I stopped by The Bad Astronomer for his article on “Lights Out in Iceland” and saw his latest blog on the Senate bill which, in effect, authorizes the use of torture and removes the Constitutional demand of habeus corpus. Which means, the Executive branch of the government (bush’s branch) would have the power to detain anyone, ANYONE, even lawful U.S. citizens without a Grand Jury, without telling them the charges, without legal representation, and indefinitely!

A Dark Day in America: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/09/28/a-dark-day-in-america/

To all you people who supported bush, who voted for bush, is this the “values” you meant when you said he was a “values President?” You people who still support bush, I want to just grab you by the back of your head and rub your face in his crap and yell at you “Is THIS the ‘Christian values’ of which you meant when you voted in this fascist regieme? This administration that keeps trying and trying, usually in underhanded and secret methods, to torture human beings while the rest of the modern world watches in horror? Are degredation of human rights, torture, sometimes of innocent people and despite the fact that it’s KNOWN to provide unuseable intel; are spying on legal U.S. citizens, and desiring to be able to arrest and detain anyone for life; lying and deceving and strong-arming our country into a war for the purpose of commercial gain while thousands of soldiers die and tens of thousands of civilians die and a country is reduced to rubble and strife and civil war; using fear and deception to keep us too scared to realize the rediculous methods of keeping us safe’ while we’re less safe than before 9/11; croneyism and incomeptent running of a country by parsing out pieces of it to your friends and loyal supporters despite their incompetence; using lies and force to prevent information regarding global warming from reaching the public so it doesn’t harm your commercial interests; doing everything you can to allow the rich to get richer and capital gains to get higher while unemployment is worse than it was 6 years ago and may be even worse than the government reports; the poverty level rises and the extreme poverty level rises and the government goes bankrupt; are these ‘Good Christian Values’ you look up to bush for?!”

Thank you for assisting in ruining the country and shredding the Constitution and murdering thousands and destroying democracy and making us a hated country in the rest of the world, all so you can prevent gays from marrying and flags from being burnt. Thank you, you fucks.

Please, for the love of god, all you “good Christian values” voters move to Arkansas and Alabama or someplace, secede from the country, and have your little medieval culture of anti-science, anti-reality ideology while the rest of the country moves on with being free, democratic, celebrate liberty and human rights, and continues to advance in medicine and global ecology.

I hated Wesley Crusher. Man.

A few years ago when I found out the actor, Wil Wheaton, was not only a dyed-in-the-wool nerb, but also quite cool, I became a fan (of Wil’s, not Wesley.) He writes books and articles. He plays professional poker. He’s huge into computers. He’s sort of like the “Mirror Mirror” version of Wesley Crusher, with the goatee signifying his cool “badness.”

Anyway, one of his recent blogs:

Blue Light Special: http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2006/09/blue_light_spec.html

he discusses going back to the memories he had of buying the original Star Wars figures. His memories sure brought back my own. I had a complete collection of original Star Wars figs (no, none left in boxes.) But then “Empire Strikes Back,” I had most of them, but certainly not all. By that time the torch of figure collecting had been passed to my brother. I had maybe only a few of “Return of the Jedi.”

But the best thing I ever had, is a tie between the Death Star with trash compactor (and trash made out of foam wedges,) or the foot-tall Boba Fett with working…stuff on him.

Unfortunately, the Fett had fallen behind a shelf and landed on a heater for a day. I was in Tacoma, Washington at the time, I believe. But I do remember the childhood pain of a ruined favorite toy. Man, those were the days of innocence.

So, why pray? Most Christians from the most conservative fundamentalist to the most liberal tend to agree that “prayer works.” That there’s some reality-bending effectiveness to prayer.

Is there? I doubt it. Why? Let’s look at the evidence.

A recent heavily funded study looked into the effectiveness of intercessory prayer:

http://www.stnews.org/News-2754.htm

Of the three groups of heart-surgery patients, the group that was prayed for and didn’t know it fared exactly the same as those who weren’t prayed for. However, the group that was prayed for and knew it, actually did worse in post-surgery recovery than the other groups! The hypothesis is that the group that knew they were prayed for may have had a negative psychological impact, making them think “Oh dear, I’m bad enough I need to be prayed for,” and the stress caused an increase in complications.

