Heathen Scientist

Education reform

2011-10-10T14:10:00.005-04:00

Education 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 health care is so outrageous expensive in this country, capitalization of education fails for similar reasons.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Paying through the nose for emergency room visits so that Americans can proclaim they have freedom of choice when it comes to health care insurance!

2011-03-29T10:00:00.002-04:00

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)

Anyway, she was very much surprised when I told here that the socialized health care in the Netherlands was cheaper per capita than in the capitalized US health care 'system'. Of course she didn't believe me. O well.

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.

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.

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.

Pedophilia whitewash at Wikipedia

2010-09-23T21:39:00.011-04:00

As 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 replaced hip, I ended up in the discussions related to pedophilia. The Wikipedia article about pedophilia is pretty much a wet dream for lawyers. It is so unilaterally focused on the medical operationalization used by the DSM IV of the term, 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.

But it gets better. If you have to believe the people of the Clarke Institute, he would not have been a pedophile even when it had caused him distress, because the child is too old. James Cantor, an active wikipedia editor who not always knows the limits of self-promotion as in this edit where he links to an interview with himself related to the topic, 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 so-so source, James proposes to replace it with....... You guessed it, an article of himself. 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 tertiary sources available, this is not acceptable.

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:

"sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object" Merrian Webster online

"a person, especially a man, who is sexually interested in children", Cambridge Dictionary online

or how many more examples can be given.

To illustrate how US biased the article is, lets look at the World Health Organizations definition in the ICD10:

"A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age", ICD 10 F65.4

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.

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!

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.

Moving on.....

2010-09-17T10:00:00.000-04:00

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.

This makes me wonder, what the heck did people do in my situation before hip-replacement?

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 horseback riding. Or climbing.

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.

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 substantially weaker than the Hydromorphone they had me previous on.

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.

Now I am planning when to go back to work (part-time!), when I can drive a car again, 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.....

Snap said the bone......

2010-09-12T10:00:00.000-04:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Suzi check Pate the next morning and he had a bunch of scratches over his face, but he was otherwise fine.

You bitch, we did it for the children

2010-08-19T10:00:00.001-04:00

"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'.

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?

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.

Cognitive dissonance: Oppose gay-marriage because children of unmarried couples fare less than from married couples....

2010-08-10T10:10:00.000-04:00

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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......

Will the same-sex marriages haters risk a ruling that will affect the whole nation?

2010-08-04T10:00:00.001-04:00

Today, the ruling on the prop 8 trial will be announced. The same-sex marriage haters have already filed a motion for a stay of the decision 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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

JONAH: Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing

2010-08-03T10:00:00.001-04:00

JONAH, the lasted shield for con artist Arthur Abba Goldberg has changed its name from Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexciality to Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing. read this good:

"New alternative to Healing"

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.

They are correct!

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 the gay is impossible. Thank ~~God~~ oops, Yahweh, for that. And I am sop glad that JONAH is now falling in line with what most reputable psychologists already know, you cannot ~~prey~~ oops, pray away the gay.

The alternatives!

So, what are those alternatives to healing? Do not look further than Alan Downing, 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 "Cuddle Room"

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 ~~prey on~~ oops, prey away the gay!

Vilsack must resign

2010-07-21T10:00:00.000-04:00

Whow, is the administration so afraid for right-wing extremists that they now do their career lynchings for them? Looks like it. The short story. A notorious blogger, Andrew Breitbart, 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 Tom Vilsack 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?

NO

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?

Gay segregation in the Army?

2010-07-12T10:00:00.001-04:00

I thought the segregation had ended, but it looks like the Pentagon just wants it back, but now for openly gay personnel. 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?

To the Straight Guy at the Party Last Night

2010-06-20T10:00:00.000-04:00

This post is continuously flagged at craigslist as inappropriate, restored and flagged again. So I duplicate it here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Marriage: An $80,000,000 word

2010-06-14T10:00:00.001-04:00

The 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.

Just think about what could have been done with $80,000,000.00? I know what I would do. What would you do?

Why smart kids fail

2010-05-28T10:00:00.000-04:00

Why 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Judge orders Rekers rectification: He is bisexual

2010-05-13T10:00:00.000-04:00

George 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:

Rectification: Our reporting of the George Rekers case and the male escort was erroneous. Dr. George Rekers is not homosexual, he is bisexual.

Luggage: the latest synonym for the male sexual organ.....

2010-05-04T10:00:00.000-04:00

Am I the only one who is wondering what exactly is meant when George Rekers is saying he rented a male prostitute to carry his 'luggage'? 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....

Unfortunately, I cannot find the cartoon back on the internets......

Legal bigamy: The American Way

2010-05-03T10:00:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, it dawned to me. You can get legally married to two people in the United States because of DOMA. The scenario is simple:

You marry someone of the same sex in one of the states that does recognize them.
You move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, so you are officially unmarried.
Because you are officially not married, you can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Move back to the state that recognizes the same-sex marriage.

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.....

Satire: Rapist Family Therapy

2010-05-02T10:00:00.000-04:00

Recently, I thought of a funny skit-like situation. For your enjoyment.

(Courtroom)
Judge: Ma'am, could you please tell the court what happened that faithful evening in the park.

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 (gulp) .... to have..... to ... (weeping uncontrollably)

Judge: Sex?

Victim nods.

Judge: Ok Sir, what is your story?

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.

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.

Victim: What? No way?

Judge: Ma'am, should I hold you in contempt of court? Would a week of jail help to make you go?

Victim (cowering) O, no your honour? I am sorry.

Rapist: Thank you judge!

(Counsellors office)
Counsellor: Sir, this woman claims you sexually abused her?

Rapist: No, it wasn't rape, she was scarcely dressed, so she wanted sex. That is not sexual abuse?

Victim: What? I did not want to have sex. My goodness, I never have sex with men, they disgust me.

Rapist: See, she is in denial. She just needs some good sex and she will like it all righthy...

(Victim starts crying)

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?

Ex-gay panel discussion in Tallahassee

2010-04-21T01:00:00.009-04:00

This evening, I attended a panel discussion titled:

All God's Children: LGBTQ Members of Faith & the Ex-Gay Movement

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. ~~I will upload the video in sections to YouTube in the coming days.~~ Uploaded to YouTube here 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.

What follows is my personal impression.

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 (~~frutty~~ oops, the political correct version is fruitless) 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.

Ok, the panel consisted of five members. Three representatives were representing the ex-gay movement, Frank Carrasco & Christine Sneeringer, from Exodus and ex-felon and con-artist Arthur Goldberg, 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.

The evening started with personal introductions by the panel members, and I will provide a short impression of those introductions:

Frank Carrasco
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.

Christine Sneeringer
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.

Arthur Abba Goldberg
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.

Rev. Mark Byrd
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. 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.

Cantor Tanya Greenblatt
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.

And now about the content of the discussion. I think there were a few good things and the expected and obvious bad things.

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. Really? 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.

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.

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.

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.

And that brings me to the last item to be discussed. Harm. They claimed they did no harm. Whow. The APA disagrees. The survivors disagree.

UPDATE in the morning
~~Ok, I am going to bed. Tomorrow more.~~

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, see here.

Sophophora: A Laboratory Handbook

2010-04-10T10:00:00.000-04:00

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press has announced the next edition of their best-selling fuitfly handbook:

Sophophora melanogaster: Next steps

2010-04-09T10:00:00.000-04:00

After some nights of sleep, I have come to the conclusion that moving forward with splitting the genus is the only sensible thing to do. The longer we wait with renaming Drosophila melanogaster, the more complex the situation is going to be. The graphic representations of the paraphyletic genus Drosophila that are circulating around the internet are only a dressed down version, in that they ignore a substantial part of the paraphyly (aka, it looks not as bad as it actually is):

Well, here is the full story:

Once we get Sophophora melanogaster out of the way, there is not a real hold-up for further taxonomic revisions, and the field won't be longer hold hostage by the Sophophora melanogaster problem but individual researchers can actually do their revisions.

Drosophila politics: Sophophora melanogaster

2010-04-08T10:00:00.011-04:00

The commission has ruled, Drosophila funebris remains the type species of the genus Drosophila, opening the way a renaming of Drosophila melanogaster to Sophophora melanogaster. To understand better how we got here, I will provide some background information on the history of the genus, the history of the case, the decision and how to move forward.

The history of the genus Drosophila

The genus Drosophila was established in 1823 by Fallén, who included 12 species. Drosophila melanogaster was described in 1830 by Meigen, who placed it in the genus Drosophila. Then, in 1939, Sturtevant subdivides the genus in several subgenera, including the subgenus Sophophora, home of Drosophila melanogaster. In 1990, Grimaldi removed several subgenera from the genus Drosophila, and elevates them to the level of genus, including the subgenera Scaptodrosophila, Hirtodrosophila while several other subgenera are moved to the Hawaiian 'Drosophila' genus, Idiomyia. The latter name has only been accepted sparely, most researchers place them in the subgenus Drosophila. Over time, the genus Drosophila has been the receptacle for many species of fruit flies, especially those lacking obvious characteristics that warrant a separate genus, resulting in a genus that consists of more than 1000 species (or 1500 if the Hawaiian 'Drosophila' are included).

The history of the case

Several years ago, I was in need of a good phylogeny of the genus Drosophila for a comparative analysis. I have images of more than 21.000 fly wings spanning more than 100 species across the family Drosophilidae. However, if you want to know how those wings evolved, you have to consider that closely related species will be more similar because they share more of their evolutionary history with each other compared to more distantly related species. Six years ago, everybody was waiting for Patrick O'Grady to finally publish his comprehensive molecular phylogeny. A few years earlier, in 2002, O'Grady, together with Rob DeSalle had received a US$ 367.221 grant to study the phylogenetic relationships within the family Drosophilidae by sequencing and analysing up to 60 genes for more than 100 different species. We are still waiting, well, not for long any more as we now have our own molecular phylogeny in press with Genetics Research.

