I’ve been hit by a hacker

Yes that 15 second annoying little tune you hear is the result of someone hacking my site. I’m working on it. I suspect it’s the result of a spammer I pissed off - I deleted his comments and banned his email. Of course, it could be someone who just doesn’t like my blog, but I doubt it given the timing.

Anyone who runs their own blog is fully aware of the crippling effects that comment spammers can have on a site. I spend more time cleaning up spam comments than anything else I do on this site. I’ve done everything I can to protect against comment spam and now they’re retaliating when one slips through and is deleted. I’m almost to the point of throwing in the towel and retiring Buridan’s Ass because of this crap. The readership is relatively small, those who comment are usually personal friends and family, and the therapeutic effects of blogging no longer provide the same satisfaction for me.

The site may be down for some time while I try to fix this. If it starts to take up too much time, I will likely close shop for good.

UPDATE: I’ve isolated the offending file and we’re back to normal for now.

 The oncoming health care misinformation onslaught

It’s already well underway. If you’ve been paying attention, you’ve already seen the Harry and Louise-esque ads from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. It’s only the beginning of what will likely become the mother of all misinformation campaigns to date. It’s going to get ugly and will make the last election cycle look like a series of high-school debates.

Unlike the Harry and Louise days of the early 90s, there’s now a realistic chance of true health reform. Public exposure this time around is not limited to the usual lopsided set of PR campaigns in which the healthcare industry’s big money drowns out all opposing voices. Unlike the mainstream media, where advertising dollars control the message in toto, we have this wonderful thingy called the interwebs; you know, that so-called information highway the corporate world has yet to completely control. It barely existed when the healthcare industry spawned Harry and Louise, but now provides a real possibility for grassroots efforts to trump the big-money-corporate-lying machine.

But then again, big money continues to speak very loudly and effectively within the public sphere. Some have estimated that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries have set aside $200 million to combat the reform efforts. They will succeed *again* if people simply sit by and watch from the sidelines.

Here’s the bigger problem. Obama is already showing signs of caving and suggesting a less than complete set of reforms, to put it charitably. There’s a growing fear of losing everything (re: Clinton’s efforts in the 90s) unless significant compromises are made to satisfy the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. More cynically, the $200 million misinformation and intimidation fund is beginning to pay off very early. I guess we’re just incapable of shaking Harry and Louise from our political consciousness. Less cynically, the video below underscores the problem and the only way to effect a solution as President Obama points out (towards the end of the video):

“…the most important seat at the table belongs to you. To get this done, I need your voice to be part of the debate and it needs to happen now.”

 Reasons for maintaining your internet anonymity

The AP is reporting that city officials in Bozeman, Montana are asking job applicants to list their user names and passwords of…

“any and all current personal or business Web sites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.”

Oh sure, with pleasure, and here’s my bank account number, my pin number, the password to my computer, a blood, tissue and urine sample, the keys to my house, a list of everything I’ve purchased, read or watched over the past 5 years, and please tell me which corner of my bedroom you would like your video camera placed.

You really need to read the article to get the full flavor of this Orwellian paradise called Bozeman.

Most people fail to understand the risks of having an online profile, however small. The Bozeman case highlights exactly why you should never use any identifying information about yourself while online, let alone reveal it. You also want to cover your tracks so that it’s difficult for someone to connect the dots leading to your identity. It’s called data mining and it’s a technique used to gather information on someone(s) or something by following and extracting patterns hidden in otherwise unrelated data.

The best way of securing your online presence is not to have one. But if you must, and most of us do in some form or another, always use several different pseudonyms and multiple (pseudo) emails. Yes, that sounds paranoid but for very good reasons. People have been denied employment and fired for their online activity. In the academic world, search committees routinely lookup a potential candidate’s online activity. This is standard procedure for virtually all corporations.

And just because you’ve been a good little girl or boy online doesn’t mean squat. The fact that you’ve been identified as having an online presence can provide enough reason for an employer to not hire you. The issue here is not what you’ve already said or done online, it’s what you may say or do in the future. If there’s any potential for you to reveal a company’s dirty laundry, you’re a de facto liability to that company.

 PBS votes to ban new religious programming

Of course the emphasis on “new religious programming” is what ought to surprise you - it did me. Apparently PBS had to vote to “compromise” on an already existing restriction that already bans religious programming. So with whom or what were they compromising? Answer: those who proposed to actually follow the rule requiring noncommercial, nonpartisan and nonsectarian programming. Yes, PBS voted to compromise with those who wanted to follow existing rules against sectarian (religious) programming.

I guess for PBS one needs to first propose that an existing rule (restricting religious programming) be followed before it’s actually followed, and then the decision to follow such an existing rule can undergo negotiations and compromises can be made. What a wonderful system, no?

