Pharyngula

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | April 9, 2010 3:45 AM

"It doesn't matter if your a christian or not to get to heaven. All that matters is that you accept the Lord Jesus Christ in your heart and truly believe in him and that is all that matters. You don't have to be a Christian in order to do that."

10: "Whether you're Christian or not get to heaven. All these questions will not accept your heart to the Lord Jesus, in his opinion, all issues. Would not the Christian thing."

25: "You are a Christian or not go to heaven. All these questions do not agree with Heart of Jesus, in his opinion, all these factors. Is this some kind of Christian."

max: "My God, you can see the sky. No matter lies in Jesus the messiah in all areas. Christians and "how."

- - - - - - -

"Atheism is an Anti-christian conspiracy created by the Jesuits. The final hoax in this fraud to discredit the Bible is going to be a fake staged alien invasion. Expect that to happen soon."

10: "Atheism is a Christian Jesuit conspiracy. And fraud undermine the credibility of the Bible was wrong last letter external aggression. I hope that this will happen soon."

25: "Jesuit is a conspiracy Christian Atheism. Last letter from external attacks and fraud undermine the credibility of the Bible better. I hope it happens soon."

max: Christian faith in God and morals in the Bible to the sea to attack the Rebels in late really Yessuey"

- - - - -

"If we depended on scientific advance from the dogmatic atheists one sees on these kind of boards, then we would still be in the Stone Age."

10: "If technological advances make this atheist forum addiction, again and rock."

25: "Given the advances in addiction, an atheist and rock fields."

max: "God Delays up outdoors"

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | April 9, 2010 3:51 AM

Fundie: "I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. "

10: "I'm a little disappointed. I think my son has a girlfriend, it's because men are in bed, dirty magazines."

25:"A little disappointed. I think my son with his girlfriend, because people are in bed, dirty sheets."

Max: "She Disappointed, I think people are Sleeping sepram gross"

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | April 9, 2010 3:57 AM

"Never let your schooling interfere with your education." [-Mark Twain]

10: "Never let your education interfere with your education."

25: "Research to delay school enrollment."

Max: "Although the registration page."

Posted by: boygenius | April 9, 2010 4:06 AM

It happens to me every night
Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me
They always want to take a bite
Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me
And if you think this isn't real
I'll show you wounds that never heal
To them I'm just a happy meal
Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me

"It happens, I am every night, I could not sleep, clown I've always thought, do not eat the meal and sleep clowns will eat me if I do not think you really need to solve this problem, "Happy Meal plans can not able to sleep, Clown I commas"

"This happens every night, could not sleep, eat and sleep clowns clowns have always thought that if I do not really problems, food can not sleep, clown or a comma, plans must be resolved"

"To sleep, eat night Clowns, Clowns and eat in my sleep, even when ilteoir."

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | April 9, 2010 4:16 AM

What's the link to the generator again? I don't want to have to sit for ten minutes while my agéd PC loads up the old thread.

Posted by: dmfarley | April 9, 2010 4:23 AM

i despise alice cooper.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | April 9, 2010 4:29 AM

"Speak for yourself, dear Sir ! It's obviously not good for you in terms of health, and family life, and social life, and uhm, pretty much everything else, but these seem to be effects confined to the time you're actually working."

10: "Self-evident, the Ah! Obviously, this is not your health, family life, social life and institutions, risk management, and other large, but the actual time may be limited."

25: "Oh, yes! Of course, this is a serious health problem, family, social life and institutions, and other significant risks, but in real time may be limited."

max: "Oh, yes! But more serious health problems, family, social institutions, and other Risks in real time."

*runs out of thread maddling gigly giggling madly*

*collapses on the bed from exhaustion and falls asleep*

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | April 9, 2010 5:02 AM

Alright one more, a classic:

"Suppose you had a very sacred book outlining your philosophy on life. This book also happened to be stitched together and bound in the skin and flesh of a loved one who had recently passed away." [-Pete Rooke]

10: "Suppose you have a Bible, and his philosophy of life. The book also happens to be connected zashitata skin and meat lover who has recently died."

25: "Suppose that the Bible and philosophy of life. This book is the skin and meat lovers zashitata connection just died."

Max: "This book is the Bible, meat and skin zashitata dead links, so that this philosophy, which can be months."

Off to bed.....

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | April 9, 2010 5:16 AM

Anyone who wants to read the original thread with Pete Rooke's creepy analogies can go here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/priorities_1.php#comment-1004473

It was almost two years ago and I still got a few great laughs reading that thread.

Now, seriously, sleep.

Posted by: Ray Moscow | April 9, 2010 5:27 AM

I hear from one of the organisers that the event at Syracuse was excellent.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | April 9, 2010 5:51 AM

Some more Pete R**ke, from the linked thread, put through the translator:

Original: 'Young ladies like to wear an item of clothing called a mini-skirt these days. The material is often sheer and by its definition does not even come close to covering the knee roll.'

10: 'He called on young people wearing these days, small skirt. These materials tend to be more clear and defined, not even close, sir.'

25: 'Encouraged young people today, in baptism. These substances are usually explicit and exact, or near, sir.'

Max: 'Today young people are invited to court. This information is correct, most of them are almost equal and teachers.'

Gold!

Posted by: Rorschach | April 9, 2010 6:05 AM

Jon Stewart on the Catholic church scandal

Posted by: Rorschach | April 9, 2010 6:24 AM

Jebus. It looks like a Melbourne abortion anaesthetist deliberately infected 12 women with hepatitis C. I wonder if it's a religious thing or just a plain psycho.

I'll refrain from speculating about motives until we know more, but I was thinking about how he would have done it.
Anaestetists are tidy people, they draw up the drugs they will need between cases, put them in a dish or something, together with the cannulas etc they are going to use, that's when they are usually by themselves, or at least not closely watched.Once the surgeons and other folks come in, I don't think there is opportunity.

This is ugly. You would hope the guy is not middle-eastern too, given we currently have the Doctor Death court case in Queensland, and since that scandal asking for a locally trained white doctor has become more common.

Posted by: Dania | April 9, 2010 6:40 AM

"NOTE: If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"

10: "Note: If you suspect this is possible, short-term and +?"

25: "Note to remember: If you are a little bit?"

Max: "All children need to consider the issues?"

Of course!

Posted by: triskelethecat | April 9, 2010 6:42 AM

Geez. I've been out of clinical way too long. I was reading about the Hep C thinking, "what the heck?" So I utilized U of Google to learn that Hep C is apparently what I learned of as "Hep Non A Non B".

What I learned of as Hep C, IIRC from my training, was the result of chronic Hep B infection. Guess I need a refresher. And, since I have to get some CEU's (yay for free online nursing CEUs), guess one of them will be on Hepatitis!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 9, 2010 7:02 AM

I think there are only four of us here hailing from North Dakota, but this issue has been prominent in state politics for about 20 years. The State Board of Higher Education voted yesterday to retire the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/157079/

Much acrimony to follow. I'm expecting some threats and harassment of Native faculty and students (to be honest) in the near future. But, we finally are getting rid of the damned thing!

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384 | April 9, 2010 7:20 AM

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - Hunter S Thompson

10: "If you are weird, surprising experts."

25: "If you are curious, surprised analysts."

Max: "Shock to Analysts for interview"

I have no ideaq what happened after 25!

Posted by: Louis | April 9, 2010 8:01 AM

Ok, enough silliness, something serious:

"Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, included within the CC class of chemokines, mediates chemotaxis of monocytes to inflammatory sites via interactions with its receptor, CCR2. CCR2, a member of the G-protein-coupled superfamily, is most abundantly expressed on monocytes."

10: "Proteins that are involved in quimioatrayente - C chemokine 1, monocyte as recipients, seven hundred ninety-one respondents para role of the media site of chemical inflammation of the situation. 791 boxes of the survey, members of the protein in combination with ultrasound, monocytes and rich."

25: "Press protein Quimioatrayente - C-receptor-1, Monocyte inflammatory material status military press, ninety-seven beneficiaries in half the respondents. 791 protein, ultrasound, monocytes, looking for members, clubs and rich."

Max: "Receptor Protein koymyoatrayente - - 1 97 791 soldiers of protein products of inflammation and Ultrasound monkeys monkey the Clubs"

What I like is that for many people, the translated text is more comprehensible than the original. Mind you, when I've taken enough mushrooms....

I also like the fact that certain words and phrases persist in all languages, like the number 791 in the above. Finding the languages which start these trends is interesting.....well it's interesting to me.

Ok, I can't resist one tiny quote from Einstein: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.".

10: "Both are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I certainly do not know the universe."

25: "Both are infinite: the universe human stupidity, and I am not sure whether the universe."

Max: "Large: the universe and human stupidity, and I am sure that I am the world to you all."

Slow to get there, but great when it does.

Louis

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 9, 2010 8:11 AM

Alice Cooper is frigging awesome. I saw him as a guest star on the Muppet Show when I was a wee babe (Ok...like, 5 years old)...not my favorite rocker, but a great entertainer, up there with Kiss and GWAR*.

When the last of my grades have been entered this summer, I will open the door to my office, and from my prodigious office computer speakers, all will hear "School's Out For Summer". Those who are prompt with their grading will rejoice. Those who have procrastinated will cringe.

Then I will drink beer in the warm sun until sleepy.

If you hold a different opinion or have a criticism of this plan, I rebuke you in advance.

*Excellent live band with albums not really worth listening to.

Posted by: jidashdee | April 9, 2010 8:14 AM

Okay, the Orlando Sentinel is having a poll this morning on the acceptability of Confederate History Month. Thus far, ignorance is winning:

Confederate History Poll

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | April 9, 2010 8:22 AM

Not that I know anything about the ICZN beyond what David's told us, but it sounds like they need to chill the fuck out. They have become too enamoured of The Rules™ and rather than having the system serve us to make life easier, have - as so often happens - switched to worshipping the system as infallible and perfect, no matter how cumbersome it becomes.

Yuck!

TM, I think you misunderstood David in his statement about the arbitrariness of "planet" - he did go on to explain how it's defined to encompass something useful. But Nature is Nature no matter what words we put on it. So for now we call the inner eight big lumps "planets". We may end up deciding the first four are "thingummabobs", the next two "thingummajigs", the next two "whatsits" and all the teensy ones on the periphery "whatchamacallems".

--o--

You can actually see the tongue curling upwards in the video. That's what the text means by saying "I see an 'L'".

Posted by: jidashdee | April 9, 2010 8:26 AM

Church news roundup:

Oddball Heterosexual Stalker/Rapist Priest Case Settled.

Canadian Priest/Alterboy Dating Scene Coverup

Becoming the Norm

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | April 9, 2010 8:45 AM

It's always nice to find a decent sci-fi show. A guy from work recently put me onto a Canadian show called Regenesis. So far, awesome!

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 9, 2010 9:00 AM

Good post on the Sophophora melanogaster issue, complete with a phylogenetic tree of Drosophila and friends. I knew Drosophila as currently understood was huge, but I didn't know it was so huge... 1,450 species, at least!

It has a link to what it calls hate mail from third-graders the AMNH got when they updated their displays about which bodies are planets. Too cute.

It also has a link to the Nature News article on the S. melanogaster issue. Amazingly, that article is not behind a paywall!!! (I fear it might get there later, though.) ... Just why do they call the ICZN "London-based"? That's ridiculous. It's like calling the Endless Thread "Morris-based".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Has this become widely accepted now? I read in one of the news reports on the paper that another biologist said it was rubbish and that the venom proteins probably had some other use.

LOL. What other uses are there for hemo- and neurotoxins?

If the Komodo venom comes out of the jaws and runs down (and up?) special grooves in the teeth

No, there are no grooves on the teeth whatsoever.

And the stories of Komodos tracking deer they'd bitten for days. Could this be deer they'd failed to envenomate, or could it just be bullshit?

No idea. Perhaps it's not that easy to track a single Komodo monitor for days, and people confused different individuals?

One of the many paraphyletic genera (IMHO) is Paranthropus. There's little evidence that Paranthropus r[o]bustus, which is only found in South Africa, is part of the same clade as P. boisei and P. aethiopicus, which are only found in East Africa. All of the morphological similarities are directly related to the increase in the size of the masticatory apparatus, and may simply be convergent evolution.

Has this ever been tested? Has there ever been a phylogenetic analysis of all these species?

It's strange to me when you talk about paleonotolgy without species names, because paleoanthropologists get into huge debates over which fossils belong in which species and genera.

Throw them all into a phylogenetic analysis, name the best-supported clades, and stop pretending you can apply interesting species concepts (Biological, Ecological, Evolutionary...) to a skull roof and a few teeth. :-| Next time someone is looking for a fight over whether Homo ergaster should be considered the same species as H. erectus, ask them what, if anything, they mean by "species". I predict huffing, puffing, and blushing.

awesomely nice sign

:-)

<:blockquote style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS';">

Or just simply <blockquote style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">. That's what I use.

25: "Regardless, the sky is very simple and hell below us only sky [...]"

This is... so... awesome...

Keep going for a few days, and we'll have amassed more wisdom than Epicurus, Cārvāka, and Sastra together.

The problem with Pluto is that, if you define "planet" so as to include it, the definition must be either completely ad hoc, such as [the current IAU definition of 'planet', plus Pluto], or it must include many other bodies other than Pluto. The former is unacceptable, and the latter violates tradition at least as badly as excluding Pluto. IAU defined "planet" in a way that makes astronomical sense, and by that definition, Pluto just ain't one.

That's all true. I'm saying that "astronomical sense" isn't science.

10: "Stop the persecution of me and my faith! I want to be fooled, the devil is a terrible lie! [...]"

<swoon>

isn't it amazing how fundiespeak makes more sense AFTER translation?

Transkoreanization is so last year.

25: "Jesuit is a conspiracy Christian Atheism. [...]"

You know, about once a year I wonder about this myself.

Trying to decide what's more annoying, recipes or translations....:-)

...tssss...

I can't tell whether the Tc factor is increasing, decreasing or remaining constant...

Decreasing. Exponentially. Now it's only at 0.7 Tc anymore.

*runs out of thread maddling gigly giggling madly*

*collapses on the bed from exhaustion and falls asleep*

:-)

The tea bag sucking governor

X-D

"Suppose you had a very sacred book outlining your philosophy on life. [...]."

[...]

Max: "This book is the Bible, [...] dead links

So cool. Sooo... cooooool....

Max: Always true.

<thumbs up>

Posted by: iambilly | April 9, 2010 9:10 AM

One of the few things I admire about modern conservatism is their message discipline. They show an amazing ability to repeat the same discredited and debunked nonsense again and again and again and again. And it doesn't vary. Once a neocon meme hits the road, it maintains a consitency which, given the different educational, cultural, economic and intellectual backgrounds of the mouthpieces, should show some level of variation -- think of the telephone game. How do they do it?

Well, after an exhaustive study*, I have concluded that the message itself, being so totally at variance with objective reality, maintains the message down to the actual language. Here is an example:

Black is White, White is Black"

...54 translations later we get:

"Black and white black and white."

Although, to be fair, there is not 100% message integrity. For example:

"Death Panels"

...54 translations later we get:

"Islamik University."

which brings up a secondary point -- the message itself can morph, but it morphs into a different right wing meme.

*The research, of course, being Bad Tranlator (which (itself) translates to (after max translations) to Glenn Beck (I wish that were true (were I a conservative, merely wishing would make it so) but (since I live in reality) it translates to "error" (which is close enough for to GB for government work))).

And on another note (which would seem to support my hypotheosis (using the layman's "wild-assed guess" definition), "Glenn Beck" max translates to "He returned to power."

Posted by: iambilly | April 9, 2010 9:17 AM

Curse you Bad Translator!

Rape max translates to Beauty.

Adding further to my hypotheosis.

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 9, 2010 9:33 AM

which brings up a secondary point -- the message itself can morph, but it morphs into a different right wing meme.

X-)

hypotheosis

Apotheosis... hypotheosis... sounds interesting...

"Glenn Beck" max translates to "He returned to power."

:-S

Rape max translates to Beauty.

I really wonder how that works.

Posted by: iambilly | April 9, 2010 9:39 AM

David:

You asked:

rape to violation via GALICIAN : Violación

violation to injury via GERMAN : Verletzung

injury to damage via GREEK : Βλάβη

damage to loss via ICELANDIC : Tjón

loss to ross via JAPANESE : ロス

ross to bark via PERSIAN : پوست درخت

bark to cortex via SERBIAN : Кора

cortex to bark via SLOVAK : Kôra

bark to ganda via SWAHILI : Ganda

ganda to beauty via TAGALOG : Ganda

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | April 9, 2010 9:45 AM

At the ends of words?

Meder (n pl, runners) /meðɐ/; Meler (v. prs., flours) /melɐ/.

And what I guess I mean by instinct, is that I can't abstract from my expectations and hear what is actually there. I guess that account from my trouble with voicing ([s]/[z]) and rounding ([ʌ]/[ɔ]).

Posted by: Aquaria | April 9, 2010 9:50 AM

Isn't there a governor called Bill Crist somewhere? Florida, right?

Charlie Crist, not to be confused with a former cat-killer Senator, Bill Frist.

Posted by: Chgo_Liz | April 9, 2010 9:55 AM

jidashdee @ #40:

That poll actually has a response that I agree with 100%, instead of the usual "I wouldn't word it that way, but I understand what they're trying to say and it's the best choice available so I'm going to hold my nose and vote:"

Succinct and accurate.

Posted by: Dania | April 9, 2010 10:10 AM

"Pharyngula" max translates to "Abate". Intermediate forms include "Sly", "Circuit", "Orbit" and "Obiti".