Also, I discussed in my blog at:

Why Won’t God Heal Amputees? and More of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees that despite the fact the Bible states in a few places, from Jesus himself, that if you have faith no matter what you pray for you’ll get it. Many people evidently have faith enough to have prayer cure cancer and diseases (and other conditions which can go into natural remission and can be affected by medical procedures,) but there has not been a single amputee who has gained their limb back. This would mean God either lied in the Bible, the Bible is not literal and true, or God has it in for amputees.

Everything that happens in which people claim prayer made it happen are things than can be explained by natual chance or human actions. I have not heard of or seen a single event that people have thanked prayer for that was not more easily a case of accident or action. Cognitive biases are by and large the reason for the reinforced belief in the effectiveness in prayer, to the same amount that other people may believe in lucky charms and the existance of bad luck, or the effects of WIccan magick and the like.

Reading Debunking Christianity, I read many MANY personal stories in which former believers asked and prayed fervently for months or even years for help from God in dealing with their questions and doubts, and still, they eventually turn toward agnoticism or atheism ultimately. Even former pastors and preachers and theologians. Why would God not answer these payers? Why would God not listen to these people who would be fantastic soldiers to his cause, and give them aid in their doubts and prove his existance and will?

Some believers would bring up “Because God gave us free will and will not intervene in what one has set in their heart.” Will, bunk. If the Bible is literally true, there are countless passages in which God has changed a persons heart either pro or against God or the Hebrews.

Also, if God sees fit not to intervene in human will, then there’s no point in praying for assistance as God won’t intervene in anything that involves human will, from your own will, to the will of the murderer or thief or carjacker or rapist or molestor or drunk driver. If God won’t help the potential soldier for his cause by answering prayers for answers to doubt because of some self-imposed rule of non-intervention, then there’s no reason for him to answer any prayers.

So why pray? Is it for personal emotional strength? Why? Most of the world isn’t Christian, yet just as many non-theists are happy and fulfilled and successful by trusting in their own inner strength and abilities and finding inspiration in other people. So why pray to a silent and uninvolved God? Why not just trust yourself? Make the right decisions as best you can and find joy in the world as it is, and have hope in the ability to make it better?

So we’ve reached a point in the Iraq war where more American soldiers have died in Iraq than Americans who died on 9/11.

And the punchline is we were lied into Iraq under the pretense that there was a connection to 9/11…and there is none.

Why are we doing this again?

Over on Debunking Christianity, there’s an interesting article from a former devoted Christian:

Debunking Christianity: Should Women Wear Hats in Church?

in which he points up one of the many seeds of doubt the Bible itself implanted in him.

I like this quote from it: (emphasis mine)

It is an open secret of many “Bible Believing” churches that only a small percentage of their members study the Bible with any degree of interest (see Dallas Willard in “Hearing God”). In retrospect, it seems that actually reading the Bible forces the Christian to deal with the division they have placed in their own minds. It is easier to proclaim belief and ignore the teaching of the Bible when you don’t actually read the Bible.

Well, to start with, here’s some info on scores of experienced military leaders criticising Rumsfield for bungling the war in Iraq and using deception to gain public support for it:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/25/iraq.democrats.ap/index.html

And information that since April the administration has known that the Iraq war has created more terrorism threats and has made the West much less safe:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/25/dems.iraq.ap/index.html

(By the way, over 300 U.S. servicemen have died since the administration got the Pentegon report detailing how much the Iraq war is failing.)

And then, did you know this? Cheney was one of Nixon’s Chief’s of Staff, and Rumsfeld was Nixon’s “Assistant to the President.” Then later Ford’s Chief of Staff.
One’s initial reaction might be “Oh, well they certainly have experience.” Sure, but at that time both of them had a history of striving to consolodate as much governmental power unto the Presidency. Wanted to destroy the Nixon tapes despite Supreme Court requests for them. Have a history of expressing digust at the limited powers of the President and the checks and balance the Congress and the Supreme Court has on the Presidency. These proto-neo-cons, who helped advise Nixon on protracting the Viet Nam war (sound familiar?) have shown they have always wanted to help mold the Presidency into a dictatorship.