Apparently this rule against sectarian programming has been ignored, e.g., at PBS stations like, KBYU in Salt Lake City, an affiliate of the Mormon Church; KMBH in Harlingen, Texas, operated by the local Catholic diocese; and WLAE in New Orleans, operated by a Catholic lay organization. What? How is it even possible that the Mormon and Catholic churches are being allowed to operate PBS stations?

In the larger scheme of things, this is relatively minor and who really cares? But once again, it’s just another of a long string of “minor” examples where federal funds – our tax dollars – are given to religious organizations for entirely religious purposes. It adds up.

Republicans have taken aim at PBS for years and been very successful in reducing federal funding for PBS because of so-called liberal biased programming. Well, perhaps it’s time for rationally-minded, free-thinking individuals to lobby congressional Democrats to cut off all federal funding to PBS on the grounds that their programming practices are in violation of the 1st amendment’s establishment clause. Yeah, I won’t hold my breath.

Source: the Washington Post

 What was Letterman’s mistake?

Apologizing. Letterman never should have tried to explain himself. He’s a comedian doing his job of pushing the envelope with a public figure who’s an easy target. And yes, Palin’s family is fair game because such attention is precisely what she wants and needs.

Sarah Palin has strategically inserted her family into the political sphere at every opportune moment, all in service of advancing her political aspirations. She has used this strategy as political bait from the very moment she paraded her family across that stage at the 2008 Republican National Convention. It’s a standard move in the rightwing-culture-war-strategy handbook. Playing the martyr, especially when it involves the rightwing sacred cow “the family”, is Culture Wars 101. Palin and her supporters are giddy with outraged delight.

Here’s a little public service announcement to help drive the point home:

Oh the offense, oh the outrage, oh the self-righteous delight!

 John Ziegler - 2009 Ass-Clown of the year award winner

Congratulations Mr. Ziegler! You’ve demonstrated once again that your talent for ass-clownery is of the first order, surpassing perhaps the king of all ass-clowns, Glenn Beck.

Why Contessa Brewer interviewed this guy in the first place is beyond me. He’s known for this sort of adolescent behavior. In fact, he pulled the same sort of stunt with David Shuster in early January of this year. Hopefully MSNBC will have learned its lesson this time.

On the other hand, having Ziegler so closely associated with Sarah Palin must do wonders for her public image. The more air time this buffoon gets defending Palin as her official biographer, the further the Republican Party descends into irrelevance. It’s all good.

 CNN’s John King does it again

On CNN’s program State of the Union, John King once again mislead the public by repeating the out-of-context statement of Judge Sotomayor. It boggles the mind how CNN can continue to get away with this yellow journalism. Ok, dumb question.

So in response to this ongoing crap, I’ve sent CNN the following email - I kinda like my last sentence. By itself it’ll likely have zero impact but, of course, that’s not necessarily the point.

Dear CNN Producers, Reporters, and Commentators,

As a viewer of CNN, I am very troubled with CNN’s reporting on Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Over the past week, CNN has repeatedly and consistently mislead its viewers by taking a statement of Sotomayor’s out of context, thus communicating a meaning that Judge Sotomayor neither suggested nor intended.

There is no ambiguity regarding Sotomayor’s statement, but CNN appears to be content in following a few other news organizations in creating ambiguity and controversy when none exists. Taken within the context of the entire speech, it is clear that Judge Sotomayor is speaking about “seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases…” and arguing against the idea “...that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” Sotomayor is not making a universal claim about Latina women reaching better conclusions than white males, which is exactly what CNN is suggesting and portraying in its reporting.

I find it shameful that CNN, it’s producers, reporters and commentators would deliberately leave this crucial contextual point out of their reporting. That CNN has made a conscious decision to suppress pertinent information from its viewers, thus helping create unwarranted controversy is more than dishonest. It’s irresponsible journalism.

I would hope that a professional news organization like CNN with the richness of its journalistic experience would more often than not make better decisions than other news organizations who do not share in such rich journalistic credentials.

Addendum:

So CNN continues its refusal to acknowledge its complicity in misleading the public on this issue and instead only mentions that there’s a controversy surrounding the context of this quote. No shit! Well CNN ought to know because they’ve help create and perpetuate this pseudo controversy. Such myopic absence of obvious self awareness is only possible with a brain-dead public that only pays attention to the world when it’s collapsing around them. Oh how the idiocy must burn.

As I’ve watched CNN’s coverage and their manipulation of this story, my reaction is exactly the same as that of Mike Barnicle on MSNBC’s Morning Joe when he said, “My head is going to explode if we don’t point out the context…” 

No Mika my dear, this is not a “totally different understanding of it,” it’s THE ONLY FRIGGEN understanding of it. How can anyone with at least a 3rd grade reading capacity not come away from this speech without understanding that Sotomayor was not making a universal claim about Latina women making better conclusions than white men. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

So why won’t CNN simply reveal the context-setting passages of Sotomayor’s speech? We all know the answer – ratings, ratings, and more ratings. Misinformation is an extremely lucrative business that will not bend to thorough and factual reporting. This manufactured controversy needs to be lifted up by media scholars for years to come as the example par excellence of how blatantly self-generating the news media has become with its content.