WTF...

Posted by: Chgo_Liz | April 9, 2010 10:16 AM

Very very sorry...TWO DIFFERENT shift key fails...must drink tea now...

jidashdee @ #40:

That poll actually has a response that I agree with 100%, instead of the usual "I wouldn't word it that way, but I understand what they're trying to say and it's the best choice available so I'm going to hold my nose and vote:"

Yes. Why commemorate traitors who seceded so they could keep their slaves?

Succinct and accurate.

Posted by: martha | April 9, 2010 10:23 AM

I have a headache

10: Hurts my head

25: I have a headache

Max: Sherman

Posted by: ambulocetacean | April 9, 2010 10:25 AM

How about we just call the next planet/planetoid/plutoid/FBR (fucking big rock) that we find "Drosophila" and call one of the new fruit flies "Pluto"? Then everyone can be happy.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 9, 2010 10:27 AM

Incidentally, this is the subThread of 40K.

39409

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | April 9, 2010 10:38 AM

Not getting it here and am ANNOYED so GET THE FUCK OFF MY LAWN YOU SNOTNOSED PUNKS

"So, I said that I personally visited the curse of evil SNOTNOSED grass"

I am easily amused by the dada.

"I said the wrong patch-nosed grass nitty"

I think of it as a high tech version of Burrough's act of cutting up and rearranging paragraphs.

"I know that information, plants and other resources for women."

Come on, did you ever play telephone in school?

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | April 9, 2010 10:43 AM

PS: Pluto is soooooo not a planet.

Don't let the Colgate Twins hear you saying that. The people who decide what is and is not a planet are not the planetary scientists but the American public. Not just any public mind, only the American public.

Just so you are clear on this. The Oracles have decreed it is to be so.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 9, 2010 10:54 AM

Don't let the Colgate Twins hear you saying that. The people who decide what is and is not a planet are not the planetary scientists but the American public. Not just any public mind, only the American public.

Just so you are clear on this. The Oracles have decreed it is to be so.

All I know is that my 8 year-old daughter wrote a report on "Why I love Space", which had a cover with a picture she drew of the Solar system, with Pluto at the outer edge, and her hand-written note next to it: "Not a Planet!".

That's good enough for me!

(PS... I know I've regaled you all with that story once already, but it seemed relevant to the discussion, and I've never felt such a sense of pride and adorable-ness in my life, so too bad... I'm telling it again).

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 9, 2010 10:59 AM

What's the name of that Pluto apologist who used to show up here occasionally?

You know, that singularly obsession somewhat scary person whose sole purpose in life is to complain about Pluto.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | April 9, 2010 11:03 AM

I think her name was Lauren.

She thinks highly of the Colgate Twins.

Posted by: SC OM | April 9, 2010 11:06 AM

What's the name of that Pluto apologist who used to show up here occasionally?

You know, that singularly obsession somewhat scary person whose sole purpose in life is to complain about Pluto.

Laurel Kornfeld

Posted by: Paul | April 9, 2010 11:12 AM

I like snarky Walton.

By the way, the nutter people are wondering about is Laurel Kornfeld. If you want to meet her personally (well, on the internet), write a blog post on a blog with a decent Google rating mentioning Pluto. She seems to have a feed to let her know whenever Google finds someone talking about Pluto.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | April 9, 2010 11:22 AM

Hmmm. At least some mormons are not in love with Glen Beck.

In an effort to take something of a sociological snapshot, I posted this question on my Facebook wall on Thursday: "What do you think of Glenn Beck?"
     Within a couple of hours, 10 people had responded. Some of them commented more than once, and some of them used bad words that I can't repeat here, but two commonalities were immediately apparent:
     1. They were all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (some active, some inactive), and
     2. They all had negative opinions of Brother Beck.
     At first the results surprised me. I've spent enough time with my in-laws and their extended family to know that some of Beck's most ardent supporters are Latter-day Saints. But after reviewing the comments on my Facebook wall, I noticed a similarity I hadn't considered: Almost all of the Beck-bashers were under 40 years old.
     Without spending too much time on my opinion of the pundit/entertainer -- I'm going to have to face my in-laws at the next family reunion, after all -- I'll just say I think Beck's unique brand of hateful rhetoric, fear-mongering and conspiracy theorizing represent a dangerous fringe of American conservatism. That younger Mormons seem to be rejecting him is encouraging.
     Of course, my only evidence of this assertion is anecdotal, and I'm not aware of any data that track the political leanings of LDS young adults. But more broadly, a recent Harvard study has found that an increasing number of 18- to 29-year-olds consider themselves independent of either of the dominant partisan platforms. It's entirely plausible, if not likely, that the same trend toward moderate politics is taking place within the church.
   I have written before about the hazards of our church becoming too mono-partisan. If we risk alienating Democrats [Hey, they have Harry Reid, and, uh... well, there's Harry in Nevada, but they're trying boot him out.] by being too Republican, then we risk alienating an even larger group -- namely, rational people of any political ideology who find the rantings of extremists repellent -- when we defend and even join the radical fringe...

As for not alienating rational people with the rantings of extremists... it's too late. Mormon leaders are spikes on the extremist scale for most of LDS church history. They can close the barn door now, if they like, but the extremists bolted long ago and spent their crazy mormon lives being quite public and proud of their fanaticism.

As for "moderate" politics, the mormon-backed Prop 8 campaign didn't look moderate. And kicking Peter Danzig out of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir for speaking his mind doesn't look moderate.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 9, 2010 11:27 AM

And so but about the fruitfly-taxonomy thing, what's going to happen:
The official Latin binomial will be used in publication, but more informally the initial cap and italics will be dropped, and "drosophila" will become the universally-recognized common name for the ubiquitous lab species.

See amphioxus, brontosaurus

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 9, 2010 11:32 AM

Re: Nomenclature, Drosophila, Sophophora.

This isn't Nam. This is nomenclature. There are rules.

Every nomenclatural act is inconvenient for somebody. But a taxon (whether you are a Phylocodist or a Linnaean) should represent a hypothesis of monophyly. Drosophila has been falsified. Let's make the change and get on with our lives.

From personal experience: Both the genera that I worked on as a graduate student and the one that I have been working on these past few years have been moved to different families since I worked on them. The move in both cases is justified, because the resulting familial circumscriptions represent better hypotheses of monophyly.

Posted by: MrFire | April 9, 2010 11:36 AM

On a more serious note, Bad Translator reveals that Emperor Palpatine was only trying to do some good:

Now witness the firepower of this armed and fully operational battle station!

maxes to:

Now, I find ways to fight fires!

Posted by: Lynna, OM | April 9, 2010 11:40 AM

The Atlantic published an article on mormon food. Warning: Your arteries may harden after reading the closing paragraphs.

In some circles, it is a well-known and boast-worthy fact that Utah has historically consumed more Jell-O per capita than any other state in the nation. This jiggling, fruity dessert made from horse hooves and artificial flavoring holds a special wobbling place in the heart of every Utahan, native or adopted. The love of Jell-O resonates so deeply that in 2001, when Utah narrowly beat out Iowa in annual Jell-O consumption, state officials elected Jell-O the official state snack and named Bill Cosby an honorary Utah citizen....
     Because Utah is the most homogenously religious state in the nation, social life tends to revolve around LDS church functions, church potlucks being the nucleus of Mormon cuisine. Any budding culinary anthropologist can touch down at the Salt Lake City International Airport, shout "Take me to a ward potluck!", and discover the bedrock of Mormon food.....
     ....Native American fry bread, a dish conjured out of government issued rations of lard, flour, and salt. These fried disks are often the foundation for a mess of chili, beans, and melted cheese, but they are even better served sweet. Honey butter, another Beehive-State icon, is slathered on for full effect.
     Since Mormon doctrine prohibits consumption of caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and drugs, one might begin to suspect that Jell-O, cheesy casseroles, meat-topped burgers, and ice cream sundaes—Brigham Young University has five locations of its own ice cream shop to supply its students—are the allowed opiates of the community. This is not to say there is no asceticism. A 24-hour monthly fast is recommended.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | April 9, 2010 11:44 AM

Ol'Greg @#89:

I got

You are a center-right social libertarian. Right: 2.45, Libertarian: 8.19

Posted by: JeffreyD | April 9, 2010 11:47 AM

ursulamajor and Kevin - I retired and left Virginia in 2005, but my eldest daughter, her spousal unit and two of my granddaughters still live there so I try to keep abreast. Daughter is in the Fairfax County school system and keeps me up on shenanigans from that source. She is very aware about any attempts to Dixie-ize the lesson plans.

I truly am just shocked and depressed that anyone, no matter how thick, no matter how red the neck, no matter how low the IQ, would think reinstating Confederate History Month was a good idea. Hang in their ursulamajor, still some hope for Virginia, let us not treat it like Miss and have all the good people leave.

Kevin, heard about the marches. Cannot imagine either the marches or CH month are popular in NOVA, but I could be wrong...and probably am.

At least the Va Gov did have the decency to issue the amendment agreeing that slavery was bad. What a bold step into controversy that was. Confederates in the Attic (great book) are bad enough, looks like they are moving back onto the front lawn. Guess they can keep the black jockey lawn ornaments company. Surely those will be making a comeback, at least at the Gov's mansion. Ah well, I guess I should not be surprised, the people in the SoCV* don't have a problem with integration, they have a problem with emancipation.

*Scum of Confederate Veterans, or sons, not really sure.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 9, 2010 11:50 AM

Ol'Greg

Apparently, I am a far-left moderate social libertarian.

Left: 7.51, Libertarian: 3.03

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | April 9, 2010 11:52 AM

I got this result:

You are a far-left social libertarian. Left: 7.89, Libertarian: 3.53

I cannot help but think the people behind the test were using Left and Right in the American sense.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | April 9, 2010 11:59 AM

Ah, well, if we're posting spectra:

I am a far-left social libertarian.
Left: 7.7, Libertarian: 3.98

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 9, 2010 12:00 PM

I cannot help but think the people behind the test were using Left and Right in the American sense.

Dunno, they measure against two axes. One is authoritarian to anarchic, the other is communist to extreme capitalist. That would put most American politics into the upper right(they put Thatcher and Blair over there too) quad and some one like Stalin waay in the upper left quad , some one like me nearly in the center but all the way on down there in terms of social liberalism.

I'm not really sure how that aligns with "Left" and "Right" internationally.

Posted by: iambilly | April 9, 2010 12:02 PM

Here's mine:

You are a far-left social libertarian. Left: 8.15, Libertarian: 5.22

which is odd because I consider myself center-left. And in the world, I probably am; but this is 'merkuh and we have different standards.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | April 9, 2010 12:05 PM

which is odd because I consider myself center-left. And in the world, I probably am; but this is 'merkuh and we have different standards.

I consider myself centre-left as well. In UK terms my views coincide with the Liberal-Democrats more than any other party.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 9, 2010 12:08 PM

Here is a test of just how strong your SIWOTI syndrome runs...

Dig Miracles by Insane Clown Posse.

Warning: The stupid here is deep, dark, and will melt iron. If you are sensitive to stupid, or need to keep your intelligence from draining through your ear because of some important task you have later this week, DO NOT CLICK THE LINK.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 9, 2010 12:14 PM

Ol'Greg @#89: I got You are a center-right social libertarian. Right: 2.45, Libertarian: 8.19

Awww Walton you're like a political mirror image of me.

I suspect that an opposition to unchecked capitalism has to provide challenges that keep a free market from becoming un-free and becoming, in a sense, controlled by a new state of corporate power. That is probably what lands me more in the left.

What's funny is that here (admittedly in Texas) I am considered a liberal extremist.

Yeah I'm with you on minimum wage on the lack of understanding really. Except I *think* there should be one as opposed to not. It's too easy to abuse people, and once some one has lost the ability to make a free choice about how they will work they are no longer selling their labor. Extreme exploitation hurts everyone and stagnates I think, so I would then say, yes I *think* there *should* be a state set minimum wage. But I can't weight it very high. As some one who worked in my state's amazingly low minimum wage (well below cost of living for a single person in the city) I can vouch for the fact that if they can cut costs by throwing a cot in the back of a store and feed you bread from the dumpster and the water they mop the floor with... they *would* do it.

Uh, but we're not supposed to talk about that here :P

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 9, 2010 12:15 PM

Matt: Those classes are university undergraduates. One of the trends I notice which is reassuring (maybe) is that the frequency of such behavior declines from freshman to senior year.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | April 9, 2010 12:19 PM

Neat quiz, Ol'Greg. I'm in the area I expected to be on the political spectrum: left social libertarian.

Left: 6.62, Libertarian: 4.7 (I think my agreeing with Sam Harris on morality might have bumped this one up toward "authoritarian" a bit.)

International Bloodlust: -4.57

USA Culture Wars: -8.58

Posted by: Dianne | April 9, 2010 12:22 PM

The political axis quiz was clearly invented by a libertarian. The opposite of "libertarian" is authoritarian? Please. Government can't ever be a mutually agreed on social contract?

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | April 9, 2010 12:26 PM

@Dianne:

I'd understand it more with Libertarianism being Anarchy. Anarchy is kind of the opposite of authoritarianism.

Posted by: Dianne | April 9, 2010 12:27 PM

While we're on the subject: The justification for easy gun ownership is usually protection against tyranical governments. So, does this work? That is, are there any examples of tyrannical goverments or foreign invaders being overthrown by militias or, even moreso, unorganized individuals with guns? One might argue that the Somalis ran the US off like that, but otherwise I'm not sure I can come up with an example.

Posted by: Dianne | April 9, 2010 12:30 PM

I'd understand it more with Libertarianism being Anarchy. Anarchy is kind of the opposite of authoritarianism.

Maybe, depending on how the questions about corporate power changed one's rating on the scale.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | April 9, 2010 12:31 PM

@Dianne:

I disagree with gun control laws cause I think it's stupid. Gun control laws are a weak attempt to get guns out of the hands of people who will use them for criminal motive.

Unfortunately, those people who will use them for criminal motives are NOT the same people who will be inconvenienced by stricter gun control laws. Criminals being, by nature, those who do not follow the law.

Posted by: Paul | April 9, 2010 12:37 PM

All workers should have enough income to enable them to maintain a civilised standard of living; but rather than achieving this by requiring employers to pay higher wages, I think it's more practical to supplement low wages with welfare payments. That way, employers are not discouraged from taking on workers, but the same positive result is still achieved.

How does your system stop the race to the bottom where companies refuse to pay a working wage since people can just get the money from the government if they don't pay enough? I mean, I don't subscribe to "people won't work because they have welfare", but a variant applies here: when all businesses know that people receive supplementary welfare if they are not paid a certain amount by their employer, and there is no mechanism to keep employers from underpaying their employees, what is to keep all employers from cutting wages knowing that the government safety net will make sure their wage slaves have food and shelter?

@126

I don't think we'll like where that argument goes. If you grant that "easy gun ownership" is for "protection against tyrannical governments, and then recognize that guns are not enough to overcome tyranny, the wingnuts will insist on the right to easy tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, and possibly their own nuclear enrichment sites to assure MAD against tyrants (pity the states with no bodies of water to dissipate the heat to allow for nuclear reactors).

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | April 9, 2010 12:39 PM

The political axis quiz was clearly invented by a libertarian. The opposite of "libertarian" is authoritarian? Please. Government can't ever be a mutually agreed on social contract?

Just take a look at the results here. Pharyngula regulars are libertarians!

Actually, There are two senses of the word 'libertarian'. In the US it tends to means right wing, pro-private property, anti-statist. Elsewhere it just means anti-statist (i.e, opposite of authoritarian). In terms of the graph, the first sense refers to the lower right quadrant, while the second sense of the term refers to the negative part of the y-axis.

Some in the US see the term "social libertarian" as a contradiction. It's not however because libertarian is being used in the second sense.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | April 9, 2010 12:40 PM

Why am I short? Why are living things the size they are?

...Scientists studied which genes were active in young animals (growing rapidly) and compared them to the same genes in older animals (growing slowly). Then they identified which genes were "turned off" simultaneously in multiple organs with age. To understand the consequences of these genes being turned off, the researchers experimentally turned them off in cultured cells and observed the effects. They found that rapid growth in early life is a response to the activation of multiple genes that stimulate growth. These same genes are progressively turned off during the maturation process, causing growth to slow. This process occurs simultaneously in multiple organs, which explains why organs all stay in proportional size as the body grows. This process is not controlled by age. Instead, genes are turned off when organs achieve a certain level of growth.
     "This important work answers the question of why any animal– including us – has a certain size," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal, "As this study shows, growth is dictated by organ development, and no one wishes their organs to be abnormally large or small."

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 9, 2010 12:44 PM

Rev BDC is an Iraqi spy.

Silly, no I'm not.

Now just have a sip of this wine I just opened while you were not looking.

Posted by: JeffreyD | April 9, 2010 12:46 PM

Oh wow, took the Political Spectrum test and am a left social libertarian.

Left: 5.97, Libertarian: 3.94

All this time I thought I was a conservative fascist.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | April 9, 2010 12:49 PM

Fermi Maps Active Galaxy's Smokestack Plumes. Excerpt:

If our eyes could see radio waves, the nearby galaxy Centaurus A (Cen A) would be one of the biggest and brightest objects in the sky, nearly 20 times the apparent size of a full moon. What we can't see when looking at the galaxy in visible light is that it lies nestled between a pair of giant radio-emitting gas plumes ejected by its supersized black hole. Each plume is nearly a million light-years long....
     "This is something we've never seen before in gamma rays," said Teddy Cheung, a Fermi team member at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington. "Not only do we see the extended radio lobes, but their gamma-ray output is more than 10 times greater than their radio output." If gamma-ray telescopes had matured before their radio counterparts, astronomers would have instead classified Cen A as a "gamma-ray galaxy."

