Dann Siems Benefit

A colleague and fellow freethinker at Bemidji State University, Dann Siems, has been diagnosed with a terminal glioblastoma. This is not good. This is damned scary stuff. He’s still blogging away occasionally, discussing the experimental treatments being tried on him, but this is all expensive, and he has a family as well. If you’d like to help, there is a benefit concert being held on 5 June with a raffle. Maybe you can’t attend because Turtle River, Minnesota isn’t exactly next door, but you could buy a raffle ticket. Or if you’d rather, you can just make a donation through Headwaters Unitarian Universalist Fellowship.

One thing worse than a bigot is a sneaky, devious, lying bigot

Roger Ebert has roused the ire of the teabaggers, which is actually pretty easy to do. The occasion was a news story about a group of five privileged white kids who decided to flaunt American flags on their apparel on Cinco de Mayo, and who were sent home from school. Ebert made this comment:

Kids who wear American Flag t-shirts on 5 May should have to share a lunchroom table with those who wear a hammer and sickle on 4 July.

This prompted a series of comments from right-wingers, gloating over his disfigurement and prospects of his death. They are such a classy bunch.

In contrast, Ebert did post a classy response, explaining that the students were being deliberately provocative and offensive, and deserve the kind of rebuke he suggested.

I agree. As a certifiable expert in being provocative and offensive, I think my reaction has a special authority to it, too. I differ with how the school authorities handled it, though, and in particular, we’re chastising the students for the wrong thing. They were offensive, all right, but there are good reasons to be offensive; what seems to be ignored by everyone is that those all-American boys were also craven little cowards.

For instance, I own this nice t-shirt.

i-7f7ec119fe4f04204f9ce85907142e6f-arrest_pope.jpeg

Now, if I put my “Arrest the Pope” shirt on and walked down the street to the Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and attended Sunday Mass, I would be acting like a jerk, attempting to irritate the church attendees just because I felt like being jerkish. I might have a serious message — the Catholic hierarchy has become an immoral defender of child rape — but that doesn’t mean I should hammer every Catholic in my town with that message all the time, especially not when they are engaging in activities that have nothing to do with pedophilia, no matter how silly they are.

Provocateur that I am, I wouldn’t do that. It makes the message simply random and made with the sole intent of being rude.

On the other hand, if there were a public rally in town to proclaim the innocence of the church in all these scandals, well, then I would intentionally put the shirt on and wear it…I might even make a big sign. I’m still being rude, but it’s rudeness with a purpose, to make an issue of a problem that this rally intends to cover up. That’s fair; that’s free speech. And this is where I differ with the American flag boys.

I presume that this group of friends organized with the intent to protest the celebration of Cinco de Mayo in the public schools — that’s the only plausible explanation for their coordination. As long as they were peaceful about it and doing nothing but wearing a flag shirt, they should have been allowed to do so, and the school was in the wrong to send them home (I think they were also awfully condescending when they said they did it because they thought Mexican-American students would riot over it.) They should have been allowed to non-violently express their opinions.

But here’s the funny thing: what were they protesting? The fact that Mexican-American students are proud of their heritage? That’s where the cowardice of these students shows up — that is a ridiculous and petty thing to complain about. Do they also show up on St Patrick’s Day in orange, flogging leprechaun dolls? Are they resentful of the fact that some Minnesotans celebrate their ancestry on Syttende Mai? When you actually confront these teabaggers with the absurdity of complaining about fellow Americans taking pride in their families, they wilt and collapse and start making pathetic excuses.

There’s the “they wear those shirts all the time” excuse. So it was just an accident that they all happened to wear their jingo on that particular day.

Dariano said her son has at least four T-shirts with American flags that he wears often and did not try to cause any conflict at school.

Well, gosh, Wally. When they discovered their entirely unintentional faux pas, then the boys should have been quick to affirm their sensitivity and do something about it, don’t you think? That’s not the case, though; it’s a lie. Rather, they were quick to assert their indignation.

Then there’s the “it’s unfair to the boys” excuse.

“I’m more hurt than anything,” she said. “It is so hurtful and disrespectful the way this has turned. These are American kids.”

Note the oblivious attitude: this mother is talking about her son when she says “American kids”. Guess what? The Mexican-American students at the school are also American kids!

Note also the “give me respect” excuse, which is carried to a ludicrous extreme.

