…and this is a 
Wide open thread for anything at all
Category: Open Thread
Posted on: July 16, 2008 9:04 AM, by PZ Myers
This has been a fun and informative meeting here in Atlanta — I also think my talk yesterday went well — but it has had one downside: we broke the internet. Practically everyone here has a laptop or two, and the hotel network has been rendered nearly useless in a major net traffic jam. Who would have thought that attending a computer science meeting would be like being cast away on a desert island? Oh, well, having the web reduced to a slow trickle is a kind of vacation, anyway.
That's about to end, though. I'm getting ready to run off and catch a plane back to Yankee-land, where the interwebs flow freely like water, and I'll catch up with all my email then (which will be an experience to dread, I'm sure), and will also restore the outflow of regular posting. Until then, use this thread to talk about whatever.
Comments
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 16, 2008 9:18 AM
"Whatever." Is the expression over-used?
Posted by: ElJay | July 16, 2008 9:22 AM
@ #1 Whatever dude.
Posted by: firemancarl | July 16, 2008 9:25 AM
I like big butts and I cannot lie!
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 16, 2008 9:26 AM
Ok.
[ADVERTISE HERE]
My place is for sale.
Meanwhile, i think I'll advertise myself ;)
Posted by: firemancarl | July 16, 2008 9:26 AM
I think I don't LOL enough.
Posted by: Bart Mitchell | July 16, 2008 9:31 AM
Ill throw one out there.
I was disappointed at Obamas reaction to the New Yorker cover. It was clearly satire, and the best way to react when satire is directed at you is to laugh at it. When I heard the official reaction was that he thought the cover was offensive, I was disappointed. If it had been me, I would have difused the situation by making light of it. Pointing out that its a joke, and I get it.
I guess its similar to Hitchens treatment of religion. Its ridiculous, make fun of it. When you treat obviously silly issues with serious comments, you give the issues far more weight than they deserve.
Posted by: Todd | July 16, 2008 9:36 AM
Is it just me or are journalists getting dumber? Here is the first line from an AP news release titled "Police: 'Greatest Dad' shirt worn to sex meeting":"
"A 33-year-old Michigan man is accused of wearing a "World's Greatest Dad" shirt to a meeting for sex with what he thought was a 14-year-old girl."
He was accused of wearing a shirt? Really? You mean he wasn't accused of attempting to conduct child sexual abuse and using the Internet to attempt child sexual abuse? After all, that's what he was arraigned for.
Maybe that's how all those Catholic priests got away with buggering children; they weren't wearing the right shirt.
Posted by: Josh West | July 16, 2008 9:36 AM
@ #6
I'd agree, but the subject of the satire(Obama as a muslin/terrorist) is a subject that that's already been thrown at him by the likes of Faux News.
Maybe it was meant to funny, but they hit on a sore spot.
Posted by: E.V. | July 16, 2008 9:38 AM
Andres D.
Very witty stuff! Your comments are consistantly droll and sharp, though there are a couple of people here who can't determine if a post is humorous unless an emoticon and "lol" are used....
Posted by: Pierre | July 16, 2008 9:38 AM
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned here, but there's a new book about atheism coming out early next year. I received an email about it from the author, William Lobdell, last week. Here's the first paragraph of the email:
I received the email because I had written to the author of the L.A. Times article at the time. I'm not affiliated with him an any way. I've no idea whether the book will be good or bad, although I may read it just because I've always been fascinated by deconvertion (sp?) stories.
Posted by: SEF | July 16, 2008 9:41 AM
The BBC's "Bonekickers" Obama substitute wasn't obviously satire. The programme is very bad all round though.Posted by: Jeff R. | July 16, 2008 9:41 AM
Does anyone know if the much-touted debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens has been posted online yet? (Not the one from October last - I think this one was held on Sunday 13th July - just a few days ago.)
Anxious, I am...
Posted by: E.V. | July 16, 2008 9:42 AM
"I like big butts and I cannot lie!"