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | April 9, 2010 12:50 PM

@Kevin:

Unfortunately, those people who will use them for criminal motives are NOT the same people who will be inconvenienced by stricter gun control laws.

Uh, yeah, they are. Very few criminals are evil masterminds. In fact, the vast majority of them are opportunists with no penchant whatsoever for long-term planning (if they did, they'd be able to hold down jobs). Most of us have little to fear (in terms of violence, that is) from the planning type of criminal who will get ahold of whatever it is he or she needs to commit a crime, regardless of difficulty.

The ones you do have to worry about (and the ones that gun control laws are aimed at, theoretically), are the vastly more common ones that steal a gun from somebody in a home invasion. These types see a liquor store, decide to make a few easy bucks, and end up shooting up the place because they totally didn't anticipate there'd be customers at 10:45 PM on a Friday night.

Brownian, OM: left moderate social libertarian.

(Left: 5.44, Libertarian: 3.09)

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | April 9, 2010 12:53 PM

Lynna talking of a new species of lizard reminded me of a TV series the BBC is currently broadcasting on Thursday evenings on BBC2.

It is called The Museum of Life and looks at the work of the Natural History Museum in London.

Two things stand out for me about the series.

The first was footage of Richard Fortey, who has worked in the museum for over 30 years, getting lost when trying to find a store room.

The second was how proud I am to live in a country where it is considered worthwhile funding the museum, and essentially allow people to carry out research that interests them regardless of any commercial benefit.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | April 9, 2010 12:59 PM

@Dianne, Brownian:

Probably why I'm a Centrist - heh.

I do agree with Dianne though - in that gun control laws cannot be blanket laws. Sensible laws are good, too. I'm not saying that anyone can go to a store and get a gun and leave that store, either.

Gun control laws cannot paint a law-abiding citizen as a criminal. It's like the DRM Ubisoft is putting on their games (terrible analogy, but work with me here.) In order to prevent their games from being pirated, they make it necessary to have a constant Internet connection to play single-player games.

The immediate effects of this are that people are not going to stop pirating the games, they're going to make cracked versions that don't have to call home, and people interested in the pirated games are going to be able to still get them.

Paying customers, on the other hand, are inconvenienced, they have to have a constant, steady connection to the Internet, they cannot play in spotty areas or places with no connection. The paying customers are treated like criminals, while the criminals are only slightly more inconvenienced.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | April 9, 2010 1:00 PM

Thanks for the confirm that the Confederacy was about slavery. I understood that Virginia's joining in the Revolutionary War was motivated by England's trying to eliminate slavery. Which means that the great state of Virginia has twice gone through bloody rebellion in order to keep slaves.

Shouldn't the governor have avoided calling it the "Civil War"? A civil war is what happens within a single nation, and the South's view was that the Union was not a nation, but that each state was a nation, which is why they called it the "War Between The States", at least. "Second American Rebellion" and "War of Northern Agression" were also used, I think. The gov using a Northern term was just wrong.

Speaking of terminology, the rednecks who fear the United Nations are really flashing back to the Civil War. To the Southerners, the United States was supposed to be like the United Nations are now. The terms are equivalent, indeed. Us USAians forget that "state" once meant "nation", and still does, for many cases. Southerners have done the "united independent-political-units" dance before, and they couldn't get out of it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 9, 2010 1:01 PM

Humm.

Left 4.73
Libertarian 5.9

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | April 9, 2010 1:05 PM

@Menyambal:

The vast majority call it the Civil War, so it's appropriate.

Posted by: Aquaria | April 9, 2010 1:06 PM

International Bloodlust: -4.57
USA Culture Wars: -8.58

Love the way you describe that. :)

Here were my scores:

International Bloodlust: -7.46
USA Culture Wars: -8.8

Which raises the question: How did I turn out this way, when I've lived in Texas most of my life, including growing up here?

Must have been all those commie books I read as a kid.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | April 9, 2010 1:12 PM

@JeffreyD:

I loved those kinds of trips with my father. Though It was when we lived in Germany that we went to a lot of places - I was only about 5-9 there, and my father loved the old WW1 and WW2 forts (Maginot Line, Forts of the Meuse.) He took my brother and I all over the area, visiting forts and such.

It's always a great time to see things with parents. I know when I have kids (after I get married... after I get a girlfriend... I'm working on it!) I'll be quite happy to take them to see history and nature and science and art. I'm a 26-year old living in my own place a few hours from family, and I still enjoy the weekends when my father and mother come down and we walk around DC and see some of the museums.

Posted by: tutone21 | April 9, 2010 1:19 PM

I share the same sentiment as Louis @85. I have spent far too much time on this thread and now am behind in my work. Normally I wouldn't mind coming into the lab on a Saturday for a few hours, but this weekend is different since my sister is visiting. All thread posters please send me your addresses so I can get samples to each of you for testing. Please complete analysis promplty as I am on deadlines...

Thank you all in advance!

Posted by: Rorschach | April 9, 2010 1:20 PM

You are a left moderate social libertarian. Left: 3.8, Libertarian: 1.09

What does it mean??

Some of the questions are dodgy, however, e.g. false premises.

Posted by: JeffreyD | April 9, 2010 1:23 PM

Keven, DC area was a great place to have kids, battlefields, museums, galleries, the Mall during the Smithsonian American Life Festival (or whatever the name is), 4th of July, Wolftrap, we did it all. I miss the hell out of that. However, my new bride and I get to do it all again, she does not know DC so we will spend some time there. She has heard from the kids about the battlefield thing and is apparently prepared to accept and enjoy same. The poor innocent fool! Bwahaha!

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | April 9, 2010 1:26 PM

Left social moderate. I didn't like the way some of the questions were ambiguous.

Yes, I know the majority call it the Civil War, but the Confederates did not.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | April 9, 2010 1:29 PM

@143: Regarding the Biblical principles for administering wildlife in Alaska, here's a bit more from Shannyn Moore: http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/

And, regarding Al Barrette, you won't be surprised to find that he has backing from the Utah organization, Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife: http://www.sfwsfh.org/
John Bair, the SFW Chairman of the Board is a mormon. Here's a story from Deseret News that features a quote by Bair.

SFW put together the talking points for why Al Barrette ought to confirmed (this fact is from Shannyn Moore's article).

Posted by: rditmars | April 9, 2010 1:34 PM

HACK THIS POLL!

http://www.zimbio.com/Obama+Clock/polls/1/results/counting+down+days+till+Obama+leaves+office

Posted by: Aquaria | April 9, 2010 1:37 PM

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 9, 2010 12:28 PM
Sven: Right. E. Texas.

Dare I ask which part? If you're in one of the crossroads towns like Turnertown or New Summerfield, or randomly named spots on the road like Noonday or Shady Grove, you can just name the nearest "big" city, like Tyler, Longview, Texarkana, Corsicana, etc. I'll know where you're talking about--and how much consolation you need.

Posted by: CButter | April 9, 2010 1:41 PM

I know these are probably getting old, but...

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

10: What is a hand-line voice?

25: Hand evidence of the Internet.

Max: Try the Internet.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | April 9, 2010 1:43 PM

@CButter:

So the answer to that question is... Google it?

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | April 9, 2010 1:48 PM

I just had an experience that I think is an example of some aspects of Christianity and the people who indulge in it.

I had to run an errand and wound up outside of town with some time to kill. It is a fine Missouri Friday morning and I saw a sign that read "Huge Garage Sale", so I followed the arrow. I followed the series of signs for over three miles down country lanes--which is damn far for a garage sale. The sale turned out to be not huge, but tiny. The stuff for sale wasn't bad, by garage sale standards, but it was all way overpriced. Most of the material was medium tacky, but all the literature and video was Christian tripe. A radio was blaring an offensive Christian preacher babbling about how atheists are evil idiots.

The classic touch was a range of 3 large stockpots, priced by size. The $10 and $15 ones were cheap, thin, lightweight, worn-out shit. The $20 one, just a little larger, was solid, heavy, high-quality professional-grade cookware, nicely seasoned, that made my mouth water. It was too big and too expensive for my present situation, but it was incredibly better than the others--I picked them up smallest first and went "oogh" when I tried to lift the good one--but this yoyo had just priced them by size.

I left without buying anything, or saying anything to the man running the sale. I thought about snarling at him, but saw no vitamins in it. However, there was another guy talking to him, and I thought I caught the words, "This is not a good witness", but I couldn't be sure.

It certainly was a bad witness to me.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | April 9, 2010 1:54 PM

although if you want to reduce the amount of gun related deaths you reduce the amount of guns.

Is that true? For example, if you want to reduce the number of automobile fatalities, do you reduce the number of cars? Or do you look at the problem from a larger perspective and try to figure out what controls will have the most positive impact?

The problem with taking that approach, of course, is that we might discover that (I'm just making this up) people with certain affective disorders are more likely to abuse a gun. Would it then be fair to restrict their actions? Just like the way people like myself are required to wear glasses when we operate motor vehicles. :) We might discover that gun crime is a socio-economic problem or a neurochemical problem and not merely a problem of quantity of guns. Simplistic theories like "less guns will mean less gun crime" don't hold up when you consider that in the last 10 years the number of privately owned guns in the US has gone up by several million but gun crimes have dropped. So we can see right away that, while "less guns will mean less gun crime" may be true, there is some other factor that is having a greater effect on the problem. What is it? That's a really important question. (It appears that violent crime correllates more closely with consumer confidence indexes than damn near anything else, but correllation does not imply causation)

Posted by: Dianne | April 9, 2010 1:56 PM

It seems that tyrants dislike an armed populace - which doesn't necessarily mean that it's a protection, but that's probably where that idea comes from.

Examples?

Historically, insurgencies are much harder to quash in areas where there are lots of weapons ready to hand.

Again, examples? In the context of a first world tyrant-say if the Teabaggers turn out to be correct and Obama declares himself president for life and, for some reason, the military goes along with it-would the sort of weapons that are available to the average person be of the slightest use? And would a bunch of unorganized gun owners even be able to do anything besides increase the chaos? For a successful rebellion I'd think you'd need a fair amount of organization. And, if one is fighting the US, weapons that can penetrate tanks.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 9, 2010 1:58 PM

Is that true? For example, if you want to reduce the number of automobile fatalities, do you reduce the number of cars? Or do you look at the problem from a larger perspective and try to figure out what controls will have the most positive impact?

Well that's kind of my point actually. Yes, you will have less automobile fatalities if you have almost no cars. That is the exact sort of statement I was making.

Now, as I said, I don't think that really does any good though if your concern is pedestrian safety, right?

I'm not anti-regulation, I'm just anti-gun ban.

Posted by: akshelby | April 9, 2010 2:02 PM

Lynna, OM @168

I really hope he is not confirmed. But, just the fact that Parnell nominated him, and appointed a similar individual to be the Director of F&G (who does not even have any sort of college degree), makes it highly likely that he will.

Posted by: Dianne | April 9, 2010 2:09 PM

@180

Yes, it's true. Gun ownership is correlated with increased mortality.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 9, 2010 2:14 PM

Is that true? For example, if you want to reduce the number of automobile fatalities, do you reduce the number of cars?

*sigh*

This is the second time I have seen this analogy used in reference to guns in the past couple of weeks here. It sucked the other time too.

Guns =/= cars, in any meaningful way related to this discussion.

Posted by: Ewan R | April 9, 2010 2:16 PM

Guns =/= cars, in any meaningful way related to this discussion.

Indeed, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to ban cars! (I think, coming from a position of absolutely no knowledge of the constitution, and satirically..)

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | April 9, 2010 2:19 PM

The stockpot was a good deal, yes, and I wish I could have bought it. But the Christian didn't value a good stockpot over a bad one. He just looked at appearances, not at true worth. He couldn't tell. Pearls before swine, sorta.

That one item was worth the money, through his ignorance. But everything else wasn't worth the price I'd have had to pay.

And he went to extraordinary lengths to falsely advertise what he had to offer.

And he had a preacher blatting on in what was, temporarily, a public place that he had lied to get people into.

It's a metaphor.

And, on my other attempt, yes, I know the South lost the Civil War. But the name is important, because the name is what the war was about. The south said it was not a nation, so it couldn't be a civil war. It was a war between independent nations, so it was called a war between states.

A Virginia governor celebrating the Confederacy should have used the Confederate term. Him calling it a civil war is like the pope saying that PZ has been "throwing crackers away". The terminology recounts the entire freaking point of the conflict.

Jeez. If I wanted snarky-ass abusive corrections I'd go talk to my daughter.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 9, 2010 2:37 PM

I'm assuming for the sake of arguments that there are no quotas, tariffs or other quantitative restrictions on cross-border trade in widgets.

No, you're assuming that because if you don't your argument falls apart... however, as such an assumption bears no resemblance to reality, I'm not sure why I should accept that assumption...

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 9, 2010 2:40 PM

Aquaria--
I'm reluctant to give up anonymity (pre-tenure liberal, atheist professor at a university with a fairly conservative admin), although if anyone wanted to be a total weirdo, they could probably figure out who I am from former posts.

Give you a hint, though...the largest town in my area of E. Tex has an enormous white statue standing to the south of it.

Posted by: Rorschach | April 9, 2010 2:44 PM

@ 180,

although if you want to reduce the amount of gun related deaths you reduce the amount of guns.

Is that true?

Not this shit again.
And the false equivalence of gun deaths with car accident deaths is particularly annoying.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | April 9, 2010 2:47 PM

No, you're assuming that because if you don't your argument falls apart... however, as such an assumption bears no resemblance to reality, I'm not sure why I should accept that assumption...

Not true. As I understand it, in the US, although there is a federal minimum wage, states are free to set higher minimum wage rates if they wish. And there are no quotas or tariffs on cross-border trade between US states. So if Bob the worker from my earlier scenario lives in State A at a time when State A increases its minimum wage, while neighbouring State B maintains a lower minimum wage, then Bob's employer will be unable to compete with widget manufacturers in State B.

Similarly, over here, Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (better known until last year as Article 28 of the EC Treaty) provides that quantitative restrictions on imports are prohibited between EU Member States; so EU Member States are not allowed, with certain exceptions, to impose quotas or tariffs on imports from other Member States. Meanwhile, each Member State is still free to set its own minimum wage rate, as minimum wage is not an area of EU legislative power. So if Bob the worker lived in Britain, and Britain raised its minimum wage rate while, say, Slovakia maintained a lower rate, my scenario would also be entirely plausible.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 9, 2010 2:57 PM

Xenithrys: Hope to be in Melbourne in 2011 to watch the whole thing go down in person.

Posted by: SteveM | April 9, 2010 3:02 PM

I said, "I do not think that the 2nd amendment was intended to directly oppose (as in a shooting war) tyranny."

Let me rephrase. That is, the 2nd amendment wasn't intended to provide an armed populace to oppose a tyrannical government but to provide an alternative to a standing army which they believed promoted tyranny. Kind of a "passive-aggressive" approach. Again, the armed populace was intended to let the government form militias as needed. This so as to prevent the formation of standing armies that could result in tyranny. Militias were to prevent tyranny not necessarily to oppose it.

Having said that, it is certainly easier to dominate an unarmed populace than an armed one, but would it be impossible to dominate an armed populace? Conversely, would it be impossible for an unarmed populace to overthrow a tyranical government? On the other hand, would it be possible for an unarmed government to maintain a tyranny?

So, once again, it is not the armed populace that prevents tyranny, but the lack of a standing army. But without a standing army, it is necessary to have an armed population to protect itself.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | April 9, 2010 3:05 PM

What if the business is one with a very tight profit margin, and having to pay workers higher wages eliminates the profit margin?

Let's say Bob the worker is employed to make widgets for a wage of $4 per hour. Let's say he produces 5 widgets an hour. Let's say that the materials to produce each widget cost $1, and each widget sells for $2. So, after subtracting the cost of materials and the cost of Bob's labour, the employer is making a profit of 20 cents on each widget.

How much does it cost to make a violin to play a song of lamentation for Bob's hypothetically moronic employer and his idiotic business that just went under, if we assume that a) the violin doesn't need to actually make a sound because b) nowhere in the real world would/could this situation exist?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 9, 2010 3:08 PM

As I understand it, in the US, although there is a federal minimum wage, states are free to set higher minimum wage rates if they wish.

States (like California) sometimes choose to offset a higher cost of living with a higher minimum wage. But they can offset this state by state with things like retail sales taxes... and, while there are not tarrifs interstate, per-se, there is taxation on inter-state commerce.

And there are no quotas or tariffs on cross-border trade between US states.

But there is a minimum wage, Walton, for all states, and there are tarrifs on trading with other countries. They are not nearly high enough for places where they absolutely should be (China, most obviously), but they do exist, else a minimum wage would probably not be at all feasible.

This is the entire point. Minimum wage ensures a minimum standard of living. Tarriffs on international trading, various taxes, taxation on interstate commerce and other means help maintain some level of viability for businesses to be able to operate while offering a minimum wage.

As I said, the simplistic scenario you envision is not representative of reality, I don't believe.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | April 9, 2010 3:19 PM

I see you travel all over the places; yet I don't see you complaining about Jet lag. Does the FSM or Cthulhu protect you, from suffering the aforementioned condition?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | April 9, 2010 3:20 PM

They [tariffs] are not nearly high enough for places where they absolutely should be (China, most obviously)...

