In my former religious life, I never gave a second thought to the fact that there were authorities who were always correct. I almost feel physically ill at the thought that I used to believe that somehow, someone could always be right.
But this is not the case in the skeptical and scientific community. The most beautiful things in life are getting your ass handed to you and having the maturity and intellectual capacity to admit your fault. From the beginning, I have defended Ben Radford and his role in the skeptical community. Not only was he a resource for my short lived on-campus freethought group, he is a hell of a paranormal investigator. I do think he was wrong on some issues, but that doesn't mean he is some sexist piece of shit. It doesn't take much to see how reactionary our community gets, and I really think that a lot of the criticism aimed at Radford was due to characterizations. Yes, it is important to address societal problems regarding gender conformity. Yes, sexism should be shot down immediately. Yet, we have to keep in mind that we interpret information in ways that accomodate our worldview- that is Ben Radford was made out to be a piece of shit when there wasn't a whole bunch out there that pointed to misogyny.
Whabam! The year is 2006, and you are in THE FUTURE. You notice that there are people commuting to work on jet-powered back packs. Whizzing over head are flying motorcars! This is the world of the future- streamlined, optimized, and shiny.
But did we mention the people piloting those automobiles were 300 hundred years old?
Immortality has captivated (wo)man's mind since, well, we came up with shit like an immortal soul. We don't deal particularly well with death and the extinguish of our essential being. It disturbs us.
In less than a century, we have done something incredible- we have raised the average lifespan by thirty years. This is no small feat. Science has given us marvelous things, but one may argue the greatest being....fat babies. The strongest correlation that we have to longevity in life is birth weight. Look at these pretty data
If you follow this link you get some good explanation. Basically, what we see is that as birth weights became higher, so did life span. This is due to prenatal development- higher birth weight babies had optimal development. However there is a limit that we seem to be reaching.
It appears to be something we want in moderation. Ultra high birth weight babies also suffer the same fate as their under weight friends- an earlier death. They are at risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease.
The reason we were able to drastically add 30 years in under a century is because we were able to engineer food for mom. Better nutrition and prenatal care means ideal conditions for a baby's development. The Haber- Bosch method may be the single greatest contribution to our longevity- and one of the single greatest inventions of all time. Want to know why you aren't starving right now, with a 7 billion other people on the planet? Yeah thank these motherfuckers. Half of the protein in your body was synthesized from nitrogen fixed using their method. Good stuff...
So back to immortality. It seems as we are approaching the upper limits of our longevity. Because as we grow older, we don't just face the problem of nutrition, but also chronic disease. Up until now in human history, our increasing life span can be accredited to better accumulation of resources. Our ancestors lived short, hard lives but didn't batter cancer in old age. This is the problem we face next- engineering our bodies so that they do not age.
Though this guy is pretty out there, and most of the scientific community rejects his 'answers', Aubrey de Grey raises many key problems in the race to live forever.
The mountain gorilla found in Rwanda is the largest of the great apes (save for a few Americans). A silver back male often weighs in the range of 450 pounds of brute muscle. Amazing creatures these- strength of ten men, but also the most peaceful of us great apes. So why are we talking about them? Because there are roughly 790 of these mountain gorillas in existence today. Hunted by their cousins for meat and fur, their numbers dropped dramatically in less than a century.
And this is where we get relevant- not only was there a shift in populations of the mountain gorilla, but also a complete change in their social behavior. One of the most amazing observations in the social science realm was that of the familial structure changes of this primate. When these primates were being hunted, their mating strategy was mainly one male with two to three females each bearing one or two children over the course of a lifetime. The group they existed in would have been for territorial protection and allocations of resources- the individuals acted with everyone's interest though they still pretty much left each other alone.
Yet there was a change after their slaughter- their mating strategy wasn't ensuring a future for their species. So what happened? The gorilla went from pairings to troops. A dominant silver back would take on 4-6 females and have any where between 2 and 6 children with each. The gorilla understood that they were dying out. So they made a change, which brings us to the topic of the day: Why can't humans save our own asses? Why do we resist change in social behavior?