After waiting a few years on the Drosophila phylogeny, something had to happen, en I pulled together all the existing literature covering small parts of the phylogenetic tree of the genus Drosophila, and pieced them together first by hand, and later using a formal method, called the supertree analysis. That tree was published in 2008. What the analysis showed was that the genus Drosophila as currently defined is paraphyletic. Several genera, including Hirtodrosophila, Scaptomyza, Zaprionus, Mycodrosophila and several more are positioned within the genus Drosophila.

Among taxonomists, a continuing discussion is whether paraphyletic taxa are desirable/accaptable or not. However, there is one crucial aspect to consider. Homogeneity. Consider the following scenario. Take a group of species that are closely related. All species, except those in one small branch look very similar to each other. The exception is that small clade that is very different from the remaining species. In such a case, grouping the two genera in a single genus to make a monophyletic genus does not make sense. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Drosophila. The genus is very heterogeneous, and the various clades are often more alike to the included genera than to the more distantly related relatives in the genus. So, Drosophila is not a good candidate to keep as a paraphyletic genus, an option preferred by some researchers such as Patrick O'Grady.

So, what are the alternatives?

One alternative is to sink all included genera into the genus Drosophila, which would result in a very large (2250+ species) genus, that is rather heterogeneous, and it would result in more than 100 secondary homonyms (that is, two species with the same name of which the species described last needs to get a new name).

The other is to split the genus along the major clades, and elevate each of the clades to the rank of genus. That is an easy solution, and done frequently in taxonomy. Unfortunately, there is only one small problem. And that is that Drosophila melanogaster would be renamed to Sophophora melanogaster.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yes. You read that right.

This is a situation where nomenclature, the science of how to name species and higher taxa, clashes with reality. Why? Because Drosophila melanogaster is not just your average run-of-the-mill species. Drosophila melanogaster is one of the most studied model-organisms in the world, with more than 50.000 published articles; references in almost each and every biology textbook on many many different topics; it is used in high school biology classes to teach kids the fundamentals of genetics; it is used in medical research, in neurobiology, in ecological, studies, in genetics, etc. So, renaming such a species is not feasible.

When you come to that conclusion, there is only one way to go, and that is to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, effectively a small group of well-respected taxonomists who decide when overruling their own rules is better for taxonomic stability. So, we submitted an application to the commission for consideration, in which we asked them to change the type species for the genus Drosophila to Drosophila melanogaster, so that the name Drosophila melanogaster would be carved in stone. For now and for ever.

The Decision

A few days ago, the commission published their decision. In the three years between the publication of the application and the decision by the ICZN, many comments by outsiders have been published. Some of them were in favour, some against. In the end, the commission ruled 4 against 23 to reject the application. I won't go into the arguments of the individual commissioners, but they can be grouped in several broad arguments:

We do not know enough.
People can learn a new name.
Let's not create precedent.
A paraphyletic genus is not a problem.
Conserving the name would require more species to be renamed.
The other model species

Lets see.

1. We do not know enough.

Really? Sorry if I sound underwhelmed. There are over 20 published phylogenies covering a wide range of species, and at least a 30 more that focus on smaller groups. We summarized everything in a nice article in 2008, and there is only one conclusion that follows from that article, and that is that the genus is paraphyletic, and that most clades are well defined. A comprehensive molecular study pointing at exactly the same thing is in press. Okay, they did not have access to the latter, but the latter only confirms what we already knew from the previous publication.

2. People can learn a new name.

True. But will they accept the new name? Because if the scientists won't accept the new name, they won't learn it, and it won't trickle down to the general public. During the proceedings, various examples have been put forward on acceptance of new names. One example was hilarious, because it was presented as a perfect example on how new names were accepted. Stegomyia aegypti used to be called Aedes aegypti, until a few years ago, the genus was revised and the name changed. Unfortunately, contrary to the claim as a successful name change, it was not accepted by the community at large, to the point that several journals, including Journal of Medical Entomology, Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, Journal of Vector Ecology, Medical and Veterinary Entomology, Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases, and PROMED, publicly denounced the new name. Another example was the renaming of the zebrafish, Danio rerio, which was easily accepted. True, but as a colleague who works on the species explained, that name change did take place before the zebrafish became a popular model system, so hardly anything was affected by it. The situation with Drosophila melanogaster is rather different as I explained above.

3. Let's not create precedent.

First of all, the commission by design does not have to take into consideration what happened in previous cases. Each case is decided on its merits, without regard of previous rulings. But even if they did consider precedents? Would that be a problem? Unlikely because there are not that many widely used model systems, and most of them are phylogentically positioned in places that a name change is really unlikely. Unsurprisingly, no examples of other potential cases have been presented.

4. A paraphyletic genus is not a problem.

Okay, I discussed that one above already, no need for repetition.

5. Conserving the name would require more species to be renamed.

I am not sure how they came to this conclusion as we explained in the original application. When the genus is split, it will be split according to the four major clades. So, the names of the species in two of the clades will change regardless. Of the two remaining clades, the clade with Drosophila melanogaster is the largest, effectively preserving the name of the largest possible number of species.

6. The other model species

Some voiced concern about renaming the other Drosophila model species like Drosophila virilis and Drosophila grimshawii. Well, by rejecting the application, none of the species will retain the name Drosophila because none of the species is in the clade with the type species.

How to move forward

So, what is next? Good question. Several options remain:

Do nothing.
Accept phylocode for the genus and forget about having a nice rank-based classification.
Split the genus and renames Drosophila melanogaster to Sophophora melanogaster and test the argument that it won't matter and that people will accept the new name.
Elevate the clade one by one to the level of genus, slowly but surely dismantling the genus until only two relative small unrelated clades remain, one with funebris, and one with melanogaster.

~~At this stage, I have not made a decision what my next step will be.~~ See my next post here.

Are Ex-Gays not Heterosexuals?

2010-03-12T10:00:00.000-05:00

Lets pretend for a second that it is actually possible to change your sexual orientation. Not that you really can, so do not try this at home, because it most likely will result in loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality, and anxiety.

So, help me out. An ex-gay is someone who has seen Jebus and has become suddenly straight?

Right? Straight as in heterosexual? Right? Yup. And ex-gay is a normal heterosexual.

Not really. You see, PFOX, an organisation for parents and friends of Ex-Gays (so they can put more pressure on their kids and friends who have already succumbed to their narrow morality), want to have Ex-Gay being recognized as a separate sexual orientation.

Really? Yup. Really!

Lets think this through. An ex-gay is not a heterosexual. Well Duh. Of course not, they are homosexuals acting as if they are heterosexuals, most likely fantasizing about that cute gay man they saw several days ago when they has the obligatory sex for procreation.

No wonder that they need special protection.

The Power of the GAYS!

2010-03-11T10:00:00.001-05:00

In Mississippi, how backward do you want to go, a school board rather cancelled the prom for EVERYBODY than to allow a same sex couple to attend. Whoow,how far do you want to go with your hatred. I hope the federal judge will issue a preliminary ruling soon so that the school can stick their homophobia up their own ass (sodomy is nowadays legal in Mississippi after Lawrence v. Texas).

Maybe we as a community can show how it is done, and that we organize a prom for the kids there, all inclusive for everybody. That would be the best response possible.

He heterosexuals, we feel you pain.

2010-03-02T10:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the Catholic Charities in Washington DC removed the health benefits for new employees in order to be able to deny same-sex couples from having the same. Basically, they extended the anti-gay bigotry to their heterosexual employees just so they could stay within their religious doctrine. That is their good right, but it tells me one thing. Those heterosexuals now feel what we are feeling all along, religion LIMITS your rights. I want to say to them, welcome to the club of lesser than people.

Security breach in US military

2010-02-23T10:00:00.000-05:00

Rick Santorum (Repukeian) thinks that the US military commanders have been indoctrinated to support the repeal of the discriminatory "Don's ask, don't tell" policy.

Take a minute to let that sink in.

I repeat what he is saying:

US military officers indoctrinated

Really. I think if that is true, that the US defence is incredible vulnerable. Why, because it means that any foreign nation or terrorist group can indoctrinate these people. And some of them have far better indoctrination techniques available than the average gay with an agenda.

Reality is, they are not indoctrinated, but actually people who see that the policy is discriminatory and want it removed. They are the people who have to worry about losing Arabic translators because of the policy. They see it is hurting the US defence to kick people out because of their sexual orientation.

The right decision

2010-02-18T10:00:00.000-05:00

Many are denunciating the Archdiocese of Washington for dropping their foster care program. Although I understand their reasoning, I think it is perfectly within their right to do so. If a faith-based organisation cannot abide to the worldly laws of the country, they should not get any money of those worldly authorities to do good work that is authorized by the worldly authorities.

So, I think this is the perfect outcome. They transferred their program to another organisation who does not have the same religious limitation, so no foster kids have been hurt by the principled decision.

The twisted logic of the personhood initiatives

2010-02-17T10:00:00.001-05:00

The personhood movement wants to redefine what is a person. They want to define it as from the moment of fertilisation till death. Yes, you read it right.

This person:

has the same rights as you and me.

Really.

Yes!

So, lets look at this. A woman gets accidentally pregnant because the condom breaks. The resulted fertilized egg is a person with the same rights as the woman. Same right, but clearly incapable to take care of itself. Humm, what do we do when parents cannot take care of their child? They can give it up for adoption. If the kid is lucky. So, if I get pregnant unwillingly, can I give my fertilized egg up for adoption?

Probably not. No, most likely, the mother will be forced to function as an incubator for the parasitic person inside of her that she does not want. However, that might raise some very interesting issues. One issue that needs to be raised is which person is in charge of the body of the woman? The woman? Or the parasitic person insight of her that she did not choose to be there? And if the judges declare that the woman looses her rights to the other person, does that mean that other people can parasitize a random other person as well, in a similar matter?

Oh, but most importantly, would it reduce the number of abortions? No, study after study already has shown that the only aspects of the abortion that changes is whether it is a legal or an illegal one, and the risk to the woman. Because if a woman does not want to be pregnant, she wil get rid of it, one way or the other.

