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?