Then you should just LOVE Bill Donahue. He's the biggest ass I know.
Posted by: clinteas | July 16, 2008 9:47 AM
Since this is an open thread:
Bride of Shrek,
will you marry me ? Dunny door in a cyclone and all?
Posted by: SEF | July 16, 2008 9:47 AM
This is getting altogether too close to Douglas Adams' nightmare vision of a robot party. Do people want punk that can be inserted robotically anyway?
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 16, 2008 9:50 AM
#9 why, thank you.
/blushes
Posted by: Bart Mitchell | July 16, 2008 9:54 AM
Josh West, they defiantly hit a sore spot, but the reaction from a candidate for president must always be a measured response. He can't afford to allow an opportunity to show maturity and humility pass. Those are his two weak points in the political theater, Experiance and Wisdom (tm McCain and co)
He needs to show that the idea of him being a muslim is laughable. The idea that they are seeking the whitehouse to fill a 'black agenda' is laughable. Its just a joke, and should be treated as such.
Posted by: Slaughter | July 16, 2008 9:54 AM
Pierre
If you like deconversion stories, there's a slew of them at Cliff Walker's site, positiveatheism.com. Just plug deconversion into the site's search window and it will take you to them.
Posted by: Britomart | July 16, 2008 9:56 AM
Yankee land?
Anywhere close to Boston?
We have some great pubs here!
Ever had Watermelon Ale? its actually quite nice.
I cannot, however, reccomend the concord grape stuff. Its fainly purple and smells like Welches grape juice.
And the Cranberry ale is just plain dreadful.
Let us know when you are in the neighborhood!
Thank you kindly
Posted by: E.V. | July 16, 2008 9:59 AM
Andres: I believe in giving props when they're due.
Bride of Shrek: You mean there isn't a MR. Shrek?
Clinteas: What's a dunny door?
Posted by: Ramases | July 16, 2008 9:59 AM
Well, here in Australia World Youth Day continues.
The good news is that the regulations that would have banned us from "annoying" them have been partly overturned by the courts - http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/07/16/how-annoying
We can now legally annoy them by handing out condoms or wearing a T-shirt of our choice.
This is a good thing, so the competition to make the most annoying one has not been in vain -
http://video.sbs.com.au/player/news/index.php?mmid=13332&chid=12&tabid=87
http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/top_10_antiworld_youth_day_tshirt_slogans_550966
Meanwhile, there is plenty of fodder for annoying T-shirts as the Catholic clergy sex scandals continue, as does the official denial - http://www.smh.com.au/news/world-youth-day/pell-silent-on-blunder/2008/07/16/1216162910430.html
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 16, 2008 10:01 AM
I read that LATimes article, and I'm not expecting much. Lobdell's reasons for becoming religious were not very intellectual, and neither were his reasons for deconverting.Posted by: E.V. | July 16, 2008 10:03 AM
You Boston area pharyngulites are giving me Mass. envy.
Posted by: Ramases | July 16, 2008 10:03 AM
Some of the T-shirt slogans are pretty good -
"You can fine me $5,500... But I still won't believe in God"
"We close 300 roads so 300,000 can close their minds"
"Oh no, I stepped in Dogma"
Any more suggestions welcome!
Posted by: Ploon | July 16, 2008 10:06 AM
Is anyone else in any way disturbed by a feeling of growing anxiety when we were kept waiting longer and longer for the first post of the day? Am I getting addicted to Pharyngula or PZ? Oh FSM, do I have a man-crush? Are we really all just uncritical minions, fallen under the spell of the Tentacled Overlord, as the Cathoids insist we are?
A moment for introspection...
It's a good thing I'm going on vacation for a week with no internet access. I just kicked coffee; I don't need another monkey on my back...
Posted by: Tophe | July 16, 2008 10:09 AM
Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is hilarious. :D
Posted by: Lynnai | July 16, 2008 10:11 AM
Well if you want something to chew on and probably get righteously angry about read this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/hhs-moves-to-define-contr_b_112887.html
I for one find it less then thrilling. [/understatement]
Posted by: sjburnt | July 16, 2008 10:13 AM
Sigh. SIGH!
