On how Fox opinions get it wrong...again...

Ok let me preface this by saying that I'm glad - like most people in the world - that Osama Bin Laden is no longer with us. I think he was an evil man and this world will not suffer at his parting.

What I am not glad about is the vicious underbelly of our country that his death has revealed. In particular are opinions such as this one and this one. In short, these questionably brilliant Fox News commentators insist that Bin Laden's death is an unquestionable accomplishment and that it justifies the use of torture and extrajudicial killings.

No.

No...nothing in this country is unquestionable.

No...nothing in this country ever justifies torture.

No...there is never a reason to bypass the American judicial system.

It shocks me that the right wing - supposedly so reverent of our country's founders - can so profoundly ignore the core values that form our country.

But in the court of public opinion, this was a no-brainer. Every now and then, law courts and trials are not the only appropriate venues for justice. Bin Laden has gotten what for so long he has so richly deserved. End of discussion.

Yeah, it should be a no-brainer in the court of public opinion: courts and trials are the only appropriate venue of justice in this country. What makes America special is that we refuse to give up this core value even in times of strife. When we do, it is a black mark on our record, and we own up to it with the proper humility. We shine as a nation when we extend this universal right even to our most hated enemies; that's when we show ourselves to be the better country. But when we stoop to the kind of vigilante justice espoused here, all we do is lower ourselves and cripple the very things that make our culture true defenders of freedom.

Then there's the whole argument that this victory justifies torture, despite the fact that there is no evidence "enhanced interrogation" led to Bin Laden's death. I can't believe people are even asking that question, though; if we want to hold the post of defenders of freedom, we can never allow the ends to justify the means. If torture led to Bin Laden's death, then it is a victory marred by this moral failing. So I have to disagree with you here, Michael Goodwin:

The world is a better place for Bin Laden's death and, as the president said, May 1, 2011, was "a great day for America." It's a pity that some Americans won't honestly acknowledge how that greatness was achieved.

Great day or not, better world or not, we as a country have a responsibility to question the methods used to further our goals, and if they are found lacking, to denounce them as un-American. Only then will we truly have a victory worthy of this country.

On how religion kills us

Well I've been rather quiet lately, largely because 1) grad school is busy and 2) there's been so much colossal stupidity floating around that I simply don't have the time to sift through and respond appropriately to some of it. But occasionally, you just can't help yourself.

Sometimes, you stumble across something so monumentally moronic - so inconceivably idiotic - that it just begs to be ripped to shreds. These sorts of things need to be blogged lest the sheer force of my rage and fury will pour out of my body whether I want it or not.

What has cause me to reach such a pinnacle of stunned disbelief? Great enough for me to resort to cliche alliteration?

I present this stunning rant of inanity.

There are more things wrong with this article tham I can even articulate in words, but let me sum it up as saying this is a prime example of why relying on religion rather than reason can directly cause us harm both as a society and as individuals.

Not to mention the bone-headed lack of scientific knowledge...though I guess I should have figured that out when they led their arguments off with this...

"The message is positive, edifying, requires only an eighth grade level understanding of science, a good measure of common sense and faith the size of a mustard seed."

That's good for the writers, because they evidently satisfy those conditions (but just barely). Perhaps as they were writing this, it should have given them pause and made them think that, I dunno, maybe climate change is slightly more complicated than we thought...maybe it does require more than an 8th-grade understanding of our world. Maybe it requires expertise approaching doctorate level, which is why there's a steep gradient in opinion between those who know the system and those who don't. Maybe, just maybe, they should be telling themselves, the experts aren't conspiring, but actually know the system better than some auto mechanics. But I digress.

Hopefully, the article will improve...let's see...