 It’s true… Mancow is the Whore of Babylon

On Friday’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Mancow inadvertently revealed a key clue to where his waterboarding stunt may ultimately lead. He claimed that he wasn’t interested in changing the world, but at the very last moment of the interview, Mancow implicated himself when he said, “This has got to be in the book of Revelations.” Revelations indeed!

Confirming what every torture-loving-god-fearing-reality-denying Republican had already suspected, the following photograph mysteriously showed up at the office of the RNC and FOX News - Mancow is the Whore of Babylon!

 What the news media is not telling you… again

CNN has now joined the fray of other news outlets in deliberately taking Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s remarks about Latina judges and white male judges out of context. When her remarks are read in context, it is clear that she is talking about “seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases…” and decidedly not making a universal statement about Latina women reaching better conclusions than white males. Read it in context for yourself (source-MediaMatters):

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

Again, as I’ve stated before, NEVER TRUST WHAT YOU READ, SEE OR HEAR FROM THE MAIN-STREAM-MEDIA. They lie, skew, truncate and fabricate for the sake of ratings and profit, bottom line. Faux News is the undisputed king of kings in this regard, but CNN is becoming a serious contender for that coveted crown.

Nevertheless, Sotomayor’s confirmation is not in any danger because of this blatant misrepresentation. It’s the all-too familiar Republican acts of political desperation at play here along with the media’s willingness to participate and manufacture such pseudo news for ratings – such a lovely symbiosis.

We really need Michael Moore to appear during Wolf Blitzer’s “Late Edition” and again hand CNN their asses like he did with Sanjay Gupta.

 When reality trumps partisanship

The most telling part of this interview is when Mancow mentions that Sean Hannity called him after seeing the clip and still insisted that waterboarding wasn’t torture. Hannity’s statement is not at all surprising. It’s the quintessential religious response to contrary evidence. Sean Hannity will never admit that waterboarding is torture under any circumstances because his thought processes will not allow him to do so.

No evidence could convince Hannity otherwise because it’s not a matter of convincing or reason or logic or fact. None of these factors enter into the equation for Hannity or his ilk because the issue can only be a matter of conviction and belief, not of rational thought. Whatever the Bush administration deemed necessary regarding terror suspects is ex cathedra and thus the gospel truth. If they say it isn’t torture, it’s by definition not torture and unassailably justified. If god says 2+2=7, then 2+2=7.

This is how people like Hannity process information. The world around them is never experienced objectively or subjectively. It is experience doctrinally. When Carrie Prejean said that “Satan was trying to tempt [her],” she was expressing how people of this ilk experience events in their mythical world.

So even if Hannity underwent waterboarding, his experience would not be “This feels like I’m actually drowning…” but amount to something similar to Prejean’s statement, like “I’m being deceived (tempted) into feeling like I’m actually drowning…”

It’s this type of brainwashing that makes religion so potent. It provides the mechanisms by which people can, and all too often, deny their own subjective experiences and feelings for the sake of their beliefs. Hannity doesn’t need to undergo waterboarding because nothing can or will change his mind on the matter.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, when such doctrinalites (new word) so readily reject objective evidence and reason out of hand. If they are willing without hesitation to deny their own subjective experiences, or avoid facing them altogether, for the sake of their mythical world view, denying what’s before their very own eyes is a piece of cake – “Satan is just trying to tempt me.”

 Paging Sean Hannity… Hello… Mr. Hannity? Mancow is in the house and has a few words for you

It should be pointed out that Christopher Hitchens underwent this torture technique well before conservative radio host Mancow did, but when liberals like Hitchens volunteer for such demonstrations it’s seen as staged and unreliable.

They tell us that the average length of time a person can endure waterboarding is 14 seconds. Sean Hannity doesn’t believe waterboarding constitutes torture and, as we all know, Hannity gladly offered to undergo waterboarding for charity and the troops. He would have us believe the human suffering of such “enhanced interrogation” techniques to be trivial.

Well, as we also know, Hannity has yet to make good on his offer (over a month now) to which Keith Olbermann is offering $1,000 for every second Hannity lasts. Olbermann’s offer stands while the coward continues to believe waterboarding is not torture.

 When one disease prevents the treatment of another

The case of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser is making national news again. After Minnesota’s Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg ruled that Daniel’s parents were medically neglecting his well-being by refusing conventional chemotherapy for their son, the judge ordered Daniel to be treated for his cancer. Not surprisingly, Daniel is now attempting to refuse chemotherapy treatments through physical resistance.

His parents must be so proud that their son is remaining true to their religious beliefs to the point of certain death – praise God! Seriously, it’s one thing for adults to refuse medical treatment for themselves for whatever reasons, it’s quite another when a child does the same due to the parents’ religious convictions.