Social sciences have a lot to say here- such as biases that we learn from psychology. System justification, false-consensus effect, and in- group biases are especially frustrating when we look at the world at large. These three illusions dictate the perception of every single person on the planet. They make us believe that others think and are in agreement with us. It makes us give preferential treatment to those like us. But worst of all they cement the status quo and inhibit social change.
In a world of seven billion people, this is dangerous. We hold not just false, but demonstrably inaccurate notions of what a solution is. As individuals we cannot fully and comprehensively asses how proper fucked we are. I am not talking about a New World Order or the Illuminati. I am talking about tangible threats to our ways of life. In a world of seven billion people, we can no longer drive SUVs out of convenience.
We can no longer stigmatize our women who decide to use birth control or obtain an abortion. Rather, we lend them support for realizing that it is wrong to add unnecessary burden to a world with 7 billion people. Our social awareness must shift- not only so we don't vilify women, but so we don't dig ourselves deeper.
We improve our situation by reevaluating our social structure- by shifting our values and needs. Though someone might not explicitly say 'I hate clean air' or 'I love human suffering'; by their actions alone can we deduce the amount of fuck they give. We cannot continue a cycle of ignorance and fall victim to tradition.
Politics and clergy kill. Our populations are not sustainable, yet human suffering is encouraged when proper reproductive care is denied to millions. Something as simple as a rubber film to cover your meat bits is denied due to archaic mind sets that sex must be punished. This contributes to human suffering and is reprehensible.
Tradition tells us that we must consume, that we must have offspring that consumes and that that offspring passes off more tarnished world to the next generation. There is a better way. Only by awareness and education can we solve these problems. Only through critical thinking and reasoning can we prepare a solution. The world is too small to run from our problems, it is high time we act.
Old White Men, you make me embarrassed to become you!
Here is his response to what may become known as Rileygate. (Yeah I hate that too). Ben is a wonderful local skeptic and has done great things for CFI. I have read most of what he writes and would consider myself a huge fan. For paranormal investigation there is none better. I think he has faltered here a teeny bit. There isn't really much that I can say that hasn't been said, other than his response isn't too tight. He may be right about Rebecca calling him out on some irrelevant stuff, but over all, there may be some tracks to cover.
Damn it. We lost another good one. And he will be missed. I, along with countless others, pay homage to his ability to so thoroughly dissect that which he did not agree. So instrumental was his voice in my deconversion that I still quote him from time to time.
Hitch, you have helped so many out there who didn't know there was a word for what they believed. Thank you.
So this is a continuation of a discussion I was having on FB with someone.
Basically, I addressed the debate on a financial level. There seems to be sentiment that welfare recipients are cretins who rape their children while high on crack that they bought with Uncle Sam's money. I showed this to be a myth- that welfare recipients have a rate of drug use that is consistent (if not a little teeny bit lower than) general population in the US.
I pointed out that it would be fucking ridiculous to drug test every welfare recipient when:
- Roughly 2% of people on welfare use drugs
- There is no infrastructure in place to do the amount of frequent testing required
-The fact that marijuana offenders are SOL when it comes to testing (its a harmless drug that stays in your system much longer than 'hard' drugs).
It would just be financially stupid to waste resources that could be allocated to helping those in need. In fact, Florida already tested those waters. And it didn't look good.
So why else would I object to drug testing for welfare recipients? Because of the ethics behind it.
You, right now, are living in an age of profound human capability- unseen before in history. We have more wealth and resources than ever before, but they are arranged in a manner that those who need it most have the hardest time accessing it. As a liberal secualar Humanist, I believe that there are man- made solutions to man- made problems. Welfare is one of those solutions (albeit it weak, at best) to the problem of poverty, which must be addressed. So let's get to the meat of it:
Let's pretend that I am a Federal or State entity with the purpose of serving a needy population. You come to me for help. Because of this social contract we have with you being a citizen that contributes to my existance, I, in turn, contribute to your well-being. I cannot deny your request for assistance based on your skin color, religion, sexual prefence, and *gasp* your decision to use drugs. You are a citizen and it is my duty to help you. It would be wrong to deny you because my only function is to recognize need and address it regardless of your disposition.
It is unethical to deny someone in need help on the basis that they have may have an illegal drug in their system. They have a need and that need is independent of whether they are brown, transgendered, Buddhist, or a user of drugs (note:I'm not saying equating drug use to these groups).