"Before I propose an alternative view, let’s get a better understanding of the atmosphere, fossil fuels and the "carbon cycle." Our atmosphere is comprised of many gases including Nitrogen (80%) oxygen (20%) and Co2 (.035 %). Co2 is a molecule of 2 elements: oxygen and carbon. Animals, including humans, inhale these gases and absorb some of the oxygen and exhale the mixture of carbon and oxygen as Co2. On the other half of the cycle, photosynthetic plants absorb and separate the Co2 molecules, storing the carbon as sugars and tissue while releasing the oxygen back to the atmosphere. Co2 is but of one the gases labeled as a "greenhouse" gas. Greenhouse gases cause heat retention in the atmosphere and without them the planet temperature would be to cold for habitation."

Well it appears we're still going with the whole "8th grade science" level. First off, plants combine CO2 into complex sugars, not separating them out. Other than that, the statements are correct, if dramatically oversimplified. But the final sentence is what I take issue with: yes, greenhouse gases are necessary to warm the planet. The problem is not that we have greenhouse gases, but we're increasing the levels too much and too quickly. One could point out that our robust warming atmosphere is what separates Earth from Mars, but one must not forget that continued increases in greenhouse gas can lead to a Venus.

Well ok, the authors can be forgiven for omitting some details, I guess. Let's move on...

"Many propose that Co2 emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels result in unfavorable atmospheric changes to our planet such as: longer hotter summers, colder snowier winters, rising sea levels, increased temperatures, vanishing water supplies, and a host of farming problems resulting in food shortages...This theory is presented with an urgency to correct this problem immediately before we reach a tipping point of no return.

It's not just a "proposition" as the authors would like to have you think. We have already seen these effects in action: remember the brutal heat waves last year, followed by the coldest winter on record? And have you seen the outlook for water use in California, which has to buy water from other states? These aren't just "possibilities", they are actualities that are already happening. And this is just the temperature effects; the authors don't even touch on the more insidious effects of increasing CO2 concentrations in the ocean, which are already starting to devastate productivity. And there are even some who would say we've already passed the point of no return and are in damage control mode. So let's be honest, guys...this isn't up for scientific debate. Don't frame a controversy that is entirely fabricated.

They then explore what fossil fuels are and why burning them increases CO2 levels. Surprisingly enough, they get most of it right, if it's still simplified to a great extent. But as soon as you start to gather hope that this won't be a font of stupidity...

"Could these changes be beneficial rather than harmful? The purpose of this article is to suggest that the atmosphere is able as part of the Infinite Wisdom and Sovereignty of God which may be surprisingly "greener" than we may think."

That's right: global warming is ok because God put fossil fuels there for us to use. And it gets better! It might actually be a good thing. By this point, I was already expressing a mixture of a pained groan and delirious laughing, but I managed to muddle onwards. After all, I was curious about the supposed benefits of increased CO2. After all, some studies have shown limited and localized benefits; maybe they'll actually quote the science (in what would be a first for Fox News)!

"When these gases are "reintroduced" to the atmosphere additional warming "may" occur. However, other effects occur that result in more favorable conditions that support life and improve plant development. Co2 is fertilizer and plants love it! Plants and vegetation will likely grow faster with higher yields than ever before in places where such growth was once impossible. Sea levels "may" be higher than times past but new ground also may be exposed from under ice sheets."

Ok, we can first of all get rid of the "may"s..."has occurred" and "will be higher" are appropriate in the respective places. But ignoring that, what about this interesting claim about CO2. Hmmm, well for one thing, CO2 is not a fertilizer...ammonia and phosphorous are. But what about this claim that plants will do better with more CO2? Well on the surface it makes sense...plants need it, after all. But the problem is, they aren't limited by it; just as we already have all the oxygen we need and wouldn't benefit from increased levels, plants are no longer limited by CO2. If anything, they're limited by light, which is a major consideration considering the anticipated increase in cloudiness (a direct function of temperature). And as sea levels rise, it's going to completely swamp any gain in land from ice sheet retreat. We'll gain Greenland, parts of Canada, and Antarctica, but the increase in sea level will swamp most of that land and then some. So the net result is going to be less land and slower plant growth, if anything.

So, when you get down to it, the science is just plain wrong. 8th-grade level, anyone? But the problem, what really made me froth and foam at the mouth, was their final justification: God wants us to mine these things and burn these fuels.