I fail to see much difference, if any, between the actions of Daniel’s parents and the act of performing child sacrifice because the gods demand it. Whether the child is a willing participant has no bearing whatsoever. We have child protection laws in this country for very good reasons. Why some people and groups believe they should be granted special dispensations from such basic legal protections because of their religious beliefs demonstrates the fundamental flaw underlying popular notions of religious freedom in this country. No, your religious beliefs do not give you the right to kill other people, even if they are family members.

There’s no ethical ambiguity here. If a child is allowed to die due to the beliefs and willful actions of the parents, it’s murder. In fact, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for the State to seek charges against Daniel’s parents for attempted murder.

I see this as simply protecting public health. It’s a case of one disease – religion – contributing to the deadly progression of another disease. Richard Dawkins is dead on when he states:

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, ‘mad cow’ disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

It’s a sign of a weak society when its citizens are allowed to exercise religious freedom to the point of killing children, as willing participants or otherwise. If religionists are unwilling to think and act rationally for the well-being of their children, then it’s the duty of the State to remove the threat of that disease from those affected. It’s a wonderous thing how religionists in this country fight tooth and nail to ensure the survival of a non-sentient, fertilized egg only to celebrate its premature and unnecessary death years after it has developed into a conscious human being.

Please do your part to ensure your own and the public’s health by inoculating yourself against the disease of religion.

UPDATE: Apparently the mother of Daniel Hauser has taken her son and skipped town, and Judge Rodenberg has issued a warrent for her arrest. From the AP:

A Minnesota judge has issued an arrest warrant for the mother of a 13-year-old boy resisting chemotherapy after the pair missed a court hearing on his welfare.

Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg also is ordering that Daniel Hauser be placed in protective custody so he can get proper medical treatment for Hodgkins lymphoma.

Daniel and his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were due in court Tuesday to tell the judge results of a chest X-ray. But Daniel’s father was the only one to appear. He told Rodenberg that he last saw Colleen Hauser on Monday evening, and she told him she was leaving. He said that was all he knew.

 When religious freedom (aka idiocy) kills kids

Thanks to our secular legal system and common sense, 13-year old Daniel Hauser now has a good chance of living. No thanks to his parents and their religious beliefs, he would have certainly died from Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Here are some excerpts from the AP article:

A Minnesota judge has ruled that a 13-year-old cancer patient whose parents want to treat him with “alternative medicine” must seek conventional medical treatment for their son.

In a 58-page ruling Friday, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been “medically neglected” and is in need of child protection services.

The judge wrote that Daniel has only a “rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently.”

Daniel’s court-appointed attorney, Philip Elbert, called the decision unfortunate.

“I feel it’s a blow to families,” he said. “It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children’s medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us.”

Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for “alternative medicines” based on their religious beliefs.

Child protection workers accused Daniel’s parents of medical neglect; but in court, his mother insisted the boy wouldn’t submit to chemotherapy for religious reasons and she said she wouldn’t comply if the court orders it.

Doctors have said Daniel’s cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.

You just gotta admire the family values displayed by these parents. But hey, there’s far more at stake here than the life of their 13-year old son… their religious beliefs. Yes Mr. attorney, it certainly does affirm the role and better judgment of the government when parents are so incompetent to make rational decisions on behalf of their own children that “big government” is forced to step in - I’ll take an extra helping of that big government please!

Like it or not, murder remains illegal for even the most devout religionists.

 A nice little allegory

Elephants’ wings
By PZ Myers

Once upon a time, four blind men were walking in the forest, and they bumped into an elephant.

Moe was in front, and found himself holding the trunk. “It has a tentacle,” he said. “I think we have found a giant squid!”

Larry bumped into the side of the elephant. “It’s a wall,” he said, “A big, bristly wall.”

Curly, at the back, touched the tail. “It’s nothing to worry about, nothing but a piece of rope dangling in the trail.”

Eagletosh saw the interruption as an opportunity to sit in the shade beneath a tree and relax. “It is my considered opinion,” he said, “that whatever it is has feathers. Beautiful iridescent feathers of many hues.”

The first three, being of a scientifical bent, quickly collaborated and changed places, and confirmed each other’s observations; they agreed that each had been correct in the results of their investigations, except that there wasn’t a hint of feathers anywhere about, but clearly their interpretations required correction and more data. So they explored further, reporting to each other what they were finding, in order to establish a more complete picture of the obstacle in the path.

“Tracing the tentacle back, I find that it is attached to a large head with eyes, fan-shaped ears, and a mouth bearing tusks. It is not a squid, alas, but seems to be a large mammal of some sort,” said Moe.

“Quite right, Moe — I have found four thick limbs. Definitely a large tetrapod,” said Larry.