It's a freakin' cracker!!!
Posted by: Sili | July 16, 2008 10:14 AM
I rejoyced yesterday when I saw that the Aussies had been allowed to try to induce some sense into Corrupt the Youth Day. Good luck to you downunder!
Why you shouldn't let your squid onto the sofa.
Posted by: Virgil | July 16, 2008 10:15 AM
@ #24
"The bible is like a penis... they both get shoved down your throat by a priest"
"A religion is just a cult with more members"
"F*** me, you mean Jesus was a Jew?!"
"Too many Christians, not enough Lions"
Posted by: DLC | July 16, 2008 10:21 AM
". . .and when the revolution came, all those who went around saying "when the revolution comes all people like you will be put against the wall and shot!" were put against the wall and shot. "
Posted by: Ramases | July 16, 2008 10:22 AM
Virgil,
Like the first one.
Posted by: Rosie Redfield | July 16, 2008 10:24 AM
E.V. (#20)
"Dunny" is Australian slang for an outdoor toilet. So "bangs like a dunny door" is used to describe a woman who is very sexually active (as is "roots like a rabbit").
Posted by: Laughin_guy | July 16, 2008 10:28 AM
It's been eight days since PZ made his promise to fold, spindle and mutilate a "cracker", and given the enthusiasm he's received from the PZians we can assume that he's received at least one consecrated host...so what's the hold up?
How long does it take to make a peanut butter and host sandwich? You have everyone assembled and we're waiting for the main event...it's just a frackin' cracker, right?
Let's get with the program, PZ.
Posted by: bellerophon | July 16, 2008 10:35 AM
If PZ's already received at least one "consecrated host", may I humbly suggest that he bring an identical, though "unconsecrated" one, tell the viewers they will not know if either cracker is consecrated; and then proceed with burning them both.
Call me selfish but I really really do want to see the looks on the Catholic people's faces when they watch that.
Posted by: Andrew | July 16, 2008 10:39 AM
PZ, thought I'd torture you with more embarrassing idiocy from Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who says in regards to ANWR that "we are the Saudi Arabia of oil."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6wiaTIjWMM
Posted by: bellerophon | July 16, 2008 10:39 AM
Or, better still, he can continuously videotape the cracker for a week to ten days in a barely lit, damp environment (a cupboard, maybe?) and publish the increased-speed-version (really don't know the term, sorry) on YouTube and show the people how the cracker rots and decomposes.
While at it, let me abuse a precedent (#4) and advertise myself :D
Posted by: Jonathan | July 16, 2008 10:48 AM
If PZ has gotten a consecrated host, he should do both DNA analysis (the genome of God!!), and he should try to clone it ushering in the second coming of Christ!!! Glory.
Posted by: Laughin_guy | July 16, 2008 10:50 AM
bellerophon really has something there. In that way, PZ can stretch out the anguish those silly Catholics will experience for days, and we can all enjoy a thorough laugh at their expense.
Melt the "cracker"!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 16, 2008 10:50 AM
I've been waiting for an open thread here, because I need advice from this august community: I've been itching to dig into some good popular science writing, but when I went to the bookstore the other day I was overwhelmed by the array of interesting-looking choices... and I was also painfully aware that, aside from the obviously pro-spiritual books, I'm not really well-equipped to sort the quackery from the good stuff.
Soooo... I thought I'd ask y'all for some book recommendations. As a matter of background, I'm fairly literate in science and technology, but no more than an educated layman on any scientific topic (my degrees are in English and Creative Writing). My particular interests are astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology, the science of the mind, and the general history of science, but I'm actually more interested in the quality of the writing than in any one subject: I'm looking for great writing about good science. Any thoughts? (Thanks in advance, BTW.)
Posted by: Epinephrine | July 16, 2008 10:54 AM
Back on the crackers?
