A continuing education program — which ought to be renamed as a continuing miseducation program — is offering a course on Vedic Astrology. I guess they needed some affirmation of their dedication to nonsense, so they’re running a poll:
Absolutely! 15%
To a certain degree 25%
Not at all 60%
Now this ought to inflame some local rivalries: Calgary gets me, Edmonton gets astrology.
It has the potential to be fun or a fizzle. The Discovery Institute is leaping to the defense of David Coppedge, a computer technician (don’t be fooled, the DI is desperately straining to enhance his credentials) who was demoted and then fired at the JPL. Coppedge claims to be the victim of discrimination against his views on Intelligent Design creationism; the JPL has argued that he was out of line to be harassing scientists with nonsense, passing out DVDs of ID BS, pushing his silly creationist website, and basically wasting his time and not doing his job. They warned him, he persisted. They demoted him, he persisted. Finally they fired him.
So now Coppedge, with the assistance of a fine team of creationist lawyers, is suing the JPL. There’s lots of information at The Sensuous Curmudgeon, which is shaping up to be the go-to place to follow the trial, which started today.
This is a big case for the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). They’re trying to establish some new kind constitutional right — an employee’s freedom to promote creationism in the workplace. One of their top legal talents, Discoveroid Casey Luskin, is advising the lawyer for Coppedge — that’s William J. Becker, Jr., who (until he picked up a few creationist clients) appears to be mostly a personal injury and workers’ comp lawyer.
To promote the issue, the Discoveroids initially waged a public relations campaign which we described here: The Coppedge Case: A Study in Tactics and Strategy. They’ve set up a page devoted to this case, which is here, but which seems to have languished for months.
The official information source for the Coppedge case requires payment of fees to obtain copies of pleadings from the court clerks here: Superior Court of California, Los Angeles. At the box for “Case Number” you need to enter BC435600. Some minimal information is available for free — the names of the parties and their lawyers, a list of what documents have been filed, what proceedings have been held, and what future hearings have been scheduled.
It’s going to be a weird trial. It sounds like the JPL was reasonable and put up with Coppedge for quite some time, clearly telling him to desist in his problematic behavior at work; The Discovery Institute has nothing to lose — Coppedge is a nobody — and their enthusiasm for the case has waxed and waned. We’ll see if they put up a fight or not.
(Also on Sb)
Scream with Maryam Namazie and Aliaa Magda Elmahdy to protest sexism and hypocrisy: the Nude Photo Revolutionary Calendar is here! It’s a powerful piece of work. No pandering, no attempt to titillate, just women honestly baring themselves to make a point and show their power. And also to make a statement against patriarchal religions.
One warning, though: on the site, when you click on the link, it did not bring up a site to purchase the calendar — it downloaded it instantly and it popped up in my pdf viewer, right here at work. If you think that kind of thing would get you in trouble, wait until you get home. Also, there’s a separate paypal button so you can donate even without downloading: it’s under $20 American, and proceeds go to benefit women’s rights.
Yay! Taking it easy, lolling about on a sunny beach somewhere, sipping pina coladas and forgetting about classes and responsibilities…oh, wait. I booked trips to South Dakota and Alberta? WHAT WAS I THINKING??!?
I shall try to make do. Monday evening, on 12 March, I’ll be in Brookings, SD to talk about creationism. It’s only 3 hours away, I don’t know why I haven’t popped in there before.
On Thursday, 15 March, I’ll be in Calgary to talk about aliens to astronomers. This is a revamp of the talk I gave at TAM last summer; I’ve added some new stuff, though, which apparently requires a warning that the lecture is recommend for people over 14 years old. (I think that means Brownian may not be able to attend.)
Also…it’s my birthday on Friday. Due to the apparently quantal nature of human aging, I will be abruptly Old. Or Older. Something, anyway.
And yet another also…Mary and I have an anniversary next week! We’ll be celebrating separately in Calgary and Morris, but we can still party on the weekend when I get back.
I’ll say one thing for Rush Limbaugh: he just cracked the sewer valve wide open, but he’s not the only one contributing to the gusher of sewage. Take Bryan Fischer: he’s even worse than that slick pig Limbaugh. He thinks there’s nothing wrong with what Limbaugh said, and acknowledges, like Limbaugh, that the only thing he did wrong was use the “slut” word, which is naughty…but that his sentiment was entirely correct.
Here’s his interpretation of Sandra Fluke’s testimony. He is shocked that:
…this woman could, without any trace of shame, any trace of embarrassment, give open testimony before the entire United States of America, about how much promiscuous sex she and her classmates are having.
Of course, that’s not what she testified. She testified that women’s reproductive health could be expensive, citing the use of contraceptives for prevention of ovarian cysts. But she could have talked about the importance of contraception for a healthy, happy sex life even within a monogamous relationship: it does not make a woman a slut for enjoying sex with her partner. But even if she did have multiple partners, so what? There’s no shame in enjoying sex: every human does, unless they’re wracked with religious guilt.