TL;DNR if my purpose is to help everyone who needs it, it is unethical to deny anyone who needs it.
"A pair of powerful spectacles has sometimes sufficed to cure a person in love. "
-Nietzsche
Tomorrow at four o'clock, two beautiful people will be taken off of the market. Though, science hasn't yet produced a lens so fined-tuned as to find flaws in this couple.
Those who know, know. Ben and Krista are some of the brightest and most pleasant people to be around. (Seriously, I don't do well in the company of others, this is a huge compliment.) I couldn't think of two better people to be trapped in an elevator with. And tomorrow is their big day.
So I raise a toast to thee, intrepid lovers. A toast via blogger. I would wish you happiness, but I know you have found it. I would gift you fulfillment, if it wasn't inanimate. In the (relatively) short time that we have known each other, I have felt a very strong connection to both of you. It is uncommon for me to meet two uncommon people so perfectly matched for each other. I'd say that it is a blessing but, well, you know...
From sharing yogurt to sharing evenings, there has been much that you two have taught me about life. From the moment I met you two, I have felt welcomed in your presence, and I thank you. You may not read this for a few days, I understand (though I cannot imagine why you aren't giving me full attention t-21 hours from your wedding). But nonetheless, I hope you receive this heartfelt message: I love both of you and am not only happy to see the both of you getting married, but honored to be even a small part of your life. Here is to a wonderful union, with the occasional visit from your favorite band minor.
So I have read everything you wrote. Every last word. I don't even know what to make of it.
Gus-
I don't need you trailing around, and making excuses how science is a business and you won't be published.
I need you to familiarize yourself with what we are talking about. Because, simply put, you don't get it.
You say claim that there are these holes, that the 'real' evidence is falling through this. You claim that RID is faulty- yet you cannot show why. You have anecdotes. Give me your numbers.
You start making accusations and going on tangents because you don't know the material. If you were to take a test on any of this, you'd get a big fat F. And that isn't because there is some conspiracy- it is because you didn't do your homework.
My obsession with Ph.D's? With experts? I don't really have one; I just like to point you in the direction where the foremost knowledgeable people in the field are and what they have to say. This is the wonderful thing about science- something that your religion can never do; an amateur can enter the arena with the hard facts and sound research and over turn the field. Literally.
Why haven't Ken Ham or Kent Hovind done this? Is it because of a conspiracy? Or is it because they don't do their homework? Why doesn't the Discovery Institute do actual research?
My obsession with peer-reviewed work? This is what is accepted as science. This isn't just some people saying "Hey, lets print out what we have to say and sell it or distribute it on the street." This is people going through a rigorous process of having their worked checked by other experts. These colleagues shoot holes and pick flaws in everything from data to methodology. This isn't just a few people self publishing. This is science.
So when I ask you to publish this knowledge that only you seem to have, I am being a smart-ass. It serves the purpose of calling your bluff.
In conclusion, I don't want to engage with you if you don't know the subject. Don't pretend. I will give it to you- study it. Then come back with something thought-out to say. Not just rhetoric and talking points that your pastor gives you. I want thoughtful criticism.
We'll start with this single link. It is one of the best resources on the web to date. It looks like it was created in the stone age- because it was forged when the internet was still new. It cites everything it claims, so you too can look at the research done behind it.
I really won't respond to you unless you put forth something thoughtful. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but in reality, I have no good reason to share my time with you if you won't be intellectually honest with me and anyone who reads this. I am giving you a level playing field and you are digging holes in it.
Haven't touched the blog in three days! Busy, busy, busy!
So in light of some recent activity, I have come to the conclusion that the people I am engaging in are not attempting to communicate on the same level. We aren't speaking the same language.
So this is what I need:
Serious discussion. The phrase "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" has never held more weight. I don't want to read through paragraphs of anectdotes and claims of why the scientific community is profit driven hence ID is not allowed. I don't want conspiracy theory. If you have something to say. Back it up with the numbers and the evidence.
Do Not:
-Go on tangents about totally unrelated topics. (What keeps you from raping children if there is no god).