Ok, I dissent with the majority here, in that I don't think PZ needs to desecrate a host to make any point.
I have issue with acquiring it through deceit. At some point, someone is deceiving someone, and I'm not so cool with that - besides, it's the idea that needs to be addressed, not the crackers themselves.
I don't think that much would be accomplished by (if you'll forgive my borrowing a horrible play on words from the Russell's Teapot webcomic) playing The Smashin' of the Christ. We know that he's capable of it, the cracker won't defend itself, and nobody claims it will. Dissecting it won't matter, as the theologians have covered all that with the babble about how it retains the "accidents" of its former nature. The only thing that desecrating a host shows is that you are not afraid to do so - and I doubt that's really a point worth making.
My hope is that PZ has a plan that will be more than simply upsetting people - that will just cause resentment.
Attacking the actions of those who are assaulting someone over the host? Great!
Ridiculing the notions of accidents and transubstatiation? Superb!
Mocking the bizarre decision that gluten-free wafers can't transubstantiate? Fine by me!
But acquiring a consecrated wafer through deception to smash it, for no other reason than to upset people? I don't see the point.
I think that people have the right to believe that the host is special, even if they have no reasonable expectation that others will think so - and I wouldn't destroy something someone else hheld as valuable simply to show them that I don't think it is valuable. To me it reminds me of seeing beautiful spiderwebs laced with dew, and pointing them out to your friend, just to have some bully walk over and swipe them all down braying, "You love a spider."
I am willing to respect the things that others believe are valuable, if they do not harm me. Their beliefs may be fair game - I don't mind attacking beliefs.
My 2c.
Posted by: Lynnai | July 16, 2008 10:54 AM
Bill Dauphin #40 asked for books!
Umm I'm quite fond of Bill Byrson's A Brief History of Nearly Everything, it's not overly scientific so much as a historical over view of science; however it is very well written and just plain fun.
Posted by: Gary | July 16, 2008 10:56 AM
Those Catholic crackers are very dry. Before I eat one, I always put a little Miracle Whip on it.
Posted by: Luke O'Dell | July 16, 2008 10:57 AM
Check out my blogs (both very much in their infancy):
http://creationistidiocy.blogspot.com
http://atheistwisdom.blogspot.com
Any comments/criticisms welcome.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 16, 2008 11:00 AM
Bill Dauphin (#40):
Anything by Carl Zimmer is eminently worthwhile, in my experience. I'm in the middle of Douglas Hofstadter's I Am a Strange Loop (2007), and I'm finding it enjoyable — better, actually, than Gödel, Escher, Bach (1979). Richard Dawkins put a lot of nice pieces into the new anthology he edited, The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing (2008), which I reviewed here. Fair warning: the book's a bit heavy on biology, physics and cosmology, which has displeased some people but might be what you're looking for.
Posted by: Prof MTH | July 16, 2008 11:01 AM
I have not a tracking issue here on Scienceblogs. My wife and I, from home, access via different computers (and computer types) but through a singular router and cable modem. We cannot both post comments simultaneously otherwise we get the "You have too many postings" message. Evidentially it is reading the IP address of the modem or router and not the individual computers. I guess that is good for us in terms of security.
Posted by: Dale Husband | July 16, 2008 11:03 AM
There's something about firing a woman for the actions of her husband that strike me as unjust. If he sends out death threats to strangers, could he also be a wife-beater?
Posted by: Laughin_Guy | July 16, 2008 11:05 AM
IMO, you're missing the point entirely, Epinephrine.
PZ has brought great attention to himself and to this issue. He's given several interviews and has reiterated his intentions repeatedly.
By not following through with his promises, PZ will, in effect have proved that it is indeed more than a "cracker".
We don't know that he is capable of it until he actually does it.