Curly seems distressed. “It’s a bit complicated and delicate back here, guys, but I have probed an interesting orifice. Since this is a children’s story, I will defer on reporting the details.”

Eagletosh yawns and stretches in the shade of a tree. “It has wings, large wings, that it may ascend into the heavens and inspire humanity. There could be no purpose to such an animal without an ability to loft a metaphor and give us something to which we might aspire.”

The other three ignore the idling philosopher, because exciting things are happening with their elephant!

“I can feel its trunk grasping the vegetation, uprooting it, and stuffing it into its mouth! It’s prehensile! Amazing!”, said Moe.

Larry presses his ear against the animal’s flank. “I can hear rumbling noises as its digestive system processes the food! It’s very loud and large.”

There is a squishy plop from the back end. “Oh, no,” says Curly, “I can smell that, and I think I should go take a bath.”

“You are all completely missing the beauty of its unfurled wings,” sneers Eagletosh, “While you tinker with pedestrian trivialities and muck about in earthy debasement, I contemplate the transcendant qualities of this noble creature. ‘Tis an angel made manifest, a symbol of the deeper meaning of life.”

“No wings, knucklehead, and no feathers, either,” says Moe.

“Philistine,” says Eagletosh. “Perhaps they are invisible, or tucked inside clever hidden pockets on the flank of the elephant, or better yet, I suspect they are quantum. You can’t prove they aren’t quantum.”

The investigations continue, in meticulous detail by the three, and in ever broader strokes of metaphorical speculation by the one. Many years later, they have accomplished much.

Moe has studied the elephant and its behavior for years, figuring out how to communicate with it and other members of the herd, working out their diet, their diseases and health, and how to get them to work alongside people. He has profited, using elephants as heavy labor in construction work, and he has also used them, unfortunately, in war. He has not figured out how to use them as an air force, however…but he is a master of elephant biology and industry.

Larry studied the elephant, but has also used his knowledge of the animal to study the other beasts in the region: giraffes and hippos and lions and even people. He is an expert in comparative anatomy and physiology, and also has come up with an interesting theory to explain the similarities and differences between these animals. He is a famous scholar of the living world.

Curly’s experiences lead him to explore the environment of the elephant, from the dung beetles that scurry after them to the leafy branches they strip from the trees. He learns how the elephant is dependent on its surroundings, and how its actions change the forest and the plains. He becomes an ecologist and conservationist, and works to protect the herds and the other elements of the biome.

Eagletosh writes books. Very influential books. Soon, many of the people who have never encountered an elephant are convinced that they all have wings. Those who have seen photos are at least persuaded that elephants have quantum wings, which just happened to be vibrating invisibly when the picture was snapped. He convinces many people that the true virtue of the elephant lies in its splendid wings — to the point that anyone who disagrees and claims that they are only terrestrial animals is betraying the beauty of the elephant.

Exasperated, Larry takes a break from writing technical treatises about mammalian anatomy, and writes a book for the lay public, The Elephant Has No Wings. While quite popular, the Eagletoshians are outraged. How dare he denigrate the volant proboscidian? Does he think it a mere mechanical mammal, mired in mud, never soaring among the stars? Has he no appreciation for the scholarship of the experts in elephant wings? Doesn’t he realize that he can’t possibly disprove the existence of wings on elephants, especially when they can be tucked so neatly into the quantum? (The question of how the original prophets of wingedness came by their information never seems to come up, or is never considered very deeply.) It was offensive to cripple the poor elephants, rendering them earthbound.

When that book was quickly followed by Moe’s The Elephant Walks and Curly’s Land of the Elephant, the elephant wing scholars were in a panic — they were being attacked by experts in elephants, who seemed to know far more about elephants than they did! Fortunately, the scientists knew little about elephant’s wings — surprising, that — and the public was steeped in favorable certainty that elephants, far away, were flapping gallantly through the sky. They also had the benefit of vast sums of money. Wealth was rarely associated with competence in matters elephantine, and tycoons were pouring cash into efforts to reconcile the virtuous wingedness of elephants with the uncomfortable reality of anatomy. Even a few scientists who ought to know better were swayed over to the side of the winged; to their credit, it was rarely because of profit, but more because they were sentimentally attached to the idea of wings. They couldn’t deny the evidence, however, and were usually observed to squirm as they invoked the mystic power of the quantum, or of fleeting, invisible wings that only appeared when no one was looking.

And there the battle stands, an ongoing argument between the blind who struggle to explore the world as it is around them, and the blind who prefer to conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls. I have to disappoint you, because I have no ending and no resolution, only a question.

Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, or elephants’ wings?

 Maybe in my next life…

This guy is amazing!

 Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out

Texas Governor Rick Perry’s threat to secede from the Union is one of best ideas I’ve heard in years. Yes, please do the rest of this country a big favor and leave. And perhaps you could exchange some of the more enlightened residents of Texas (there are a few) for all the knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping, confederate-flag-waving, mullet-wearing, sub-prime-IQ yokels on this side of the new border. You know, to keep the family together.