The boys told Rodriguez and Principal Nick Boden that turning their shirts inside-out was disrespectful, so their parents decided to take them home.

Man, these teabaggers are so focused on respect: it has to be given to their kids when they’re being pointlessly provocative, and it even has to be given to their shirts. (And that is also weird: once upon a time, the act of chopping up the symbol of the flag and using it as clothing was regarded as disrespectful. Is turning it inside out more disrespectful than cutting, folding, sewing, and putting a row of buttons up the middle of the flag?) The only objects that don’t deserve any respect are the Mexican-American students. The Fox News report is entirely about the white boys and how their rights were trampled upon, but the browner part of the student body seems to be ignored.

I concede that it was wrong of the school to silence their valiant message of silent protest. The sad thing now, though, is that the boys and their families are suddenly silencing themselves, realizing that their message might have been a little, errm, misplaced, and when exposed to the bright light of day, looks an awful lot like racism. Instead of hiding behind weak excuses, they ought to be proudly declaring the object of their protest: the existence of brown-skinned students of Mexican descent, and the celebration of a culture different than their own. Own your bigotry, boys! Don’t run away when you’re asked to articulate it! Unless, that is, you realize that you are bigots, and are a little ashamed of it all now.

Say…one of those boys is named “Dariano”. That sounds suspiciously Italian, like maybe some of his ancestors were…immigrants, and not just any immigrants, but ones with darker complexions who spoke English poorly or with funny accents. I sure hope he doesn’t celebrate Columbus Day.

Creationists on race

I almost agree with some pieces of what these guys at onehumanrace.com say. Except for the fact that they are insane.

What is the only answer to racism?

Before we can solve the problem of racism, we must first ask the question: “Where did the different ‘races’ come from?” Explore this site for the answer, plus fascinating scientific research demonstrating that there really are no “white” or “black” people.

Take it piece by piece. There is no one answer to racism, so the opening question is misleading; but otherwise, the next assertion that it would be useful to know about the origins of human races sounds reasonable to me. But wait: there are no people who can be distinguished by skin color, by ethnicity and history? Weird. I’m going to have to follow a few of their links to see what the heck they are talking about.

Before you leave the front page of the site, though, look at the fine print at the very bottom of the page. Uh-oh.

Sponsored by Answers in Genesis, in association with GospelCom.Net and Master Books.

You now know what to expect. This is going to be race and racism as explained by the residents of a clown college.

So, how do we answer this essential preliminary question about where races come from? If we need to know the answer before we can solve the problem of racism, this had better be a very good explanation.

According to the Bible, all humans on Earth today are descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve (Genesis 1-11). But today we have many different groups, often called “races,” with what seem to be greatly differing features. The most obvious of these is skin color. Many see this as a reason to doubt the Bible’s record of history. They believe that the various groups could have arisen only by evolving separately over tens of thousands of years. However, as we shall see, this does not follow from the biological evidence.

The Bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah’s family had one language and by living in one place were disobeying God’s command to “fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1, 11:4). God confused their language, causing a break-up of the population into smaller groups which scattered over the Earth (Genesis 11:8-9). Modern genetics show how, following such a break-up of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. There is good evidence that the various people groups we have today have not been separated for huge periods of time.

Nope. We’ve got very good evidence that the human species is over 100,000 years old. We can measure the frequency of variations between human subpopulations, we know quite a bit about the rate of accumulation of new variation, and we can calculate how long one group has been diverging from another. We can also look at the pattern and distribution of human genetic variation, and work out historical migrations. This is my family tree:

i-9897d9b90311be17c7a9406d91fcf72f-M343.jpg

I carry a set of mutant markers that put me in the M343 group, along with a lot of other Europeans. M343 is a relatively new marker, but I also have some mutations that put me in the M173 group; I also share genetics with the M45 goup; they in turn share markers with the M9 group; and working backwards through many shared alleles, I can trace my parentage right back to East African groups, between 100 and 200 thousand years ago.

Ken Ham is simply lying. Genetics can show how a small number of novelties can arise in a short time…but the evidence shows that human populations have accumulated a large number of variations, and any competent scientist will tell you that there is no way all human variation could have arisen in 4000 years from a starting stock of eight people. Throughout the site, the Hamites constantly make this kind of dishonest argument: they show that a couple of alleles could assort in a couple of generations, and then leap to the assertion that time is irrelevant, and the sum total of all variation could have arisen very quickly, and further, that all human variations were carried by those 8 people on Noah’s big boat.