Posted by: Alverant | July 16, 2008 11:10 AM
#6, I we should apply Poe's Law to the cover of the New Yorker. It was meant to be parody but it wasn't labeled as such and it should have been. Because in the cases of politics and religion, there are people out there who seriously believe your the content of the parody. I heard that 12% of American still think Obamma is a muslim. If the New Yorker labeled the picture with "This is how conservatives see Obamma" there wouldn't be this controversy. There'd be another controversy but that's a different issue.
Posted by: Tatarize | July 16, 2008 11:12 AM
Who could every be anxious about a D'Louza debate. Wow this is a big podium, I didn't even need to wear any pants. And atheists are retarded because they don't believe in God. Religion is good, just look at all the good it does.
Posted by: amph | July 16, 2008 11:12 AM
Poll alert!
on http://edition.cnn.com/:
Quickvote
Should the Anglican church admit gay bishops?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 16, 2008 11:13 AM
People should check out The Giant's Shoulders.
Posted by: Bunk | July 16, 2008 11:14 AM
Great cartoon on your front page, #4.
This intentionally left blank.
Posted by: andyo | July 16, 2008 11:14 AM
RE: Obama's mag cover
There are still some people who think that behind every joke there is some truth; or if you joke too much about something, it may very well have some truth to it. Besides, it wasn't very funny. Imagine if the cover didn't say "New Yorker," but instead said "Fox News Magazine" or something like that (I don't know any ridiculously right-wing propaganda mags). It could be taken any way, as a satire, or as a caricatured exaggeration of "reality" by a person who doesn't know enough to discern.
I think a commenter at onegoodmove has it right.
Posted by: Epinephrine | July 16, 2008 11:16 AM
@40 - books
That sounds like more fun!
I just finished Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish, it was pretty light, but entertaining. I can't say I have much interest in astronomy/cosmology/astrophysics, so I can't recommend anything in those areas.
I'd also like a good book on the science of the mind, despite my background being in neuroscience (or perhaps, because of my background?) I haven't read anything on the subject lately.
One book that I thoroughly enjoyed (though a while back) was called Visual Intelligence
, by Donald D. Hoffmann; it examines how we see what we see, what the rules are for interpreting visual stimuli.
Hoffman builds up rules of vision by examining situations in which our interpretations fail - often exploring optical illusions to derive the hidden processes underlying visual intelligence. If you like reading about how the mind works and enjoy optical illusions, I highly recommend it.
Posted by: maureen | July 16, 2008 11:17 AM
Bill D,
Any of the "for the bright non-specialist" books by Steve Jones - geneticist, Prof at University College, London. And he's funny with it. Probably start with Language of the Genes or In the Blood.
Posted by: The skepTick | July 16, 2008 11:19 AM
GEOFFREY SIMMONS SAYS WOW! A TREE!
----------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey Simmons has coughed up another inane post over at the Discotute. In this one, he marvels that we actually have trees. From a prehistoric world of flat plants, how is it possible that a tree, complete with bark, root systems, and internal structure, could suddenly appear? All of these characteristics would have to have evolved at the same time. Therefore, scientists must be wrong.
Hmmm...I don't recall scientists claiming that trees appeared suddenly out of nowhere. Sounds like a strawman argument to me. And when I think of the strawman, I think of the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz and wonder (cue dream sequence) what it would be like if Simmons was hanging around with the Scarecrow as Dorothy came skipping along...
Posted by: Ames | July 16, 2008 11:20 AM
Just completely random: did anyone else know that McCain had given keynotes for the Discovery Institute? I was terrified but unsurprised to learn that. Why isn't this issue talked up more by the mainstream media?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 16, 2008 11:20 AM
Lynnai (@42):
Thanks for the very quick response. I should've anticipated the Bryson recommendation and mentioned that I've already read it (I'm a big fan of all Bryson's stuff; if you enjoyed Everything, you should check out In a Sunburned Country). Likewise, I'm pretty well up to speed on Simon Winchester (Krakatoa, A Crack in the Edge of the World, The Map that Changed the World), whose interests, like Bryson's, span both science and the English language. Winchester also wrote (at least) two books on the writing of the OED, including the harrowing The Professor and the Madman. Both Bryson and Winchester are entertaining readers of their own work, which makes them especially rewarding to audiobook fans.