So you think American workers are more important than Chinese workers, and that their livelihoods should be artificially protected against competition from better and cheaper Chinese products? Why do national borders - which are, after all, just imaginary lines - matter so much to you?

Protectionism is morally wrong. There is no reason why trade should be restricted by national (or subnational) boundaries. I am in favour of global free trade, and the progressive abolition of tariffs, quotas, "anti-dumping" laws, customs duties and other restrictions on trade. Yes, this will mean some businesses can't compete; but I don't think the state should artificially protect Western businesses against competition from the developing world.

Posted by: wmdkitty#83021 | April 9, 2010 3:23 PM

God, I LOVE the Coop.

BTW, that's not from "Dragontown".... nvm, it IS on the re-release.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | April 9, 2010 3:25 PM

Brownian, I was trying to make a serious point.

Oh, I know, but what makes your theoretical hypotheticals more serious than mine?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 9, 2010 3:32 PM

And how the FUCK you ever got all that shit you posted in #214 from my suggestion that our tariff rates with China are unfair in their favor is just fucking incomprehensible.

When Sven wakes up from his nap, I think it's your turn.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | April 9, 2010 3:39 PM

Oh, I know, but what makes your theoretical hypotheticals more serious than mine?

Joking aside: do you really deny that there are businesses which operate on very tight profit margins and which subsist by underpaying their workers? Do you really find this no more plausible than Bob turning into a heap of exploding cat faeces while being beaten to death by an orphan with an aluminium bat, or whatever you said?

Posted by: Aquaria | April 9, 2010 3:41 PM

What if the business is one with a very tight profit margin, and having to pay workers higher wages eliminates the profit margin?

Why does it always have to come from the pay of the grunts, and never from the guys at the top who give themselves huge salaries and bonuses and perks, whether the quarterly statements show profit of loss, and/or who use ridiculous business models that are destined to fail?

This is the problem with your batty assumption, Walton: You seem to assume that executives know what they're doing and care about their employees, at least enough to do right by them. You seem to have this idealised image of them as these brilliant, take charge, can-do kinda guys who are masters of human motivation and insight. But they're not, because they're human, just like the rest of us.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 9, 2010 3:43 PM

Xenithrys: Bet we could get some Pharyngulites together. And just so you know, I love to drink beer, and I was planning on doing that anyway.

Where is it that you hail from? I have a long way to travel to get to Melbourne, so I have to get some grants. But with a ~5-8% funding rate this shouldn't be a problem with the US-NSF, should it?

*Lip begins to tremble*
*One tear wells slowly in left eye. AE looks down, as the tear breaks free from the porches of his eye, and makes its way slowly down the tip of his nose, where it resists gravity momentarily and falls utterly into his coffee*

Its just my allergies, man. Did you catch the last (game/match/tournament) of (whatever professional sports figure/team you support)? What a (game/match/torunament)!

Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized | April 9, 2010 3:47 PM

@224 - goodness, are you talking about Borders? (where I work a grand 4 hours a week) - sure sounds like it. I swear, top management is getting huge bonuses for driving a perfectly good company into the ground.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | April 9, 2010 3:50 PM

Joking aside: do you really deny that there are businesses which operate on very tight profit margins and which subsist by underpaying their workers?

And exist in towns wherein they're the only sizable employers, except for all the competing businesses that operate under the exact same model? And widget prices are unfavourably fixed by OWEC?

No. I contend however, that such situations are few and far between, and are not indicative in anything we'd consider to be a healthy economy anyway, so to suggest that minimum wages are de facto bad because they have a slim chance of harming bob and his family in such unlikely conditions is about as serious as positing magical cat feces, no matter how many times you use that mainstay of economics texts, the 'widget'.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 9, 2010 3:53 PM

do you really deny that there are businesses which operate on very tight profit margins and which subsist by underpaying their workers?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 9, 2010 3:56 PM

Walton, the point is that your argument falls apart in any and all situations that resemble reality, and are only plausible in the shiny, invented confines of your hypotheticals...

Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées | April 9, 2010 3:59 PM

Interesting, indeed.

My Political Views
I am a left social libertarian
Left: 4.83, Libertarian: 3.82

Posted by: Paul | April 9, 2010 4:02 PM

Let's say Bob's sister, Bobbette, works as a cook at a local family diner for $4 an hour. With lots of competition from McDonald's and other chain restaurants, the diner already struggles to make a profit, and only just stays afloat. Then, the new minimum wage law forces the diner to raise Bobbette's pay to $6 an hour. With having to pay higher wages to all the staff, they can't compete, and the diner goes out of business. Bobbette is out of a job. What does she do?

Let's say she cooks 6 meals an hour. They raise the average price by 25 cents. McDonalds will likewise have to increase prices to pay their employees $2 more an hour, each, so this has no potential to hurt them relative to the McDonalds (and it will actually hurt them less, since the family diner has fewer employees than the family diner).

This is why your examples are stupid. You make too many unrealistic assumptions, and when people call you on how full of shit they are you change the subject or just throw out another example. Seriously, it's sad to watch.

Posted by: Paul | April 9, 2010 4:07 PM

Let's say she cooks 6 8 meals an hour. They raise the average price by 25 cents. McDonalds will likewise have to increase prices to pay their employees $2 more an hour, each, so this has no potential to hurt them relative to the McDonalds (and it will actually hurt them less, since the family diner has fewer employees than the family diner McDonalds).

This is, of course, ignoring that the family diner would likely be able to legally operate similar to restaurants, where they don't even need to pay minimum wage. It's assumed that the employee gets a certain percentage of tips, that count towards their "minimum wage" even though the employer is not paying it.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | April 9, 2010 4:09 PM

Also clarify how the government funding the difference between what you are paid, and what is an acceptable level of pay, is anything other than as bad as (or worse than)the protectionism you're railing against - essentially all businesses could pay their min wage workers nothing, with the government subsidising the workforce, thus allowing businesses to outcompete foreign interests with less insane business setups - why pay Indian kids $1 a month when you can pay Bob the Widget maker from Arkansas (he deserves a back story I feel, particularly given that he is apparently explosive) absolutely bugger all because Uncle Sam will cover the difference.

Yeah, I admit that idea wasn't well-thought out. But my general point stands.

=====

Bill,

I do quite seriously believe it's unconscionable to tolerate businesses that can't survive unless they pay less than a living wage for labor. I consider this a matter of social justice, rather than of economic policy...

I wasn't claiming that it's somehow morally good, or even morally acceptable, to operate a business model which relies on underpaying one's employees. It certainly isn't. Rather, I was making a purely practical argument; given that such businesses exist, putting them out of business by enacting minimum-wage laws will tend to increase unemployment.

It may be, of course, that you consider it better to have higher unemployment than to have people earning below-subsistence wages. From the individual's perspective, that, of course, has to depend how much welfare provision is available for the unemployed. (Though, ex hypothesi, if people are choosing to work in below-subsistence jobs rather than claim welfare, we can assume that the amount of welfare support available to them is less than the wages they're earning.) From a governmental perspective, it also has to depend on how big your potential tax base is, and whether you can afford to support an increasing non-working population.

Posted by: Paul | April 9, 2010 4:15 PM

I'm sure there's no shortage of people here who can explain why this vision is naive, but never mind: I said from the start that it's an impossibly utopian dream, and I don't even pretend to be trying to bring it about.

Eh, you have my vote.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 9, 2010 4:19 PM

Oh and sorry I didn't mean to imply no business models are used, just nothing that simplistic. Yet in common discussion it is almost always reduced to that. It doesn't make sense if you look at budget from within a business KWIM?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 9, 2010 4:24 PM

Poor Walton, you're so good at getting off track from studying. You go do your work. People need a good lawyer. You're letting them all down :P

Posted by: Paul | April 9, 2010 4:27 PM

Yeah, I admit that idea wasn't well-thought out.

Can you think out your analogies before posting them like they demonstrate something meaningful? It would really save a lot of people a lot of desk-inflicted cranial trauma.

But my general point stands.

How so? You haven't yet made a plausible, realistic argument about anything you've stated on this topic. You're back to arguing by your gut, siding with what "feels right" while pulling nonsensical examples out of your ass to support your feelings. At least you're recognizing that your model doesn't really fit when you're told so by people who know things, but why do you use them in the first place if you have no reason to believe they are in any way realistic?

Posted by: The Laughing Man | April 9, 2010 4:27 PM

590-165=425 left!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 9, 2010 4:31 PM

*claps*

Will I get in trouble if I fall a little in love with Brownian?

Posted by: The Laughing Man | April 9, 2010 4:35 PM

hmm now only 407

Posted by: Ewan R | April 9, 2010 4:37 PM

On actual impacts of minimum wage, rather than Bobworld:-

first one

second one

third one

You can probably only get the abstracts, rather than the full articles, however it appears from these two that there is at least no reason to believe that Bobworld is an accurate representation of what occurs when min wage is implemented, or increased - it appears you don't get much of an effect on employment either way (although the third article suggests an increase once you do all kinds of manipulations)

Does peer reviewed economics carry the same weight as peer reviewed science?

(I'm guessing given the awesome state economists have imposed upon us the answer must be yes)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | April 9, 2010 4:39 PM

You haven't yet made a plausible, realistic argument about anything you've stated on this topic. You're back to arguing by your gut, siding with what "feels right" while pulling nonsensical examples out of your ass to support your feelings.

Well, I said right at the start of the discussion that I wasn't at all sure I was right about the minimum wage issue. I started this discussion in order to hear some alternative views and learn things. In that regard, it has been very successful. (Though, regrettably, the adventures of Bob and Friends have also been very successful at allowing me to procrastinate from work.)

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | April 9, 2010 4:48 PM

Metaphors be with you, Ol'Greg.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 9, 2010 4:53 PM

You did that just for the halibut, didn't you?

Oh, no... you had to go and do that, didn't you Sili...

Ok, then... here you go...

"She gave me that same old line: Not tonight, I got a haddock".

Posted by: Dianne | April 9, 2010 4:55 PM

He's an ambitious, conservative law student, who just wants to serve the constitution.

I'm confused. I thought walton was British. Shouldn't he be serving the Magna Carta or something?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | April 9, 2010 4:59 PM

I see quite a lot of this argument has gone on while I was laboriously composing mine @235!

Walton (@214):

So you think American workers are more important than Chinese workers, and that their livelihoods should be artificially protected against competition from better and cheaper Chinese products?

While I confess I feel a greater sense of duty to my actual neighbors than to strangers on the other side of the global, still of course Chinese workers are not morally less important than American workers. Human beings are morally equal, regardless of what flag they salute, just as they are morally equivalent regardless of the color of their skin or what genital configuration they possess or who they want to screw. It's just as morally wrong to exploit Chinese labor as to exploit American labor.

That said...

Why do national borders - which are, after all, just imaginary lines - matter so much to you?

...national borders matter not because of arbitrary geography, but because they mark the limits of my capability to directly affect the law: I can vote for a minimum wage law (well, by way of voting for lawmakers who support it, that is) here; in China, not so much. The only way I can influence Chinese law at all is by influencing U.S. policy — including trade policy — toward China.

Protectionism is morally wrong.

Maybe so, but IMHO, paying less than a living wage is morally wrong, as well. My interest in potential trade sanctions is not so much in protecting American jobs as it is in protecting laborers' rights around the world. My preference would be that laws everywhere would protect all workers' right to a living wage (and to a safe workplace and reasonable hours). As for my own country, I can work for that end through direct political action; as for other nations, my only recourse is to support policies that make worker abuse/quasi-slavery less profitable.

When we have global guarantees of decent treatment of labor, then your hypothetical unfettered free trade might be morally preferable; absent such guarantees, it's just cover for the exploitation of your fellow humans.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | April 9, 2010 5:00 PM

"scum. filthy,degenerate scum. every man jack of 'em."

...54 translations later we get:

"In October the decision."

Is Bad Translator quantum entangled with Lenin and Trotsky c.1917?

left 3.5 lib 1.54

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | April 9, 2010 5:05 PM

Not all that surprising:

You are a left social libertarian.
Left: 5.94, Libertarian: 4.81

Funny how I've grown redder over the years.

Posted by: Dania | April 9, 2010 5:08 PM

I should really get back to work now (I have exams to study for).

Yes, do not do what I did today. I don't think I have ever procrastinated so much. I eventually got to a point where I just said to myself "Fuck it, I won't be doing anything productive today so I might as well give up trying". Oh well, I just wasted a whole day. And I also have exams to study for. But fuck it, I won't be touching those books till tomorrow.

Posted by: Paul | April 9, 2010 5:12 PM

I promise you that the writing will be much tighter once this project is green-lit.

More likely that once the project is green-lit you'll be turned into a reasonably straight-acting gay guy and Walton will be replaced by a woman. 50% chance she's a hot blonde, 50% chance she's Debra Messing.

You don't really expect a show centered around 2 male characters would take off, did you? Well, maybe you can both stay male and just add a kid to the main cast. But no way the execs don't throw you a curveball.

Posted by: Aquaria | April 9, 2010 5:17 PM

Give you a hint, though...the largest town in my area of E. Tex has an enormous white statue standing to the south of it.

Oh dear. If I'm right about where you are, my cousin went to your university.

You don't forget that statue.

Posted by: Ted Zissou | April 9, 2010 5:23 PM

№2 - Jadehawk OM

"Atheism is an Anti-christian conspiracy created by the Jesuits. The final hoax in this fraud to discredit the Bible is going to be a fake staged alien invasion. Expect that to happen soon."

Reminds me of Yellow Blue Tibia - good book,really entertaining, but the ending was lame.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jan/10/yellow-blue-tibia-roberts-review

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | April 9, 2010 5:27 PM

The State Board of Higher Education voted yesterday to retire the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo.

hope it'll go over without permanent damage to anyone/anything.

The NSF has decided to leave the topics of evolution and the Big Bang out of their polls of the American people "because the survey questions used to measure knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious beliefs."

My Political Views I am a center-left social libertarian Left: 2.44, Libertarian: 7.63

Well duh. I dunno if that link will work. Look ma' I'm a hair away from an anarchist :D

anyway:
You are a left social libertarian.
Left: 6.54, Libertarian: 5.9

I guess I'm an (almost)anarchist, too :-p

I would argue that if a business cannot afford to pay a decent wage to its staff then it is not a viable business.

I think the idea of an armed populace as a guard against tyranny was coherent in the eighteenth century, when the Second Amendment was ratified. However, weapons technology has moved on somewhat in the past 200 years, and it is now rather less plausible that a chaotic rabble armed with handguns and rifles would be able to fight off police or military forces of a tyrannical state.

:-p

Mobility is hugely important to me, the more restricted people's ability to move and alter their situations the worse the government is IMO.

Mobility is hugely important to me, the more restricted people's ability to move and alter their situations the worse the government is IMO.

So you think American workers are more important than Chinese workers, and that their livelihoods should be artificially protected against competition from better and cheaper Chinese products?

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | April 9, 2010 5:29 PM

Sorry be herring it, CE. You'll always have a plaice in my hart if it's any consommé.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 9, 2010 5:35 PM

Did you catch the last (game/match/tournament) of (whatever professional sports figure/team you support)? What a (game/match/torunament)!

fuckin' A

I once knew a woman who really was named Bobette. Guess she still is.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | April 9, 2010 5:41 PM

More likely that once the project is green-lit you'll be turned into a reasonably straight-acting gay guy and Walton will be replaced by a woman. 50% chance she's a hot blonde, 50% chance she's Debra Messing.

You don't really expect a show centered around 2 male characters would take off, did you? Well, maybe you can both stay male and just add a kid to the main cast. But no way the execs don't throw you a curveball.

Hmm. I was hoping I could get away with being myself, a reasonably gay-acting straight guy (I don't mean to; it's just how I kind of come across). Can't we cite Bosom Buddies, Frasier, and Two and a Half Men as precedents? We'll definately need a kid or a retiree thrown into the mix. Or, a hot neighbour à la The Big Bang Theory for us to fight over.

Given the content of Rome, I can't help wondering if you're actually coming on to our little Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome? ;^)

Not where I was going, but that's not a bad idea. We'll save that for a third season cliffhanger, should we go that long. Because really, what would the show be without the two main characters constantly looking for love but being thwarted at every turn? Walton falls in love but she really wants me; I find someone who I figure I might be able to spend the rest of my soul-crushingly depressing years with--did I mention my character is older and jaded, perhaps a semi-bitter single 34-year-old?--but she's the head of the local chapter of Libertarians Without Borders. But eventually something's gotta give, especially when I invite the whole gang from the pub over for a pot-fueled Rock Band party on the night Walton has to study for finals...

Man, this show practically writes itself!

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | April 9, 2010 5:46 PM

some actual studies on the effect of minimum wage on employment showed absolutely no negative correlation, so this whole "minimum wage causes unemployment" thing seems to be a right-wing myth.

It's impossible to tell, because you can't control for the effects of all the other complex factors that affect unemployment rates at any one time.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | April 9, 2010 5:47 PM

I fucked up one of the quotes that should be:

What if the business is one with a very tight profit margin, and having to pay workers higher wages eliminates the profit margin?

-----

Rather, I was making a purely practical argument; given that such businesses exist, putting them out of business by enacting minimum-wage laws will tend to increase unemployment.