And yet, they have the audacity to point fingers at people who have the patriotism to question their leadership as “appeasers of fascism.” That my friends, is irony.

According to some who have served in the White House, Cheney and Rumsfield constantly lavish praise upon bush, calling him a war-time hero and equal to Lincoln, Rosevelt, Truman, and despite what people are saying, will be remembered throughout hsitory as one of the greatest leaders. Meanwhile limiting the information that comes to him and making crucial decisions for him. This administration has been the first, for example, to increase the amount of power the Vice President has over intelligence policy and decision-making.

Some information regarding this history of Cheney and Rumsfield as men behind the curtain:

http://www.grailwerk.com/docs/theguardian_3.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1502532,00.html

http://hnn.us/articles/18668.html

And if your ire isn’t raised enough, check this out: The FBI used to for decades have an agent attend interrogations involving domestic terrorism threats. A couple of years ago they stopped having an agent attend because the interrogations were becoming so disturbing that the FBI didn’t want to be associated with such gross inhumanity. (Which of course begs the question why didn’t they work to stop it?)

Oh, because when the Navy’s Judge Advocates General (JAG) refused to approve the White House’s plans for interrogation techniques, they were threatened to be replaced by civilian White House appointees. When JAG Major General Thomas Fiscus annonymously told members of Congress of the Administration’s attempts to bully torture techniques into military investigations, the White House authorized wire taps on him and then revealed he had extramarital affairs. A scandal that ruined General Fiscus’ career, and burried the torture issue.

Because he tried to do the right thing.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12302004.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1877301,00.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/09/21/torture/index_np.html

And what’s insane is that torture, or rather, “alternative procedures” as bush eupemized at the  recent U.N. speech, historically yields erroneous and unreliable information. bush and his neo-con “Christian” theocrats want to give up the moral high-ground, want to use procedures we accuse other countries as being inhumane for using, want to make us an even greater target for terrorism, put our captured servicemen and women at greater risk for torture themselves, and for what? Unreliable information.

In case you haven’t realized it yet, we’re living in an “evil” fascist dictatorship at the moment. Only it’s not so obvious because we still have some amount freedom that hasn’t yet been taken away, and the lulling and distracting succor of commercialism to spend our money on to help us not pay attention to what our government is doing, in our name!

Remember, they work for us! They are hired by us to represent us to the world! How long do you want to continue showing the world we are theocratic hypocrites who torture, bully opponents, despise liberty, desire empirical control of the world?

OK, this is just too funny just on its own:

YouTube - Kirk Cameron And Bananas

Hmm, so the “perfect” design of the banana proves Creationism and disproves naturalistic evolution.

So, how does the pointy pineapple fit in this? Or the nearly impossible to open coconut? Or the annoying to eat kiwi fruit? Or have you ever tried to eat a pomegranate? I mean, that fruit must prove something! Or the seedy and messy orange? Ever tried eating non-seedless grapes? Cherries aren’t very user-friendly. And watermelons, man.
It seems to me when you look over all the hundreds of edible fruits you can think of, there are more hard-to-eat and annoying-to-eat fruits than “perfect” ones. In fact, one “perfect” fruit and dozens of annoying fruit out of the scores you can name, seems to me proves natural evolution!

But I use this really silly thing called reason when I use my brain.

CNN.com - Dobbs: Voting machines put U.S. democracy at risk - Sep 20, 2006

The problems with electronic voting aren’t necessarily new, yet we’re still not ready for the midterms. During the 2004 presidential election, one voting machine in a Columbus, Ohio, suburb reportedly added nearly 3,900 additional votes to Bush’s total. Officials caught the machine’s error because only 638 voters cast presidential ballots at that precinct, but in a heavily populated district, can we really be sure the votes will be counted correctly?