Upping the stakes

2010-02-09T10:00:00.000-05:00

The right wing anti-gay groups are upping their stakes. They now want to get homosexuality being recriminalized. And that makes sense. For a long time, they would just yell the most outrageous claims, and they were able to get away with it because nobody had done research on it. Now that more and more studies show that their claims are just bogus, they have to change tunes. And so they move away from masking their moral crusade by bold false claims that are easier and easier refuted to a moral crusade itself.

I think that is a good thing, because it will clear the air. I encourage those people to say that they think homosexuality should be criminalized. It makes it much easier to spot the bigots, and it will drive away the sensible conservatives who actually have enough of a brain to think for themselves.

Scott Roeder: Rot in Jail

2010-01-29T10:00:00.002-05:00

Today, Scott Roeder was found guilty on first degree murder of George Tiller. One more lunatic who can rot in jail till his death.

Marriage and Gay Reality Check

2010-01-24T10:00:00.003-05:00

Someone can only control you if you let them to. If we gays and lesbians hide away, that is what they want. They do not want to see us, and that is why they try to deny us access to as much as possible. But if we look at it, does it really change reality?

So, a reality check about gay and lesbians:

We exist. Whether we can marry or not, we exist and your children will hear about us. Weather you like it or not. because we exist. Unless you patrol EVERYTHING your children hear, read and see. Yeah, that is right, you home-school them, transport them in a blinded car to and from church and the parents of friends have to go through a solid vetting process so that the tender souls of your first born is not affected by knowing about those evil homosexuals.
We have sex. Does anybody really think you can prevent people from having sex. We have sex, and even when the sodomy laws where in place, sodomy occurred. And better, lesbians could just fuck each other anyway, and they do not commit sodomy in the first place. And yes, we know that you really would like to have that threesome with us, but sorry, you first have to chop of your dick before I even start contemplating whether I have you in my bed.
We have relationships. Duh. Ever tried to tell your kid they cannot see their boyfriend because you don't like him? Did it work? Really, you checked when she was at school, hanging out with friends etc? Yes, you did? Whow, I am sure you think you are a good parent. I think you are a despot.
We live together. Duh again.
We have children. Really, it is not that difficult to score some sperm somewhere, and in the worst case scenario, I think I could manage to get laid by a guy in a different city. Okay, I need a drink or 5 (2make me tipsy, 3rather drunk, 4 I about pass out, and 5, he can have fun) but heck, father unknown (I was to drunk) and me happy. And the child, s/he will have two of the most awesome mommies in the world. Unlike those from fighting, abusing, divorced, alcoholic, addicted and/or absent heterosexual parents. They should be happy if they have one parent to take care of them.
We marry. Well, maybe not legally in the state we are living in, but we marry anyway. Legally in either another state or country, and religiously in any church that doesn't follow your particular brand of hateful interpretation.

So, what happens when you are successful in forcing a gay or lesbian to play heterosexual? Get this:

We exist. That we live a lie in a heterosexual prison called a 'loving' marriage does not change the fact we exist.
We have sex. Only when we really have to, and using some tricks so that we do not want to kill ourselves immediately after you are done. We might try to make a list of groceries we have to get later at walmart, or think about the cute blond chick at work that accidentally rubbed my hand and made us wet between the legs when we were waiting for her to be done with the copier, or think about the muscled construction worker at the corner of the street how he takes you from behind on a role of electric wire, etc. etc. etc. You get the gist, we won't be there with you, we will be there where we feel better than with having sex with you. But heck, I guess you won't care as long as you can fuck someone without having to pay for it.
We have relationships. Really, why do people cheat within a relationship? Guess? Because they do not get what they need? Well, that is one of the reasons. Think. Think harder, think harder what happens when someone is gay and forced to enjoy heterosexual torture? You get it. Just think about all those conservative 'heterosexual' men who were caught with a guy..... Just think what they were doing with those ~~gays....~~ huh guys.
We live together. You got us there. Darn.
We have children. Of course, the heterosexual marching orders include that you have a child. Or two. Or three. And with a bit of luck, we only need one time sex for each child. But the best of all, we get to spread our GAY GENES! Thank you for helping us to pass on those gay genes! I know, you think that it is a choice, and as long as that you think that, we get to spread our genes. So, please, you think it is choice, and we spread the genes. Sounds like a good deal to me! At least, if we have to endure hetero sex, it is at least not for nothing.
We marry. And we are sooo happy. NOT. But thank to those men and women who have been carefully brainwashed with the idea that homosexuality can be cured if they are willing to marry one and help them overcome their abomination, we marry. And I know, you do not care if those selfless heterosexual souls get hurt sooner or later when their partner whon is really gay and not heterosexual cannot longer stand the heterosexual ~~prison~~ marriage and leaves her for a homosexual partner. Really, if you after 20 years of a love free, sex-free, passion-free marriage think he does not have passion, love etc, just wait till he does not have to deny himself any more. And please, no complaints please, you did it for God and Country. He will reward you in heaven. Isn't that wonderful.

Have a nice day!

Reclaiming Marriage

2010-01-22T10:00:00.000-05:00

I think it is time that the same-sex couples of the US reclaim the word Marriage. When I read about the actual objections to same-sex marriage by religious people, it is because they consider the word marriage sacred and that it should be reserved for one man and one woman in accordance with their religious beliefs. This by itself is a huge problem for the sometimes non-existing separation between church and state, but I digress.

If marriage is so important for non-legal purposes, namely for religions, queers can reclaim the term similarly. Therefore, there is no limitation to use the word marriage in a religious context. The right-wing bigots can legislate away that that the government can use the word for the legal context because they want the exclusive right to use it as a religious word for opposite-sex marriages, but beyond that, they cannot prevent anything. So, we should start using it as much as possible, and let the world know that WE are MARRIED!

Deserved loss in Massachusetts

2010-01-20T10:00:00.001-05:00

Really, the democrats do not deserve to have 60 seats in the senate. If you cannot work together, you deserve to loose.

Change was coming. Yeah right. I still think Obama was the best choice, but it is obvious that change was not coming. And change is not coming because the democrats do not want it. As someone wrote, Washington is from the lobbyists, for the lobbyists, by the lobbyists. It should have been obvious what was going to happen as soon as the campaign promise on the revolving door for lobbyists was broken.

Anyway, with the repukeians filibustering pretty much everything just to show who is boss, and the democrats giving in to that with compromise after compromise, it would be just plain better to elect a retard to start with.

It is now time to wave goodbye to Universal Health Care. Like a mirage in the desert that fades when you get closer.......

The good thing is that in the next months till the midterm election, we can sit back knowing nothing substantial will happen in Washington, our rights will be eroding more and more, and the democrats will roll over and become the lapdogs of the repukeians once again.

Gay revolution

2010-01-19T10:00:00.004-05:00

I have been following the federal court case against the Californian Proposition 8 that define marriage as between a man and a woman only. The more I hear about it, the more it get clear to me that it is not just prop8 that is at trial, it is homosexuality itself that is at trial.

"Protecting California Children"! Which California children? Those well adjusted kids with gay parents against their own parents? Who will have their mummies or daddies anyway, regardless whether their parents are married? Really, those kids are only negatively affected by it. But heck, those kids do not count. Because they are losers anyway because they have gay parent. No, it is not to protect those children, it is to prevent children from being exposed to alternatives of their parents heterosexual marriage. Because "Oh My God", TRADITIONAL marriage is under fire. (I will go into the canard of the so-called "traditional marriage" another time)

But really, ultimately, they do not want their kids to know that we exist. Because this is not the only way homosexuality has to be removed from sight. For example, they do not want homosexuality be mentioned in sex-ed. Homosexuality is a choice, and you can fix them (like a dog). etc etc Effectively, they want us out of sight, so that they can bread their next generation of bigotry and prejudice.

I think it is time that the gays stop hiding. The more they try to push us out of sight by denying us fundamental rights, the more visible we should become. Really, once they get that providing us with our fundamental rights is the best way to minimize their exposure to us, they will be at the front lines lobbying for it. So, we have to become more visible, and this means adopting the tactics of the anti-abortion and anti-gay crowd who are so in your face about their message. I really think it would not be a bad idea to go with groups of gays and demonstrate in front of especially fundamentalist schools during pick-up of the kids, same with fundamentalist churches, etc. Expose them to our existence. In short, No More Mister Nice Gay.

Jonathan Wells shows his ignorance. Man bites dog at page 75645

2009-12-04T10:00:00.003-05:00

Jonathan Wells, a fellow of the Dishonesty Institute posted on the "Evolution News and Views" website the following in a post attacking Donald Prothero, someone who actually does know his shit:

Some Darwinists have suggested that ancestral four-winged fruit flies could have evolved by mutation into modern two-winged fruit flies. But this explanation doesn’t work, because a two-winged fly hasn’t simply lost a pair of wings; it has acquired a large and complex gene (ultrabithorax) that enables it to develop “halteres,” or balancers. The halteres are located behind the fly’s normal pair of wings and vibrate rapidly to stabilize the insect in flight. So the two-winged fly represents the gain—not loss—of an important structure. (See Chapter 9 of my book "Icons of Evolution"). (Emphasis mine)

Really?

Well, Jonathan Wells, tell me, why is this large and complex gene found in other insects than Diptera?

Does Ray Comfort genuinly not understand evolution?

2009-11-12T10:00:00.000-05:00

Ray Comfort, an easy target for anti-creationists because of his incredible obvious ignorance when it comes down to understanding evolution, has apologized for not knowing where he talks about:

I sincerely apologize for misrepresenting what Darwinian evolution says about the origin of males and females.

And he then cointinues to state that he:

I have checked out the references you have given me as to what the theory has to say about their genesis, read them again and again, and I still don’t understand what you believe.

Well, we (evolutionary biologists) could help out here. But the problem is not the evolution of the sexes, it is:

It doesn’t make sense to me because I can’t reconcile what I see in creation with what you would have me believe about evolution.