But consider this. Exploited workers in the developing world work in sweatshops, in bad conditions for long hours and low pay, because it's the best of the options available to them: in general, those other options tend to include begging, prostitution or starving on the streets.

the sweatshops didn't plop down into a jobless, choiceless landscape. they replaced a different landscape, and they in turn can be replaced by yet another. I see no evidence whatsoever that the sweatshop model is the best for anyone involved.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | April 9, 2010 5:48 PM

Brownian: What does Libertarians Without Borders do, exactly? My curiosity is piqued. :-)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | April 9, 2010 5:53 PM

the sweatshops didn't plop down into a jobless, choiceless landscape. they replaced a different landscape, and they in turn can be replaced by yet another. I see no evidence whatsoever that the sweatshop model is the best for anyone involved.

OK, then. Prior to industrialisation, what options were available to people in, say, rural China or rural India, other than gruelling subsistence agriculture?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | April 9, 2010 5:57 PM

Jadehawk (@282):

Are you channeling your inner David M? Based on formatting and layout, I couldn't tell the diff between your post and his that followed! ;^)

Brownian (@288):

I was hoping I could get away with being myself, a reasonably gay-acting straight guy...

That expression reminded me of a fascinating book I read called Accidental Playboy, a memoir of a writer named Leif Ueland who, as a neurotic, sexually unconfident man raised in the most radical feminist tradition, somehow fell into the job of web correspondent for Playboy magazine's 1999 bus tour in search of the Playmate of the Millennium! He mentions in the book that, to that point, his biggest writing job had been an online essay for Nerve entitled "The Trials of a Gay-Seeming Straight Male."

I recommend the audio version of the book: It's sexy, funny, poignant, and thought-provoking, all in one.

Posted by: Xenithrys | April 9, 2010 6:00 PM

Antiochus @ 226
All I'll say here is I'm a lot closer to Melbourne than you are and we have a statue of a man with a dog downtown.

And I sympathize with the funding problem; we have that problem every time a conference is in the northern hemisphere. And even the Melbourne IBC is timed to suit the northern botanists who'll be in mid-summer, but we'll be teaching.

Posted by: Paul | April 9, 2010 6:15 PM

Man, no reaction on the new Razi letter? I'll include more information from the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612457.stm

AP says the 1985 correspondence, written in Latin, shows Cardinal Ratzinger saying that Kiesle's removal would need careful review.

Cardinal Ratzinger urged "as much paternal care as possible" for Kiesle.

Kiesle was sentenced to six years in prison in 2004 after admitting molesting a young girl in 1995 [the letter was signed by Ratzi in 1995].

Kiesle is now 63 and is on the registered sex offenders list in California.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | April 9, 2010 6:20 PM

Prior to industrialisation, what options were available to people in, say, rural China or rural India, other than gruelling subsistence agriculture?

the agriculture of a lot of the now industrializing places was not subsistence agriculture (the stone age parts of china excluded, but those are still stone age parts with subsistence agriculture, so nothing's changed); it was turned into such by the trade-offs required for the opening of markets for the products of their sweatshops, and eventually it was made entirely unprofitable, so now you've got farmers committing suicide left-right-and-center because industrialization has destroyed their livelihood.

My point was specifically that sweatshops didn't make things better; they replaced what was there with something that was worse for the majority of people involved. Better alternatives do exist, but not as long as the western world continues on its current trajectory. Hence the suggestion for tariffs based on labor and environmental standards.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | April 9, 2010 6:23 PM

Okay, it's time for Ye Olde Œconomyst to pontificate on minimum wage.

In 1999 a minimum wage was introduced in the UK. The business community and the Tories wept bitter tears over this, claiming it would cause the end of British civilization as we know it. Now the concept is no longer controversial and the Conservative Party have reversed their opposition to it.

Since its introduction, minimum wage has been extensively studied by government and non-government economists and particularly by the Low Pay Commission. It was discovered that rather than make employees redundant, employers have reduced their rate of hiring, reduced staff hours, increased prices, and have found ways to cause current workers to be more productive (especially service companies). Neither trade unions nor employer organizations contest the minimum wage, although the latter had especially done so heavily until 1999.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | April 9, 2010 6:25 PM

It was discovered that rather than make employees redundant, employers have reduced their rate of hiring, reduced staff hours, increased prices, and have found ways to cause current workers to be more productive (especially service companies).

[emphasis added] Er, I rather think that supports my point.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 9, 2010 6:33 PM

really should stop procrastinating and go to bed now, so that I can get up and actually do some work tomorrow morning.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | April 9, 2010 6:35 PM

Ocean-powered underwater vehicle

NASA, U.S. Navy and university researchers have successfully demonstrated the first robotic underwater vehicle to be powered entirely by natural, renewable, ocean thermal energy. The Sounding Oceanographic Lagrangrian Observer Thermal RECharging (SOLO-TREC) autonomous underwater vehicle uses a novel thermal recharging engine powered by the natural temperature differences found at different ocean depths. Scalable for use on most robotic oceanographic vehicles, this technology breakthrough could usher in a new generation of autonomous underwater vehicles capable of virtually indefinite ocean monitoring for climate and marine animal studies, exploration and surveillance....

Posted by: Lynna, OM | April 9, 2010 6:39 PM

Cyber Espionage Report

A cyber espionage report titled Shadows in the Cloud: An investigation into cyber espionage 2.0 documents a complex ecosystem that systematically targeted and compromised computer systems in India, the Offices of the Dalai Lama, the United Nations, and several other countries. Jointly released by The Information Warfare Monitor (Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto and the SecDev Group, Ottawa) and the Shadowserver Foundation, members of the research team held a news conference April 6, 2010, to discuss their latest findings.
     The report analyzes the malware ecosystem employed by the Shadows' attackers. The system leveraged multiple redundant cloud computing systems, social networking platforms and free Web hosting services in order to maintain persistent control while operating core servers located in the People's Republic of China (PRC). Although the identity and motivation of the attackers remain unknown, the report provides evidence that the attackers operated or staged their operations from Chengdu, PRC...

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 9, 2010 6:49 PM

Oh man. The subthread almost doubled while I was writing comment 283.

I'll take the test tomorrow. I predict I'll complain at length about the short-sighted and generalizing assumptions in almost every question :-þ

Having said that, it is certainly easier to dominate an unarmed populace than an armed one, but would it be impossible to dominate an armed populace?

Saddam proved the opposite.

Conversely, would it be impossible for an unarmed populace to overthrow a tyranical government?

Within living memory: Serbian, Ukrainian, Georgian revolutions... there was help from outside, but it was financial and logistic.

On the other hand, would it be possible for an unarmed government to maintain a tyranny?

Probably not; can't think of an example right now.

But for the sake of argument, let's say Bob

...will explode if he gets fired. [...]

ROTFL!

widget prices are unfavourably fixed by OWEC

What I just said :-)

And if a minimum wage means that a net positive number of businesses fail, causing a net loss of jobs (neither of which I actually believe is likely), guess what? I still think it's better to have people on public support than to tolerate a system that abjectly exploits labor: Life on the dole may be undignified and unfulfilling, but it's got to be better than killing yourself for the right to slowly starve; paying for the dole may seem unfair and frustrating, but it's better than participating in the exploitation of your neighbors.

Repeated for truth.

she doesn't have to dodge as many meth-heads on the way

:-D :-D :-D

[...] I fall a little in love with Brownian

:-)

AKA, "Walton's Hypothetical Mountain".

?

So if well-meaning Westerners, by way of boycotts and trade sanctions and the like, manage to close the sweatshops

But we've been through this on Jadehawk's blog: in China, if a sweatshop decides to pack up and leave, where is it going to? Some have already gone to places like Ghana. Once they reach Ethiopia, it's over, and wages can only rise anymore.

Within the last 20 years, jobs migrated from Germany to the Czech Republic to Ukraine to China, and AFAIK always the next step was taken because the wages had become too high in comparison. What happened? The Czech Republic has joined the EU, the formerly poorer Slovakia has even adopted the €, and Ukraine has started applying for EU membership (I don't know how official this is, but the idea exists).

and minimum wage isn't 1 million dollars.

ONE – MILLION – DOLLARS!!!
– Dr Evil

way to miss the point. see, this situation is a standard Tragedy of the Commons type of situation, because we have no lawgiving and -enforcing body above the multinational corporations. So, the only way to not fuck everybody everywhere up, like it generally happens in these scenarios, you have to use a form of peer-pressure to enforce a standard. Tariffs that are based on worker and environmental protections are precisely that. Manufacturing counties bow to pressure from their export markets all the time, might as well use that to improve people's lives, rather than participate in the race to the bottom and enslave the vast majority of the world's population in sweatshops.

I didn't previously have a coherent opinion on tariffs. Tired as I am tonight, it took me some time to understood yours, but now it's mine, too. Thank you.

Posted by: Flex | April 9, 2010 6:51 PM

To be perfectly fair to Walton, his "Bob and Friends" argument is something I've heard before. As a way to introduce students to some basic economic concepts in an introductory economics course it seems to be pretty standard. (Although Walton puts a new twist on the idea by suggesting a increase of 50% rather than the usual 10% or 25%. :) )

The problem I find, which cropped up when I was taking engineering classes, is that many students get this far, don't realize how oversimplified the model is, and never take another economics course (or self-study) to learn that there are other factors which affect the outcome. Then, being the arrogant bastards we engineers are, we assume that we know everything about the subject.

But this discussion does remind me of my favorite Rodney Dangerfield movie, "Back to School" where at one point the economic professor starts talking about widgets and Thorton Mellon pipes up with a dozen different things the economics professor leaves out. Of course, in that case he's talking about greasing the palms of politicians and the teamsters, but the principle is the same.

I wish I could contribute more here, but my time is limited. Good night everybody.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | April 9, 2010 6:57 PM

I didn't previously have a coherent opinion on tariffs. Tired as I am tonight, it took me some time to understood yours, but now it's mine, too. Thank you.

And it should be noted that the vast majority of currently existing tariffs don't work like that; but they can, and they're a way to use your own democracy to effect positive changes elsewhere.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | April 9, 2010 7:00 PM

For the laughs, here's one of Joseph Smith's love letters, written to Sarah Ann Whitney (oldest daughter of Joe's friend Newel K. Whitney and his wife) on August 18, 1842:

Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and & c. [meaning Sarah]--
     I take this opportunity to communicate, Some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so Strong for you Since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you Seems so long, and dreary, that it Seems, as if I could not live if you long in this way; and Three would come and See me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour; in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things.
     I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrums farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant, indeed, all three of can you come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the the house att window; it is next to the cornfield; I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect know Safty, it is the will of God that you me should comfort now in this time of affliction, or not at all, now is the time or never, but I hav no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of, is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be Safe, but when She is not here, there is the most perfect Safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertaking; but so much the greater friendship, and the more will Joy, when I see you I tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as youread it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it.
     one thing I want to see you to for is git the fulness of my blessing Sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my ernestness on this subject when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good make feelings know how to every allowance for me, I close my letter.
     I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your and most obedient, affectionate, Companion, and friend.
Joseph Smith

Posted by: Lynna, OM | April 9, 2010 7:11 PM

Good news! Tiger Woods wore shoes decorated with pink stitching! No, wait, that's not news. That's crappy pop culture that was aired on NPR fer fuck's sake.

Now this is good news: Alaskan Legislators have rejected Al Barrette.

Lawmakers, meeting in joint session Friday, voted 31-27 against Al Barrette....
     Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, said he knows Barrette and thinks it's commendable that he's been so open about his hunting, fishing and tannery work. Barrette also became a lightening rod after he gave a videotaped interview in which he was seen skinning a wolf and espousing the Bible to explain man's dominion over animals.
     He later said that was taken out of context and that he believed in science-based management of the state's wildlife.
     Critics have said Barrette's decisions consistently favor one group -- hunters -- regardless of scientific data and public sentiment.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | April 9, 2010 7:21 PM

Speaking of teen girls...

I want to apologize for any and all confusing posts over the last few days (and probably this post, too). The teen girl of the family is having a birthday, and chaos reigns. This is the girl who was a spoiled, selfish, only child all her life, and who recently went into her rebellious-teen drama-queen stage, which was a bit like ...

Holy shit! There is a spot of light and shadow that looks just like Jesus on my wall!

... adding amphetamines to a rabid wolf. Well, the birthday girl feels that it is her time to be treated extra special, and indulged in every way, which is a bit like ... like ... it's like Emperor Nero in drag, testing sleep deprivation as a torture technique.

Don't tell her mom I said that.

The Jesus is gone now.

I wouldn't be worried, except I am listening to muezzin calls on my MP3 player ...

Posted by: Legion | April 9, 2010 7:28 PM

Shit just got real for the Pedophile Defender in Chief^TM

Yahoo News:

AP Exclusive: Future pope stalled pedophile case
By GILLIAN FLACCUS, Associated Press Writer Gillian Flaccus - 36 mins ago

LOS ANGELES – The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including "the good of the universal church," according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.

The correspondence, obtained by The Associated Press, is the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office

Benny Ratz has got some 'splainin' to do.

Posted by: John Morales | April 9, 2010 7:33 PM

My results:

Left: 3.08, Libertarian: 3.42

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 9, 2010 7:40 PM

Ad at the top: www.mypyramid.gov in Spanish.

It's impossible to tell, because you can't control for the effects of all the other complex factors that affect unemployment rates at any one time.

So... economics is forever unknowable...?

I checked now, and /l/ has obvious lateral release whereas /ð/ has the blade of the tongue staying nicely nestled in the floor of the mouth. It's the tip that darts up the lower front teeth.

...I think I get it now. That's a surprising sound, but being surprised about Danish seems to be a rather pointless enterprise anyway...

yes, but it would cost society as a whole less to have fewer people working below a living wage in general, even when a larger proportion ends up unemployed. unemployment is what happens when you have a global labor glut; might as well use it to everybody's benefit instead of inanely fighting it on principle.

Bingo.

Are you channeling your inner David M? Based on formatting and layout, I couldn't tell the diff between your post and his that followed! ;^)

Great minds think alike <duck & cover>

now you've got farmers committing suicide left-right-and-center because industrialization has destroyed their livelihood

I had forgotten about this, but I've heard of it. Just to offer some confirmation.

density per unit volume

<headdesk> X-)

I'm aiming to limit myself to no more than ten posts tomorrow.

See that six-screener up at 283? Aim to limit yourself to a number of screenfuls. Maybe 5.

grammatical clusterfuck :-p

I didn't even notice :-)

They lived on Walton's Mountain.

:-D Thanks!

Translation: I am really horny. I am so horny that I can't spell nor write coherently.

They should have pulled the Deseret Alphabet through instead of chickening out. (I'm too tired to spell the Wikipedia link out. There must be one.)

Alaskan Legislators have rejected Al Barrette.

*phew*

Holy shit! There is a spot of light and shadow that looks just like Jesus on my wall!

Lenin has appeared, on Phil Plait's shower curtain. The photo is somewhere on Bad Astronomy.

Posted by: Ted Zissou | April 9, 2010 7:53 PM

№327 Menyambal

I wouldn't be worried, except I am listening to muezzin calls on my MP3 player ...

Better call in OSS 117,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8z3YIOrPk0&feature=related

Sorry, couldm't find it with subtitles but it shouldn't matter.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | April 9, 2010 8:05 PM

Ted Zissou, thanks for the vid. I lived next door to a mosque during Ramadan, and often thought of doing running over and wrecking up the place.

It wouldn't have been so bad, except they always cranked the volume up to 11, and distorted the hell out of what were actuially some amazing voices--well, that and the fact that we had supplied the speaker system and had left the volume set at 9, and I had pled to be allowed to take the knobs off and pour glue into it.

So now I have choice of material and volume and can enjoy.

P.S. And thanks for the language practice. My MP3 player also has beginner French lessons.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | April 9, 2010 8:24 PM

Flex #319

To be perfectly fair to Walton, his "Bob and Friends" argument is something I've heard before. As a way to introduce students to some basic economic concepts in an introductory economics course it seems to be pretty standard.

An analysis of supply and demand of the type shown in introductory economics textbooks implies that by mandating a price floor above the equilibrium wage*, minimum wage laws should cause unemployment. This is because a greater number of workers are willing to work at the higher wage while a smaller numbers of jobs will be available at the higher wage. Companies can be more selective in those whom they employ thus the least skilled and inexperienced will typically be excluded.

I'll introduce a word many of you won't know but should: monopsony. You're familiar with the concept of monopoly, where many buyers have to deal with one seller. A monopsony is when many sellers deal with one buyer. When there is significant unemployment, an employer can chose between several applicants for each job. This tends to reduce the equilibrium wage since an applicant is more willing to accept a lower wage rather than be unemployed.

*Equilibrium wage is a theoretical concept. It supposedly happens when workers and employers adjust the quantity of labor supplied according to price until the quantity of labor demanded is equal to the quantity of labor supplied, reaching an equilibrium where the supply and demand curves intersect.

Posted by: John Morales | April 9, 2010 9:47 PM

Menyambal,

Yusuf Islam, that's Cat Stevens, doing the Adhan call to prayer.

That sounds uncannily similar to the saeta, a chant often performed "spontaneously" during Semana Santa (Holy Week) celebrations in southern Spain.

I wonder why? ;)

('Tis very Christian, to a Spaniard.)

Posted by: wylann | April 9, 2010 10:32 PM

Ok, totally offtopic, but I'm casting Summon Pharyngula Horde to help a friend. =)

Please for #13 here:
http://rolleasykansas.com/Page-Five-Girl-Contest.html
I'm not even sure what she'll win.

Thanks all.

Posted by: Red John | April 9, 2010 10:53 PM

HACK THIS POLL!

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | April 9, 2010 11:07 PM

We'll save that for a third season cliffhanger, should we go that long.

Ahem.

"That's what she said."

(Could it be that I've been spending too much time in the company of my son and his friends?)

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | April 9, 2010 11:55 PM

(Could it be that I've been spending too much time in the company of my son and his friends?)