The May primary election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, was nothing less than a complete debacle. A report from the Election Science Institute found the electronic voting machines’ four sources of vote totals — individual ballots, paper trail summary, election archives and memory cards — didn’t even match up. The totals were all different, and the report concluded that relying on the current system for Cuyahoga County’s more than 1.3 million people should be viewed as “a calculated risk.” Are we really willing to risk our democracy?

(Emphasis mine.)

You remember Ohio a couple of years ago, right? The Presidential election deciding state that was too close to call until John Kerry decided to not challenge the slim margin and concede defeat?

That state where because of 1% difference in the votes giving bush the slimmest of leads, he won the election and considered it a continuation of his divinely inspired mandate to “stay the course?”

Yeah, thought so.

A little extra icing on this cake of democratic failure to make your day more cheerful:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html

Starting at the top, how’s this for disgusting irony?

Yesterday bush admonished Syria at the U.N. for advocating torture.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/20/bush.ap/index.html

Meanwhile, Canada on the same day officially confirms the U.S. government misled the Canadian government when they requested they hand an innocent Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, over to the CIA who then sent him to…Syria for “interrogation”. For a year.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

And then over in Ohio, Republican U.S. Representative Bob Ney admitted to whoring out his Congressional votes to lobbyists and he says it’s up to him and his family whether he resigns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/us/politics/19ney.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I’m sorry?! Correct me if I’m wrong, but this guy is an employee of the people of Ohio. It’s not up to him if he should quit after admitting to selling out to corporate interests. He should consider himself fired and bow out. Not continue to collect a paycheck for being a betrayer of the public interest.

Maybe that’s just me.

Holymoly. Discovered this debate between two young scholars over the existance of theism vs. naturalism.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=8220615357

(You have to provide your e-mail address to download it and it subscribes you to a newsletter, but you can immediately unsubscribe.)

The first speaker is the proponent for naturalism, and he’s a young and passionate kid. Comes off a little arrogant, but, his arguements are sound.

But the guy arguing for theism…oh my god! Every point, every single point he makes, is based firmly upon some logical fallacy or cognitive bias! Every one! I’m just gobsmacked listening to it. Yet, every arguement he makes are consistant mainstays in the evangelical/conservative armament.

I mean, one of his reasons for the existance of God is the assumption that afterlife judgement exists and is necessary in order to provide hope and justice. So that Hitler and Mother Theresa aren’t on a cosmic scale considered equal, there MUST be a giver of prescribed laws and morality.

He uses the “coin flip” fallacy of the slim chance of the creation of life from base elements as a reason for the existance of God.

Fortunately the naturalism guy calls him on the “appeals to emotion” the theism guy commits in this debate that is meant to focus in evidence. Oh! And the fallacy of composition! The theism guy tried to equate the “dependance of the components of a something requires a something to be dependant upon” of all humans needing food and water to survive, with the entire universe needing something beyond it to survive. Granted, this guy makes the point better than I can paraphrase, but it’s a terrible fallacy of logic none the less.
Granted, a debate is NEVER a venue to PROVE anything. A debate is basically a contest between two speakers over who is a better debator. But it’s a great listen.

(Added edit:) The theist guy focused SO MUCH on the ultimate meaning of life requires the existance of God. Arguing the whole “Eat, drink, for tomorrow we die.” Using as an example, “Without ultimate meaning, what’s the point of buying that Corvette, or feeding that person, if it doesn’t matter?” Oh my God! You have to be an idiot to not see the obvious: “It matters a great deal to that person that was fed!” Like the naturalist counters, just because the answer may be depressing, you may not like, may not be a happy answer, doesn’t make it not true! Just because you WANT there to be ultimate justice or meaning, doesn’t mean there IS one. The entire basis of the theistic “proof” is just an “appeal to emotion” fallacy.

Just discovered this documentary yesterday. Scared the -beep- out of me!

“Jesus Camp” - http://imdb.com/title/tt0486358/

It follows the events of an evangelical Christian kid’s camp in North Dakota. And in the trailer for the movie, it displays kids being brainwashed in charismatic evangelicalism. I watched it with chills and a deep pit opening in my stomach. It’s nothing less than a cult, abusing children–but it’s not some small group in a compound, it’s a cult of millions of people all over the country!