"It is our view that mining and burning fossil fuels is part of God's providence and plan for our age and that the by-product of Co2 is restorative rather than destructive, helpful rather than harmful and good rather than evil. Fossil fuels are for man's benefit and God's glory. Let us not be seduced by worldviews that call evil what God has called good. May it never be."

See, when you invoke God, you can cast all the responsibility to a being that may or may not even exist. The science stops mattering, and any consequences become a priori God's will. Rationality is cast by the wayside, evidence is meaningless, and we continue like blind pack mules to our self-wrought doom.

But it's not all bad...they even manage to throw in some unwitting comedy.

"In closing, we would like to point out that we all have a responsibility to be good stewards of God's gifts. Let us not be wasteful and as we become aware of real problems make real changes."

Hmmm...so the millions of species we're projected to drive extinct as a result of climate change? Does our stewardship of those count? Either follow your own tune or change it.

Equality and Freedom

Well this is an interesting situation: for the tl;dr, a Christian couple who own a bed and breakfast in England were fined for refusing to let a gay couple to rent a room together. Despite the couple's insistence that they simply refused to let any unmarried couple co-habitate, the judge determined that their policy was aimed strictly at gays. Given that gay marriage is illegal in England, one can certainly see how that decision makes sense.

But to make a long story short, I don't agree with the decision. As much as I disagree with the elderly couple on their stance, they have every right to hold it. Granted, the legal situation is more difficult because of gay marriage's status in Britain (one more reason to extend true legal equality), but it's still their right to deny service to any customers they may choose. Let the market do the judging: couples could stay there if they support the policy, and those who disagree can stay away. It's not as if there isn't a viable alternative nearby; if that were the case, then I would likely be shifting my position. And obviously, that only holds for private businesses, as public institutions have no right to discriminate.

The conclusion from this argument, however, is that all public institutions must be open to all, including marriage, adoption, etc. This is the tactic usually employed to allow legal discrimination: gay couples can't wed, and certain services are made available only to married couples. Well, what is this if not forcing someone's beliefs onto me? It's obviously a hypocritical move on the part of the religious right, and the time is really here for them to own up and start being honest. You have every right to hate in your private lives, but you can't use the government as a tool to force me to follow those same beliefs. Otherwise, if the Right continues to mix their private beliefs and public laws, they're going to eventually have to accept limitations on their beliefs, even in their private lives. You don't want that, and I don't want that. Why don't those who shriek of forced progressive values stop forcing society to live by their own antiquated beliefs?

The meaning of diversity?

This morning, I was perusing the news networks to find something to rant about, and I came across this article discussing the growing diversity of the Republican party. The first thing that struck me, though, was that the Republicans' "diversity" stems only from the color or nationality of the person you see on the ballot. And while racial diversity can bring a lot of richness to both a country and a party, why does a measure of "diversity" always stop there? If we're a truly color-blind society, why does race remain the one true measure of a diverse culture?

I have a problem with that idea of diversity: it ignores almost everything that actually makes a person who they are. The color of your skin is just one part of you...and sometimes, it doesn't even mean that much. Real diversity comes from including many different kinds of people, not kinds of skin color. The way we view the world is shaped by our childhood, and to a degree, genetics, and while race might play a part in that, it's playing less and less of one in a modern society (don't get me wrong, it's a good thing that race is no longer a reliable indicator of your background). But why are these indicators never discussed?

If a party (or university or church or any other group) wants to create true diversity within itself (and I could go on for ages about why that's a good thing), it needs to include people who are truly different: rich, poor, atheist, religious, scientific, literary, gay, straight, etc. In our society, it is those things, those true deterministic factors that make up who we really are, that creates the multifaceted jewel that is America.

The color of your skin doesn't make you different: what you hold in your heart and mind do.

Dusting off the blog: Clint McCance

Wow...it's been so long since I tinkered here that I couldn't remember the url off the top of my head. Lazy much?

Anyway, back when I made my first half-hearted attempt to start my own electronic rants, I never really gathered much steam. Now, though, I have a lot on my mind, and what better way to say it? I'm gonna start with something very close to my heart: Clint McCance's rants, and especially what they mean for free speech.