My boyfriend has that on a T-shirt

Posted by: blf | April 10, 2010 3:43 AM

You are a left social libertarian.
Left: 4.77, Libertarian: 4.59

Did you catch the last (game/match/tournament) of (whatever professional sports figure/team you support)? What a (game/match/torunament)!

Yep! Leinster 29 Clermont Auvergne 28. Didn't get home 'til after midnight, many beers, and some sushi.

Posted by: akshelby | April 10, 2010 4:23 AM

Lynna @330

Not sure if you've heard or posted (I was busy with my last day of work at this job before moving up north) but: Al Barrette's appointment to the Board of Game was Rejected, as was a anti-choicer to the Board of Nursing. I was astonished.

Just got a call from Mudflatter R, who is in Juneau and was present at the vote. He says that there was obvious tension in the air over this controversial appointment. He commented that Sen. Lyman Hoffman spoke passionately about Mr. Barrette’s history of opposing subsistence issues. Bill Wielechowski was an eloquent spokesman for all the reasons this appointment was troubling. There were 15 or 20 people in the gallery, and he wondered how many would have turned out if the vote had taken place in Anchorage.

http://www.themudflats.net/2010/04/09/al-barrettes-nomination-to-alaska-board-of-game-is-denied/

Posted by: blf | April 10, 2010 5:09 AM

I tried to be a wingnut (I imagined myself as The Rat, or Cheney), but I could only achieve:

You are a far-right social authoritarian. Right: 7.94, Authoritarian: 6.96

I did manage to get a “perfect” 10 on the “conservative” (wingnut) cultural, but missed some tricks on foreign policy, where I could only get 8.24.  ;-(

Does this mean I'll be kicked out of WND, KKK, AiG, Faux News, Discovery Inst., and Rapture Ready as unacceptably libturd?

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | April 10, 2010 5:35 AM

Thus confirming what we knew already: the views of Pharyngulites typically range from centre-left to raging anarcho-communist. I'm an outlier.

I also note that there is no one here who came out as socially authoritarian.

So a Pharyngulista society would look something like Annares from The Dispossessed. :)

I tried to be a wingnut (I imagined myself as The Rat, or Cheney)

This version of the test puts many world leaders in the right-authoritarian quadrant. Wouldn't surprise me if there were some truth to that. Oddly, it also puts Pope Benedict in the "left". (Note: I also took this test a while ago and I remember getting basically the same results I for the one we're using here.)

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | April 10, 2010 5:44 AM

You are a far-left social libertarian.
Left: 8.53, Libertarian: 3.91

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | April 10, 2010 6:03 AM

It kind of defeats the purpose.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | April 10, 2010 6:29 AM

ok, i tried to be as left-wing authoritarian as possible, and all i managed was 1.2, but ended up at 9.5 left wing.

it's evidently nearly impossible to become a left-wing authoritarian on that quiz. I imagine the more centrist you get, the more authoritarianism from the right-wing you can absorb...

Posted by: SC OM | April 10, 2010 8:01 AM

Hee. Not only am I not the first to come up with that, you can even get the t-shirt:

http://www.cafepress.com/myleftwing

(Original thought is clearly not possible for me this early in the day. Nor, for that matter, is particularly coherent thought.)

Posted by: John Morales | April 10, 2010 8:32 AM

Xplodyncow, duh.

You can walk from your house to a nearby house, but you cannot possibly walk from your town to another town.

To think otherwise is blind faith, and "travellers" who claim otherwise are just pulling your leg.

Dontcha know anything?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | April 10, 2010 8:47 AM

it's evidently nearly impossible to become a left-wing authoritarian on that quiz. I imagine the more centrist you get, the more authoritarianism from the right-wing you can absorb...

No, I think that's because most of the "authoritarian v libertarian" questions on the quiz reflect culturally conservative authoritarianism. Authoritarians who want to ban abortion and gay marriage, for instance, or entrench nationalism and suppress criticism of war leaders, are (perhaps by definition) right-wing, since the goals they wish to achieve are culturally-conservative ones.

But there are also left-wing authoritarians who want to achieve left-wing social goals by authoritarian methods - the likes of Lenin or Alexandra Kollontai, for instance, who sought to achieve a radical restructuring of society, and an abolition of class inequality and bourgeois social norms, through using state violence and other forms of coercion. In terms of her goals, Kollontai was the polar opposite of today's religious social conservatives; IIRC, she advocated the complete abolition of the traditional family and the raising of all children in communal creches, as she saw this as the only way to achieve full equality between the genders. Yet she, and the other Bolsheviks, were unquestionably authoritarians

In essence, I think the the left-right axis on the test refers to the social goals you wish to achieve, whereas the authoritarian-libertarian axis properly refers to the methods you wish to use to achieve your goals, whereas

Posted by: John Morales | April 10, 2010 8:58 AM

Walton, your desire to share your political acumen is bor..., um, entertaining, but I remind you that you're using up your self-imposed comment quota for today.

Exams, remember? :)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | April 10, 2010 9:06 AM

Since the sun is shining, the birds are coughing in the trees and, most importantly, the wind is blowing, I'm off to do something on the water.

Posted by: SC OM | April 10, 2010 10:35 AM

I have a Honduras update on my blog:

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2010/04/honduras-struggle-for-democratic.html

***

A belated response to negentropyeater:

As Jadehawk said, your questions were totally irrelevant. I wasn't comparing certain corporate media shows in the US to others in the French MSM. I was merely challenging your characterization of the French TV news as unbiased. But since you asked... I don't as a general rule trust the corporate print or broadcast media, including the wire services, and wouldn't use them as my primary source of information, though some are decent at times on specific issues. The stories they cover are selected in a specific way, and they lie routinely. You can see from my blog where I get most of my news. But in fact, I think (the relatively recent model of) allegedly "neutral" news is a strange and in effect bogus concept and nothing to aspire to. I want people to present the situation as they see it truthfully and to support their presentation honestly with evidence. I also want them to focus honestly on what they see as important. I'll come to trust or distrust people or organizations over time depending on how honestly, accurately, and comprehensively (in the sense of demonstrating an understanding of global historical context) they've presented things.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | April 10, 2010 11:25 AM

akshelby @353: See my comments #325 and #330. I added some info in #330 that we hadn't discussed previously.

Seriously pleased to see that mudflatter and others are following up on the rejection of Barrette with letters to the legislators.

A few people are pushing for an investigation of Peay and of SFW. I'd like to see Rachel Maddow rip into them.

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 10, 2010 12:10 PM

and just to make myself look less original and brilliant, and add an appeal to authoritygravitas to my argument, I figured out where I encountered that particular argument for tariffs recently. And by a real true economist, even!

Blah, blah, blah. You read Krugman, I don't, that makes you more brilliant than me already. :-)

(I've read one little book by Stiglitz, and Development as Freedom by Amartya Sen, but that's it.)

I don't really expect any idea to be original. Good ideas are usually stolen. Even in science, where people go to some length to track citations, discoveries often happen only by combining ideas that had been floating around (often in print) for years, sometimes decades.

at least in your case it's your kids. My boyfriend has that on a T-shirt

Don't complain about your boyfriend in my presence. It might...

...it might give Sili ideas.

Oddly, it also puts Pope Benedict in the "left".

This is not odd at all. The Catholic Church has never preached the Prosperity Gospel; Catholic social teaching has always been to the left of the capitalist mainstream. Together with the Social Democratic parties it is a big part of the reason why things like universal health insurance were introduced all over western Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century. If nothing else, it's why such things aren't considered left-wing-only over here, in stark contrast to the USA.

[misanthrope]this is almost enough to make one believe in Karma[/misanthrope]

"Almost" indeed. Karma wouldn't have taken out only one Kaczyński.

...Reminds me of an incident at the dig in Krasiejów in 2007. On a Saturday evening, around the campfire, wine was offered. I noticed it said 2008 on the box. Bemusedly I asked how this was possible. The guy who had explained Poland's proud history to me at every opportunity said "In Poland, everything is possible! <short pause> Even a potato can be president!" And there was much rejoicing.

...to raging anarcho-communist

Rage, rage against the lying of the Right!

LOL!

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | April 10, 2010 2:13 PM

No, I think that's because most of the "authoritarian v libertarian" questions on the quiz reflect culturally conservative authoritarianism. Authoritarians who want to ban abortion and gay marriage, for instance, or entrench nationalism and suppress criticism of war leaders, are (perhaps by definition) right-wing, since the goals they wish to achieve are culturally-conservative ones.

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 10, 2010 3:17 PM

Liveblogging the political-spectrum quiz:

1. Laws should restrict abortion in all or most cases.

Well, no. "Disagree strongly". But much exactly does that matter to me? Over here, there's zero political discussion about it, even the Catholic Church only dares to mention it once every 10 to 15 years. ... OK, let's* think of the USA and take "a lot".

2. Unions were indispensible in establishing the middle class.

Agree strongly, matters a lot.

3. In nearly every instance, the free market allocates resources most efficiently.

Hm. Let's say "disagree", and it matters 4 out of 5? "Allocates resources most efficiently" is such an abstract, general claim (means: libertarian terminology) that I can't really think it through...

4. Public radio and television funded by the state provide a valuable service the citizens.

Absolutely, and that's very important. Not only do corporate broadcasters have their own biases, public broadcasters are expected to be biased toward the ruling party of the moment and therefore tend to work extra hard at avoiding the appearance of such bias.** Also, they're less dependent on ads. A movie that isn't interrupted by 20 minutes of ads every 10 minutes is "a valuable service [for] the citizens"!!!

5. Some people should not be allowed to reproduce.

Ouch. ... No, I believe people can learn. There are lots of people who have children and simply have no clue what do with them, but I want to believe that's a lack of education rather than somehow genetic. So it boils down to a human-rights issue, and that means "disagree strongly" and "matters a lot". Well, does it matter a lot? It's not likely to ever come up in reality... oh, sorry, that's not libertarians' first concern. :-)

6. Access to healthcare is a right.

Yes, and not going bankrupt or dying from lack of access to healthcare is another right of utmost importance.

7. The rich should pay a higher tax rate than the middle class.

Absolutely. Money must be taken from those who have it, not those who don't. Money must be taken from where it just lies around and generates interest and political power, not from where it's immediately spent and thus preserves and creates jobs and stuff. Flat tax is horror.

8. School science classes should teach intelligent design.

Nope.

9. Marriage must be heralded for the important role it plays in society.

<pft> It doesn't really play an important role, does it. And what does "heralded" mean in terms of actual policy? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

So, naaah. I take "disagree strongly". But how important is that to me? ... OK, I'll think of the American situation, like Focus on the Patriarchy and Proposition 8, and claim it matters a lot when in a European context it doesn't really.

10. Sometimes war is necessary, even if it means you strike first.

I can imagine such situations. A few have probably occurred in meatspace, but they're clearly extremely rare. So, what – if anything – did those libertarians mean by "sometimes"??? ... Got it: I take "disagree" and "matters a lot".

11. Patriotism is an overrated quality.

Not only that. It fosters similar irrational attitudes, and it leads to killing people. Away with it already.

12. Radio stations should be required to present balanced news coverage.

Ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch. ... No, actually... no. They should be required not to lie and not to knowingly omit, as far as that can be determined, but "balanced" sounds too much like "there are exactly two sides to every question in the fucking universe, and the truth always lies exactly in the middle" – "we distort, we deride". Full-on "disagree strongly" and "matters a lot". I'm remarkably extremist on almost everything, eh?

13. Government should do something about the increasing violence in video games.

Is it increasing???

Cause and effect of any correlation between videogame and meatspace violence isn't clear, AFAIK the correlation itself isn't clear... I'll take the libertarian position and disagree strongly. And no, I've never played anything more violent than Civilization II, where (I think) I used nukes once or maybe twice. (Deterrence doesn't really work in that game... but SDI works, LOL!)

How much does it matter to me? I don't care about videogames at all, but if we make a general principle out of it... hm. I'll be lazy and leave it in the middle.

14. If our leader meets with our enemies, it makes us appear weak.

Fuck you live on national, public-owned TV.

15. We must use our military from time to time to protect our supply of oil, to avoid a national crisis.

Translation: only UNsAnians will ever take this quiz.

Well, no. In the real world most of us live in, enough oil-producing countries depend economically on Western countries buying their oil, so there are always enough means of pressure available – never mind the longer-term issue that the addiction to oil is unhealthy in the first place. So, I can afford to be full-on pacifistic about this.

16. Strong gun ownership rights protect the people against tyranny.

Saddam.

Strong gun ownership rights kill people.

17. It makes no sense to say 'I'm spiritual but not religious.'

Neutral, matters "a little" (strange how "not at all" isn't an option). Depends all on the definitions, which the libertarians who wrote the quiz thought were somehow obvious in detail.

18. It is not government's responsibility to regulate pollution.

Responsibility. Responsibility! Obviously, it's the perpetrators' responsibility, not that of the paternalistic state who infantilizes the poor little corporations, right? Right? Wrong. Tragedy of the commons, tragedy of economic competition (like natural selection) lacking any foresight. It is the government's responsibility to prevent capitalism from destroying itself and killing people in the process.

19. Gay marriage should be forbidden.

Nope.

20. It should be against the law to use hateful language toward another racial group.

Wow. What next? Have I stopped beating my nonexistent wife yet?

Obviously, it shouldn't be against the law to call someone a demented fuckwit when they happen not to share my almost complete lack of a skin color. That would be ridiculous, and against human rights. But it's pretty obvious they're actually alluding to the American "hate crime" debate, which is about a completely different issue (committing crimes that are motivated by racism).

What will happen if I simply don't answer this question? Will I get an error message?

21. Government should ensure that all citizens meet a certain minimum standard of living.

Yes, in spite of the stomach-twistingly libertarian language which suggests that government should force all citizens to have a certain minimum standard of living even if they'd prefer to live as ascetic monks and even if nobody can pay for it. Morons.

22. It is wrong to enforce moral behavior through the law because this infringes upon an individual's freedom.

Define "moral", morons. Killing is immoral, right? So a law infringing upon an individual's right to chainsaw massacres is right, right? But isn't it obvious they didn't even think that far and instead thought of things like what consenting adults do in their bedrooms?

I'll simply assume they were thinking of the obvious and take the libertarian position on it. <sigh>

23. Immigration restrictions are economically protectionist. Non-citizens should be allowed to sell their labor domestically at a rate the market will pay.

They should be allowed to sell their labor domestically at the domestic minimum wage or above. But if I click "disagree strongly" and "matters a lot", I'll come across as xenophobic and authoritarian, right?

I'll try not to answer this one.

24. An official language should be set, and immigrants should have to learn it.

See, I disagree more strongly with the part before the comma than the part behind the comma. They're not the same thing.

OK, "disagree" and matters 4 out of 5.

25. Whatever maximizes economic growth is good for the people.

There's half a word in this that I disagree strongly with: "-ever". So... should I say "disagree strongly" and "matters a lot" just because of that part? Or should I answer it as if it were "what maximizes economic growth is good for the people"? Because that's by no means always true (and that point is very important to me), but it's true more often than not.

Hm.

I'll take "disagree", let it matter 4 out of 5, and be unhappy about the general situation.

26. Racial issues will never be resolved. It is human nature to prefer one's own race.

This isn't a question of political orientation, morons. It's a question of knowledge, an empirical issue, a matter of observed fact.

No. The Cape Verde Islands exist, and races don't. "Disagree strongly", "matters a lot", and I'm almost angry.

(The population there has been panmictic for centuries. There are, for example, people there who have dark brown skin and light blonde, curly hair.)

27. People with a criminal history should not be able to vote.

Disagree strongly. Why should a murderer be incapable of knowing whether the universities should get more money? Why should an embezzler be incapable of knowing whether marijuana should be legalized? Because it's a human-rights issue, and because of those incredible voter roll purges in several US states, it matters a lot.

28. Marijuana should be legal.

I don't see a reason to treat it differently than alcohol and tobacco; in many aspects it's more harmless than either, and what exactly you smoke can hardly matter in terms of cancer and other effects of incomplete combustion.*** So, legalize it already. Because it's a rights issue, I'll claim it matters a lot, even though it matters jack shit to me personally.****

29. The state should fine television stations for broadcasting offensive language.

I disagree strongly, but it only matters "a little", because it's merely ridiculous rather than dangerous.

30. It does not make sense to understand the motivations of terrorists because they are self-evidently evil.

ROFLOL. If you don't understand the motivations, how do you imagine you could ever do anything against them? Disagree strongly, matters a lot.

31. The lower the taxes, the better off we all are.

Nope.

32. Minority groups that have faced discrimination should receive help from the state to get on an equal footing.

Surprisingly moderately worded, so it doesn't even get into the American affirmative-action debate. Good. That means I agree strongly and consider it very important.

33. It is wrong to question a leader in wartime.

That's dangerous stupidity.

34. Tighter regulation would have prevented the collapse of the lending industry.

Again an empirical question! Fucking postmodernists!

Based on my limited information, I agree strongly and consider that very important, but that could be the Dunning-Kruger effect at work here.

35. It makes sense and is fair that some people make much more money than others.

Now I need to interpret "much".

I'll take "agree" and let it matter 3 out of 5... no, 2.

36. Toppling enemy regimes to spread democracy will make the world a safer place.

Only if it really spreads democracy, and only if no tyranny finds means and opportunity to use this reasoning backwards. So... disagree, and it matters a lot.

37. The state has no business regulating alcohol and tobacco products.

A tax on costly stupidity, with the aim of keeping healthcare financeable, isn't a bad thing. Disagree strongly, matters a lot.