Y’all would be happy, we’d be ecstatic, and Texas could add more fencing to its borders. What’s not to like?

 Is belief in God compatible with evolutionary theory?

It depends. If one’s god belief encompasses a traditional monotheistic notion, then the answer is No. If, however, one’s god belief is not traditional in the above sense, then it depends on how this being(s) is defined.

If defining God includes the idea that the world’s existence was in some fashion the result of creative intent, i.e., the world as an intentional object, then some notion of intelligent design must be a part of one’s understanding of the evolutionary process. This of course is problematic for the evolutionary side of the equation. Simply put, there’s a fundamental incompatibility between the two, not simply in evidential terms but more importantly in epistemological terms.

(I suppose an argument could be made that the universe was the result of divine flatulence and thus unintended. Hey, shit happens…)

If, on the other hand, this divine being(s) is not existentially connected with the world, i.e., no creative (design) intent, then the compatibility problem disappears. This of course posses all sorts of problems on the so-called divine side of the equation. Even a Deistic notion of God does not comport well with a non-design-driven understanding of evolutionary theory. That is, while Deism removes the imminent and providential role of God in the world, it still maintains a design proviso – “The Grand Architect”.

There is also the option of pantheism, which collapses the two and states that everything is a part of the cosmic – divine – existence. You say tomato and I say tomahto. In this case, god is no longer God in the strict sense of the word and simply becomes a synonym for existence. The other possibility is that God is a being like any other being in the universe, some-thing to which devotion is given.

In short, unless one is willing to take a design approach on some level, a belief in God is incompatible with evolutionary theory.

 Happy Easter

Rabbit on the Moon - A Short History of Easter
by Ron Westman

(Based on The Easter Hare by Katharine Hillard)

The Atlantic Monthly, May, 1890

Hillard’s article reveals that Easter and its customs have ancient and nearly universal origins, roots which were concerned with the most basic aspects of life.

Our friend the Easter Hare (or Bunny, as you prefer) and his cart of eggs are borne of those roots. To know how this myth became associated with Easter requires that we examine Easter’s association with a number of ancient symbologies.

Lunar Aspect

Easter is not really a solar festival, but rather one of the moon. The name Easter comes to us from the Saxon Eostre (synonymous with the phoenician Astarte), goddess of the moon. From the most ancient times, this goddess was the measurer of time. Her name as we know it (moon) comes from the Sanskrit mas - from ma, to measure - and was masculine (as it was in all the Teutonic languages).

Although this seems to suggest some confusion of sex, we can assume from the earliest mythologies that the deities were androgynous and sex depended upon the relationship to causes, whether active or passive. Since the measurement of time was an active process, the full moon was considered masculine.

According to an ancient document¹ the moon as measurer of our days was chosen over the sun, since it seemed most natural to adopt a system that harmonized both the cosmos and humanity. The most likely choice was manifest in the cycle of the moon and the physiological phenomenon of mother and child. The lunar month of 28 days (four weeks of seven days each) gave 13 periods in 364 days, equivalent to the solar year of 52 weeks; thus the method of measuring by lunar terms. (And here we can make a connection between the female estrus and the goddesses Eostre and Astarte.)²

How, though, do these revelations about our lunar measurer relate to the Easter Bunny or, more appropriately, the Easter Hare?

A clue to the answer is found within the paintings and fables of artists and storytellers of the Far East. These artists often painted the moon with rabbits racing across its face. The Chinese, in particular, have represented the moon as a rabbit pounding rice in a mortar.

The rabbit’s association with the moon is partly explained by two stories. In one Buddha places him there as payment for a favor in which Rabbit voluntarily gave himself as food for one of Buddha’s hungry friends. In another, a rabbit, with nothing else to offer a hungry, weary Indra, jumps into a fire, cooking himself for the deity (a timeless example of humankind’s self-serving fables). Out of gratitude, Indra placed the rabbit in the moon.

If we consider the phases of the moon in its waxing (masculine) and waning (feminine), and accept the notion that the moon at full intensity is the Destroyer of Darkness or, as Hillard says, “sign of new life and the messenger of immortality,” we can appreciate the honored position to which the rabbit has ascended.

A number of explanations account for this hare/moon symbiosis. One is that the hare is nocturnal and feeds by night; another is that the hare’s gestation period is one month long. And, it was believed that a rabbit could change its sex - like the moon. Other stories in Sanskrit and Hindu connect the rabbit to the spots on the moon (related to the story above); to stories of hares dwelling upon the shores of the moon; and as mortal enemy of the lion (sun).

Egyptian Eye Opener

A more important connection can be found exclusively within the hare, who unlike the rabbit is born with his eyes open. The Egyptians called the hare Un, which meant open, to open, the opener. Un also meant period. Thus the rabbit became a symbol for periodicity in both the lunar and human sense of the word. The hare as “opener” symbolized the new year at Easter; and fertility and the beginning of new life within the young.

