have to learn to get up at the other side) and eventually, hopefully, rock climbing.....Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-50469620564828018712010-09-12T10:00:00.000-04:002010-09-13T05:16:18.818-04:00Snap said the bone......Yesterday morning, I broke my leg at the hip joined. It happened around 11:00 (am). and by 416:00 (4 pm), I was wheeled into surgery for a hit replacement. The hip joined was demolished and the changes of healing were close to zero, so they recommended to replace the hip joint. My legs are now strapped down in a specific position, to keep the artificial joint in place. Not pleasant, but heck, if that means I heal faster or better, I take it.<br /><br />Yesterday morning, after I had my morning work done (collecting virgins, committing mass murder), I went out to Havana to ride Pate, the favorite horse. After first playing with him a bit using new exciting Natural Horsemanship techniques, I tagged him up. After lunging his a bot, I got on him and while I was adjusting the stirrups, he wandered over to a shady spot with low hanging branches. To late, I noticed we had gotten into them and I tried to turn him around because the low hanging branches was really dense. When I turned him around, I had to bent forward substantially to avoid to many branches. That was not an issue, but what I could not avoid was that Pate got the branches in a nasty way in his face and he responded to that my jumping somewhat away. Or something like that, because I do not recall exactly. Next thing I know is that I am flying of the horse and I land exactly on my left hip joint.<br /><br />There is immediately a LOT of pain. I manage to role myself on my side in the first aid position but there is no way I could put any weight in that leg. I managed to get Pate close to me so I can take his bridle off. After about ten minutes, The people who live there came home and found me. They were so kind to bring me to patients first where they X-rayed me, Well, the verdict was clear, no more moving and they got an ambulance to move to the first aid of the local hospital.<br /><br />At the hospital, they made a few more x-rays, and the verdict was rather clear. The neck of the femur leading to the hip joint had snapped of, and if I am correct, the ball of the joint was split. The doc didn't fuss about it, when he said: "This will never heal. The only option is a hip-replacement." With a hip replacement, I had two options, femur part only or both sides. The first option often result in increased arthritis on the cup of the joint, which basically means that you have to fix that part in a year or ten. Benefit, you heal faster. The latter option is more permanent and you are not getting into arthritis issues, but the time to heal is longer. As I do not feel like having major pain and surgery in 10 years time, I opted to take the longer healing time and have the whole thing fixed.<br /><br />Saturday, at 16:00 (4 pm), I was wheeled into the operation room and by 20:00 (8 pm), I was the proud owner of a artificial hip joint. Now, I am resting comfortably and the recovery has started. In about three months time, I will be able to ride again, but for the coming months, I just have to take my time so I heal good.<br /><br />Suzi check Pate the next morning and he had a bunch of scratches over his face, but he was otherwise fine.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-74540302198837465692010-08-19T10:00:00.001-04:002010-08-19T19:23:37.439-04:00You bitch, we did it for the children"We stayed together for the children". How many people have heard that phrase. Especially, how many children have heard that phrase, wondering why in earth their parents wouldn't get a fucking divorce at the next blow-up between the so-called 'adults'.<br /><br />if you decide to stay together for a reason, act accordingly. if you stay together 'for the children', act as mature adults and stop fighting. Really, the last thing that children want is fighting parents who stay together because it would be better for the children. really, it isn't better, it is worse. It is an easy cop-out of taking responsibility for their own action. if you are REALLY doing it for the children, what would you think is best for those critters? Another escalated fight about who has to do the grocery shoppings?<br /><br />It is easy to claim that you do something for a reason. It is far harder to deal responsibly with the consequences of those decisions. But the bottom line, if you cannot live with the consequences, don't invent a bullshit argument like I am doing it for the children. really, the last ones you make happy with those fights, or complaints, or whatever negative comes from it, is the kids.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-61527958060826745042010-08-10T10:10:00.000-04:002010-08-10T19:25:59.876-04:00Cognitive dissonance: Oppose gay-marriage because children of unmarried couples fare less than from married couples....One of the main arguments against gay marriage that we hear over and over again is that it is bad for the children raised by same-sex couples. Well, opposing same-sex marriage is not going to change that those children are raised by same-sex couples, whether their parents are married or not.