It’s strange stuff to read. The creationists have been compelled to accept a surprising amount of evolutionary theory — this bit is hilarious because it shows that they understand the basic principle of Darwinian evolution, and are actually teaching it to their kids. They just shy away from the inevitable and unavoidable conclusion of their reasoning.

Thus, we conclude that the dispersion at Babel broke up a large interbreeding group into small, interbreeding groups. This ensured that the resultant groups would have different mixes of genes for various physical features. By itself, this dispersion would ensure, in a short time, that there would be certain fixed differences in some of these groups, commonly called “races.” In addition, the selection pressure of the environment would modify the existing combinations of genes so that the physical characteristics of each group would tend to suit their environment.

That’s just plain old basic evolutionary theory right there, and in fact, it’s a kind of hyper-Darwinism…except for one significant difference that they spill in the next paragraph: no novel variations are allowed. Every gene now present in our population stepped off the Ark with Noah’s family.

There has been no simple-to-complex evolution of any genes, for the genes were present already. The dominant features of the various people groups result from different combinations of previously existing created genes, plus some minor degenerative changes, resulting from mutation (accidental changes which can be inherited). The originally created (genetic) information has been either reshuffled or has degenerated, but has not been added to.

This is simply false. For example, the published count of alleles of ABO glycosyltransferase, the gene associated with the ABO blood types, is up to 29 so far. The three sons of Noah and their three wives only had a total of 12 copies of chromosome 9, where the gene is located, and even assuming maximum heterozygosity and no shared alleles between any of them, that still leaves 17 alleles that had to have arisen later. We know that Ken Ham is wrong both logically and empirically, and we also completely lack a magic mechanism that would simultaneously guarantee the purity of the original alleles inherited from the tiny Noachian population while simultaneously maximizing subsequent diversity to reach modern levels.

Reading that site, it’s clear that they’ve just battened upon a few elementary genetic facts, and then abused them inappropriately to pretend that science supports them. Whenever they write “Modern genetics supports…” and then state some bizarre Biblical claim, they are lying.

And then, of course, they end it all with an ironic twist, saying that the reason racism is a problem is that false claims are made about the origins of races, and then listing several cases of scientific racism. They conveniently leave out the fact that there were also Biblical justifications for slavery and racism, and that most scientists (and many Christians!) today deplore those distortions. We do not correct them by adding another layer of lies on top, though, as Answers in Genesis has done.

Another small step in the ongoing implosion of the Republican party

We shouldn’t pick on the South all the time, so here is a tale out of the eminently Yankee state of Maine. The Maine Republican party recently met to establis their official platform, and ended up getting hijacked by the tea-baggers. Their new platform contains all kinds of nutty demands.

The document calls for the elimination of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve, demands an investigation of “collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth,” suggests the adoption of “Austrian Economics,” declares that “‘Freedom of Religion’ does not mean ‘freedom from religion'” (which I guess makes atheism illegal), insists that “healthcare is not a right,” calls for the abrogation of the “UN Treaty on Rights of the Child” and the “Law Of The Sea Treaty” and declares that we must resist “efforts to create a one world government.”

It also contains favorable mentions of both the Tea Party and Ron Paul. You can read the whole thing here.

There are other jewels in there. Marriage is between one man and one woman; all illegal aliens must be immediately arrested, detained, and deported without any possibility of amnesty; the border must be sealed; drill, baby, drill; US out of the UN!; and yes, it really does want to abolish the state board of education and put all schools under entirely local control.

The wingnuts have taken over.

Although…if you’ve ever read the Texas Republican Party platform an any time in the last 20 years, you might also realize that the Maine platform is on the mild side of Republican lunacy.

Scientility?

I was given a proposal for a new word by a fellow named Francois Choquette. It’s a tough game trying to get a new coinage accepted, and I doubt that it’ll take off…but it’s actually a useful word to replace that abomination, “spirituality”. So I’ll toss Choquette’s description out there for the readership to judge.

Scientility

Describes the sensation that a scientist or amateur of science experiences when he/she observes an amazing phenomenon, for which his/her qualifications or knowledge makes them experience it a greater degree of appreciaton and joy than people without that knowledge.

Rationale:
We need a new word is that freethinkers can use instead of having to use the word “Spirituality” to describe this enhanced experience. Some of us cringe when having to use the word “spirituality”, when describing our feelings when describing our connection to nature.