I give him that. Yes, it is impossible to reconcile evolution with a literal interpretation of the bible. And this is also why nobody until now has been able to talk sense into him. And further, nobody will, until he is willing to look at evolution as a process by itself and see what it explains. And he knows already, you can read that between the lines of his own posts, that once he tries that, he will see the power and beauty of evolution and it will become even more difficult to reconcile with his religious perspective.

Selectivity with civil rights

2009-11-02T10:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I was once more reminded of the selectivity of people when it comes down to civil rights. When California voted for proposition 8, a large proportion came from African Americans, who should know better about civil rights. They still are struggling to get those honoured, but when it was time to support another group struggling with similar issues, they turned around and voted to uphold discriminatory practices against another group in society. The same thing you see with gay rights activists, who as easy turn around and bash another group they do not have affinity with. It sucks, but I fear it is the reality we have to deal with.

When someone hits you with a hammer.....

2009-10-26T10:00:00.002-04:00

When someone hits you with a hammer, who do you blame for the pain?

The person who hit you with the hammer?

Yourself because you actually feel the pain?

Most people reading this will choose option 1. And that is very logical.

So, why is this an issue? Well, when we replace the hammer for abusive language, there is a considerable number of people who say that words do not hurt people, it is their own sensitivity that does. Tell that the boys who are bullied at school for being perceived gay while being heterosexual. Or the black man who is called a n......! Or the mentally disabled who is called crazy.

Words hurt, and words kill. And if anybody tells you to bone up and that you should be able to just handle it as a big guy, remember that that is just another way to be abusive and controlling. Because in the end, abusive language has only one purpose, and that is to control the recipient of the abusive language.

2009-09-24T10:00:00.000-04:00

This man is one of the lowest creatures in the world, who was released for a few days by the Dutch court and disappeared.
Now he is protesting the publication of this image. Really? Go fuck yourself.

ADA: who is the problem?

2009-09-23T10:00:00.001-04:00

So, once it has been established that discrimination takes place, how are you dealing with it. Often, the atmosphere at the workplace has been destroyed, and that often becomes an argument to continue exclusion of the person discriminated in the first place. However, is that the only solution? Well, no, because when discrimination takes place, there is the person that does the discriminating and the person that is discriminated against. So, once it has been established that discrimination takes place, the person doing the discrimination has to bone up and change their ways, and if they cannot, they should be removed from their position. That might hurt, but it is also the most effective way to ensure similar cases of discrimination won't happen again. In short, the target for resolution should be those that discriminate, not those that have been discriminated.

ADA: Discrimination definition

2009-09-22T10:00:00.005-04:00

After the previous two posts, I thought that it might be handy to actually post the ADA definition of discrimination related to employment, which includes volunteers when the organisation voluntarily sings off on that:

The ADA prohibits discrimination in all employment practices, including job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. It applies to recruitment, advertising, tenure, layoff, leave, fringe benefits, and all other employment-related activities.

Sounds clear to me.

So, who is covered (same link):

Employment discrimination is prohibited against "qualified individuals with disabilities." This includes applicants for employment and employees. An individual is considered to have a "disability" if s/he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. Persons discriminated against because they have a known association or relationship with an individual with a disability also are protected.

The last sentence is crucial.....

ADA: Miscommunication

2009-09-21T10:00:00.000-04:00

I think many cases of discrimination are not intentional, but caused by stupid things such as miscommunication between people within an organisation. This is especially true for organisations without a clear structure on how to deal with all aspects. Organisations are bombarded with things they have to think about, react to, and each time, they have to do it right. Well, sometimes, that fails. Volunteer organisations are especially sensitive to this, as most volunteers learn on the job when it arises how to deal with specific aspects. And generally there is nothing wrong with that, unless that leads to for example discrimination of someone.

Good communication within an organisation is essential when someone asks for accommodation for a disability. From the initial request, such a request has to be passed on to the proper functionaries within that organisation, and they then have to act on it. This requires good communication between people. When this fails, the responsible functionaries can be genuinely ignorant about the request. When said functionary than moves on and ignore the request, the disabled person will feel unheard at least and might feel discriminated when the outcome is that the disabled person is for example excluded.

Miscommunication is not the end of the world. Shit happens. It becomes a big deal when it is defended, when the results of the miscommunication are attributed to the disabled person. That adds substantial grievance to the situation.

Fortunately, miscommunication can be dealt with. Once it is obvious that there was miscommunication, apologizing for it and straightening out what has gone wrong is often the only things what is needed. However, when that is not done, it add insult to injury and aggrevates the situation.

Disclaimer added

2009-08-16T10:00:00.003-04:00

I have added a disclaimer to the blog after I was accused that some of my blog posts were injurious. Each of the posts at this blog reflect my personal opinion. However, if you feel I have made false statements about you or an organization you represent, contact me specifying what is wrong. If you do not contact me about these errors, I am no longer responsible for their presence at this public blog.

The Art of Communication

2009-08-15T10:00:00.003-04:00

We all communicate all the time, using words, intonation, hand movements, body postures, facial expressions, etc. We do it in person, by e-mail, on the phone, by snail mail, in books and journals.

Communication is an Art. Just like some people are excellent Artists, and some just plain suck, the same happens with communication. Some people are very good at it, and some, well, not as talented.

So, what happens if someone decides that communication is overrated, and start assuming or interpreting? It is when the shit hits the fan, because it is so error prone. That is why I generally try to ask what is going on, and it makes that I sometimes only after some time come to the conclusion that I actually agree or disagree with what happened in a specific situation.

In the context, I think I can safely say that if you really want to piss me off, assume that I do things for a specific reason without asking me. Because most of the time, you are wrong. I especially get really pissed when someone assumes that I have very negative emotions. I most of the time do not have them, and even when I do have them, it is generally short lived.

And if you really want to know, use an assumption of how I feel as a reason to for example end a friendship or business relationship. If you really cannot say why YOU want to do that, do not invent reasons that I supposedly have. It really pisses me off.

And now that we are talking about pet peeves, never ever ignore when I respond to your unsubstantiated claims about how I feel.....

Communication is an Art, and if used properly, it can help resolve many many issues. Most issues start with poor communication. When a situation has gone bad, resolution often starts with recognizing that the feelings of the other are valid. Your own feelings are always valid. So are those from your opponent. One thing I find fascinating in the US is that many discussions I have seen will escalate as they become black and white. I have encountered that much less in the Netherlands. I think that is because everything in this country at a political level is split down the middle, due to a two party system. In a multi-party system, you are forced to find common ground all the time with other parties, because hardly ever will one party have an absolute majority. But I digress....

When two people (or groups) fight and one retreats to their own little island of (perceived) righteousness, there will be only losers. And that is sad. Unfortunately, it takes two to tango....

Cage fight: Mental versus physical disability!

2009-08-02T10:00:00.002-04:00

I am enraged. I went to see the soloist. The soloist is about how a mental illness can destroy the life of a gifted man. A man who ends up at the streets of Los Angeles, one of the 60,000 homeless people there. Many of the homeless have mental disabilities.

Mental disabilities are incredibly underestimated by many people because it does not show. You often cannot see when the person behind you in line at the supermarket has a mental disability. You won't see that it took all the energy that person had to go and do the shoppings.

When someone is missing a limb, it is easy for an outsider to have compassion because we can imagine how difficult it has to be to get around with one leg, in a wheelchair, not seeing anything, or being deaf. But there is more to it. It is very hard for us to imagine that your brain is taken over by voices that talk to you. How do you imagine that? How do you imagine that your brain is not working the way it is working? It is not like hearing voices like we do. We can shut those voices out because they are from outside our brain. That is easy. But when those voices come from the inside, how do you shut those off with the brain that is making them?

In the movie, Mr Ayers has paranoid schizophrenia. It is just one of the many versions of mental disabilities. There are many more. Some milder, some more severe.

What I hope is that our society becomes more social, and starts to treat mentally disabled people with more dignity.... You can always hope.

Slow Facebook with Vista and Firefox

2009-08-01T10:00:00.000-04:00

My Facebook pages were pretty much impossible to load in Firefox after I got a new computer with Vista 32 bit....

After some digging around, I found a website that suggested to look at add-ons that could be an issue. One mentioned the Skype add-on specifically. So, I disabled all add-ons and yes, facebook was fast again! I then enabled them one by one (ok, three by three), till I had only a few add-ons remaining, including skype. Once I turned that one on, facebook became slow as you can imagine again! And honestly, I can live without the Skype add=on, so that one is now permanently disabled! {Problem solved

Dell E6500 internet connection issues

2009-07-31T10:00:00.001-04:00

A few days ago, I got a brand new Dell Latitude E6500. A really nice machine. In the first days, I only had two issues, FaceBook in FireFox is acting totally weird, and at home, the internet kept connecting and disconnecting. After digging around, I finally found the solution. The Wireless LAN adapter is configured by default to use power saving. The way to solve it is:

Go to the control panel
Open device manager
Go to Network Adapters and right click the Dell Wireless 1510 Wireless-N WLAN Mini-Card
Select properties and go to the Advanced tab
Then disable 'Minimum Power Consumption'
Go top the Power Managament tab and disable that as well.

This solved my issues.

Bill Donohue re-rapes rape victims of the Irish Catholic Church

2009-05-30T10:00:00.000-04:00

Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights tries to minimize the sexual, physical and emotional abuse committed by the Catholic church in Ireland. I already did not have any respect left for this sub-human piece of meat, but for him to minimize what has happened is nothing short than a re-raping of all those victims. hear yourself here:

Gay marriage cost money!?!?!?

2009-05-16T10:00:00.002-04:00

What the fuck! The retards of the GOP in the form of their token-black has found a new way to get support for their anti-gay message. It would cost money if gay-marriage would be legalized. True, but heterosexual marriage already costs money when your employee is married. So, what they are saying is effectively that it is okay if you have to pay for a heterosexual's partner, but not for a homosexual's partner. Really, they are actively promoting that the inequality is kept in place! They are actively promoting the discrimination of gay people over hetero-normative people!

PS. maybe we can use it as a argument to hire more gays, because they are cheaper.....

Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway

2009-04-28T10:00:00.004-04:00

"Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway" is a normal English sentence. It is also trademarked. Yes, TRADEMARKED. What is worse, I can now expect a cease and desist letter from the lawyer of Susan Jeffers, just like another blogger who just accidentally used it. Well, if blogger.com is going to remove it because of that (because I won't), I think the blogosphere does not have a problem to get it on so many non-American servers that she just will be paying a shipload of money for many many S&D letters. My guess is that it is a cheap way to get some publicity for her not so good selling book..... Let me say it this way, if she had written a good book, she would not need this kind of cheap publicity at the costs of a random blogger.

Men out of control; blame the women

2009-04-13T10:00:00.003-04:00

Why is it that men always blame the women when they cannot hold their dick in their pants? I think because they can. It varies a lot between regions how this is played out, like in many Muslim countries, where a woman who even is seen with a man that is not related to her is already considered over the line. O yes, they will use nice excuses as preserving her whatever, but in the end, it is all about man having a problem with their dick.

A variant of that is when women are blamed for being raped. "She dressed to sluttish." "She asked for it with those clothes." What a bullshit. It is shifting the blame. When do men get it that their dick is their responsibility and nobodies else's.

Opposing gay marriage to protect the children?

2009-03-07T10:00:00.002-05:00

One frequent heard argument to object to gay marriage is that it is better for the children. lets assume for the moment that it is indeed true, despite that it is clearly not. Is a ban on gay marriage actually having an effect on where those children grow up? Not at all? The only difference is that they have two parents who are not married and have no rights, but for the rest, they will have two fathers or two mothers regardless. So, why oppose gay marriage if prohibiting gay marriage does not have an effect on where the children grow up?

California supreme court: Marriage is just a word

2009-03-06T10:00:00.000-05:00

Marriage for gay couples seems to be ended in California, but it seems that the justices take hat VERY narrowly, namely meaning just the word marriage. They pretty much explicitly say that gays should have the same rights, and that no form of discrimination is allowed. Or as justice Kennard, one of the two swing voters indicated:

She reminded lawyers that the "core" part of last year's marriage ruling required the state to give sexual orientation the same constitutional protection as race and gender.

Proposition 8 "hasn't destroyed equal protection," Kennard said.

So, here we go again, do we want the same rights, or do we want the same term? I think the gay movement in this country is loosing ground by requiring that we get the same term and the same rights, because much of the opposition has to do with the term. Many religious people see marriage as a sacred term, and just for that purpose, they object to it. So, by choosing for equal rights, and give the term marriage to the religious for the time being, we can improve dramatically in our rights. As soon as we have our rights, we can argue that the term marriage should be taken out of the legal system because it is a violation of the separation between church and state, but that is a fight we can fight later.

It is time that someone asks for the same rights from the Californian government without wanting to use the word marriage, and see what the justices of the supreme court rule. One willing municipality (San Francisco?) who make a move towards and it might be quickly enough resolved. As long as we want to have rights to the word Marriage, we are loosing this battle. (Now I duck and run for the anger this provokes from my fellow gay activists)

Only marriage between a man and a woman of the same race is valid or recognized in California

2009-03-05T10:00:00.004-05:00

In California, proposition 8 added the following words to the state constitution:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

We have recognized that rights cannot be denied based on skin colour, but people can be actively discriminated against because they are gay.

Barrel Eye Fish

2009-03-03T10:00:00.002-05:00

Man, I think this is one of the most awesome fishes I ever saw:

Michael Egnor's unsubstantiated claims

2009-03-02T10:00:00.005-05:00

Michael Egnor keeps claiming that ID has produced evidence for design:

Some aspects of biology, particularly molecular biology, show clear scientific evidence for intelligent design.

Really, the same rehashed creationist claims that are presented over and over again as 'evidence' for design? Show us the irrefutable proof before claiming once again that you have proof. But let me guess, he does not have it.

And before you claim that each and every person who thinks evolution is the only sensible explanation is an atheist, I am not, you are wrong!

Bush: Worst Presedent EVER

2009-03-01T10:00:00.000-05:00

This video speaks for itself

Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers

2009-02-27T10:00:00.003-05:00

New Scientist just published a new article: Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers. My goodness, and I have to be surprised? And what is even more predictable is that Utah has the highest percentage of internet porn subscriptions! Oh! My! God! Who the fuck (pun intended) do conservatives think they are that they think that they can preach their fucked-up ideas about morality, when they themselves have the biggest issues with it! Fucking hypocrites!

Sophophora melanogaster hits Nature's news wire

2009-01-24T12:25:00.006-05:00

Short of having my own article in Nature, I go for the second best with that, a news article that effectively is the result of my work. A fly by any other name reports on our effort to save Drosophila melanogaster from being renamed to Sophophora melanogaster. I reported on this before, here and here, so go there for more thought of me about this issue.

"Quantum fluctuation" verus "God"

2009-01-24T10:00:00.007-05:00

I am amused by the discussion between PZ Myers and Ray Comfort. I don't agree with either position (I come to that in a minute), but they are at least equal stubborn and convinced they know the truth and the other is wrong. Personally, I think PZ is a raging evangelical atheist, while Ray is nothing more than your average raging evangelical christian. Both annoy me to no end.

The issue at hand is: "Where did it all start?" The devout christian will say: GOD! The devout atheist will say: QUANTUM FLUCTUATION! Ray launched a new website called: "Pull the plug on atheism", PZ of course responded like stung by a bee with: "The banana man thinks he's got atheists on the run" after which Ray fired back with: "A Challenge to a Professor" followed by PZ response: "Called out by a clown" with of course a response from Ray: "Professor Myers Flakes"...... Somewhere on the line, PZ indicates that Ray's answers have been answered in the comments, and sure enough, many provided little pieces to that answer. Most interesting is a comment by "cosmologist" here:

Ray, the universe began from a quantum fluctuation (big bang); a phase transition from potential energy to kinetic energy.

Quantum fluctuations were the FIRST CAUSE and PRIME MOVER of the universe. The universe before the big bang was in a quantum state. There's no need to resort to asking what came before quantum fluctuations because CAUSALITY breaks down at the subatomic level (the condition the universe was in the beginning).

Because the universe was in a quantum state before the big bang, it adheres to the quantum uncertainty principle. There can be NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING in this universe as long as the generation of energy via virtualparticle pairs does not violate the law of energy conservation; it requires no miracle or supernatural act to create the energy in the universe.

Ah, it contains the convenient escape hatch:

There's no need to resort to asking what came before quantum fluctuations because CAUSALITY breaks down at the subatomic level

Cosmology (religious or scientific) has a fundamental problem, and that is to explain the beginning in a way that does not require a ultimate cause. So, the break down of causality is convenient, and even if true, it does not rescue the problem, because:

Because the universe was in a quantum state before the big bang

So, before we had the big bang, there was a universe in a quantum state that already existed:

Because there can be no such thing as 0 energy in the universe, the universe also adheres to the thermal laws of thermodynamics, which basically says absolute zero is unattainable. This shows that there cant be or never was NOTHING in this universe.

So, there was always something. And where did that something come from? No answer.

I understand that people at that point invoke gods, but heck, as PZ correctly asked:

who made god?

I think this is an eternal stand-off, because neither can answer the others question, and it is here where neither knows.

And I, I don't know where it all started, but I do know that both are wrong with their limited and narrow-minded world views...... But that is for another time......

Sophophora melanogaster (part 2)

2008-11-26T10:00:00.001-05:00

So, I am back. The meeting was fun, and it was nice to put a lot of faces by names of people I never ever had met before. It looked like most Drosophila taxonomists preferred to save the name Drosophila melanogaster but unfortunately, there was no consensus about this. About what to do with the genus was even less clear, ranging from doing nothing, lump everything together (despite the huge range if issues that would create) and splitting the genus.

Doing nothing basically leads to the conservation of the current situation, in which taxonomists can split of smaller groups if they wish. There are several good candidates to be split of, and for which it is relative easy to just examine all species and find characteristics that are unique for the new genus. Unfortunately, that is effectively just increasing the paraphyly issue in the genus Drosophila. Two people objecting to doing the split now claim that we first have to examine ALL type species of the genus and the included genera, what effectively means examining 2250+ species, especially knowing that there are at maybe as many as 1500 undescribed species in the family, many of thoise within the genus Drosophila or the embedded genera (Oriental region and Hawaii primarily). Requiring that will result in a defacto arrast of any progress with regard of thie paraphyly issue.

Lumping the genera to a single genus is maybe even worse. Besides the enormous size of the genus (~2250 describe plus undescribed -> 3000+ species), it woyuld be very heterogeneous, and that is exaclt what we don't want; it is why various genera like Hirtodrosophila and Scaptodrosophila have been removed from te genus. But worse, there will be over 100 secondary homonyms, aka, species with the same scientific species name. In all these cases, a new name has to be generated, and if someone in the future removes those species again from the genus, the renaming has to be undone because the older name has priority. So, in stead of actually dealing with the issue at hand, it is just creating a much bigger issue.

So, splitting seems the only sensible thing to do. several clades are well defined, generally recovered as well-supported monophyletic clades. Some claim that for example the saltans-willistoni clade is basal to all the other drosophilids (aka, that this clade is the first to branch off, see MP-situation). This would mean that the second main branch in the subgenus Sophophora, the obscura-melanogaster clade together with all the other subgenera and the included genera is the sisterclade of the saltans-willistoni clade.

Well, there is a substantial amount of evidence against that topology. First of all, all studies claiming such an effect are based on Maximum Parsimony (MP), notorious for many things, but in this case primarily because it is often inadequate for issues related to variation in nucleotide composition. Variation in bucleotide composition can be adequatly addressed in Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian analyses using an adequate nucleotide substitution model that can explain apparant deviations. When you do that, the result is as in the figure under "Actual situation".