<br /><br />When pressed why it is bad for the children, the argument often is comparatively, namely that children living in unmarried families, like single mothers, unmarried co-habiting parents, step-parents, etc fare less good than children from happy married couples.<br /><br />Every time I hear this argument, I am stunned by the inane stupidity of the argument. This argument is the prime argument to promote same-sex marriage. Because if their parents would be allowed to marry, the children should be better of? Not?<br /><br />Well, if you press them on the details, what you find out is that they try to link two arguments. One is the one I just described, the second is that a child needs a father and a mother, and the link they want to make is that same-sex couples can never offer a mother and a father, and thus need to be compared to the unmarried and single parents trying to raise kids.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the second argument has already been shot down by social science research, which shows that children raised by functional same-sex couples are equally or even better off than children of married heterosexual couples.<br /><br />if we combine these, allowing same-sex parents to marry is actually going to help their children. Maybe that is where they are afraid for..... Maybe they are afraid to look incompetent because the kids of the gays are actually doing better......Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-3289847930617849522010-08-04T10:00:00.001-04:002010-08-04T13:09:14.631-04:00Will the same-sex marriages haters risk a ruling that will affect the whole nation?Today, the ruling on the prop 8 trial <a href="http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/03/breaking-prop-8-trial-verdict-to-be-announced-wednesday/">will be announced</a>. The same-sex marriage haters have already filed <a href="http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2009cv02292/215270/705/">a motion for a stay of the decision</a> pending appeal if the case is going to be ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Based on the specifics of the motion wording, you can bet it is a win for US!<br /><br />So, appeal. The current ruling ONLY affects California, and leaves the rest of the country out of the loop. A loss at the appeal court would widen this to a loss for a whole range of states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. and of course, if they appeal it to the US supreme court, it would affect the whole nation.<br /><br />So, if they want to slow down how many states (have to) recognize same-sex marriages, they would be far better of to not appeal and give away California. Why? There case was a disaster. At the appeals court, they cannot bring new arguments. So, the case will be decided pretty much based on what is now on the record. And that record is, well, shitty at least. Maybe better to qualify it as non-existing.<br /><br />So, what would be the alternative? Let it stand. Throw California under the train and move on. Because this means that if another gay couple in one of the other states of the union finally wants to be treated as a full citizen, they have to start their own case. With their own lawyer, their own witnesses etc. And this gives the haters one MAJOR opportunity. Time to prepare themselves better. To have real experts. And maybe they will be lucky to find a judge who is more activist and willing to impose his own conservative dogma on the case.<br /><br />Of course, some day, some case will reach the US supreme court. It can be sooner if they appeal now, or maybe later if they take the loss of one state and try to build a more solid case in the next court battle. The later would be a better strategy, because it they get more favorable evidence into the records, they actually will have a higher change of winning when they finally reach the US supreme court.<br /><br />But rest assured, they won't be this smart. If their performance at the trial is a indicator, they are so convinced they are right that they are willing to risk it all, just to be right! You almost would think they are actually in favor of same-sex marriage.<br /><br />And because of that, we have to thank them for helping our cause. So, please, file an appeal and help us to finally ride this country of a grave injustice!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-57089974988892768122010-08-03T10:00:00.001-04:002010-08-04T15:46:57.902-04:00JONAH: Jews Offering New Alternatives to HealingJONAH, the lasted shield for con artist <a href="http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2010/02/7028/">Arthur Abba Goldberg</a> has changed its name from Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexciality to Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing. read this good:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">"New alternative to Healing"</span><br /><br />What? If I am sick, I just want to heal. Not some alternative idea that being sick is a growing moment or something equivalently bizarre than that. But apparently, that is what they want to offer. So, lets explore first why they are actually correct, and second, what those alternatives could be.