- Start praying for me. (I appreciate your thought behind it, but do it behind closed doors, as your book says)
-Shift what is being discussed immediately to religion. Note: I do not use biology to deconvert you. I don't say "Hey look, evolution, therefore no god." If you want to make the argument against evolution, bring up something that you feel cannot be explained by the existing body of knowledge.
- Cherry pick science. Do not dismiss things that you disagree with and latch on to that which can lend you support.
-This one is important- do not bring the masons into it. Really. It makes you look like the kind of person rational people don't want to talk to.
Do
-Support your claims. Cite evidence. Really, out of your paragraphs of text- I have nothing to address. Why? Because these are claims you pull out of nowhere. You cannot just claim something counter to me without citing it. That doesn't interest me. Really, if you have a point to make throw it in my face. Show me how your position is what is accepted as reality. Do not say that the establishment is against you. I will just say to go make a tinfoil hat.
-Stay on topic.
-Ask questions. Seriously, outline them! I would like to help answer something that you may have a question about. At the very least I can point you to the way of resources.
- Keep in mind that I was a Christian for nearly two decades. I really really know your material. I also really really know the material of young earth creationists. I do. I have read and heard it all. There is nothing compelling they have to offer.
That is all that comes to mind for now. I will add more as I see fit.
In the words of Ayn Rand- the bitch all the libertarians love:
Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate apotential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.
- Ayn Rand (someone I don't quote often)
The majority cannot simply decide on this when the majority haven't even the most basic understanding of fetal development.
People, please stop asking my why I want to move out of this country.
I really don't need to address them. They stand on their own. You scored an own goal, Gus Gus. You don't make sense, you are trying to put things together that you really don't understand- and it shows.
Here is the problem; don't take a smug position and pretend that you have knowledge that the scientific community doesn't. Don't pretend like you are the first person to think of these things. Because you look like a giant tool when somebody presents a thorough refutation to everything you have to say. People can tell you are being dishonest.
You are also being arrogant. That isn't cool- because when you take that position, people really can tell that you are not concerned with evidence. You are concerned with assertion of your own world view.
Your undelying argument is that we cannot know how old the earth is- you use this strategy to undermine the sciences of biology and geology; and by extension, physics. The supreme irony is that you communicated this by using a machine that is built on the science you claim is flawed. You do realize this, right?
I am sure you know that by saying RID is wrong, you are saying that our understanding of quantum mechanics is wrong.
Additionally, quantum mechanics, when combined with statistical mechanics, provides the foundation for solid-state and semiconductor physics. Modern quantum mechanics was developed in the mid-1920’s, and the transistor and laser followed approximately a generation later. There would be no computer hard drives, magnetic resonance imaging, light emitting diodes, cell phones, laptop computers or iPods without quantum mechanics.
-Scientific American, Semptember 2011
This isn't religion, Gus. You cannot pick and choose what science you accept and what you throw out. You cannot sit there and tell me that RID, something that is supported by vast mountains of evidence, is wrong by typing on a machine built on the understanding of quantum mechanics.
But don't take my word for it. Let's ask experts in the field.
If you find something wrong with this, do something about it. This is how science works. We love to prove our colleagues wrong. Go publish your work. Do it now. I am waiting. I am waiting for you to present your hard work and upturn the scientific community.
What's that? You won't? Is it because every scientist on earth is part of a grand scheme to stomp on your worldview and suppress the truth? Am I being arrogant? Hell yeah I am. Because, unlike you, I am have no need to assert. Here are the facts. Here is the evidence. Here is sound support. Note: I am not talking out of my ass. I am not trying to understand things I have no business dabbling in. I have what the experts agree on.
It must be really easy to believe a conspiracy theory when reality is your enemy. Gus, I like you. I just implore you to think a little harder next time.
I wrote a piece for Dale, posted it on Yung'N's wall, and a little conversation ensued. Yung'N asked me a few questions and I said I would respond. Here is his message to me on FB:
I got you, yes please explain to me how the first cells got "here" because that is all I wanted to know. Where did they or it come from? How did it create itself from nothing? Why? Why did they need to evolve if there was no reason to (no need for survival of the fittest then, etc)? How did something non-living evolve to living? And how come we haven't ever seen a non-living thing become alive? Just a few random thoughts.