But there is another reason to suspect that the figure under "Actual situation" is better, and that is that the 12 genome paper actually has species of all three branches, and that study using about 9000 genes (gasp) clearly demonstrated that the "Actual situation" figure is correct, and the MP situation is incorrect. A similar situation occurs with the virilis s.l. and repleta s.l. clades in the virilis-repleta radiation. Here again, the 12 genome project tree clearly confirms that both branches are within a single monophyletic clade, and not in a different topology as suggested by some.

So, what will happen in the future? That is inclear. We have first to wait till the commission decides about the Sophophora melanogaster problem, and if they decide to go ahead, we will submit an article proposing to split the genus. If the commission decides against us, it might take a different route, with proposals to split of various clades till be effectively have a very extreme genus Drosophila with the melanogaster-obscura group and part of the immigrans-tripunctata radiation that contains the type species, D. funebris.

I keep you all posted!

Sophophora melanogaster

2008-11-17T10:00:00.003-05:00

Yeah, in a few days, I will go to San Diego, to a meeting where all the major names in the Drosophila systematics will come together to discuss the future of the genus Drosophila, and especially Sophophora melanogaster. The genus Drosophila as currently defined is paraphyletic, and I together with a few others are going to propose to split the genus.

Not everybody likes that, and some have decided to organise a one day workshop to address this issue and some additional issues.

A major issue with splitting the genus is that one most used model organism, Drosophila melanogaster will change its name to Sophophora melanogaster. Yes, indeed. Impossible! That is not even worth a discussion, the sheer magnitude of schoolbooks, internet pages, etc that need to be adapted to accommodate such a change is unacceptable. Fortunately, there is a small group of scientists at the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature who can debate, vote and overrule the normal rules for naming species. So, we submitted an application (pdf) to them, in which we asked them to fix this for the community by setting asside the current type species (D. funebris), and make D. melanogaster the new type species. Problem solved. You would think. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Unfortunately, a bunch of people object to it. Some say that the world just has to print new books, change the texts etc, and that we do not have to be mindfull of all those schoolkids etc. Others say we do not know enough, which as fas as I am concerned is bogus, but heck, disagreement is the fuel for progress.

Anyway, in a few days, I will be defending our proposal to split the genus, and see whether we can actually agree on this. I keep you posted!

Boycott Michael's Arts and Crafts store

2008-11-16T10:00:00.001-05:00

Last Thursday, a friend of me was 'fired' from Michael's Arts and Craft Store in Tallahassee after she did not appreciate that colleague of her told her something along the line of: "You are probably gay and therefore should have been aborted." She walked out at that moment, and was the next day fired because she was unwilling to cooperate in a cover-up of the story.....

Anyway, there are several initiatives going on, but till that time, please, boycott Michael's in Tallahassee.

President Obama

2008-11-14T10:00:00.001-05:00

Yeah, finally, a black president. It is time for a country with so many African-Americans that they have a African-American president. and the good thing, he is not someone who was a spokesman for blacks, but someone for everybody to start with.

Obama knows his priorities

2008-10-21T10:00:00.002-04:00

Campaigning is important, sure, but the announcement that Obama is going to visit his serious ill grandmother who raised him shows two things to me. One, he really cares about interpersonal relationships, and second, he knows his priorities. A sick and, if I read correctly between the lines, dying grandmother deserves this kind of attention. This is not a situation where he has to decide to nuke a foreign country or not, there is no national security involved, and thousands of lives, so, this is the right thing to do!

Which foreign dependency is worse: Oil or Money

2008-10-14T10:00:00.002-04:00

if Americans think they have it bad with their dependence on foreign oil, they haven't even started to realise how incredibly dependent they are to foreign money. Without China, Japan, Korea, the Arab oil states and Europeans, the USA would not even be capable of sustaining the incredible trade and budget deficit it is currently trying to control. So, if we compare, which of the two is worse? Oil or Money?

Does Biology rules out Gay Marriage?

2008-10-13T10:00:00.008-04:00

Gay marriage is a hot button in the US. Where I come from, the Netherlands, it is not any more and even the CDA now considers is something not to be fought any more. Anyway, the US is making head ways, now that a third state (Connecticut, after Massachusetts and California) legalized gay marriages.

Some people opposing gay marriage use biology to argue that the traditional marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. They argue that “It takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family”. And that therefore, marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. Unfortunately for them, they only would be right if, and only if, marriage was a biological phenomenon, which of course, it is not. Marriage is just a social construct, nothing more.

But besides that marriage is a social construct, using biology in this way is oversimplifying what biology actually tells us. Using biology in the way it is used against gay marriage ignores the large variation that biology shows. It for example assumes that you only have man and woman, ignoring that there are a substantial number of intersex people. During development of the foetus, many biological processes have to line up perfectly to get the proper sex-determination. if anything goes wrong, because of genetics or environment, some of the characteristics typical for a man or a woman will be skewered and defining whether the person is a man or a woman becomes a legal nightmare.

For example, in Texas, the state's 4th Court of Appeals in San Antonio, ruled that a man is defined by his chromosomes. This results in that same-sex couples, of which one is transsexual, can legally marry (with the cravat that it is considered illegal in the rest of Texas). Thus just illustrates that using biology to define a social construct as marriage is anything but build on the most shaky grounds.

But I think the argument is made this way because it avoids the insertion of overt religious arguments into something that should be free of religion. We have to expose the argument for what it is, a thinly veiled argument to insert religion into the legal system.

Voodoo economics: China or America?

2008-10-10T10:00:00.007-04:00

So, which country is mostly unaffected by the current money crisis? Yes, China. The least capitalist based market of the larger nations, with substantial government regulation, but seems to best now that the credit crunch is getting worse.

But things are worse, China is probably the only nation in the world that can actually finance the bonds that the US will need to cover the 700,000,000,000 US $ that the US wants to invest in their bankrupted (no pun intended) financial system.

The US government was already unable to tell China what to do. Every time a senator or other politician made some waves for reform, for example to limit imports from China, or to prevent jobs from going there, a mid-rank official would appear on Chinese television, and indicate that China was considering to diversify their bonds. And without failure, the stock market would cringe and the US politician would shut up. Now, the sell-out to to China is just going to be worse.

What I really do not get is that many poor people vote for the republicans, because in the end, they are the victims of the voodoo economics of that party. But I guess that prohibiting gay marriage is more important than having money in their wallet.

Abstinence only increases abortion rates

2008-10-10T10:00:00.001-04:00

Abstinence only increases abortion rates. This is a simple one:

Sex drive is natural
Many do not have the control to withstand nature
So, they have sex before marriage anyway (who wants to wait till being 27 or so before having sex?)
When they have sex anyway, they have no clue about avoiding pregnancies, because the ONLY line of defence against it, abstinence, just faltered
result, the baby is coming.......

And it explains in part, why of the western countries, teenage pregnancy rates are so substantially larger in the US than in other countries. In the Netherlands, where sex-education is part of high school education, teenage pregnacy rates are around 6.2, while in the us, it is a nine-fold higher at 52.1.......

Wikipedia's version of Natural Selection

2008-10-09T10:00:00.003-04:00

Several years ago, I tried to help out at wikipedia. It was a waste of time. The article I spend most time on was Natural Selection, and my hand is still visible in the article. Unfortunately, the uneducated masses rule wikipedia, so, wikipedia now tries to let you believe that:

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes.

Yawn, this is the perfect definition of Evolution by means of Natural Selection, which is NOT the same as Natural Selection. Unfortunately, this is an error even made in some text books, especially those that are interested in the result of Natural Selection.

Natural Selection by itself is a process. And that process has an effect. The process is that individuals that are better adapted to a specific environment survive and/or reproduce more often than individuals that are not as well adapted to the same environment. The result is that gene frequencies in the population changes for the traits under selection, which is exactly the definition of evolution.

By carefully distinguishing the process from the multi-generational effect, a much clearer understanding of how Natural Selection acts can be gained. Unfortunately, wikipedia won't do that, as they are ruled by the ignorant masses.......

United Divided states of America

2008-09-20T10:00:00.001-04:00

Why is this extremely divided country called the UNITED States of America. Would DIVIDED States of America not be more appropriate?

Social Security, American Style

2008-09-19T10:00:00.001-04:00

In the US, when you get unemployed, are sick, or whatever, only limited help can be expected from the federal government. Capitalism rules, and if you cannot help yourself, you are crewed. Really, well, it is more nuanced.

Take the current crises in the financial markets. They are big enough to bring the US economy on its knees, and most of it is caused by the idea that you should lend for everything, even when yo do not have the means to pay those bills..... And so it began. bad credit, here is a loan anyway. A mortgage for the house? Sub-prime, no problem, here it is...... And then the economy did not exactly do what the Bush administration wanted, so you give everybody a stimulation package (Thanks Uncle Sam), but did it solve the issues. No, it just made the deficit sky rocket, but heck, most of the people making those decisions will be embalmed and put in their grave fault before those worries will hit our children and grandchildren. Who cares, we can at least live rich and destroy our earth....

But lets stop that rant there. I wanted to address another aspect of this insane system. First the government encouraged sub-prime loans because that was good for the economy. But the economy did not do what they wanted, so they nationalized two semi-private corporation, Fanny mae and that other one when they came in trouble. (O yes, they tried a few things in between, but that did evidently not help a bit either. Anyway, so what to do next? Well, uncle sam is going to be a mortgage broker, and is going to buy mortgages. Congratulations.

So, who is going to pay all this? We, the tax payers (remind me, no taxation without representation, but I as a foreigner am not allowed to vote, but I do have to pay taxes!)! So, instead of directly developing some system that will help those in need, the US does it inderect by first pushing those people into debts to deal with the life-emergencies, after which they will hekp them anyways, and along the road, leave a lot of money with finacial instititions that could have been left out of the equation if a more sensible social security system would have been in place.

Benediction of a new Biology Building

2008-09-14T10:00:00.004-04:00

Last Friday, they dedicated the new Life Science Building I am working in. A place where people study how the many life-forms evolved, how evolution itself works, and where a substantial percentage of the professors, post-docs, graduate students is atheist.