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">They are correct!</span><br /><br />Of course they are correct, homosexuality cannot be changed by therapy, the long list of ex-ex-gay people, the rampant number of suicides among those that tried the ex-gay path, and the incredible low success rate or gay-aversion therapy underline that healing from <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">the gay</span> is impossible. Thank <s>God</s> oops, Yahweh, for that. And I am sop glad that JONAH is now falling in line with what most <a href="http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx">reputable psychologists</a> already know, <span style="font-style: italic;">you cannot <s>prey</s> oops, pray away the gay</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The alternatives!</span><br /><br />So, what are those alternatives to healing? Do not look further than <a href="http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2010/07/9768/">Alan Downing</a>, one of the senior therapists of JONAH. In stead of offering healing, he uses his clients to fulfill his unmet needs for manly flesh. Yes, sexual harassment is indeed an alternative to healing. Or what about the <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/146557/?page=entire">"Cuddle Room"</a><br /><br />Lets stop the charade. JONAH is just a cover for unlimited homosexual experience in a way that you can proclaim to the world that you actually try to <s>prey on</s> oops, prey away the gay!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-42066368897231985802010-07-21T10:00:00.000-04:002010-07-22T07:35:18.918-04:00Vilsack must resignWhow, is the administration so afraid for right-wing extremists that they now do their career lynchings for them? Looks like it. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072103871.html?hpid=topnews">The short story</a>. A notorious blogger, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/22/andrew-breitbart-profile">Andrew Breitbart</a>, posts a doctored tape so he can attack the NAACP and the administration. The tape is doctored to make it look like that a mid-level, hard-working, African-American department of agriculture official, Shirley Sherrod, is racist. Reverse racism that is. That she did not help white farmers as much as she would help black farmers. Administration and NAACP overreact. Agriculture Secretary <a href="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Tom_Vilsack" target="">Tom Vilsack</a> calls her on the way home, doesn't want to listen to her, pressures her to resign immediately. Real tape surfaces, becomes obvious that the tape is doctored, administration sees they f***ed up, they apologize, give her her job back, probably with promotion. Problem solved?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:300%;">NO</span><br /><br />I think this is outrageous. Once we toss out due process, in case like this, we have started to do the career lynchings for the right-wing racists who have only one agenda, and that is to topple this administration. I think that the resignation of all officials involved, to start with Tom Vilsack, is needed. Really, can we trust the rule of the law when we have officials who trow those rules overboard the minute a mid-level employee is accused of being racist?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-76798384584098271912010-07-12T10:00:00.001-04:002010-07-13T16:28:39.857-04:00Gay segregation in the Army?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEBu79UhcB1-_6QH6drUuGrabDeOQ_cv7RjU91FeSY3LFy0ICVcK4jrwKceVBL0PP_wk_LtM-tTCJoNuouHNaADAPPHatich4L4bktEJPb6xDm4OM-76i9jEKNdOeP2Y-kfsPB0IvE9CKk/s1600/Gay-Segregation.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 209px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEBu79UhcB1-_6QH6drUuGrabDeOQ_cv7RjU91FeSY3LFy0ICVcK4jrwKceVBL0PP_wk_LtM-tTCJoNuouHNaADAPPHatich4L4bktEJPb6xDm4OM-76i9jEKNdOeP2Y-kfsPB0IvE9CKk/s400/Gay-Segregation.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5493490367375302306" /></a><br />I thought the segregation had ended, but it looks like the Pentagon just wants it back, but now for <a href="http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/does-white-house-not-understand-that.html">openly gay personnel</a>. Well, it would make things really interesting if they did. Because, until you have outed yourself,you can just spy on the dick size of the hetro machos, but oh my god, when you are caught, you are limited to just fantasizing about it when you are along in the special shower for yourself..... Well, it is better than losing your job, but wasn't the purpose to protect the fragile heterosexuals from the predatory gay men?