Posted by: Whateverman | July 16, 2008 11:24 AM
Epinephrine, I couldn't have said it better (and was going to attempt it, until I came across your post here). The whole UCF situation is hilarious - but insulting a general religious belief is doing little more than entertaining yourself at the expense of others.
I'm not suggesting such beliefs deserve our respect (especially if we fail to believe in them). But the *people* who believe them do, to some extent. Imagine someone putting their cigarette out in your grandmother's ashes...
Making fun of the easy targets requires little effort...
Posted by: Colin | July 16, 2008 11:24 AM
Obama did give a measured response to the cartoon. He said that it is insulting to muslims. Remember that the actual rumor was that Obama is a secret muslim, not that he is a member of Al Qaeda. So, for the New Yorker to equate muslim to terrorist (even if that was the intention of the smear) is irresponsible of them. Obama can now safely justify a critical comment of the cartoon for the sake of siding with a growing number of muslims upset at him for being offended at the "muslim" smear.
Plus, it involved his wife, and he has said time and time again that she is off-limits.
Posted by: Cronan | July 16, 2008 11:24 AM
Geoffrey Simmons is less a straw-man argument, more an argument from utter idiocy. The man seems not to have noticed different kinds of plants at trees, and an attendant massive fossil record. Showing, quite clearly, that trees did not "appear suddenly out of nowhere".
Posted by: MicroZealous | July 16, 2008 11:25 AM
The Cracker Controversy has gotten the attention of some of the Higher Powers:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/14/mass/
OT: I am aware of at least one internet tradition.
Posted by: Bellerophon | July 16, 2008 11:25 AM
Bill re: Books
The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Brilliant stuff. Won some Royal prize when it was published, I guess. Should be on his CV.
Posted by: TX CHL Instructor | July 16, 2008 11:26 AM
Whatever? So I can advertise my class for Concealed Handgun Licenses in Texas? Alright: www.chl-tx.com.
BTW, I am not a Liberal (capital 'L'), but I do find myself in occasional agreement with PZ. Except where he makes the implicit assumption that anyone who isn't a Liberal (capital 'L') is a holy-book-thumping nutjob. Freethinkers come in all political persuasions, not just Liberal (capital 'L').
Posted by: Cronan | July 16, 2008 11:27 AM
Should Obama's wife be off-limits in the same way Hillary's husband was? ;-)
Posted by: Richard Walker | July 16, 2008 11:27 AM
Leave the cracker aloooooone! *sob*
Posted by: Rick T | July 16, 2008 11:28 AM
If it was satire it was poorly done. Usually satire is best when spoofing stupidity. In this case the victims of stupidity were the subject of satire. I believe 12% of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim. Over 30% believe that he was educated in a madrasa. Why, in an age when we are have access to information and yet seldom read for comprehension, would the New Yorker place this cartoon on their cover knowing that only a portion of the population will read the contents of the article.
Now this picture has been seen all over America and the world and only a small percentage have read it. There are those dim bulbs who will see this and have their erroneous beliefs about Obama reinforced.
Satire rule #1. Spoof the fools not the victims of those fools. The New Yorker screwed up.
Posted by: wÒÓ† | July 16, 2008 11:29 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: Epinephrine | July 16, 2008 11:29 AM
Ooh, since you mentioned a few books just now, you've jogged my memory.
I really liked Mauve, by Simon Garfield. Fascinating look at early organic synthesis and the importance of a rather odd discovery.
Salt: A World History by Mark Kurlansky, is a neat little book, though less science and more anthropological.
Oliver Sacks wrote several fun books: The Island of the Colour Blind; A Leg to Stand On (grr, I let someone borrow that one and never got it back); Uncle Tungsten; and his case studies in The Man Who Mistoook His Wife for a Hat and An Anthropologist on Mars.
