What I'm Reading

Book Review: Suicide is for Mortals

Brianne Bilyeu, 666 Comments

Suicide is for Mortals is a recently published book written by Alyson Miers, an author who you might recognize as a commenter on some of the FtB sites, and a participant in the atheosphere. When I learned that she had a new book out, I decided to give it a read.

Book Cover for Suicide is for Mortals. Subtext "Do not take death for granted." Alyson Myers. Cover art is a nebulous pink, blue and white shape
The story weaves together the lives of three beings: the ghost of an ex-US President, a talented human artist who can see her, and an undead journalist who spent much of his mortal life exposing the links between vampires and organized crime. They live in a country that has magic and a complicated relationship between the magical and the mundane.

Let’s get the worst out of the way: I picked up Suicide is for Mortals (After Rezata Book 1) about two weeks ago, and it took me about that long to chug through the first half of the book. The story started out slow and I set it down many times over that period. Miers takes a long time to set up her world. With that said, it is a unique world, and I do think that it will pay off in future books in the series. The story picked up in the later half; I was glued to the pages and found time to finish it in two evenings (and one of those evenings involved a UHaul and moving out of my old place into a new house in Minneapolis!). Continue reading “Book Review: Suicide is for Mortals” →

Book Review: Suicide is for Mortals
{advertisement}

Local Lefty Liberal Progressive Hippie Things

Brianne Bilyeu, , , , , 795 Comments

I have two reading recommendations and one restaurant review for you from the land of spoon and cherry.

Robin Marty – Joining the Other Side

Robin Marty is an independent journalist, well-known for her articles on reproductive justice. She is based in Minnesota, the author of Crow After Roe, and she has recently published an article on Contributoria called Joining the Other Side. The article is about the week she spent in Washington D.C. this January observing the annual March for Life…ugh…celebration. She speaks about watching die-ins, clinic protests, panels and sharing drinks with anti-abortion activists like Jill Stanek and Troy Newman at after parties.  Continue reading “Local Lefty Liberal Progressive Hippie Things” →

Local Lefty Liberal Progressive Hippie Things

Cross-Country Connections: Book

Brianne Bilyeu, 855 Comments

Cross-Country Connections is a Biodork weekly blog entry dedicated to telling stories in pictures of three family members – me, my sister and Mom – living in different locations across the country. Every week we choose a different theme and then take or contribute a personal photo that fits the theme. This week’s theme is Book. Continue reading “Cross-Country Connections: Book” →

Cross-Country Connections: Book

Musings on Pasta

Brianne Bilyeu, 1,183 Comments

Today I read an article on the blog, Musings of an Aspie. The title of the article was grabbing: The Importance of the Pasta on the Left. It’s grabbing because I don’t think of pasta, even at it’s most delicious, as important. And why would the pasta of the left be more important than the pasta on the right? And… well, I had to read more. From the article:

Mother: “James, come and let’s pick out some cereal.”

James (appears from around the corner): “But I haven’t finished looking at all the pasta. I looked at the pasta on the right but I didn’t look at the pasta on the left.”

Mother: “We need to pick out your cereal.”

James (sounding panicked, voice rapidly rising into hysteria): “But I need to look at all the pasta! I haven’t looked at the pasta on the left. I need–“

Continue reading “Musings on Pasta” →

Musings on Pasta

Glasses to Blur Out the Wimminz

Brianne Bilyeu, , , , , 718 Comments

Or alternatively, Fuzzy Glasses, Fuzzy Logic.

It’s August and as far as I know there’s only one April Fool’s Day every year. Right?

RIGHT?

I went to Google to see if this “Associated Press” article that I saw on Twitter was real (Ohhhh… you say you’re <air quotes>Associated Press</air quotes> Sure ya are. Got ID?), and found that the story is being carried by several other news sources including the Washington Post, HuffPo, and about a kazillion bajillion blogs. So here it goes:

What do you do if you’re a man who is forbidden by his religious doctrine from having contact [edited per comment 3] with the majority of women in this world? Well, you start by making women invisible in your society. That makes it totes easy for you, and you’re the man so why shouldn’t life be easy for you? So you pressure your women to dress ultra-modestly and forbid them to interact with you; that goes a long way toward your goal. But you know… you can still see them.

Hmmm…

What if a button breaks and you catch a glimpse of a lady’s neck? Or an ankle – gasp! And what if she purposely tries to tempt you by…oh I don’t know…by letting a stray hair slip from her head covering? You have to trust the women to follow your clothing rules so that you’re not tempted into lusting after them! *groan* And let’s not even get started on the women outside of your community who don’t have to follow your rules. You have absolutely no control over this situation!

But wait – you do!

Take some regular glasses and put stickers over the lenses. No not just any stickers – that would be silly. You have to buy special fuzzy stickers that allow you about 10 feet of clear vision, and beyond 10 feet everything fuzzes out – including your repressed sexual desire!