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-49574713683900550142010-06-20T10:00:00.000-04:002010-06-20T12:57:50.808-04:00To the Straight Guy at the Party Last NightThis post is continuously flagged at craigslist as inappropriate, restored and flagged again. So I duplicate it here.<br /><hr><br /><br />A mutual friend of ours threw a big party for her 30th birthday, tons of people were there and it was a lot of fun. Somewhere along the line you and I ended up on the balcony for some fresh air at the same time. We started chatting; we talked about sports, books, tv – discovered we both are about to start our masters degrees and spent some time debating the pro’s and con’s of the educational system. We talked about hanging out sometime, and you wanted to meet my girlfriend.<br /><br />I understand how upsetting it was for you when I blinked mildly in surprise and said I was here with my husband. I know it was a shock to your system, if your face had turned any paler I might have called 911. You made a good recovery though - that hurried mutter of “I’m not like that” was very polite and you only knocked over two drinks and one vase in your hurry to rush to anywhere other than near me. I can’t blame you – I forgot how delicate you straight boys are. So I wanted to give you a few helpful hints about where you went wrong last night.<br /><br />1) As a general rule we don’t walk around with big signs around our neck proclaiming our sexuality. No scarlet letters, no scent of hellfire and brimstone… sorry about that.<br /><br />2) We do not generally assume that everyone within 5 feet of us must also be homosexual – it was nice of you to immediately reassure me that you are hetero, but it was really unnecessary.<br /><br />3) Homosexuality is not infectious. While I am sure you meant no disrespect with your hasty departure; in the future you can rest assured that taking a few extra seconds in your mad dash for safety will not result in you being turned gay. It will however keep you from destroying expensive vases and knocking over senior citizens.<br /><br />4) This next one may come as a surprise; but you are not, in fact, irresistible. The fact that you have a dick does not instantly turn me into a bundle of uncontrolled lust. Contrary to popular opinion, being in the same room with a straight man does not cause a gay man to instantly lose all common sense and basic common courtesy. Though I am not so sure about the reverse.<br /><br />5) Homosexuals in general get a little irked when people treat us like some sort of leper. Rushing to another mutual friend of ours and advising him of my sexuality, so he could be “forewarned” was really uncalled for.<br /><br />6) Upon being told (by said mutual friend) to stop being an idiot and that you were not my type anyway… it generally confuses the issue when you then proceed to become upset that I DON’T find you attractive. Three seconds ago you were running through a crowd of people with your hands cupped protectively over your junk as if I might attack you at any moment with a blowjob. See hint number 4.<br /><br />7) We homosexuals have an odd sense of humor – I can’t help that. Something about watching you freak out as if all the demons of hell were after you just struck me as vastly amusing.<br /><br />8) While being pissed at me for dissolving into uncontrollable laughter might be understandable… gathering a couple guys together to “teach the fag a lesson” is not.<br /><br />9) You might also want to drink a little less and be a little more careful about the guys you approach for your little proto-hate-mob.<br /><br />10) Assuming the two tall muscle-bound bruisers must be uber-hetero and just as appalled by my presence as you was your first mistake. It was an understandable one though. How were you to know that pflag tshirt the first guy was wearing wasn’t a sports team? Also the rainbow ring the second guy was wearing could have meant anything I am sure.<br /><br />11) In retrospect I suppose that upon hearing your not very subtle hate-talk and seeing who you were heading for; I could have said something instead of just laughing harder. I apologize for that. I should have just introduced you to my husband instead of letting you walk up to him and ask him if he wanted to help you teach “that fag over there” a lesson. I hope that broken nose heals up cleanly.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-24369431486231772812010-06-14T10:00:00.001-04:002010-06-14T20:50:51.023-04:00Marriage: An $80,000,000 wordThe proposition 8 campaign in California costed more than $80,000,000.00. The goal, limiting the use of the word marriage in legal context in the state of California. It wasn't about rights, because in California, the supreme court has ruled that gays should have exactly the same rights. Something they reiterated after Prop 8 passed and it was challenged in court. It is also not limiting the use of the word in religious context. Everybody can get married at a LGBT-friendly church. Just let it sink in. Just let it sink in that this campaign was about whether same-sex couples may use the word marriage in a legal context. Nothing else.<br /><br />Just think about what could have been done with $80,000,000.00? I know what I would do. What would you do?