These poor, abused, brainwashed kids, being taught Christian extremism, being “warriors” for God both figuratively AND literally, are going to be replacing the neo-cons in government now, will be running school boards, will be a part of our communities.

I watch the movie’s trailer, and I see the images of kids being told science doesn’t prove anything (see my last post: Celebration of Carl Sagan, and the Cosmic Search,) and dropping on the ground and shaking, and performing warrior-like “dances”, and crying with “love for Jesus” at 12 and 13 with NO IDEA what passion and love should be, it scares the hell out of me.

…especially when the night before I saw a clip from another recent documentary: “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” - http://imdb.com/title/tt0487116/. And a clip in that movie where a 13 or 14 year old Muslem girl is shown with bright eyes wishing she had a gun or a knife so she could kill bush, and dance on his grave. And making sincere (as sincere as a religiously brainwashed person can be) wishings for war and death and the destruction of the West.

Religion is evil. Yeah, I know these are examples of the extreme versions of religions, but it’s all a matter of degrees. Religion requires belief without reason, and that is the root of all evil. Moderate religion is an aberation. Read any religious text, and they require the kind of belief exemplified in these movies. Complete devotion in mind and body, and that kind of devotion to a dogma leads to unreasonable belief and intolarant if not violent actions. The eradication of religion might not be the ultimate answer, for humans are flawed and will find ways to direct their cognitive biases and fallacious logic, but it would be a big step toward the evolution of human society toward something better. And less medieval.

“We are unimportant to the universe, but by the uniqueness of our existance, we are clearly significant to each other.” (Paraphrased.)

This is one of the ideas, concepts that Carl Sagan attempted to teach others. Lived his own life by.

The opening essay of the latest podcast of “Point of Inquiry” is a personal description of the value of the lessons of Carl Sagan as he strove not only to make science accessible to everyone, but also show that we have a responsibility to use science and reason to improve ourselves and improve humanity at large.
“If you wish to be important, do something important.”

“We must stand. Every day we have the chance to use the methods of science, to use the results of science, to do something important, to contribute to the lives of our significant others.”

He had stood in front of military generals and explained how both scientifically and from a human point of view, the “Star Wars” program was a bad idea, and in front of that biased audience, received a standing ovation.

His “Cosmos” series has been the instigation for so many people to feel the love for science, for the marvels of the universe, as he had. People who would go on living lives and careers that may not be directly related to science, would still continue to carry that appreciation, thanks to Carl Sagan.

We desperately need an advocate for the love of science for a new generation today! Or, why not just make Sagan’s works required viewing and reading for youngsters today?

Also in the podcast in an interview with Sagan’s widow and science advocate Ann Druyan. She discusses, well, a lot! Especially about the near mystical revelations science had in her own life, and how it was nearly quashed by thoughtlessness:

In jr. high school when in class she made the realization that pi was a ratio that worked not just for earthly circles, but ALL circles everywhere in the universe, she had a near religious experience. When she asked her teacher about it, she was told “Don’t ask stupid questions,” and that degration at a moment of epiphany for years made her angry at the concept of math and science.

At this moment, evangelical and conservative Christians would say “AH-HA! See! Science IS just like a religion with their priests wearing white lab coats!” Well, let me take a tangential moment here to say let’s put this in perspective. While yes, a person can make science as their religion, that’s NOT a good thing if like most followers of religions their reason and skepticism and desire for inquiry took a back seat to dogma. The core and nature of science REQUIRES questioning of status quo and testing of beliefs and proving of concepts…all of which is abhored by religions. Also, take away all the advances and developments and inventions of theologians and religious leaders throughout history, and what will the world miss? Uhm, a lot of books perhaps and maybe some wars. Take away all the advances and developments and inventions of scientists and what will he have? 40 year life expectancies, half of childbirths ending in the death of either mother or child or both, no cars, no Internet, no tornado warning systems, no medicine, no hardy wheat crops, etc. ad infinitum. What can you predict with 100% certainty due to religion? Uhm, nothing proveable emperically. Even the claims of past prophesy are shakey at best (His name was Yeshua, not Immanuel, and there’s no mention in the OT regarding virgin births;) meanwhile thanks to science, I know water will freeze at 0C and boil at 100C at exactly 1 atmosphere. I can predict the measure of circumference of any sphere. I know what the speed of light is, and can predict what happens as things approach the speed of light. I can predict what happens when I mix and acid and a base. I know how to make a polymer that will work every time. I can predict what would happen if I dropped two objects at the same time. etc. etc. ad infinitum. And most important and so VERY different from all religions, science has at its core the concept, “Well, I could be wrong.” What religion encourages that?!
So if science were a religion, I’d gladly bow down before the alter of science. It’d be the only religion that works!