Posted by: Bunk | July 16, 2008 11:37 AM
I can't seem to read any of this recent stuff without hearing Eddie Murphy say, "That ain't no ordinary cracker!" That was from a routine in one of his 80's stand-up movies, I think "Raw." I had hoped to find a you-tube clip or something to refresh my memory of the routine, but had no luck. When I searched the google for "That ain't no ordinary cracker," PZ's first eucharist post shows up #3. That ain't no ordinary cracker!
Posted by: Ubi Dubium | July 16, 2008 11:39 AM
Bill Dauphin
For the science of the mind, I'd recommend anything by V. S. Ramachandran (Phantoms in the Brain is in print now.) There are also several books by Oliver Sacks that are quite good as well(like The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat). They are both very entertaining writers as well.
Posted by: True Bob | July 16, 2008 11:40 AM
"poorly done" barely gets into the New Yorker cover. It was so pathetically lame and weak that it skewers nothing. The targets of the satire (i.e. knuckleheads who believe the 'Bama propoganda) won't get it, and the intended audience is left unamused. IMHO, it wasn't over the top enough.
So if you do satire, go whole hog, not half-measures. It's like eating a fracker for the flavor.
Posted by: AnthonyK | July 16, 2008 11:41 AM
For what it's worth, as a long time reader of pharyngula, I think that we've done enough on frickin' crackers -or at least PZ has. Point made, religious idiocy is just that. There seems little point in stirring them up on this blog; I'm sure we can desecrate the host somewhere else, and link to it from here, if, indeed, there's any point to it at all.
After all, it's just a tremendously silly idea which I think we pay too much lip service to. And the catholics are partly right; it would be a foolish person who deliberately "blashphemed" against islam.
Blasphemy may be a victimless crime, but it can still produce victims.
On a related note has anyone seen what I think is the best ever film about atheism/blasphemy - Luis Bunuel's "The Milky Way"? In it two contemporary pilgrims confront a world in which everyone frames everthing in terms of pre-mediaeval arguments against three-in-one, transubstantion, and so on. And you get to see the real Jesus. Really. And they shoot the pope. PZ, if you've never seen this, look it up - it says everything about the current dispute. But please, let's continue to laugh, and move on.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 16, 2008 11:44 AM
I have a suggestion to make.
I think the threat of desecrating a cracker is much more fun than the actual desecration of a consecrated Eucharist.
This is what I propose PZ should do :
1) by now the threat should be made very real
2) PZ should make it very clear that he has received at least one consecrated Eucharist, that he calls cracker one and show it
3) PZ should also buy N unconsecrated ones, ie cracker 2 to cracker N+1
4) every week, he should say : I feel like desecrating a cracker, but I won't tell you which one I choose
5) and he should post a picture of a desecrated cracker on his blog
6) and he should terminate by asking the question : did I desecrate cracker 1 ?
The whole point is to keep the mistery going as long as possible. The whole idea is to try to maintain the threat as long as possible, without actually making the act real.
After a few weeks, the Catholics will go mad. But please note, that they still won't know if PZ has really desecrated their holy cracker.
Posted by: Shelama | July 16, 2008 11:46 AM
Jesus would roll over in his grave if he ever found out what the Bible and Christianity did to him.
Posted by: Conor Ryan | July 16, 2008 11:46 AM
Hi PZ,
Your talk did indeed go down well, in fact, more than that, it was excellently received. Thanks again for taking the time to visit us at GECCO. We're in Montreal at the same time next year, with all the internet you can eat!
Posted by: gillt | July 16, 2008 11:47 AM
How about this. A journal club discussion had my lab considering a simple/working definition for epigenetics:
From a molecular standpoint, epigenetics consists of modifications to DNA or chromatin which changes gene expression.
Anyone care to disagree?