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-82198967372623308612010-05-28T10:00:00.000-04:002010-05-28T11:53:59.649-04:00Why smart kids failWhy do smart kids fail? This paradox is often poorly understood, because at face value, someone who is smart should have the best changes to succeed. At face value yes. Taken out of context. Taken out of the environment the child grows up in.<br /><br />Here is the rub, the smart kid has to grow up in a world that is ruled by mediocrity. At best. Often, the lowest common denominator rules. Take classes. Classes are geared to wards the large blop in the middle. The large blop of kids that are doing fine, but not exceptional. And in that class is a kid that is much smarter. What happens to such a kid?<br /><br />He or she gets bored. Bored to death. Most things are so easy that s/he often has not even to work for it. I remember that I systematically did not make my chemistry homework. Why? Well, the teacher would ask several students to each write the answer of a assignment at the blackboard in front of the class room. Well, if I was one of the 'lucky' ones, I just would take the book, read the assignment while walking to the front and write down the answer, correct of course. Luckily for me, I was not that good with every subject, and I definitely needed to study hard on others which saved me later in life.<br /><br />Why did it save me? Well, if everything comes really easy, there is one skill you never learn. And that is to put effort in things. Putting effort in things to achieve things is something you have to learn. And if you are really smart, it will take a long time till you encounter something that will require you to put effort in. And till that day comes, life is easy.<br /><br />But that day comes, sooner or later. For me it came soon, as my dyslexia forced me to put tremendous effort in learning languages. But when it does not come early, or not in sufficient strength, you are doomed.<br /><br />Once it arrives, many very smart kids can mask the issue with their intelligence. People around them do not notice that they are struggling, because they use all kind of smart tricks to outsmart the world around them. And they can keep doing that for a long time.<br /><br />Unfortunately, most of these kids eventually encounter something that cannot be done easily or masked. And that is crushing time. Because they are so used to get everything so easy, it easily becomes an ego crushing experience. Used to be able to do things so easy, a failure is not an option. Well, at least they have never learned to deal with failure, because they just haven't experienced those. And if everything else goes well, why not just walk away from it. Ignore it. There are so many things that do go well, it is not really a problem. Most of the time.<br /><br />But the first failure, and the inability to deal with it set the tone for future encounters. Instead of learning how to put effort in things, they feel crushed and avoid dealing with it. And the first times, it works. And the second time it works. Etcetera. Till? Till the day they encounter something they cannot ignore. That is the day the get stuck. Now knowing how to put effort in things, they are caught like a deer in the headlights. They have no idea how to handle it.<br /><br />From here is goes rapidly downhill. Things need to be done, but the inability to do them just result in a repeated failure to do what needs to be done. And the smart kid that once soared through life on his or her intelligence crumbles. Each time s/he fails one time more, each time s/he fails, s/he looses a small part of her/himself, of her/his confidence, ofher/his self esteem.<br /><br />By now, the smart kid has become an insecure, self doubting kid wondering every day why s/he cannot do things easy. And s/he starts avoiding those things s/he doubts s/he can do. This is when the world around her/him starts labelling the kid as lazy, uninterested, dumb. etc. Yes, dumb, because our smart kid is avoiding everything, fearful of failing one again. And so the cycle continues.<br /><br />It is far more difficult to raise a smart kid than an average kid. In order to succeed, the smart kid needs to learn that not everything comes just like that. And how do you do that? Some schools have special programs for smart kids. Not all programs are good, but with the right approach, these programs can help gifted children. Those are the lucky once, because they learn that they sometimes need to put effort in things. The bigger question is how to help the unlucky once, those that are failing over and over again because they basically haven't learned to deal with disappointments. I do not know that answer yet, but I do know that it will take a lot of effort to teach those kids how to put effort in things.