38. If an unwed teen becomes pregnant, abortion may be a responsible choice.

Badly worded question. Even someone who would only allow abortion to save the mother's life***** could answer this question with "agree strongly" and "matters a lot" – "teen" and "unwed" are completely irrelevant the way the question is worded! This is, therefore, what everyone who isn't too high up in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church will inevitably choose (assuming they think that far).

39. International trade agreements should require environmental protections and workers' rights. (meaning: no free trade with countries that lack pollution controls or labor protections)

Hey cool, that's exactly Jadehawk's Krugman's point. :-) Agree strongly, matters a lot!

40. Gay equality is a sign of progress.

But what if I'm a reactionary and think progress is inherently bad? :-)

OK, I'm not one :-)

41. The state should be able to put a criminal to death if the crime was serious enough.

Nope.

42. The military budget should be scaled back.

Funny – a blanket question that I actually can answer in a blanket manner for the entire world rather than just for the USA! :-) Yes, you don't need to be a pacifist to see that there's a lot of waste going on here, waste of money that's urgently needed elsewhere.

43. Economic competition results in inumerable innovations that improve all of our lives.

Yes. Funnily enough, competition is inherently unstable and can only be kept alive artificially, by a strong state, but that's not what's asked...

44. It is not our place to condemn other cultures as backwards or barbaric.

If they insist on exactly these two adjectives, I agree entirely and consider that important, but I bet that's not what they mean. Disagree, matters a lot (...like almost everything in the quiz... I find that disturbing).

45. When one group is slaughtering another group somewhere in the world, we have a responsibility to intervene.

Who's "we"?

But I'll say yes anyway. Watching is not a defensible option.

46. We'd be better off if we could just lock up some of the people expressing radical political views, and keep them away from society.

As long as expressing those views is all they do, and as long as we can reasonably expect that other people won't go too far in expressing the views in question, no. So I can pretend to be a libertarian, even though I'm pretty fine with the laws of Austria and Germany that forbid "making National Socialism appear less harmful".

47. Unrestrained capitalism cannot last, as wealth and power will concentrate to a small elite.

The opposite, capitalism has to be constantly restrained from annihilating itself... OK, that amounts to the same thing. Agree strongly, matters a lot.

48. It is a problem when young people display a lack of respect for authority.

Nope.

49. When corporate interests become too powerful, the state should take action to ensure the public interest is served.

Yep.

50. A person's morality is of the most personal nature; therefore government should have no involvement in moral questions or promote moral behaviors.

Are chainsaw massacres a moral question? Another I'll try not to answer... especially because it's identical to question 22! Morons!

51. The state should not set a minimum wage.

Wrong.

52. A nation's retirement safety net cannot be trusted to the fluctuations of the stock market.

Again an empirical question – Enron, to mention just one.

53. Offensive or blasphemous art should be suppressed.

Nope. Nobody forces me to look at it.

Surprisingly, it allowed me not to answer all questions, though it doesn't tell me how it counted those that I didn't answer either. Result:

You are a left social libertarian. Left: 6.9, Libertarian: 4.08

Foreign Policy:

On the left side are pacifists and anti-war activists. On the right side are those who want a strong military that intervenes around the world. You scored: -5.42

Culture:

Where are you in the culture war? On the liberal side, or the conservative side? This scale may apply more to the US than other countries. You scored: -8.67

Unspectacular, I suppose. It is surprising, though, that I'm to the left of Jadehawk's 6.54. I didn't expect a noticeable difference, and indeed there is none, but I expected any difference to go in the other direction... are the questions I didn't answer distorting the results, or did I do more exegesis of the poorly worded questions, or both? ~:-|

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

* I always talk to myself in the plural when telling myself what to do.
** Naturally this doesn't always work. Demonstrations against the education policy of Austria's right-right coalition government were underreported, for instance.
*** Of course I'm aware that smoking isn't the only way of marijuana consumption. Just to show my life isn't that sheltered. :-]
**** I'm already relaxed, if not too relaxed. I don't need anything that stinks, tastes bad, or messes directly with my brain chemistry. Rant over. :-)
***** Note how suggestively I said "mother" rather than just "woman".

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 10, 2010 3:33 PM

The crashed plane was a Tupolev. Why am I not surprised.

The previous head of Austria's Social Democratic Party was a certain Alfred Gusenbauer. In the 1970s that guy looked like Che and/or Castro; once he flew to Moscow and kissed the ground when he arrived. Why did he do that? To mock the pope? Nooooo – because he had flown in a Tupolev, says the joke.

um... Walton... that's precisely what I meant, so why are you making it sound like you're disagreeing with what I said?

Because he's too distracted by his studies to pay attention to Pharyngula :-) :-) :-)

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 10, 2010 3:39 PM

although maybe I should put it on my blog instead of taking up space here :/

Oh fuck, I filled over 15 laptop screens. <Walton>My excuses are</Walton> that it was liveblogging in the sense that I didn't know how many questions there were when I started, and that I don't have a blog.

If you put it on yours, let us know!

Posted by: Rorschach | April 10, 2010 3:54 PM

Thanks, but... in case you intend to add that famous special ingredient

Reminds me, what does one drink in Copenhagen beer-wise, Tuborg?
Passes the 12 pint-headache test IIRC, haven't had any for ages tho...:-)

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | April 10, 2010 4:06 PM

Results for the political spectrum quiz:

You are a far-left social libertarian.
Left: 9.19, Libertarian: 4.89

Questions I had a problem with

Radio stations should be required to present balanced news coverage

I mildly agreed with this, but the term "balanced" really bugged me. News coverage should be fact based. If one position (creationism for example) has no basis in fact, it shouldn't be given the time of day.

If an unwed teen becomes pregnant, abortion may be a responsible choice.

I agreed strongly with this and rated it as very important, but something about the wording bothers me. I feel like the question is forcing me to make value judgments about being a single mother. Jerks.

It is not our place to condemn other cultures as backwards or barbaric.

This one was hard. I do think damaging cultural practices (FGM for one) should be roundly condemned as barbaric and an assault on human rights. OTOH, just because a culture doesn't follow Western practices doesn't mean it is "bad." Gah, couldn't they be clear about what they're referring to?

It is a problem when young people display a lack of respect for authority.

I only disagreed mildly with this. "Young people"
is too vague. Very small children do need to trust authority figures so that when a parent or other adult says "Don't touch the hot stove." or something similar, the children listen. This is simply to protect them from physical harm. OTOH, as a child grows up they should be questioning authority and the conventional wisdom. That's how society progresses.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 10, 2010 4:15 PM

Ha1 Ponn Farr perfume.

Note that also available are Tiberius and Red Shirt colognes.

No, I am NOT making this up. Doesn't everybody want to smell like a doomed security ensign? Or, worse, Scotty?

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | April 10, 2010 4:18 PM

Tuborg is the working class choice, traditionally. I think. I'm a latecomer to beer. Alternative is Carlsberg.

Personally, I don't much care for plain pilsner. It's really boring. If you like something ordinary with a bit of taste, look for the 'Classic' brews. They're also from the major brewers anyway.

But speciality beer has really come in vogue the last decade, so I really recommend looking for something like that. Carlsberg is in on the deal as well - of course - but there are plenty of small provincial breweries as well. If you want an excellent (if a bit pricey) night out, book a table at Nørrebros Bryghus - they have tasting menus designed around their own beers. Up to four courses.

Beer in restaurants are expensive, so you might want to just go into a supermarket and buy something. The best pilsner I've had, myself, is from Ærø called Grolle Pilsner - very very hoppy.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | April 10, 2010 4:23 PM

*five courses

Rise bryggeri

This might come in handy
http://www.goodbeer.dk/forside.php

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | April 10, 2010 4:41 PM

David Marjanović #379

...Reminds me of an incident at the dig in Krasiejów in 2007. On a Saturday evening, around the campfire, wine was offered. I noticed it said 2008 on the box. Bemusedly I asked how this was possible. The guy who had explained Poland's proud history to me at every opportunity said "In Poland, everything is possible! Even a potato can be president!" And there was much rejoicing.

Many years ago I read a story in Playboy* about an American in an Eastern European country in the 1970s. He was taking a train to a small town, missed his stop, and got off at the next station. He explains his situation to the station master who shakes his head and says "You're a very silly man." The American offers to pay the extra fare for going too far and will buy a ticket back to his original destination. But the station master explains: "You silly man, here in Slobovia the trains all run in the same direction, making big and little circles around the country. You can't go back, only forward." The station master pulls out his schedule book to figure out how to get the silly person to where he wants to go, continually muttering about "silly man." Finally the American asks "Why do you keep calling me a 'silly man'?" The station master replies "Because you're here in Slobovia."

*I normally only read Playboy to look at the pictures of naked women. Very rarely did I read any of the stories or articles.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | April 10, 2010 5:07 PM

I am very proud of myself. I've done eight hours of productive studying today, and mostly stayed away from the internet - and the one online argument I've had, on the Pope thread, was actually about international law, so it counts as extra studying. :-)

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | April 10, 2010 5:41 PM

Started to read that linked blog article about evolution. Saw a sentence saying something about how a "partially evolved" species cannot be fit. Threw up in my mouth a bit and had to close my browser. Even when I was a YEC I didn't have that kind of distorted view of evolution.

Posted by: SEF | April 10, 2010 5:58 PM

The latest Doctor Who episode was a bit of a ripoff of this. Perhaps the writers had something to say to Christians - viz that their New Testament and subsequent history of evilness was all built on a horrible mistake ...

Posted by: monado | April 10, 2010 6:45 PM

Walton, my cousin got a lot of studying done by sleeping four hours and studying four hours.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | April 10, 2010 6:48 PM

Rage, rage against the lying of the Right!

lol

But wearing the teeshirt in these hyar parts could go....badly. And I am old, and lame, and lame, and can't run away very fast, and don't have a gun (for self protection!).

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | April 10, 2010 6:52 PM

SC OM, maybe apply heat to the lid of the jar, and cold to the jar of the jar, simultaneously? Then twist the lid using a rubber sheet?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | April 10, 2010 7:18 PM

Piltdown Man sighted on "Pope...BUSTED!" thread.

The boy just cannot stay away, even when it's obvious he's not welcome.

Posted by: SC OM | April 10, 2010 7:29 PM

Jesse over at TFK:

Let me put this question another way then.

We have a physicist. He has published papers and has contributed much to the field. He might even be a Nobel winner.

He says, "I believe God created the universe."

Is he scientifically illiterate? I've just described the Astronomer Royal (Rees).

It's one thing to ask if people know why science works the way it does. Whether they believe those conclusions is a different question entirely.

This has come up in the surveys, by the way. When you ask people if the theory of evolution posits common descent, you get a large majority answering "yes." If you ask whether they believe in common descent the answer is often "no." That says to me that plenty of people understand (at least in a rudimentary way) the science. They just don't accept it.

That's the difference. ou seem to be assuming that is someone answers the latter question "no" then they are scientifically illiterate. C S Lewis was far from illiterate in that regard. He just chose to reject the many of the premises. Quite rationally, I might add. Same with the Jesuits (who produced some top notch scientists, in their day).

And saying people are lying or crazy isn't terrifically helpful. If you take the existence of God, for instance, as axiomatic, as unarguable as the existence of the universe, then you're going to come to a different set of conclusions than you would. And really, you can't, ultimately, prove or disprove the existence of God, anymore than you can prove why a certain system of ethics is better or worse.

This is why this can get awfully close to the realm of philosophy. I mean, you can't prove that we aren't in the Matrix, either (the old brain in a vat problem). But saying so doesn't make one scientifically illiterate. (In a sufficiently cleverly designed system, you couldn't tell one way or the other).

See what I mean? Part of what I am getting at is how you phrase the questions about science itself. I;m not arguing that one belief system is any better or worse, or that science can't tell you anything. Just that how you ask about science will determine whether someone looks scientifically literate or not. I think the whole way the question is posed ignores the compartmentalization people engage in on a daily basis.

Ugh. I think I'm arguing with Intersection drones.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | April 10, 2010 7:33 PM

SC,

I tried to post a response to that particular bleat and got a "permission denied" response. Is there some protocol I'm ignorant of?

Posted by: Rorschach | April 10, 2010 7:39 PM

I tried to post a response to that particular bleat and got a "permission denied" response.

I should know better, being overtired after night shift and all, but I just posted something there, went through without a glitch.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | April 10, 2010 7:43 PM

I pointed out that Rees uses a God of the Gaps to put his god into the time before 1×10^-47 seconds after the Big Bang but that otherwise Rees agrees with mainstream astrophysicists about the Big Bang. I compared Rees to Rick Warren, who says he knows and understands evolution but given a choice between evolution and the Bible goes with the Bible. Rees isn't scientifically illiterate, Warren has made a conscious decision to be scientifically illiterate.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | April 10, 2010 7:48 PM

I don't know and, at this point, having tried to post my damn comment and got a "permission denied" response again, I don't care.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | April 10, 2010 8:27 PM

Waaaaaay back at #68 Sven replied to the statement, "Alice Cooper is frigging awesome," by succinctly noting that, "oh, he is not."

Thank you, Sven. I've been waiting hundreds of years to hear that. He is not awesome. Just another screamer. Thanks again.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 10, 2010 8:28 PM

I like Sven's taste in music. I really do.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | April 10, 2010 8:50 PM

For everyone who gets bugged when they hear 'literally' being misused:

http://xkcd.com/725/

Also, there's this post questioning whether it's really being misused:

http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1499/

(via Language Log)

Posted by: SC OM | April 10, 2010 9:21 PM

Gentlemen :),

Evidently you can't post there while you're signed in here. You have to sign out here and then close out and reopen or refresh the page there.

Please do pharyngulate. That blog annoys me.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | April 10, 2010 9:23 PM

Sweet Cheezits. Mega Piranha. I guess Tiffany got jealous of Debbie Gibson's Giant Octopus.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | April 10, 2010 9:28 PM

Oh man, and it's on RIGHT NOW. "I think you'd better look at this. This specimen has at least half a dozen new organs, and it's a hermaphrodite - it can BREED ON ITS OWN." (says Tiffany)

Antiochus, your wife rocks.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 10, 2010 9:34 PM

Exhibit E:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaqr3_bob-dylan-a-hard-rain-1964_music

Exhibit F:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTya-9u-q_k

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 10, 2010 9:41 PM

Exhibit I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3wbVcGpUdw

Exhibit J:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9OPfF2yTKs

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 10, 2010 9:45 PM

Link to Lay Lady Lay. Hic.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 10, 2010 9:47 PM

Careful Sven or I'll do the same.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 10, 2010 9:54 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdO_CmfFKYE

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 10, 2010 10:00 PM

Earworm from the late 60's.

http://popup.lala.com/popup/432627095098572727

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 10, 2010 10:08 PM

Since Sven is inflicting Greatful Dead B-sides on us, here's something similar from one of my favorite rockers, Meat Loaf:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02nIKodm_3I

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 10, 2010 10:10 PM

The Spring tour of 1977 is generally acknowledged as among, if not the, Dead's best, period. 4/27/77 was in Passaic, NJ, just before the all-time-classic early May shows in New Haven, Boston, Cornell, and Buffalo.

o, for a time machine

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 10, 2010 10:21 PM

More Pre-Sven music. Iron Butterfly. Time for bed.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 10, 2010 10:32 PM

Ok let's do this:

A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA8pjHN_l-A
B:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puph1hejMQE

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 10, 2010 10:36 PM

And for those who like a melody...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmpLtYmSlvM

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 10, 2010 10:38 PM

E:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLBtbLFSAyk

F:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFhRkR1wgX8

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 10, 2010 10:43 PM

G:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0LF6WA9rxI&feature=related

H:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3coSfks4rQ

Posted by: John Morales | April 10, 2010 10:55 PM

and I bet you guys are really hating all these links

Nah, I just ignore them as noise. I have no clue to what they refer to, and I'm not in the habit of clicking on unknown links.

How hard is it to use <a href="URL">descriptive information</a> rather than a naked, lazy URL alone?

Too hard for many here, apparently.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 10, 2010 11:04 PM

Yeah, John. I like Dylan but I hate the Dead. Not about to click through Sven's music mix to find it.

This is Wu Tang Clan, C.R.E.A.M. from Enter the Wu Tang (36 Chambers), 1993.

Produced in the Shaolin Slums.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 10, 2010 11:08 PM

AE likes Grizzly Bear.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | April 10, 2010 11:23 PM

The latest Doctor Who episode was a bit of a ripoff of this.

Yeah, but at least it gave a realistic expectation of when there will be a black Queen of the UK: in 1300 years.
*smiles in Walton's general direction*

Posted by: Rorschach | April 11, 2010 12:45 AM

Have you guys seen this ???

Dawkins, Hitchens team up to have Pope arrested

Posted by: Rorschach | April 11, 2010 1:11 AM

CW,

I actually seem to remember that *gasp* Pilty posted something about this on the "busted" thread earlier, but his posts obviously got purged by PZ. I just read it on the RD website, it got posted only a short while ago.

And I disagree with those that say the RCC is too big to fall or somesuch, believers want and need the church as a moral authority, and fucking kids and protecting kidfuckers is not going to sit well with the devout, even in christian hotspots like South America or Africa.

Posted by: ambulocetacean | April 11, 2010 1:18 AM

Feynmaniac #352. Yeah, I know I came out libertarian because I don't care what kind of hot sweaty secks goes on between consenting adults and because I don't want governments legislating (bible-based) morality.