It really exposes these people for what they are: anti-sex, anti-human prudes. Fuck the Puritans. Please.
And here’s another idiotic perspective on Fluke from Scott Adams, Dilbonian dimbulb. He sees two possible interpretations.
Which of these two events do you find more distasteful?
1. Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut for her position on contraceptives.
Or
2. Activists are treating Fluke as a helpless victim who needs society’s protection against the harsh words of an entertainer.
My interpretation of events is that Limbaugh saw Fluke as a capable adult, and a public figure, tough enough to handle some harsh language. The boycotters apparently see Fluke as more of an endangered child, or a helpless damsel in distress, threatened by a monster. Light the torches and launch the boycott!
Adams has always been this clueless. I don’t know of a single person who has responded to this by thinking that Fluke needs our protective embrace: she seems confident and mature. The reaction has been anti-Limbaugh. He has been exposed as a blue-nosed asshole who despises women in general — not specifically Sandra Fluke — who have a healthy attitude towards sex, who treat it as a reasonable and expected and even joyful aspect of normal behavior, rather than something to hide in shame.
That’s the battle. Not some peculiar chauvinistic idea that one poor woman needs our chivalrous shelter. I suspect Adams is just projecting.
Another person who is projecting is Bill Maher.
Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout
He did not apologize for despising women who enjoy sex or need medical assistance in maintaining their reproductive health; clearly, he still feels that’s a valid stance. He only apologized for using words like “slut” instead of being more formal and calling her a harlot or something similarly antiquated. Jon Stewart got this right: what’s wrong with Maher that he can’t see this?
As someone who also says things on behalf of a minority that a majority finds offensive, I sympathize with the detestation of “intimidation by sponsor pullout” — but the problem lies in the reliance on money to fund free speech, and coupling that to selling soap. What Limbaugh said is still wrong and stupid.
I am a religious agnostic because of science, an atheist because of probability, and an anti-theist because of religion.
Matthew Cook
United States
Those Australians…they recently ran a segment on their Dateline program featuring their fellow Australian Ken Ham and the Creation “Museum”, which includes portions of an interview with me. Actually, I seem to be the only critic to get any airtime in the show, which is flattering, but I could have used a little more support!
Anyway, the show was recently aired, my name is played up as an atheist opponent of creationist nonsense, and now I’m suddenly receiving lots of email from Australian creationists because they want to persuade me to their foolish cause. And some of them are just weird. I’m including one of the weirder ones below the fold — warning, it’s very long — in which the author uses a novel argument: the zodiac, therefore God.
This ain’t astrology: it’s that arbitrary, human-assigned labels attached to groupings of stars can be rationalized into Christian symbology, therefore, the stars are evidence of the truth of the Bible. It’s one of the sillier arguments I’ve seen. Would you believe that the Sphinx is a Christian testimony, since it binds together a virgin woman (Mary) and a lion (Jesus)? Centaurs represent “Christ’s dual nature”. You can just imagine what he does with Virgo and the Southern Cross.
And then he does the usual thing of claiming that the Bible foretold legitimate scientific conclusions: Somehow, “He [God] set a compass [circle] upon the face of the deep” becomes a biblical explanation that the Earth is spherical. How do you draw a sphere with a compass?
It is grammatically well written, he spells my name correctly, and he uses paragraph breaks, so it’s a step above what I usually get. But behind the superficial courtesies, there lies a brain that has totally stripped its gears and lost most of its connections to reality.
(Also on Sb)
The latest Carnival of Evolution is buggy in more ways than one: I couldn’t get it to load in Mac Firefox with all my adblockers in place (but it worked fine on Google Chrome), and also every link is full of bugs. Literal bugs, not the software kind.
All I can say is that it needs more squid. Then not only would it be prettier, but it would be slick and smooth and supple.
(Also on Sb)
You cannot imagine the volume of stupid that arrives in my mailbox. Here’s yet another example.
Hello Prof,
An atheist 150years ago would have said it is impossible to have a conversation with someone not with you, whom you’ve never seen, or can’t see, but today telephones make it seen very possible.
Have atheist believe that it’s impossible change?
What’s you’re take on this historic and present day disparity?
Thanks,
andre
An atheist 150 years ago would have been thoroughly comfortable with the concept of mail, and would have had many conversations with people they’d never met. Charles Darwin, for instance, carried on extensive conversations through correspondence with people in whole countries he’d never visited. Most people were aware that the world was much bigger than their local village, and read travelogues and articles and saw magic-lantern shows that documented the existence of all these exotic places and people.
So the disparity is nonexistent, and hasn’t been the case for a few thousand years. Telephones merely add greater immediacy to communications around the world. They don’t add any significantly greater evidence that there is more to the world than the small group of people we can see right now.
But OK, Andre is trying to play a particularly idiotic game to justify belief in gods. Tell ’em to give me a magic phone call, and give me direct evidence of their existence. And just to magnify the stupidity of Andre’s implied argument…what kind of evidence for a deity would it be if my phone rings, I answer, and a voice says, “I am Vishnu. Worship me!”?