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-64709971422214468772010-05-13T10:00:00.000-04:002010-05-14T04:27:13.994-04:00Judge orders Rekers rectification: He is bisexualGeorge Rekers wants to go after the various media outlets that reported that he was gay. Well, I think he actually will have a good change that he is awarded a rectification. Unfortunately, I also think it might be worse than not fighting it. Because I think the court-ordered rectification will be something along the line of:<br /><blockquote>Rectification: Our reporting of the George Rekers case and the male escort was erroneous. Dr. George Rekers is not homosexual, he is bisexual.<br /></blockquote>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-78820514432636861152010-05-04T10:00:00.000-04:002010-05-04T17:22:38.733-04:00Luggage: the latest synonym for the male sexual organ.....Am I the only one who is wondering what exactly is meant when George Rekers is saying he rented a male prostitute to <a href="http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-06/news/christian-right-leader-george-rekers-takes-vacation-with-rent-boy/">carry his 'luggage'</a>? Dirty mind immediately remembered a old cartoon I saw years ago of a man coming to the doctors office. "Doctor, I have a problem" Doctor: "Well, let me see it." At which the man opens his coat and a huge dick falls out....<br /><br /><br />Unfortunately, I cannot find the cartoon back on the internets......Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-48711692405571181612010-05-03T10:00:00.000-04:002010-05-04T17:09:27.352-04:00Legal bigamy: The American WayYesterday, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/05/03/texas.gay.divorce/?hpt=Mid">it dawned to me</a>. You can get legally married to two people in the United States because of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">DOMA</span>. The scenario is simple:<br /><ol><li>You marry someone of the same sex in one of the states that does recognize them.</li><li>You move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, so you are officially unmarried.</li><li>Because you are officially not married, you can marry someone of the opposite sex.</li><li>Move back to the state that recognizes the same-sex marriage.<br /></li></ol>It is just waiting till three people try this and see if they can get away with it. I guarantee you, it will be a major news item.....Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-43703289791778863492010-05-02T10:00:00.000-04:002010-06-02T11:01:28.702-04:00Satire: Rapist Family TherapyRecently, I thought of a funny skit-like situation. For your enjoyment.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(Courtroom)</span><br />Judge: Ma'am, could you please tell the court what happened that faithful evening in the park.<br /><br />Victim: Thank you Judge. I was walking through the park in the evening with Charlie, my Chihuahua, when this creep came out of the scrub and forced me into the bushes and forced me to have (<span style="font-style: italic;">gulp</span>) .... to have..... to ... (<span style="font-style: italic;">weeping uncontrollably</span>)<br /><br />Judge: Sex?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Victim nods.</span><br /><br />Judge: Ok Sir, what is your story?<br /><br />Rapist: Well Sir, you know, I was waiting in the bushes for some hot chicks to come by. It is amazing how willingly they want to have sex with me once they have joined me ion the bushes. It is a nice private spot, and the women just love it. Miss (nudges to the victim) there was dressed like she really wanted to have sex in the park.<br /><br />Judge: Ok, I see. Sounds like you two should talk with a counsellor together to figure out what you two want. I see you back as soon as you have reached agreement on what is mutually acceptable.<br /><br />Victim: What? No way?<br /><br />Judge: Ma'am, should I hold you in contempt of court? Would a week of jail help to make you go?<br /><br />Victim (<span style="font-style:italic;">cowering</span>) O, no your honour? I am sorry.<br /><br />Rapist: Thank you judge!<br /><br />(Counsellors office)<br />Counsellor: Sir, this woman claims you sexually abused her?<br /><br />Rapist: No, it wasn't rape, she was scarcely dressed, so she wanted sex. That is not sexual abuse?<br /><br />Victim: What? I did not want to have sex. My goodness, I never have sex with men, they disgust me.<br /><br />Rapist: See, she is in denial. She just needs some good sex and she will like it all righthy...<br /><br />(<span style="font-style:italic;">Victim starts crying</span>)<br /><br />Counsellor: Ok, I get the picture. Do you think we can find a middle ground between the two extreme points of view. What about oral sex, but not penetration with the penis? With that, you both win in part, and that is just the best way.... Don't you agree?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-46105883679255697442010-04-21T01:00:00.009-04:002010-04-23T15:44:49.730-04:00Ex-gay panel discussion in Tallahassee<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9SSTwu-_xml7uSETrUFIObUYJRVsinVpE-q68Bkev4gedqHQ08gUoNr4J5li86Hu02rVoyMbKgkHKhXNQWnKugUKHzhsYNn3U0yozyBm80dqdJod98t49oVD2VNly4X1wRAADCDU8T5Zy/s1600/gay+switch.