Problem solved!

So that takes care of that. Except… for those times when you need to cross busy roads or read street signs or – nahhhhh. You’ll be fine. And secure from unexpected lust that’s totally not your fault or responsibility! Everybody wins!

Right?

RIGHT?

Glasses to Blur Out the Wimminz

You must read this blog.

Brianne Bilyeu, 728 Comments

Well, okay, you “mustn’t” do anything that you don’t want…  No wait, you MUST read this blog.

Click above if you like thoughtfully-written, thought-provoking commentary about current and controversial topics.

I’ve been reading Miriam Mogilevsky for a few months now. She has yet to write something that I don’t find interesting – even when she tackles material that I don’t think I have much interest in. She seems to post about 2-4 times a week and doesn’t spend time on silly filler material (like some blogs I could mention). Her major topics revolve around college life, mental health, psychology, sex, politics, religion and feminism. Two of her recent posts were about the “selfishness” of suicide and Tom Hank’s son Chet and his shitty tweet “Ayo I don’t condone bullying but anyone who offs themselves cuz they got picked on is weak.”

You must read this blog.

Why Are You Atheists So Angry?

Brianne Bilyeu, , 675 Comments

I have a new book to read on the plane ride to Reason Rally on Friday!

Greta Christina is the author of Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things that Piss of the Godless. The first part of the title is funny because it plays off the common misconception that atheists are angry all the time because we don’t know God, or don’t have God’s peace, or something like that. Greta Christina steps up and makes the argument that while we’re often very happy people, we ARE angry about some things, and we have very good reason to be angry about them! As she mentions in the upcoming documentary Scarlet Letter, “Anger isn’t necessarily a sign that there’s something wrong with you. Sometimes anger is a sign that there’s something wrong with the world.”

You can read Greta’s blog about her new book, and you can order it for Kindle from Amazon. Why Are You Atheists So Angry should also be up for Nook and Smashwords in a week or so, and a paper edition is slated for April.

Why Are You Atheists So Angry?

Fallacies, Fallacies, Everywhere!

Brianne Bilyeu, , , , 1,011 Comments

Sometimes I get stuck in a conversation with someone who is making piss-poor arguments, and I just want to shoot ’em all down. Sometimes I don’t get a chance to do this because I can’t get a word in edge-wise, or because I’m not quick enough on my feet that day to identify the particular BS being spouted. I have a lot of respect for people who can dissect an argument into its components and separate the bogus from the the valid points. This is a skill – a learnable skill – that can take discussions to the next level and allow topics to be examined rationally.

Evan Bernstein from the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe recently responded to a fabulously fallacious and nonsensical email from a listener on the SGU blog, The Rogue’s Gallery. First Evan presents the email in its entirety, then proceeds to break it down one sentence at a time. This is an epic response, and I wanted to share with all of you.

“I don’t like your attitude on the show. You said the Chem-trails are not real. I have seen them myself and have taken many pictures. I have also seen footage of a weatherman in Oregon saying that the military was doing experiments and laying the chem-trails. Why would you be so sure that they are not real. Who are you?? A bunch of snotty punks that never leave your office? I bet the whole show is there to make real people who seek real truth; look stupid. The “experts” like you claim to be, lie all the fucking time; and so do the people on your show. Thats why you dont have the guts to put up a phone number for calls. I bet you are funded by the goverment, or drug companies or something. No normal people are so arrogant. You are not the “experts” of anything, except lies.”

Wow, that’s quite an email.  Allow me to reply one sentence at a time.

 “I don’t like your attitude on the show.” 

Unsubscribe.

“You said the Chem-trails are not real.”

Yes.

“I have seen them myself and have taken many pictures.” 

 You saw contrails, not “chem-trails”.

“I have also seen footage of a weatherman in Oregon saying that the military was doing experiments and laying the chem-trails.” 

Argument From Authority (a very poor one, to boot) 

“Why would you be so sure that they are not real.” 

Evidence, lack thereof.

Who are you??

I see where the question mark from the prior “question” went.  

 “A bunch of snotty punks that never leave your office?”

Ad Hominem.

“I bet the whole show is there to make real people who seek real truth; look stupid.”

Only those who regularly botch their punctuation.

The “experts” like you claim to be, lie all the fucking time; and so do the people on your show.

Asshole Fallacy.

“Thats why you dont have the guts to put up a phone number for calls.”

(212) 384-1000

“I bet you are funded by the goverment, or drug companies or something.”

Something.

“No normal people are so arrogant.”

(Fill in your own thought, I really have no idea what this means.)

“You are not the “experts” of anything, except lies.”

Lies indeed, especially exposing the people who spout and regurgitate them.

See? EPIC. Not that this response would make any difference to the listener, but sometimes it’s enough to examine the message, deconstruct it, realize that there’s nothing you could say to make a difference, and move on with your life.