Posted by: Josh | July 16, 2008 11:48 AM
I know I shouldn't bring his name up, but has anyone else noticed that Polly Prissypants Matt Nisbet is "alarmed" (yet again) over the damage to the "scienceblogs brand" that nasty PZ Meyers has wrought?:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/07/on_pz_don_imus_atheism_and_ath.php
Aw, diddums.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 16, 2008 11:49 AM
[ (Hit the Road Cracker Jack and don'tcha come back
No more no more no more no more,
Hit the Road Cracker Jack and don'tcha come back no more) ]
What'd you say
[ repeat ]
Old relishun old relishun, oh you treat me so mean,
You're the meanest old relishun that I've ever seen,
Well I guess if you say so
I'll have to pack my things and go (that's right)
[ repeat ]
What'd you say
[ repeat ]
Now churchie, listen churchie, don't you treat me this-a way
'Cause I'll be back on my feet some day,
(Don't care if you do, cause it's understood,
You ain't got no money, you just ain't no good)
Well I guess if you say so
I'll have to pack my things and go
(That's right)
[ repeat ]
What'd you say
[ repeat ]
Well ... ( don'tcha come back no more )
Uh, whud jou say? ( - don'tcha come back no more )
I didn't understand you. ( - don'tcha come back no more )
You can't mean that ( - don'tcha come back no more )
Aw now churchie, please. ( - don'tcha come back no more )
What you tryin to do to me!? ( - don'tcha come back no more )
... but it's still just a friggin' cracker!
Posted by: Josh | July 16, 2008 11:50 AM
Damn it, damn it. "Polly Prissypants" above was supposed to be struckthrough. OK, I'm the stupid. Can anyone tell me what the correct html is for that action? All the actions I use successfully for that seem not to work here on SB, and only here on SB. Is there something I'm missing?
Posted by: bellerophon | July 16, 2008 11:51 AM
negentropyeater,
Great idea.
A little variation. PZ can put the cracker no. 1 into a pile of other crackers and pick one at random from that pile everyday and burn it.
Just a little added anxiety there.
Posted by: Jams | July 16, 2008 11:52 AM
I can't help but think about the two caskets Hezbollah just delivered to a "prisoner exchange". I'm trying to remember the last time I heard of something quite so douche-baggy.
Posted by: The skepTick | July 16, 2008 11:54 AM
#78 I disagree. Epigenetics is the change in gene expression without changes in DNA. As a general case, Zimmer discusses in his new book that identical clones of E. Coli have different behaviors when subject to the same environmental stimulations. So, it must not be DNA that is strictly the cause of their actions.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 16, 2008 11:55 AM
I think PZ should keep control of the situation, it shouldn't be random I think. It gives him more possibilities to play with the threat later on.
Posted by: Richard Walker | July 16, 2008 11:55 AM
PZ, have you considered using another authentication method or perhaps a blog commentary service like Disqus? I can't even imagine how you do all this blogging and teaching and ALSO moderating and troll and hater abatement :-)
Posted by: Atheologian | July 16, 2008 11:56 AM
Books for Bill Dauphin (#40):
Check out any of the books from the Science Master series. They are great introductory books written by some of today's best science authors.
Some other good ones:
The Ancestor's Tale - Richard Dawkins
Dinosaur in a Haystack - Stephen Jay Gould
The Elegant Universe - Brian Greene
The Large, The Small and The Human Mind - Roger Penrose
Metamagical Themas - Douglas Hofstadter
Also, check out any of Isaac Asimov's popular science books. By awakening my interest in science at a young age, he probably did more to make me an atheist than any other person.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 16, 2008 11:58 AM
What a brave little girl!!
What a sick little world...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/15/yemen.childbride/index.html
Posted by: Onkel Bob | July 16, 2008 11:59 AM
And apparently some carry guns.For some reason I don't believe you'll get many takers / customers looking for instruction and certification for carrying a concealed handgun. (BTW - are there footguns?)
BTW - if you need to prove proficiency to obtain a driver's license, why is proof of proficiency for a gun so onerous to many? I'm in the camp of gun control is hitting the target, but I also believe in responsibility.
Posted by: Pierre | July 16, 2008 12:00 PM