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 183px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9SSTwu-_xml7uSETrUFIObUYJRVsinVpE-q68Bkev4gedqHQ08gUoNr4J5li86Hu02rVoyMbKgkHKhXNQWnKugUKHzhsYNn3U0yozyBm80dqdJod98t49oVD2VNly4X1wRAADCDU8T5Zy/s200/gay+switch.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5462433076863891442" border="0" /></a><br />This evening, I attended a panel discussion titled:<br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=118714848139464&ref=mf">All God's Children: LGBTQ Members of Faith & the Ex-Gay Movement</a></blockquote> jointly organized by the Pride (the on campus student version) and Seminole Christian Life, a very conservative christian student body. I have taped the whole conversation, and I am currently making a backup to my webserver so that the file cannot get lost. <s>I will upload the video in sections to YouTube in the coming days.</s> <span style="font-style: italic;">Uploaded to YouTube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/KimvdLinde">here</a></span> Before the panel started, two of the ex-gay members asked me to refrain from making the video, because they were afraid that the message would be distorted by selectively cherry picking pieces of the video. So, I told them that if I would upload the video to YouTube, I would upload it integrally. I personally think the complete video is much more powerful, so that is not an issue. Internally, I was actually quite appalled by it, knowing that the ex-gay movement has a reputation of distorting the information of others.<br /><br />What follows is my personal impression.<br /><br />First of all, I think it was incredibly stupid of Pride to provide a platform to these people in the first place. As expected, they deliberately distorted what we know about homosexuality based on scientific research. Two of them claimed that there is no genetic component to homosexuality, which is bullshit. I know exactly what gene (<s>frutty</s> oops, the political correct version is <a href="http://flybase.org/reports/FBgn0004652.html">fruitless</a>) needs to be manipulated to make a male fly court other male flies, or a female fly to court other females. But heck, what can you do once they have made the blunder? Well, document. So, I went to the meeting, with my laptop and web-cam, and recorded the whole discussion.<br /><br />Ok, the panel consisted of five members. Three representatives were representing the ex-gay movement, <a href="http://exodusyouth.net/author/frank-carrasco/">Frank Carrasco</a> & <a href="http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/christinesneeringerp397.php">Christine Sneeringer</a>, from Exodus and <a href="http://www.southfloridagaynews.com/news/national-news/547-ex-gay-is-ex-con.html">ex-felon and con-artist Arthur Goldberg</a>, from JONAH. The other side was represented by two local clergy, Rev. Mark Byrd of the Gentle Shepherd MCC and Cantor Tanya Greenblatt of Temple Israel.<br /><br />The evening started with personal introductions by the panel members, and I will provide a short impression of those introductions:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCoEw84rR_c"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Frank Carrasco</span></a><br />Frank appeared to me as genuine about himself, realizing that he still has feelings for men, but he has chosen Jesus over his own feelings. I think that he in due time will find peace with Jesus and being gay, and that he will follow the many former ex-gay's that have left the ex-gay movement before him.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_kudzSv90g"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Christine Sneeringer</span></a><br />Christine is a different story. Based on her story, I am sure that a major reason she found love in the arms of a woman was her abuse past. That happens, and it sucks. I am glad that she has found herself and has realized that she has attractions to men. However, she didn't say whether she still has or not has feelings for woman, but I would not be surprised if she did. She at least still makes blips on the gaydar of at least some of the females in the audience.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afrEnB4WrEo">Arthur</a> Abba <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlRAOVevNnw">Goldberg</a></span><br />Arthur is an Orthodox Jew, convicted fellon, dis-barred attorney with a criminal record for financial crimes. Spend 18 months in jail. He is still a con-artist based on what I saw of him this evening. Glib and skilled, lies between his teeth. He gave me the creeps, similar to psychopaths I have met.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCpHNX5LHjY"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rev. Mark Byrd</span></a><br />Mark told us about his journey from being raised in a church that considers the Southern Baptists as too liberal (sic) to finding peace in being gay and Christian. <span style="font-style: italic;">ADDED in response to the first comment: Tried basically the ex-gay path (he was married, has a daughter), was miserable, to the point of being suicidal, till his wife finally told him to be true to his feelings and amicably divorced so he could find peace. You could see his eyes shout fire when the ex-gay people claimed to do no harm.