First off, a source, so that you know what I'm talking about: this video by Anderson Cooper does a great job.

Ok, yes I obviously feel very strongly about this issue because I'm a gay man (and counter to stereotypes, I am in a very fulfilling and monogamous relationship), but that's not really the thing that's been ticking me off. What got me going was seeing some of the comments on stories related to this. After quickly filtering through the obvious stupidity or trolling and ignoring the Bible thumpers trying to ram their religion down our throats, I came across a number of comments lamenting the death of the right to free speech. It is to those people who might complain about this supposed death that I really write this post.

Do you know what it means to have freedom of speech?

From what I've seen, the resounding answer is "no." Freedom of speech means that you can say what you want without having to fear reprisal from the government; nothing is an illegal topic. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from public opinion. Indeed, just because you are protected from the government (and rightly so), it doesn't mean you are protected from the opinions of your fellow citizens. In fact, just as you might have a freedom to say what you think, I have a freedom to voice my opinions of you because of it.

With great freedom comes great responsibility, and so with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to accept the repercussions of what you say. Clint McCance said things that are absolutely abhorent, and now he must own what he said and face the public scorn that he is (rightfully) receiving. Moreover, as a public official, he must accept that what he has said has shaken the public's confidence in his ability to serve as a member of a school board. Just as he has a right to say what he did, we as the public have a right to say we don't want someone like him in public office. So no, the outcry over his statements is not "trampling over his free speech"; it is merely holding him responsible for what he has said under his rights for free speech. No one is suggesting he be arrested or that he broke any law (and as much as I disgaree with him, I would disagree more with such a call), and that's the only way his rights would truly be broken.

Say what you want, but be prepared to be judged for what you say. You cannot have one without the other.

Perhaps this is symptomatic from what is wrong with our country (conservatives especially, though I am likely biased): we demand the rights, but refuse the responsibility. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Aren't the airlines fun?

Ok, so the good news is that I have been invited to interview at some of my potenital grad schools. The bad news is that flying there is a right pain in the posterior. I seem to remember a day when air travel was easy, and flight times were more than just approximations. Instead, I have to pay three times as much to travel from Little Rock to Atlanta (Atlanta! Not exactly a small airport!) instead of connecting through two or three different cities.

Now normally, connecting wouldn't be a problem, but with the track record I have with Continental and American, I'm pretty sure I would be looking at - at least - a three-hour delay (if they don't just strand me outright). Instead, I can shell out a premium for connection-less flights; I can pay more to ensure that I actually arrive at my destination when they say I will. How did we get to the point that timely, schedule-adhering travel costs extra?!

I don't know how many times I've seen something like this. If you can make it past the poorly written surface, you might notice that it highlights a very disturbing trend. This particular wingnut makes the bold claim that a new ream of anti-evolution material is going to appear on the internet and somehow destroy the evolutionary position. When this happens, he is sure, science will reject evolution and once more return to creationism, lest they lose public support.

There are so many things wrong with that idea, but I just want to mention two.

1. Why is it that creation "science" has to rely on the internet, already not the most reliable source of information, as the vehicle for its dissemination? If they really had a real position, they would be able to get publications in real journals and reputable print media. As it is, all they can do is clog up the fringe of the internet and make otherwise respectable sites look foolish by association.
2. What does it matter if public support for evolution drops? That would indicate one thing: public ignorance. Scientific fact is not determined by the opinions of an uneducated public; and let's be thankful for that! I know this sounds awfully elitist, but the science should really be left to the scientists. Not necessarily the people with Ph.D.'s, mind you, but at least the people who have taken the time to actually educate themselves. If the scientific establishment were to start rejecting an idea, then we could start paying attention.

If creationists want to actually go to the effort and produce real science in favor of what they say - if they're willing to sit down and go through the peer review process and subject their ideas to scientific scrutiny - then I might be willing to give it at least some attention. But if you want to be treated like science, then you have to play by science's rules.