So this is what I will set out to do with this post. I will address:
1. How the first cells 'got here' and how they were able to self assemble.
2. Why haven't we seen anything non-living become alive?/ How did we make the jump from non-living to living? 2b. How did the first cells evolve?
As child, I distinctly remember the fear that was harbored and implanted into my mind on Sunday mornings. I can still hear our priest proclaiming that hell is a very real place and a very real threat to nonbelievers.
The Bible is very clear as to what will happen to unbelievers. I promised to write this entry today for someone who's mother is a Buddhist, and obviously, not a believer in Christianity. This person told me, sincerely, that he is worried about the future of his mother's soul; that she will be damned.
This is the second half from my reply to Dale. This way, nobody has to go through the first part of my beliefs.
Theory: The scientific meaning of this word is not the same as the colloquial or lay man's definition. In science a theory is a complete body of knowledge. A theory becomes a theory when all available evidence suggests that it is probably the case. If a single piece of evidence comes up, the theory must either be refined or thrown out.
A scientific theory does two things:
i. Accounts for and explains all available evidence.
ii. Makes predictions as to what we can expect to find in the related field.
Well this is the theme of my blog; educating people on science and writing about bad, and ineffective thinking.
This post is for Dale. I think he would like for me to address a few things:
1. Why I lost my belief in a god.
2. Creation 'science'.
So let's begin! Yay!
1. Why I lost my belief.
I was raised in a very Catholic family, with strong ties to our local church. I was your typical True Believer (TM). It was my duty to live the life god assigned through scripture. I did. For many years I did.
Sorry to get this out so late, I have been pretty tied down lately with Chemistry (argh!). Also, my faithful chariot took a dump (yay, Ford engineering!) So with no further adieu, I present to you this quick blurb as to why I like Gus. (Last name withheld for his anonymity).
Recently, I have been scouring the internet to find places that no skeptic has gone before. Most 'public' forums make you register and await moderation from an admin. I couldn't get in with my stated beliefs- and I didn't want to lie. Little did I know that right under my nose there was a wealth of people who held the beliefs I so desperately wanted to study (non-academically, of course.)
Some of the beliefs held by this group, to the best of my understanding, are as follows:
- Belief that the Illuminati/ Freemasons/ Unknowns are secretly controlling society and more specifically, the music industry.
- These same Illuminati not only control; but they worship Satan/Lucifer and persecute Christians.
- Rhianna is harboring the anti-Christ in fetal form.
- HAARP is controlling weather; causing catastrophes such as hurricanes and even earthquakes. (Yes, you read this correctly.)
We sat on a bench watching lightning hit about ten miles off. The rain had stopped fifteen minutes earlier and the air was still and crisp- a most welcomed time in the desert. The night was dark with the only illumination coming from the park lights and the warm city glow on the horizon. If you have never witnessed a desert thunderstorm, I highly recommend making a pilgrimage during the 'wet' seasons.
The power of each electrical disruption is belittling. Each strike sends waves of energy at Mach speeds for miles around. Booming with impact, thunder settles through the valley, disturbing freshly gathered dew on window panes and making parents hush their little ones to sleep. These violent interactions captivated our ancestors for thousand upon thousands of years. These storms erect our most primitive fears; the fears of the unknown. Before you read on, watch this wonderfully cogent video. (EDIT: Video is embedded above, stupid Blogger interface.)
This, my dearest reader(s), is the topic of tonight's blog: how science calms the fearful giant, and how individuals must be scientifically literate if they want to be respected members of our society.
I remember first reading Carl Sagan'sDemon Haunted World, and feeling enlightened, and hopeful, and genuinely optimistic about the capabilities we, as humans, can rise to. Sagan's book is a much more lucid, and in- depth work than what I could ever hope to write here, so I recommend reading or re reading his book. But he has some really great points that I want to touch on- back to the thunderstorm.
Lauren and I (Bert Dog too) sat talking for a few minutes about the misery that shadows the lives of billions on this planet. We talked about how life must genuinely suck when living in ignorance of the workings of our universe.