</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKGbF86Ti4A"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cantor Tanya Greenblatt</span></a><br />Tanya is a member of the Reform Judaism branch, heterosexual, married and very open towards gay people. She explained a lot about the context in which the Torah was written, and tackled head on the cherry picking of Bible/Torah verses to proof ones point.<br /><br />And now about the content of the discussion. I think there were a few good things and the expected and obvious bad things.<br /><br />A major discussion point was about respect. Especially the ex-gay members stressed this point, and within qualified limits, I agree. I think that if someone chooses Jesus over his or her sexual orientation, that is that persons personal choice, and whether or not we believe it is healthy or not, something we should respect. But as I say, this is within qualified limits. The limit is honesty. Telling your personal story is one thing, distorting the facts is another. For example, Christine claimed that there is no genetic component to homosexuality. <a href="http://www.springerlink.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/content/fr74r08t768378mg/fulltext.pdf">Really</a>? No, wilfully distorting important facts results in less respect. If you want respect, you better become honest and stop distorting the facts. And no Christine, NARTH is not a reliable source for that kind of information.<br /><br />But there is another point that I would like to bring up. And that is the question of change? Basically, can people change their sexual orientation? My answer is neither yes or no, because I think that in rare cases, some people can change their sexual orientation. And those numbers are far less than what the ex-gay movement want you to believe. Also, I suspect that most of those cases are either bisexuals who have a somewhat stronger attraction to individuals of the same sex, or people who have for example experienced trauma or something related. However, most of the people that claim to have been heterosexualized are pretending.<br /><br />I have far more respect for those in the ex-gay movement who actually honestly say they still have feelings for the members of the same sex, but make an active choice between God and their sexual orientation. There is nothing wrong with it, as long as it is their own choice.<br /><br />And that brings me to the next item that I want to address here tonight. Recruiting. This was brought up, and all ex-gay members said they did not recruit. However, nothing was said about youngsters that are singed up for their programs by their parents. O wait, the parents sign the release, so they are not recruited.<br /><br />And that brings me to the last item to be discussed. Harm. They claimed they did no harm. Whow. The <a href="http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation.aspx">APA disagrees</a>. The <a href="http://www.beyondexgay.com/narratives">survivors disagree</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">UPDATE in the morning</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><s>Ok, I am going to bed. Tomorrow more.</s></span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">And let me finish my last thoughts. If you are really interested to do no harm, you only can achieve that when you are honest, and means that you represent the research accurately. When you claim that you can change, but that the research indicates that it is a very rare thing, you give people false hope of a solution that is not there. If you REALLY want to help people without harming them, you say that. You say, we can help you, not with changing your sexual orientation, but with finding a way to deal with your generally unchangeable sexual orientation that is compatible with your believe. For more information about professional standards of helping people, <a href="http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation.aspx">see here</a>.<br /></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3150875928564960425.post-11958796998097284792010-04-10T10:00:00.000-04:002010-04-10T10:40:38.509-04:00Sophophora: A Laboratory HandbookCold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press has announced the next edition of their best-selling fuitfly handbook:<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvholiLxM35nVBOFV89MmG0BPNSACYhuAE67sytuvv8hjVVMHo-mBhu_V4QzIDCyfpHDMMyb2FmSXaLaz863i_Nq3mO77IwGiEOxJBRWABKQSHOnegNXEIGkXahzZXzEOM8qCo8__Ybw4o/s1600/Sophophora-handbook.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 305px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvholiLxM35nVBOFV89MmG0BPNSACYhuAE67sytuvv8hjVVMHo-mBhu_V4QzIDCyfpHDMMyb2FmSXaLaz863i_Nq3mO77IwGiEOxJBRWABKQSHOnegNXEIGkXahzZXzEOM8qCo8__Ybw4o/s400/Sophophora-handbook.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5458518619795260818" border="0" /></a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.com0