Carl Sagan wrote, when speaking of the relationship between science and spirituality: “In its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. They very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos….Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”

Mr. Sagan may have prefered to use a different word, if it existed. The current use of the word Spirituality implies “Spirits”, a ghost, an unquantifiable being, supposedly present everywhere that affects human bodies yet, that has never been detected and is unfalsifable. It is an unscientific word and we need a new word to replace it.

Who would need this word:
Any person experiencing human emotion beyond that can be described by the data:
An astronomer will experience the night sky differently than an astrologer.
An automotive engineer will experience a car show more deeply than say, a car washer.
A biologist netting an new undiscovered fish will feel differently than say a fisherman, who may lack the proper interest in this rare find.

Richard Feynman said it best, but didn’t have the word scientility to describe it:
“I have a friend who’s an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don’t agree with. He’ll hold up a flower and say, “Look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. But then he’ll say, “I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull.” I think he’s kind of nutty. […] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.”

Formal definition:

scien•ti•li•ty [scien-tee-lee-tee]
-noun, plural -ties.
1.the quality or fact of being sciential.
2.knowledge-based experience, improved by real, proven, scientific data. Can be euphoric in nature, like a eureka moment.

Use of Scientility in a sentence:
– Scientiliy can happen while appreciating the results of a scientific experiment.
– Observing a rocket launch can be a scientil experience or a patriotic experience.
– A farmer will have a scientual appreciation of a new genetically engineered seed.
– The class was scientilized by the new science teacher.
– Today I feel scientual.
– Have a scientil day!

–Related forms
non•scien•ti•li•ty, noun
su•per•scien•ti•li•ty, noun
un•scien•ti•li•ty, noun

Grow up, Alabama

Bradley Byrne is apparently the front runner in the Republican race for nomination in the Alabama gubernatorial campaign. His opponents have put up this ad against him.

What horrible things has Byrne done, the mere statement of which is sufficient to horrify Alabamans? “Byrne supported teaching evolution….said the Bible was only partially true”. It’s so open and so much taken for granted that stating truths are violations of conservative principles…it’s just crazy.

Bill O’Reilly is a big fat idiot. So is Sarah Palin.

I apologize. You might not want to read any of this post if you simply cannot bear the raging stupidity that characterizes Fox News. Fair warning: the clip below features both Bill O’Reilly and Sarah Palin.

I suspect that a lot of you, if you got this far, turned that clip off scant moments into it. The inanity and ignorance is too strong. But here are just a few tidbits. In his opening statement, that fathead O’Reilly says:

The constitution clearly states that the government cannot impose religion on citizens, but setting aside a day to encourage expression of voluntary spirituality is in no way an imposition.

No, here’s what the first amendment actually says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The US government does not get to establish or favor a particular religion; it is officially excluded from the religion game. The National Day of Prayer is not simply a day of “voluntary spirituality”, but is an open endorsement of sectarian religious belief by the government, in violation of the Constitution. The NDP was made law by religious advocates like Billy Graham and was passed by legislators who specifically invoked the Christian god; it is currently managed by a gang of right-wing religious zealots who send out suggested proclamation texts to the president and state governors that uses Bible quotes…and those texts are frequently used verbatim.

But wait! Can Sarah Palin possibly be even dumber than O’Reilly? You betcha.

…our constitution of course acknowledging that our unalienable rights come from god not man…

Oy.

Here is the first sentence of that thoroughly god-free document, the Constitution of the United States of America.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yes — the emphasis is in the original.

The babbling goes on from there, with O’Reilly even claiming that the Constitution is based on the Ten Commandments, which is also news to me: I’ve missed the parts that set aside holy days, demand worship of a single god, or outlaws coveting; it doesn’t even make murder and theft illegal! The Constitution is all about laying out the mechanisms of a civil government, the division of powers, specifying what powers each branch has, etc.; the bill of rights lays out specific rights and privileges for citizens. Read it yourself. There’s nothing Biblical in there, absolutely nothing derived from the old or new testaments, and likewise, there is nothing in the Bible that even approximates it in intent or substance.

Jesus, these people are morons.

If you want to cleanse your brain a little bit, here’s another clip from Fox & Friends this past weekend, where the Fox idjit is just as dumb, but in this case, his guest is Dan Barker…who takes him apart.