Anyway, it was named after James King Jr., a senator of the Florida legislature who has done a lot for Florida State University. Unfortunately, he dragged in a priest to do a benediction of the building! I was offended! Anyway, it is the usual violation of the separation of church and state, and I as an heathen really didn't appreciate it that I got blessed at such an public and open event. Now I have to bring in a horn and a bottle of mead to counter balance this!

A nightmare scenario!

2008-09-08T10:00:00.001-04:00

I am puzzled. In the primaries, all conservative candidates could do no good in the eyes of the voters, and McCain was massively favoured over the more conservative candidates. But he did not do good enough against Obama in the polls. But the most puzzling was that the republicans, who themselves voted massively for him, did not get really excited. Weird....

Now he has whipped up an ultraconservative female VP-candidate, and suddenly things are really different. I listened to parts of their acceptance speeches, and bluntly, it felt to me that the republican base was more enthusiastic for the attacking rhetoric of Palin than for McCain.

McCain is old, and various fundamentalist christians already have start praying for the untimely death of McCain so that their ultraconservative darling can become the president. And I am sure that there are fanatic christians out there that at least hope someone will help McCain to see his creator in an untimely manner.

In short, we have a nightmare scenario here. With this scenario, the conservative right has the option to get an ultraconservative president in the white house, more conservative than that they would be able to elect directly. This back-door with an old dude that can die every day, and a ultraconservative VEEP, could be the far worst thing even happened to this country.

I fear that McCain/Palin will win. After that, lets hope he lives long enough and does not get assassinated.....

Palin and the Failure of Abstinence Only Programs

2008-09-02T10:00:00.005-04:00

LOL, when I heard that the teenage daughter of the vice-presidential candidate Palin was pregnant out of wedlock, it could not be a better example of the failure of 'Abstinence Only Programs'. So, here we have the woman that is the conservative face of the republican ticket who is going to defend 'Abstinence only Programs' as an effective way to prevent teen-pregnancies. Well, that worked perfect with her own daughter. To me, this is roughly the same as an anti-gay republican found in bed with another guy! Anyway how, you can guess how I would vote if I was allowed to in this country.........

Tropical Strom Fay

2008-08-23T17:00:00.001-04:00

Tropical Strom Fay is crawls painstakingly slow across the Florida panhandle, including Tallahassee. By now, we have gotten at least 10 inch (25 cm) rain, and the rain is not done yet for the coming days..... But everything is fine, and personally, we have not been affected that much.

How to approach an evangelical christian missionary?

2008-08-20T10:00:00.002-04:00

I play a kind of tit-for-tat game with them.

Missionary: Have you heard the word of god?

Me: Which god

Missionary: The christian god of course.

Me: Yes, I heard it and deemed it false

Missionary (shocked): But he is the true god!

Me: Says who?

Missionary: The Holy Bible!

Me: O. Interesting. My holy books say something else.

Missionary: But the bible says....

Me (interrupting): Why is the bible right and my holy books wrong?

Missionary: Well, the Bible says [fill in what ever]

Me: My holy books say the same, so why is your book right and mine wrong?

Missionary: Well, the Bible says [fill in something else]

[repeat 20 times] WARNING: Missionary is slowly reaching cooking temperature, do not touch. Replace bible for deity of choice when appropriate.

Missionary: It seems that you are lost for God.

Me: I am sorry that you are lost for Odin!

Missionary: I am sure you will see the light in the future!

Me: I have seen the light already, and I hope you will see the light in the future!

Missionary: I will pray for you!

Me: I will make a small offering to my gods for you later today! Any preference for Odin, Thor or Freyja?

Missionary (on his/her way out): God Bless!

Me: Hail Odin!

Missionary (screaming): The blood of Jesus will protect me......

In god we trust?

2008-08-15T10:00:00.001-04:00

Which god? Yahweh? Odin? Isis? Allah?

Many Americans argue that "The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion" , but what if I would say

Hail Odin!

....in response to people uttering this sentence?

I am sure that many Americans will be deeply offended.... So much for the non-religious meaning of the motto........

I am not a Darwinist

2008-08-11T10:00:00.000-04:00

Ok, lets make this clear, and maybe biologist everywhere should clarify this:

I am NOT a Darwinist!

To label evolutionary biologists as Darwinists is a old trick used by creationists to make it sound as if we and the theory of evolution have not evolved since the inception by Charles Darwin. Well, nothing could be more from the truth than just that.

Demski's illusions

2008-08-10T10:00:00.001-04:00

Over at Uncommon decent (sorry, no link to that tard site), Dr. Dr. William Dembski definately does not get it. He asks a former Intelligent Design proponent to agree to the following:

(1) ID raises important issues for science.
(2) Politics aside, ID proponents ought to get a fair hearing for their views, and they’re not.
(3) A climate of hostility toward ID pervades the academy, which often undermines freedom of thought and expression on this topic.
(4) That climate has led to ID proponents being shamefully treated, losing their reputations and jobs, and suffering real harm.

Hummm, lets see.

(1) ID raises important issues for science.

No, it doesn't. ID is religion, not science, so it cannot raise any issue for science.

(2) Politics aside, ID proponents ought to get a fair hearing for their views, and they’re not.

They got their fair hearing, and failed.

(3) A climate of hostility toward ID pervades the academy, which often undermines freedom of thought and expression on this topic.

Part one, yes, because ID is not promoted through doing research and finding facts, but through popularisation and high school curricula. Part two, no, because it is discussed freeely at universities, found to be creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Do some research and show some proof, and you will have a case.

(4) That climate has led to ID proponents being shamefully treated, losing their reputations and jobs, and suffering real harm.

No, the lack of coherent logical thinking (crucial for academia), the underhand way of promoting articles (what, should I use the normal rules of peer review?), the lack of publications, etc. cause that.

O well, Demski will never learn that he is not even a pseudoscientist. Two Ph.D.'s does not change that. That is only a sign that you can jump the hoops, the proof is in the peer-reviewed articles!

US disregards international law

2008-08-09T10:00:00.003-04:00

The US has shown this week again that it does think it can disregard international treaties it signed itself. The State of Texas executed two foreigners (here and here) who have not been given access to their countries representation. Anyway, despite that, it does not change the fact that executing people is something for countries who are still living in medieval times... O wait, the US is in large part still a medieval country where religion trumps science, the majority believes that their christian god created earth (they are wrong, if a religious myth would be correct, it would be the Norse creation myth), etc. So, no surprise there.

What we have to wait for is a foreign country that seizes a American for similar reasons and denies them consular assistance. The world will be to small at that time. But heck, with kangaroo courts in Guantanamo bay for illegal held prisoners, who does still believe that the US is objective and fair?

Lesbian -> Same Sex Attraction Disorder sufferer

2008-08-08T10:00:00.003-04:00

I just came across this term. "Same Sex Attraction Disorder" Sounds like I suffer from that. So, let me guess, right wing evangelicals that promote the term? Yeah, just type the term into google, and you know where it ends, the same circles as the ex-gay movement, the gay treatment promoters etc. I know enough, just more of the same bat shit insane crap that these people try to sell as genuine snake oil.

Entitlement babies

2008-07-29T10:00:00.000-04:00

Entitlement babies, who does not know them. I work at a university, and many many kids are work hard, doing their best to get good or at least sufficient grades. And now and then, you encounter an entitlement baby. This are the kids that by default come complaining that they did not receive an A-grade. if a student has a legitimate argument, you change the grade. but some kids cannot deal with the fact that they did not get a better grade.

University is supposed to be for the best students. Unlike high school, it is not for everybody. Unfortunately, some kids who have grown up very protected (home schooled, inferior high school) and always get their way. Every request at home get fulfilled, when they are 16 they of course get a brand new car, working for that car, what is that? So, by the time they leave the house, they only know one way of living, and that is that all their requests are fulfilled immediately.

Enter real life......

Suddenly, the source of instant gratification, mum and dad, is gone. Why does that stupid teacher not understand that I deserve an A? I am sorry that I am late for work, but I went only to bed at 4 am, and I really needed the sleep, don't tell me that this is a issue, right? No? O well, someone else will appreciate me more. No problem officer, my dad will pay the speeding fine. O, you impound my car? He will buy me a new car. Have a nice day officer.

Sometimes, it does not stop there. Mum and dad keep actively helping. The only effect that it has is that they postpone the inevitable drop the kids are going to experience unless mum and dad have enough money to keep the entitlement going. If the parents are rich enough, some of those kids will just continue to waste the rest of their lives in entitlement, and they never learn to deal with reality. Because in reality, you do not always get immediately everything you want. Sometimes, you will never get something you want.

When we grow up, we learn that the answer at times will be no, and learning to deal with disappointment is a crucial aspect of growing up. A parent who really loves their child will not stand in the way of that learning experience, but teach their child coping skills so it can handle disappointment.

In Memoriam: Randy Pausch

2008-07-26T10:00:00.002-04:00

I just heard this horrible news. Randy Pausch died Friday, July 25 after a long fight against pancreas cancer. So see why this hits me so badly, have look here at "The Last Lecture"

The God Delusion desecrated

2008-07-25T10:00:00.000-04:00

Yes, PZ has done it, he desecrated The God Delusion from Richard Dawkins! That man does not know any shame!

DelFly Micro

2008-07-24T10:00:00.002-04:00

Today, I found this, the DelFly Micro:

This is a mechanic dragonfly, with a small tail for steering. The coin is a one euro piece, a bit larger than a US quarter. It is based on the principle of the dragon fly. See it flying here and here

Lesbos and Lesbians

2008-07-23T10:00:00.001-04:00

Ha, we gay women are still allowed to call ourselves Lesbians! A court case in Greece was thrown out! Not that lesbian would not have been used for gay women any more if the court had ruled against using the name, but anyway.

Suppose they had won and the Athens court ruled that the word Lesbian could not be used for a gay woman? Would they after that have gone to court in all remaining countries in the world to request similar prohibitions?

And it has been served

2008-07-22T10:00:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, I was talking about upping the stakes. And today, we have been served. Bill Donahue has just released a new press release, now with an e-mail address to someone at CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Seems that Mr. Donahue does not get the point. Someone like PZ is not going to back down. He is just going on with his plan, whether you like it or not.