But I digress.

“If you love someone, but don’t really know what they’re like–what kind of love is that?” (In reference to religious loving God.)
“Don’t be afraid to find out the universe wasn’t created for you.”

“We are starstuff! Every atom of our body was made from the firey explosions of the birth of stars!” (My paraphrase of her paraphrase of Carl’s lesson.)

“The search is sacred.”

“Why kill in the name of God? If God is so powerful, he can take care of things himself.”

Well, it’s a long interview, and a VERY fascinating one! Check it out.

(edit:) Oh yeah! Duh. The podcast also has one of Sagan’s last public presentations. A speech called “Skepticism and Wonder.” Ah what a good speech!

(edit 2:) His speech is amazing! It’s all about the wonder of science. Of discovery. Of inquiry!

How there’s nothing we humans can come up with in our imaginations (UFOs, religions, crop circles,) that can remotely compare with the amazing wonders that nature provides us. The discoveries we’ve had about everything from the atom to the evidence of the origins of the universe are far beyond the awesomeness of the banal and mundane things we come up with in the realms of pseudoscience and religions where god is basically a giant all-seeing human.

The passion and and love he exhibits for science, for poularizing science is fantastic. And his prediction for the current culture war against science he predicted is very scary!

He predicted in this speech in 1994 how we would become a culture sliding into superstition and darkness, where we no longer tell truth from what feels good, when we no longer question those we put into power, when we no longer have control over the social discourse…we create an explosive mixture between ignorance and power.

The power of modern technology is so dangerous, that we can’t, CAN’T let those in charge of the powers of technology to do so without us, the people, understanding science and keeping those in charge from abusing it.
Imagine the “predictive powers” of science, where with it you can predict centuries in the future, when to the second and where on Earth to the foot, there is a total eclipse of the sun. Or how 20 years after launching a space prode it can reach Neptune within a few kilometers of its intended trajectory without mid-course corrections. Any religious leader would give their eye-teeth to have that kind of predictive ability. “Science delivers the goods.”

How does it work? Science has built-in error-correction mechanisms, because science understands humans are falable. Humans are subject to error and bias. But the scientific method has built-in devices to weed out error:
There are no forbidden questions!

Arguements from authority are worthless! 

All claims must be demonstrated!

Ad hominem attacks are invalid! You can be a sleezeball and be right; you can be a pillar of scociety and be wrong.

The gauntlet of criticism is de rigeur in science. Every scientific graduate student experiences during their PhD exam that they will be submitted to an endless barrage of criticisms and attacks upon their thesis and methodology, their results and data. And the students knows they are going to HAVE to be able to anticipate all attacks and find all errors and all problems.

The scientist knows when they are submitting papers for peer review they will be submitted to endless criticism and investigation. Mountains of attacks.
Why do scientists do this? Because science throws out what doesn’t work. If something doesn’t hold up, throw it out. Discard it. It’s not personal, it’s emperical. And that’s the foundation of science. Science teaches the participants in science that you do not hold onto personal beliefs about theory or data or hypothesis if it doesn’t work. If it can’t be proven. And so, that’s how science delivers the goods. Why it works!

Well, I can’t paraphrase the entire speech. Please, I encourage everyone who wants to be a thinking participant in reality, society, science, and not be a victem of those who would use faulty reasoning and pseudoscience to abuse, listen to this podcast!