In your mind you may draw caricatures of frantic people, full of fear, living on edge, ready to fire off at the next site of lightning. You may think that in today's society, these people do not exist. But it is a sad reality that in our modern age, in our rapid streams of knowledge, we have people still decomposing at the depths of willful ignorance- and it is ruining the water supply for the rest of us.
The modern world is a progressive place. If you want to not only stay afloat, but prosper, then you must also have a knowledge of the world we live in. Reading just a few bits of information no longer cuts it. You must be scientifically literate in order to be respected.
In our modern age we have people undeserving of respect and I, as a member of society who has expectations of progress, must publicly denounce. The people that I denounce are those that are in strict opposition to science. These are those most willfully ignorant and academically dishonest people around. These are the people jumping in fear at the sight of a lightning bolt.
When you don't understand how the world works, you are misled to believe many heaps of bullshit. As I have encountered with this group of people. I admit, I have given them a fair share of 'trololling', but in all fairness it is just too easy. You see, these people have forfeited any critical capacity of thought, and accept any idea as true, based on who told them.
Here is a list of some of the absurdities I have encountered:
- Illuminati run the world. (obviously). But it doesn't just stop at that- more specifically they run the record companies. And control music. But only crappy hip-hop, apparently. The illuminati also really, really, hate Christians. See: Christian persecution complex and Christian History Revision.
- So I have already mentioned these people are Billboard Top 40 hip-hop enthusiasts who are also Christian enthusiasts. But they are also, you guessed it, young earth creationists. The most flagrantly misinformed people of the world- and also the loudest. So yes, this means they deny any science contradictory to their claims (see: any piece of science every published.)
-Government is using mind control via chemtrails and the HAARP project. (This I will touch on later.)
-The government/ Illuminati are using HAARP to create massive weather storms as well as trigger the recent earthquake and hurricanes on the east coast.
-Ancient peoples (Mayans, Egyptians, et al.,) Had far superior technology and knowledge than we do today.
These people are the living, breathing, corporeal counterparts to that caricature in your head. When handed a diagram to build a heating unit, they throw the plans on the fire in their cave to stay warm. They refuse to learn. And this is why they cannot be respected members of our society.
I asked in particular how HAARP can be used to manipulate weather patterns and disrupt fault lines. My response ranged from 'its obvious' to 'they use volts to shoot in the atmosphere.' I searched an searched from an answer from them and couldn't get it. (If any of you are reading this, I still challenge you to prove me wrong. Show me the mechanisms by which weather can be manipulated using HAARP.)
This is why critical thinking is important. If these people had it, they would know what auroral means and what HAARP does. They would know that radio frequency cannot magically produce 'volts' (as on commenter claimed). They would know that the radio frequency used will only temporarily excite high atmospheric ions, which will immediately return to a low energy state after stimulation. They would also know we do not even have enough human resources needed to create the amount of energy needed to create or disrupt weather patterns. But fuck that shit. They cannot even grasp that HAARP deals with the outer-most limits of our atmosphere- the ionosphere (which is ever changing and oh-so-mutable). They don't have a fucking clue that weather DOES NOT GENERATE THERE.
Now I'm pissed the fuck off. Look up troposphere. Read about it. What the fuck does the Wiki have to say?
God damn it. Read people. Think. So how does a low energy stimulation of the top layer of the atmosphere produce weather change in the lower most part? Hint: It doesn't. It cannot. It will not. HAARP can only produce the amount of energy equivalent to sun shining on an area the size of a football field for about fifteen minutes. You could boil some water with that.
Though I don't respect the ideas of these people, I don't think that they are second rate or second class. Their beliefs certainly are, yet at the end of the day, they are my fellow humans. Wrong as they may be, they are still our neighbors. And this is why I interact with them- because the wonderful thing about facts, and science, and knowledge, is that everyone can learn it.
So society, ask yourself: Do you want your neighbor clutching tightly to pearls of deception? Or would you rather have them understand the basal workings of the universe- not experts, mind you, but have at the very least knowledge of how the significant things work?
FYI my future blog posts will be debunking the shit they believe. Gives me something to do in between coursework and labs. Oh yeah almost forgot:
[Edit: Ignore the many typos, this was done at 2 am.)