But suppose for a minute he would back down under these treats... The only thing that would happen is that Bill Donahue would be rewarded for his aggressive behaviour, and that is about the last thing you want to happen. In this stage, nobody can afford it any more to loose, because loosing would give the other party a win. You cannot have that!

So, there is a perpetual need to up the stakes, over and over again. Unfortunately for Bill Donahue, he seems to run out of options, and needs now the help of the Muslims. Because they of course are much more dangerous. Maybe they will KILL PZ. No, Bill Donahue is smart enough not to ask for PZ to be killed, but he is using the general fear for Muslims (all Muslims are terrorists of course) as a tool for his own war. Unfortunately, it is not going to work, because the impression I get from PZ Myers is that is is not going to back down from treats, no, it will make him just more determined to do so.

Upping the stakes

2008-07-21T10:00:00.001-04:00

Ha, how do you get someone not to do something? You up the stakes. At least, in theory.

So, what is in the eyes of many Catholics more dangerous that desecrating a communion wafer? A Koran. So, many Catholics have made this request to him, in the hope he would not dare to do something like that, and back of, or at least be able to show that he is a coward. Unfortunately, it just escalates further. Congratulations, the dispute has just escalated a step further. So, what will be the next demand to him so that the requesters think they can show he is a coward/moron?

What Catholics do not get about Atheists (and visa versa)

2008-07-20T10:00:00.007-04:00

I have been writing about the brouhaha (here and here), and I just couldn't wrap my mind around what was annoying me about many of the responses from both Catholics and Atheists alike. Today, it dawned to me that neither side does any effort to discuss this issue at neutral territory.

Many Catholics argue from the position of the sanctity of the host and that Atheists should just be able to understand that. They don't, because that requires that they accept that the host is indeed the body of Christ as the Catholics say. Every time Catholics start from that position, they already have lost before even opening their mouth.

Along the same vein, Atheists argue from the position that only what Science can prove does exist, assuming that religious people should just be able to understand that. They don't, because that requires that they ignore their experiences, experiences that are very real to many of them, even if science could prove they are mere delusions. So, every time a Atheist starts from that position, they already have lost before even opening their mouth.

The issue is not whether or not the host of actually the body of Christ, or anything metaphysical, or just a unleavened piece of bread or a cracker. To focus on the object, the discussion is going to be derailed, regardless, because it ignores the human behind the statement.

I think it is a sound principle to respect each and every person in this world, within limits of course, as I would not pay respect to someone who wants to murder me. But as a basic principle, yes. Now, we just have to hope that people can apply this to the current ongoing controversy about desecrating Eucharists. What would happen if Catholics could just say, yes, we understand that for you Atheists only non-religious believes are very important, but for us it is very important and could you respect that, and if the Atheists could just say, yes, we understand that for you Catholics religious believes are very important, but could you respect that for us it is not? Than, the whole story would not be about a cracker, but about people.

But here is the crux, that would also require several people and institutions, including the Catholic church and its representatives, look at themselves and admit that they were wrong. Wrong about using violence, death treats etc. But now that the trenches are dug, I think this is going to be played out till the end, and the mutual understanding will be lost. The Catholic church is never going to apologize to Webster Cook. It took them decades to actually realize that protecting pedophiles was not smart and to apologize for that publicly, and they still have problems with that as various Bishops still protect them. So, I do not have any faith (no pun intended) in the Catholic Church that they will any time soon apologize for this incident. No, I expect this incident to escalate further and run its full course.

Meeting Prof. Steve Steve

2008-07-19T10:00:00.003-04:00

Recently, at the evolution meeting, I had the great honour to meet Prof. Steve Steve. he was hanging out with Wesley R. Elsberry and others of the Panda's thumb crew. Proof of the excounter can be found here, where it is obvious that Prof. Steve Steve is fully in love with Nick Matzke.

God Bless! Hail Odin!

2008-07-18T10:00:00.002-04:00

I am an Heathen. And that means that I have a whole pantheon full of Gods and Goddesses. I will write more about that at a later stage.

One of my pet peeves is the repeated blessings that I receive from good meaning people in the form of "God Bless". I know they mean well, but sometimes, it irritates the hel(l) out of me. And it irritates me so much not for the fact that they bless me, what bad can that do, but for the fact that they would be hell bend if I would reply back with: "Hail Odin", which would be the appropriate response for me. And believe me, I have done this in discussions with an Evangelical Christians, and they were often very offended.

For me, this has everything to do with tolerance, or intolerance to be more precise. Why is it okay to say "God Bless" to someone and be offended if they reply in kind with their own deity of choice? To me, this is a situation of different standards. One for Christians and one for everybody else. It has to change.

Hate Crime?

2008-07-17T10:00:00.001-04:00

A few days ago, I wrote about the Eucharist incident in Florida, and the fragility of the believes of many Catholics. Some thing that keep me thinking is that some compared it with a hate crime:

"We don't know 100% what Mr. Cook's motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it." (Emphasis mine)

Let me get this straight, a Hate Crime?

First of all, we need a crime! Right? So, what is the crime here. The Eucharist was handed to him with the idea that it is consumed. So, we can dismiss charges like stealing etc. At most, you can claim he did not follow the implied contract that came with the acceptance of the host, and that is that he had to eat it immediately.

The next action is done by a representative of the Catholic church. But unfortunately, the stories vary to much to be sure what happened exactly. But for the sake of the argument, lets assume that Webster Cook indeed committed a crime punishable in regular court. I personally doubt it, but lets just assume.

To make it a hate crime, we have to prove intent that it was a crime that was motivated by hate towards the Catholic church. So, he did not eat it immediately. Why? He claims because he wanted to show it to his friend, and then consume it as intended. So, where is the hateful motivation, the intent to hurt someone because of the nature of the person or entity. It was not there. It is easy to claim that it was a hate crime because he stole it and took it out of the church. But there is a lot that happens, and that is unclear, between receiving the host and walking out of the church. Much of it is reactionary to events, attacks etc that happened in that between period.

In the coming weeks, it will be interesting what is going to happen in this case. What is the university going to do, what is the church going to do. I would not be surprised if this action has consequences within the church itself for Webster, but in the regular courts, I doubt it.

A Fragile Religion

2008-07-14T10:00:00.008-04:00

I guess many of you have already heard about the little storm raging through primarily the blogosphere. A student senator from the University of Central Florida (UCF) takes a friend to Catholic mass to show him what it means to be Catholic. So, instead of immediately eating the Eucharist after it is given to him, he take it with him to his seat to show the friend before consuming it. The person handing out the Eucharist get angry, and the senator decides to take it home instead of eating it in the church. He later return it, but by that time, an evangelical atheist, PZ Myers, has jumped into the arena after which the Catholic League, or better, Bill Donohue, comes to the defence of the Catholic Church and starts a campaign to get PZ Myers fired. Death treats are mailed to both the UCF student senator and PZ Myers. Nice job guys, it is obvious to me that for some Catholics, a transubstantiated cracker is apparently worth more than a humans life. O, I forgot, a non-Catholic's human life as he obviously needs to be excommunicated.

Personally, I think it is fine to anybody to do whatever they see fit, as long as they do not force me to believe things the way they see it. That Catholics believe that the wafer has been transubstantiated to the body of Christ is one thing. To use physical violence to get it back, sorry, no go. Some go as far as saying it was a hate crime. My good grief, really.

What interest me more is the fragility of the believe of many Catholics. Apparently, the act of one person can bring down a whole community. Yes, really!

"We have to make acts of reparation," Gonzalez said. "The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We'll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well."

Well, isn't this a wonderful thing to give to your enemies? The perfect weapon to bring down whole communities. You steal a Eucharist, hold it in a zip-lock bag, and you have the fate of the whole community in your hands. Did someone already demand ransom for a Eucharist?

It made me look at my own religion. My religion is something that is in me, not in the objects I use. The objects I use are just ways to represent some things, they are nice, but I could do without them. Once, I complained to a friend that I did not have rune stones. He responded: "Of course you have runes tones, just take some scraps of paper, draw the rune stones on it, and there you go." He was right, and it is one of the central ideas that I like about Heathenism, their practical angle to life, religion and the universe.

Religion VERSUS Science: Really?

2008-07-13T10:00:00.002-04:00

One topic I am going to discuss frequently is the supposed incompatibility of science and religion. For me, they are anything but incompatible. Science is by definition limited to the natural world, in other words, that what we can see, measure, make visible, and test. Religion by definition is dealing with the supernatural, that what science cannot see, measure make visible or test.

Sure, many religious people claim that there is a direct influence of deities on our material world, but unfortunately for them, science has been unable to verify that. At the same time, it is impossible for science to address something that does not have a signature in the natural world. So, whether gods and goddesses actually exist, who know, science at best is agnostic about it.

I have a problem with both evangelical/fundamentalist religious people of any religion, as well as evangelical/fundamentalist atheists. Anybody who claims that they have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is deluded, nothing less.

Who is Heathen Scientist?

2008-07-12T10:00:00.000-04:00

Four years ago, I was offered a post-doctoral position in Tallahassee, Florida, so I packed up my stuff and moved. From the low lands in Europe, The Netherlands, you get an idea about how the US is, but that is not the USA from the Deep South. Tallahassee might be in Florida, but as they say in Florida, "the more North you go, the more South you get", and that is definitely true, this is more like South Georgia and Alabama.

America is supposed to be the country of Freedom, but as some say, only if you are a white Christian heterosexual conservative male. Well, except for the white, I fail the remaining categories:

I am a female.
I am a lesbian.
I am a Heathen.
I am a socialist.

And related to those, but definitely a major aspect of the culture wars here:

I am an evolutionary biologist

Over and over again, I am left gasping for breath about the insanity of the culture wars, especially when you come from a country where it is not an issue to be a lesbian, or a Heathen, or a socialist, or an evolutionary biologist. Anyway, I intent to write about those insanities I encounter........