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe was my gateway drug into skepticism back in late 2009. My sister recommended the SGU podcast for its laid-back presentation of science and critical thought. And it is laid-back. This isn’t a hard-core science podcast; there is a sharp focus on skepticism and rationality (of which science and evidence play a huge part).

Listening to SGU renewed my interest in recognizing logical fallacies, and has even pushed me outside of my normal biology and medicine comfort zones to explore cosmology, physics and robotics. Each show has several regular weekly sections and the rest is a bunch of unscripted bantering between the five hosts. I describe it to newbies as a nerdier version of NPR’s Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me! If this sounds like your gig, check it out The Skeptics Guide to the Universe on iTunes.

Fallacies, Fallacies, Everywhere!

Photoshopping Our Perception of Beauty

Brianne Bilyeu, , 1,160 Comments

We’ve heard that celebrity/modeling photography and Photoshop go hand-in-hand, but how many of us can visualize what that actually means? Much kudos and thanks to Jason Thibeault at Lousy Canuck for his article, Teaching girls that pretty isn’t pretty enough, in which he gave some examples of the unrealistic body images and ideas of beauty that are planted in our brains by the media, and how these software-designed bodies and faces have little to do with what any of us really look like.

The website that he cites, Forever Healthy and Young, shows 60 models and celebrities before and after Photoshop. Here’s a few of the before and afters…but you gotta go read Jason’s article for the full list.

Wouldn’t it be awesome if there were more gorgeous models with freckles so that people with freckles might see them as just another physical characteristic instead of as a blemish? We could start by letting this gorgeous woman’s speckled splendor shine.

Guess what? George Clooney don’t need no Photoshop help. He’s a kick-ass actor and drop-dread sexy with the wrinkles and salt-and-pepper hair.

I found myself looking at the befores, then at the afters, then at the befores…and just felt sad. All of these beautiful people are beautiful in their own right, unadulterated. But somebody somewhere decided that a few of the hard-earned wrinkles, the little brown birthmark, the curvy hip had to be erased, blended or flattened to make a unique human being look more like the same flawless, general, standard, boring, china doll.

Make sure to check out the three links at the bottom of the Forever Healthy and Young site that Jason references in his post. They have links to stories about recent laws, proposed restrictions, and bans against Photoshopped images. Food for thought…the idea of legislating alteration of photos may be a discussion for a future post.

Photoshopping Our Perception of Beauty

A Sad Day in the Science Classroom

Brianne Bilyeu, , , , , , , 1,082 Comments

I opened up the Star Tribune to a sad story. From the Star Tribune:

Thursday morning, ninth-graders in the second-hour science class at Maple Grove Junior High School had turned their desks toward the science table where teacher Matthew Achor conducted experiments for the class final.

The first time the teacher dropped a match into a jug of methanol, Neuberger said the experiment seemed to work. “It made a loud boom and a little flame,” he said. “Everyone thought that was cool and clapped.”

Neuberger looked down at his paper to begin writing down his observations. “I’m pretty sure he was starting it up to do it a second time,” Neuberger said. “And the next thing I know I’m on fire.”

Several students were injured during this science experiment. One of the students, Dane Neuberger, was severely injured with second degree burns to his face.  All of the students are expected to make a full recovery, and according to the article it doesn’t look like Neuberger will need skin grafts. Only minor damage was sustained to the classroom.

Details are slim in the article, but it sounds like the appropriate actions were taken after the explosion. A fire blanket was used to wrap Neuberger and an ambulance was called immediately. The room was evacuated and the fire department was called to investigate. The article doesn’t discuss the type of bottle or the amount or type of methyl alcohol employed in the experiment.

The science behind what was being taught.

The purposes of this experiment could be to demonstrate an exothermic reaction, oxygen supply in combustions (if a narrow-necked bottle is used as heat, flame and gas exits the bottle, fresh oxygen is sucked back into the bottle, re-igniting any remaining methanol vapor), detonation velocity, expansion of gases, etc.

This video shows the experiment as performed on four different alcohols:

The way it works is that liquid methanol is put into a bottle and allowed to evaporate, leaving methanol vapor in the bottle. Heat energy – a match, in this case – is added to the bottle, causing a combustible chemical reaction. Visible flame and a loud whoosh” is heard during the reaction. The methanol vapors are ignited, and liquid by-product (H2O) is left in the bottom of the bottle.

In the article above it’s mentioned that this teacher had been performing this experiment for years, and I found several online mentions of this as an acceptable high-school chemistry-level experiment. Some sites perform the study outdoors, some indoors. I do not remember this experiment performed when I was in junior high or high school.

Science teachers – Do you use this experiment in your classes? What safety precautions do you employ? For the rest of you – Do you remember this experiment from your days in the chemistry classroom? Did you have any larger-than-intended explosions?

A Sad Day in the Science Classroom