I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of the U.S. Justice system is sub par (to say the least). I know the basic tenets- but when it comes down to it, I get confused on ruling, procedures, and technicalities. I do not go onto public forums and act as an armchair lawyer, because my ass will be handed to me.
This being said, I do understand the law and what can violate the Constitution. I understand that lines may be blurred and rulings can become very subjective (see: WBC and Free Speech). However, though this may not be my field of study, yet I can spot injustice (for the most part.)
Let us explore a little scenario:
Yesterday the West Memphis 3 were freed, for the most part. (Again, I have some confusions as the implications of the Alford plea). So this is well and good, and justice has (partially, and quite minimally) been served. I can agree with it- or not. I can pretend that my 'expertise' in the matters predicted that this would eventually be the outcome for the WM 3. So let's pretend, though, that I am convinced of my abilities as an armchair lawyer. Just by watching CNN or Fox, I can predict the outcome of cases. Let's say that I am so confident, that I decide to run for county judge.
We can easily see that my knowledge (in all its limitations) does not qualify me as a respectable candidate. I am sure, come election time, voters would want to see my qualifications to be a judge. The voters have standards and these offices have requisites that must be met.
So what does this have to do with Rick Perry? I'll make the ties later- but first some background on this asshat.
Rick Perry is the governor of Texas, and is responsible for the death of an innocent man. Dick Perry is also (in case you have been in a cave, with bitchin' WiFi) a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination. Like me, Rick Perry does not have a law degree. Shocking, I know. However where we differ is that I am 100% confident I would run this country into the ground if I were elected; because I do not have the back ground that is a required minimum of someone who is to take position as POTUS. Neither does Perry. Take a look at his grades as an undergraduate at Texas A&M.
O faithful readers, I beseech ye, in all thine wisdom to gloss thy eyes of fortitude into the abyss that is Rick Perry's transcripts. Tell me, what stands out to you?
Is it the 'D' in economics? Or maybe the 'C' in American History? Maybe it is that 1.97 GPA. I know outside of academia, grades generally don't mean squat. However, Perry's work ethics shine through in this case, and it is evident that he is a person that does not care (in many meaning of the phrase.)
So now let's draw some parallels between my hypothetical candidacy for a judge and Perry's very real run for POTUS.
1. The candidate is not minimally qualified for the position.
Rick Perry is not a qualified candidate and it isn't merely based on his grades. A pile of shit is residue every time this man opens his mouth. However, this is something that shouldn't be overlooked. He lacks the basic competence that goes with this job. How will he dictate the Fed without a proper understanding of economics? How will he make sound choices when being pridefully ignorant of history? How will he decipher bullshit if it is given to him?
2. Well I really just wanted to focus on the first item.
I cannot dole out enough contempt for the arrogance that is Rick Perry. This man is not only confident in himself to fill the role as president, but also feels he is the best person for the job. Our country is hurting, and D's in economic policy aren't going to help us.
But Rick Perry doesn't stop there. He is actively trying to undo decades of rights fought for by women, minorities, and the GLBTQ community. Rick Perry thinks the Constitution will become his 'Welcome' mat. Rick Perry thinks that he will shuffle legal systems, congressional powers, and eliminate checks and balances.
This will be relatively short- I have to go study middle Rio Grande ecology before it gets too late. For anybody who wants to know what I'll be doing- this trip may consist of me feeding M&Ms to ants and using my flawless turkey call to try and communicate with cranes and geese.
So I present you this. What we have here is something exceedingly common, and something that I have recently talked about. We have a decrease amongst those who accept the current climate change as man- made. As such, there has also been a increase in those who believe that there is not consensus as to the cause of the global warming within the scientific community (especially climate and geologic-based sciences).
Why do we have this negative trend of (un) acceptance? We see that there has been a shift from complete denial that the world's climate is changing, to the attitude that we are not to blame. The leading counter- argument is thus: We don't know enough about CO2 levels to conclude that it is playing a part in the green house effect.
We live in a free country. We don't have anyone dictating what we believe, nor what information we have access to. So when I see someone actively denying global climate change, and our role in it, I see a fool. To deny the work of so many hard working scientists, is to be not only willfully ignorant, but arrogant to the highest degree. Dunning- Kruger. Look it up.