Now that we’ve made the connection of the Easter Hare to the moon and procreation symbolism we can see his connection to the Easter egg, which also has ancient but more obvious symbolic roots. However, the fairly recent pairing of the hare and egg is largely a product of artistic license and image appropriation, introduced to this country just before the turn of the century by European confectioners. Adhering to common older customs they used the celebrated Easter eggs to make cakes in the image of hares and gave them to the children.

Loss of Myth

Today, there is little, if any, cultural awareness as to the origins of popular myths such as the Easter Bunny. This lack is due to the proliferation of imagery, caused by the mechanization of the image making processes and to the marketplace use of popular imagery to sell products. The ancestors of our Easter Bunny and a host of other traditional symbols are now just so much flotsam and jetsam, awash in a sea of imagistic excess.

Entering another spring - another Easter - we might reflect on this loss, since our myths developed out of a real need to pass along information and instruction regarding the essential inner realities of human life.

Notes:

1. Regarding its Christian heritage: in 325 A.D. it was decreed by the council of Nice that “after that date, Easter was to fall upon the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox; and if said full moon fell on a Sunday, then Easter should be the Sunday after.”

2. Vol. I. p. 389.

 This is what passes for evangelical cunning?

Via - Pharyngula.  It would be refreshing to someday meet an evangelical/fundamentalist who was capable of thinking and conversing beyond their conventional scripts. The following illustrates what happens when scripted thinking confronts rational thinking. The host for this radio show truly believes he’s being clever with his “what if” game and about to put Christopher Hitchens in a logical bind. It’s quite entertaining. Enjoy!

Part 1

Part 2

 Obama not accomplished enough for ASU

President Obama is scheduled to give the commencement address at Arizona State University this year. It must be quite an honor to have the President of the United States agree to give the commencement address for your University. Especially from the first African American President. A man whose rise in American politics is unprecedented.

Given the public stature and distinction of such persons, universities customarily confer honorary degrees on commencement speakers because of their achievements, of their eminence, or “for an achievement of eminence” as ASU puts it. This is why they get invited to speak in the first place.

Well, apparently PRESIDENT Obama has yet to make such achievements in the eyes of ASU. The stated reason that ASU will not be conferring an honorary degree on their commencement speaker, PRESIDENT Obama, is that “his body of work is yet to come.” PRESIDENT Obama, according to the Huffington Post, “...was not considered for an honorary degree because his body of achievements, at this time, does not fit within that criteria.”

Sometimes so-called educated people are the most dim-witted morons on the face of the planet. I’m actually not all that surprised. We’ve seen this type of idiocy on campuses all across the nation when it comes to commencement speakers. It’s not clear whether this was politically motivated; it appears to be an all-too frequent case of abject stupidity by a University administrative committee.

You sometimes have to stand in awe of the complete lack of basic acuity that some folks demonstrate. It’s astounding…

 A trend? Let’s hope…

The Vermont Legislature legalized gay marriage this morning by overriding Governor Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill that would have allowed same-sex marriage. Congratulations Vermont! We now have four states in which the legal right to marry is not limited but available to everyone - Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont.

 Iowa strikes down gay marriage ban

Today, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban is a violation of the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples. Wow! Who would of thought that Iowa of all places would demonstrate such common sense and decency when it comes to basic human rights. Iowa is now the third state in which gay marriage is legal. I guess progress can happen in the most unlikely of places. Today is a good day.

 Again… Minnesotans must be so proud

Note: I think Olbermann is taking the psychotic ramblings from Bachmann a little too seriously, i.e., there’s nothing illegal in her bumbling idiocy that some would call speech. Nevertheless, he does have a point (a small one) about its potential for inciting violence. The stuff coming out of Bachmann’s mouth speaks for itself, and, as far as I’m concerned, the more paranoid spewing she does the better.

 Messiah complex

We’re 60 days (give or take) into the Obama administration and our economy is still in shambles, Wall Street hasn’t reformed itself and taken on the Mother Teresa mantel, and global warming… Yeah, you know, tornados destroying Los Angeles, New York City under 100 feet of water, the next instantaneous Ice Age, the Amazon delta turning into the Sahara, and giant cockroaches devouring small children.

And just where the hell is that new puppy “we” were promised? WTF?

Seriously, do you think 60 days is sufficient to undo the unprecedented damage of the Bush era? Apparently it’s reasonalbe to expect that these societal ills should have been remedied the day Obama took office.

Sure, Obama is extremely talented and if anyone could get us out of this mess it would be our current President. But is it even rational in the most minimal sense of that word to expect Obama in the first 2 months of office to turn around the destruction that the Bush administration took 8 years to accomplish?