It's interesting that the L word (libertarian) has become a bit of a bogey word for me and now triggers knee-jerk revulsion inside my own little head. (Yes, I know that the human brain technically doesn't have knees; no need to write in).

I'm sure it's the same with most Americans and the socialism word. At least, though, I'm aware of the phenomenon and have some understanding of what the L and S words mean in various contexts.

In other hot, sweaty, athletic, hard-bodied, man-on-man sex news, Australian Rules footballers are launching an anti-homophobia campaign.

There are as yet no openly gay players in the AFL. Interesting/sad that a similar campaign by English soccer authorities didn't happen this year because the players wouldn't get behind it.

Posted by: Rorschach | April 11, 2010 1:58 AM

Lecture time !!!

Sean Carroll--Making of the Fittest

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | April 11, 2010 2:02 AM

Can the Catholic Church ever really come apart?

Just look at the history of it. There have been Borgia popes, two popes at a time, priests hiding in holes under floors, small groups meeting in huddled secret, and every other damned thing.

We might be at a point in history, though, where it may happen. Most of the little people--congregants, victims, believers, marks, whatever you call them--are now getting most of their information about the world from someone who is not their priest. It used to be that all they knew about the pope came from within the church, but now they get their news from the news media. So this scandal may hit the church harder than anything ever could before.

But there are still going to be people who believe, and who do not listen to anything but the church. Well, we will just have to wait for them to get old and die.

This may be the begiining of the end, after all.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | April 11, 2010 2:21 AM

I'm sure it's the same with most Americans and the socialism word.

Yeah. Ask Americans what 'socialism' means and many won't even able to come up with a coherent answer. Seriously, the way it's used by the media and politicians is like something out of Orwell. They may as well just call use 'ungood' instead.

Funny, even with this massive campaign against the term 36% of Americans view 'socialism' positively.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | April 11, 2010 2:32 AM

Or maybe Palin is proving the idea by becoming a correspondent on Fox?

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | April 11, 2010 2:33 AM

As a parting shot I'd like to recite a little poem that I learned long ago. It may or may not be apropos.

I once went on a flicker
And my gut was full of liqueur.
I don't mind telling you
That I was fried.
As I lay there in the gutter
Not a damned word could I utter.
A pig walked up
And lay down by my side.
Then a woman walking by
Cast me a scornful eye.
These are the words
She had to say to me:
"You can tell a man who boozes
By the company he chooses."

And that god damned pig got up and walked away.

Posted by: John Morales | April 11, 2010 4:00 AM

PZ, a spammer with UID 'njnkeng' is cluttering recent threads.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 11, 2010 6:17 AM

Indonesia has more volcanoes than any other country. The fount of all knowledge, wikipedia, has a list of 150 volcanoes in Indonesia.

The geography of Indonesia is dominated by volcanoes that are formed due to subduction zones between the Eurasian plate and the Indo-Australian plate. Some of the volcanoes are notable for their eruptions, for instance, Krakatau for its global effects in 1883, Lake Toba for its supervolcanic eruption estimated to have occurred 74,000 Before Present which was responsible for six years of volcanic winter, and Mount Tambora for the most violent eruption in recorded history in 1815.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 11, 2010 8:41 AM

Today's Chicago Tribune Magazine had an article on atheists.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2010 9:37 AM

How hard is it to use [the a/href html tag] rather than a naked, lazy URL alone? Too hard for many here, apparently.

Bite me, Morales. It's not too hard, it's a decision. Don't click on the you-tube links, what do I care. It has been the convention for a long time here on the Thread (and Pharyngula generally) to post music as naked you-tube URLs.
Personally, I like it that way. Each link is like a little present that I unwrap by clicking, and somethimes I choose to listen and sometimes--Meat Loaf, e.g.--I abort immediately. You know what? That's not that hard either.
Janine has her own system, in which she often uses a lyric from the song as the link. That's not any more helpful unless you already know the song well enough to recognize the lyric. But it works too. DEEP RIFTS
If you're too much a fucking stodge to click on unidentified links *sniff* then DON'T. You know who loses out? You; a pretty impressive diversity of musics gets posted here and you might learn something. I do, and I find I'm actually more likely to click on a naked URL posted by somebody I respect than I am something identified that I've never heard of. Perhaps I'm weird.
I intend to keep posting them. Not out of laziness or lack of courtesy, by preference. Feel free to continue not clinking them. *shrug*
look, there's one now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSaxuKTN8xc

PZ, a spammer with UID 'njnkeng' is cluttering recent threads.

Now this comment, otoh, is truly pointless noise. Do you really imagine that teh CO finds out about broadcast spammers by reading comment #487 of the Thread???

Posted by: iambilly | April 11, 2010 9:49 AM

Rorshach:

Thank you for some real music.

(I'm at work, so I cannot watch videos, but thank you for bringing in actual good music.)

Are you familiar with "Oh, Had I a Golden Thread" by Seeger? One of my alltime favourites. (No, can't post a link to it (see previous parenthetical)).

(And I actually got to meet Pete Seeger many, many, many years ago (not at my high school, though (nobody famous went to Boonsboro HS)))

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2010 9:57 AM

thank you for bringing in actual good music

give me a fucking break

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtiSA2RKDzc

take that

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 11, 2010 10:20 AM

Oh music wars continue. I actually like the surprise too. But I'll label. I highly encourage people to let themselves be surprised though. It could be wonderful, you never know!

This morning I got up and went to an implosion so I'm trying to upload the little vid of it now, and eating some pancakes. Did you know you can make pancakes with sourdough yeast? I didn't but now I do. It makes freaking great pancakes!

Anyway... it's harder for me to find music I truly dislike.

M: China Doll GD (live)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3EiuDM2Xic&feature=related

Sven I dedicate this to you. I grew up listening to them, they're one of my dads favorite bands.

N: Love- Andmoreagain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h82sL4cTXSU
I cover this one some times

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | April 11, 2010 10:45 AM

I'm bored.

What does one do when atheistic and accidentally awake at 10am on a Sunday?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 11, 2010 10:59 AM

What does one do when atheistic and accidentally awake at 10am on a Sunday?

Posted by: blf | April 11, 2010 11:04 AM

What does one do when atheistic and accidentally awake at 10am on a Sunday?

Go back to sleep?

I suppose you could pop a baby in the oven so that it'll be nicely cooked in time for lunch.

Posted by: boygenius | April 11, 2010 11:30 AM

...it's only fractured. Just a little nervous from the fall.

I think Jerry gets a disproportionate share of the credit for his repertoire. Hunter's lyrics give a sense of timelessness to the whole body of work. Without Robert, Jerry would be reduced to endlessly noodling over cover tunes. IMHO.

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 11, 2010 11:52 AM

On the subject of "mice are nice", I forgot to mention this yesterday, more precisely the third picture and the bracketed text above it. Are the house mice of the London Underground a separate species (under some species concept), the way its mosquitoes (Culex molestus) are?

Also, there's this post questioning whether it's really being misused:

Heh. The literal German translation of "literally", buchstäblich, means "utterly, but metaphorically". I don't think I've ever seen it in a non-metaphorical context. If you actually want to say "I'm not being metaphorical here", the word to choose is wörtlich, literally "wordly" (..."verbally"?), or even the strange doubling wortwörtlich. Wörtlich is also used to describe exact quotes.

Language is mostly metaphor anyway. Start with the two meanings of back for a very obvious example...

I can't wait to find out where I lie on the (six dimensional) 'Political Calabi-Yau manifold'[™]!

Sounds awesome (I had read about C-Y manifolds before), though the math soars way over my head. But, yes, do trademark it.

The Bad Translator gives the lie to the translation horror story of a certain Biblical quotation being translated into Russian & back and transforming into "The vodka is strong but the meat is rotten":

Ehem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_language

Not the same thing. Though I bet it works with Russian, too, nowadays.

And why the eight year hiatus after the restoration?

Because it's shown to the public every 10 years.

In other hot, sweaty, athletic, hard-bodied, man-on-man sex news, Australian Rules footballers are launching an anti-homophobia campaign.

Hee.

Interesting/sad that a similar campaign by English soccer authorities didn't happen this year because the players wouldn't get behind it.

Soccer is a lot more heterosexual, especially now that so many women have started watching it the players on TV.

Like the Soviet Union crumpled slowly before our eyes.

Maybe.

The fount of all knowledge, wikipedia, has a list of 150 volcanoes in Indonesia.

There are lists of fucking everything and anything on Wikipedia. Sadly, no articles with the names "List of lists on/in Wikipedia" exist. :-(

Ouch ...

<suit & tie> I bet the "constantly" part tends to be counterproductive. <raised index finger>

Today's Chicago Tribune Magazine had an article on atheists.

Spoiler follows:

THE STORK COMES.

FOR GREAT JUSTICE.

Daughter: Music is like candy. It's great if you throw away the (w)rappers.

There's one rap I'd like to hear, the one in Lakhota. (Ejective consonants are as if made for rapping!) Was mentioned in the linguablogosphere a few years ago, I can't find it with reasonable time investment.

I'm bored.

What does one do when atheistic and accidentally awake at 10am on a Sunday?

LOL!

But... you're on the Internet. You can never be bored again. :-) Click on somebody's blogroll and get lost in it!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2010 12:08 PM

Without Robert, Jerry would be reduced to endlessly noodling over cover tunes. IMHO.

...instead of endlessly noodling over his own tunes?

Favorite comic from lang ago: Garcia, playing with closed eyes, and the thought-baloon: "I'll just keep jamming until I can remember the words."

But, yeah, totally agree--Hunter's lyrics make the songs what they are, whether that deep sincere heart-of-the-human-experience bitterweet thing that only Garcia could pull off, or the streams of trippy imagery.

Posted by: iambilly | April 11, 2010 12:24 PM

Jadehawk:

What does one do when atheistic and accidentally awake at 10am on a Sunday?

Call my boss, apologize and tell him I'm on my way to work?

Sven: I dunno, Rebel Yell isn't too bad. I can listen to that once or twice. A month.

Jeffrey D: My approach to music is similar to my approach to history -- I keep going back until I can find the actual root of an idea. So, in high school, I went Bob Dylan to Woody Guthrie to the Asche recordings. I went from the Dead Kennedy's to the Beatles to (eventually) rockabilly/folk. It gets weird sometimes. Right now, I'm reading Georges Duby's The Three Orders to help me understand the tripartite division of French society at the beginning of the French Revolution.

David: When in elementary school in Arizona, some of my classmates were Havasu, Hopi and Navajo. Sometimes they would sing some of the children's chants (rap?) which I found both beautiful and mildly frightening. I can't picture it done as rap, though.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | April 11, 2010 12:33 PM

I'm bored.

What does one do when atheistic and accidentally awake at 10am on a Sunday?

Bacon-fueled orgy?

Posted by: llewelly | April 11, 2010 12:43 PM

Feynmaniac | April 11, 2010 2:21 AM:

Funny, even with this massive campaign against the term 36% of Americans view 'socialism' positively.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | April 11, 2010 12:55 PM

When I read that, I immediately began to wonder about the Linnaean species description for a Roman Catholic priest.

Hypocrita maximus?
Caelibatus insanus?
Taedium buzzkillius?
Juvenis removeo?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2010 1:23 PM

It's about 350 Gb in Ogg-Vorbis

hmm, that would make an interesting possession

AUD? SBD? or mixed?

Posted by: boygenius | April 11, 2010 1:37 PM

Sven,

Some are AUD, some are SBD, some are Matrix. Many, many shows are duplicated with the best available copy of each format.

One of my favorite things to do is listen to the SBD of a show and then listen to the AUD. Or vice-versa.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 11, 2010 1:45 PM

Yay! I uploaded my little video :D I've been up since 4 for that. It actually was really cool.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 11, 2010 2:08 PM

Oh I don't know why this needs to be so hard!?

Maybe you should give me some way to contact you and we can try it the other direction!!!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2010 2:13 PM

Elwood, perhaps shoot me an e to svendimilo at gmail dot com?
I happen to have just the drive.
Many thanks.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | April 11, 2010 2:20 PM

China Girl-Iggy Pop

Perfect Day-Kirsty MacColl

The Passenger-Siouxsie And The Banchees

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 11, 2010 2:24 PM

Completely forgot to mention what the Austrian TV news said about the Polish government plane crash.

The correspondent from Smolensk thinks that Kaczyński himself ordered the pilot to land. No pilot in their right mind would try to land four times in that kind of weather, with the tower recommending against it all the time, and Kaczyński is said to have already done this twice in similar situations, once threatening to throw a pilot out (...whatever that means on a plane... out of where exactly?), and once telling another "a Polish officer must have courage".

Also, the Tupolev is very heavy and difficult to control close to the ground.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | April 11, 2010 2:35 PM

Fractured Skies-Parts & Labor

The Way Down-Comets On Fire

You're A Target-No Age

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | April 11, 2010 2:53 PM

Went out yesterday and discovered the crocus, barely starting here. Got my first shots up: http://moblog.net/view/927143/crocus

Posted by: boygenius | April 11, 2010 2:58 PM

Been up for 36 hours and must go to sleep. Leave requests for teh Vault here and I will reply on the flip-side.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | April 11, 2010 3:11 PM

Silver Song-Mellow Candle

The Sea-Fotheringay

The Poor Ditching Boy-Richard Thompson

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 11, 2010 3:29 PM

No surprise there, but it sucks extremely that he dragged others into death with him.

The symbolic value also sucks: Katyń has once again become the site of a Polish national catastrophe. A correspondent on the TV news said the best summary of the psychological impact is a newspaper title page he showed. It says "Przeklęty Katyń", declaring the place to be "cursed".

The decision to have all those people on the same plane (even the governor of the Central Bank) looks rather idiotic in hindsight, too.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | April 11, 2010 3:59 PM

Common People-Pulp

Three Girl Rumba-Wire

Light From A Dead Star-Lush

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 11, 2010 4:24 PM

Back in the bad old days, when ships were made of wood and men were made of steel, the shanty "Leave Her Johnny" was sung at the end of the voyage. While the chorus was traditional the verses were tailored to describe the particular voyage. Since the crew was being paid and dismissed, they could sing whatever they wanted without fear of retribution from the officers.

The shantyman in this video is the late Stan Hugill, who served as the shantyman on the Garthpool, the last British commercial sailing ship (a Limejuice Cape Horner), in the 1920s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znW01dlU0n0

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | April 11, 2010 4:43 PM

This Is Love-PJ Harvey

Sliding Through Life On Charm-Marianne Faithfull

Do You Take This Man-Diamanda Galás & John Paul Jones

Posted by: blf | April 11, 2010 5:15 PM

The Rat's international child rape mafia is now blaming the Jews, Bishop 'blames Jews' for criticism of Catholic church record on abuse:

A furious transatlantic row has erupted over quotes that were attributed to a retired Italian bishop, which suggested that Jews were behind the current criticism of the Catholic church's record on tackling clerical sex abuse.

A website quoted Giacomo Babini, the emeritus bishop of Grosseto, as saying he believed a "Zionist attack" was behind the criticism, considering how "powerful and refined" the criticism is.

…

Allegedly speaking to the Catholic website Pontifex, Babini, 81, was quoted as saying: "They do not want the church, they are its natural enemies. Deep down, historically speaking, the Jews are God killers."

The interview was spotted on Friday by the American Jewish Group Committee, which said Babini was using "slanderous stereotypes, which sadly evoke the worst Christian and Nazi propaganda prior to world war two".

…

As the interview appeared on Italy's main newspaper sites today, complete with the American reaction, the Bishops' Conference rushed out a statement quoting Babini denying he had ever given the interview in the first place. "Statements I have never made about our Jewish brothers have been attributed to me," he said.

Babini has previously been quoted on the Pontifex website accusing Jews of exploiting the Holocaust, as well as criticising homosexuality.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | April 11, 2010 5:21 PM

And then DoubleDrive. DoubleDrive and Stereomud both split up in 2003, after releasing two albums.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VylbaUciNEw

And then there was Revis who released one album '03 and then split up in '05.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zADtR4cElyE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI_wNS9BkQ8

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | April 11, 2010 5:27 PM

Chaos-Stump

Sail Away-Randy Newman

Friggin' In The Riggin'The Sex Pistols

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | April 11, 2010 5:30 PM

Molly is really late this month.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | April 11, 2010 5:39 PM

Some Catholics are comparing the criticism of actual crimes to the persecution of Jews. Others pull out the myths about why they persecuted the Jews. And Jews had nothing to do with any of this.

Is there any aspect of this story that does not turn the stomach?

Posted by: JeffreyD | April 11, 2010 5:50 PM

And time for bed, so leaving you with a personal favourite, Pete Seeger doing L'Inernationale in French.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHNsRZ8iqFc

Nite all

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | April 11, 2010 6:07 PM

Seeing the Catholic Church being wrung through the media?

I would much rather see it shrink away because people are tired of the horrors it has caused instead of this.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | April 11, 2010 6:31 PM

Sorry, Kel, but that is a rather bad analogy.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 11, 2010 6:43 PM

#563 Kel... consider the whole scenario dude.

I don't think you mean it that way, but damn.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | April 11, 2010 7:25 PM

Lynna:

Caine, Fleur du mal @536: Great pics of the crocus. Thanks.

Thank you, Lynna! :)

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | April 11, 2010 8:30 PM

No surprise there, but it sucks extremely that he dragged others into death with him.

I saw headlines to the effect that Danish pilots had guessed at VIP pressure being a significant factor in the crash.

I hope it shows up on the recordings. It'd be a fitting memorial to a vile man.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2010 9:23 PM

Will teh Roman Catholic Church endure literally forever?

Clearly, no.

When will it end?

Why not now?