Has Obama made mistakes? Most likely. Although no one can definitively say what those mistakes have been because it’s far too early to make those judgments. That of course hasn’t stopped some of his more “patient” supporters from jumping ship for the moment.

The Huffington Post has an interesting piece about Krugman, Dowd, Rich, and Friedman criticizing Obama for apparent missteps in his first two months in office. Broadly speaking, such criticism is a good thing. It’s something the Republicans would have never done with a Republican President only two months in office. It demonstrates the sort of genuine independence (objectivity) that exists among some of our brightest thinkers on the Left.

Nevertheless, I think the expectations of us Lefties are a tad bit too unrealistic. In some sense, it’s a subtle denunciation of the extent of the Bush administration’s damage. Policy changes take time and it’s going to take time to clean up Bush’s garbage, successfully if we’re lucky.

The expectations for Obama are unusually high, certainly given the track record of what came before, but for some reason they seem to be targeted toward the biblical end of spectrum. I suppose that’s not all that surprising, but we should at least give him sufficient time to test his ‘technique for walking on water’ before we decide to crucify him.

 The face of Republican populism

Over the past couple of days we’ve seen Senate Republicans express “their outrage” over the AIG bonuses, blaming the Democrats in Congress, the Obama administration, and calling for Treasury Secretary Geithner to resign over this mess. They want this money returned to the American taxpayers pronto!!! Ohhh the righteous indignation of Senate Republicans looking out for the little guy.

Well, the House just passed a bill that would tax all such bonuses by 90% for any company getting 5 billion dollars or more in taxpayer bailout money, effectively returning all of the AIG bonus money back to the taxpayer. The Senate just recently held a preliminary vote on the bill passed by the House and guess who is blocking this bill from going forward? Yep, the Republicans.

Maybe the American people won’t notice?

From the AP:

Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona blocked an initial attempt by Senate Democrats to pass a bill aimed at recouping some of the $165 million in bonuses.

Majority Leader Harry Reid asked senators to agree by unanimous consent to approve a Senate version, but Kyl objected saying more time was needed to review the legislation which was introduced on Thursday.

The wide margin of victory [in the House] came despite sharp Republican attacks calling the legislation a ploy to paper over Obama administration missteps.

Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the bill was “a political circus” to divert attention from why the administration and congressional Democrats had not done more to block the bonuses.

The House vote was opposed by 6 Democrats and 87 Republicans. Who’s playing politics with our money?

 Stop AIG bonuses

If you’re upset that AIG executives have stolen your money (more than $500 from every American) via $450 million in bonuses, then please consider signing a petition from MoveOn.org, which says:

“Under no circumstances should the AIG executives who helped create the financial crisis receive bonuses. That’s our money and you should do whatever it takes to get it back.”

Sign the petition here: http://pol.moveon.org/aigbonus/?r_by=15740-9523010-UQlVvGx&rc=paste

 A milestone

Buridan’s Ass had its 100,000th visitor this morning. It’s taken almost 4 years to get to here, but for a “small blog” that’s not too bad. The credit of course belongs to all my regular readers - Thank you!

 Jon Stewart cleans Jim Cramer’s clock

Here’s the full (unedited) Jon Stewart interview with Jim Cramer, which Comedy Central will air (edited) this evening on The Daily Show. I actually like Cramer but Stewart’s tongue lashing was spot on. The person I would like to see Stewart go after is Larry Kudlow. He’s probably the most egregious corporate apologist on CNBC. Kudlow, of course, would never agree to be interviewed by Jon Stewart because he’s a coward like all corporate apologists. Cramer at least has the balls to confront Stewart. It’ll be interesting to see how CNBC spins this…

 Limbaugh Fealty Summit scheduled for April 1

Negotiations are underway between the head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, and various rank-and-file members of the GOP. The issue surrounds proper fealty procedures for GOP members toward Limbaugh in all matters public and private. In an interview with Fox News, Limbaugh declared that his de facto status as leader of the Republican Party gives him the prerogative to require from all members an unreserved insisto rector and thus negotiations are unnecessary.

Michael Steele agreed with Limbaugh wholeheartedly, absolutely, categorically, and without hesitation – he made that abundantly clear. But Steele has nevertheless called for a Fealty Summit on April 1st to strategize on the most effective way to implement Limbaugh’s insisto rector prerogative. Steele believes that it’s important to work out the details, “so as not to create confusion” concerning who really runs the Republican Party and conservatism in America today.

Limbaugh’s initial reaction to Steele’s proposal was one of indifference. He didn’t see the need for such a gathering because, as he put it, “…why expend such frivolous energy toward something that everyone already recognizes. The confusion lies with certain GOP members and no one else. That can easily be corrected with remedial genuflection.”

Limbaugh, however, quickly reversed course when it was reported that a “shit-load of cameras and media attention” would be focused exclusively on him. Limbaugh was seen bouncing up and down chanting his name in delight… as were Democrats.