Welcome To October!

Interesting that the photo for October, the month of my birthday, from the Nude Photo Revolutionary Calendar also happens to be my favorite. FEMEN activists are pretty awesome in themselves, and this photo definitely lives up to their fame.

So as I stare a quarter of a century dead in the face, instead of sitting around and feeling sorry for myself that I was brought up to care about birthdays and that I moved to a part of the world where they mean next to nothing for anyone above the age of 12, I'll draw inspiration from this calendar, and I'll know that there are far more important things to care about in this world.

I hope they make another one next year, the photography is excellent and the cause is almost as worth it as the message it sends.

Thinking Scientifically, Always

I work in the science field, so I know all too well that scientists and atheists are pefectly capable of cognitive dissonance and all kinds of backwards thinking that we often accuse others of doing. Although we are human, of course, we should know better given our training, so it makes me so angry when I see people in my field of work not applying their critical thinking skills to anything outside of the particular experiment they happen to be working on.

In this case I suppose I shouldn't have expected much more, since the person in question is also a die-hard Catholic (albeit one with an extensive historical knowledge and very much a "the whole thing is one big allegory and full of copying errors so it's all to be taken with a grain of salt" type Catholic). Still, she was perfectly able to crawl right under my skin when I happened to bring up how disgusted I am with what is going on in Greece.

In case you haven't heard, A 27 year-old man in Greece has been arrested and faces up to 2 years in prison for making fun of a Greek Orthodox monk, Geron Paisios. He created a Facebook page in which he called the monk Geron Pastitsios, a type of Greek lasagna, possibly using it as an extended parody linking the monk to Pastafarianism. To face 2 years in jail for something so asinine is ridiculous and something I expect of Iran or Saudi Arabia, not the country that invented democracy. My colleague doesn't agree, or rather, she doesn't believe it.

"Greece is a civil country", she says, "so he must have done something far worse than what you think. You're an idiot if you think that online newspapers are 100% reliable, so he must have said something horrible. Besides, you're not allowed to offend people, you can sue someone for saying terribly offensive things, maybe that person doesn't go to jail but there is a precedent in other civil countries. So, whatever, I'm sure he deserves it".

Oh deary me. A part from her horrible mangling of free speech and libel laws, the core of her argument is so rotten I almost fell out of my chair. What in the hell kind of scientist are you?!

You don't get to work your way backwards from a conclusion, I tried to explain. Of course you can't assume that newspapers have all of their facts straight, but that is entirely besides the point. We have a certain amount of evidence: I have read many articles about this, and they all say the same thing regarding his "crimes". With the evidence that we have, my conclusion is that no, Greece is not behaving like a "civilized country", not even close. That does not mean that this conclusion cannot change based on new evidence that can arise later, however I really don't care how mercilessly he poked fun at the guy, he could have inserted the guy's face into this NSFW cartoon and plastered it all over Facebook, unless he credibly threatened followers of the cult or some similar real crime was committed, my conclusion remains the same: Greece is not to be considered "civilized" so long as they have these totalitarian laws.

You know what the real problem is? Even putting it in the hypothetical: let's say that all he really did was call this guy a pasta name. Let's say for the sake of argument, it is 100% confirmed that that is all he did. Would you be willing to revise your conclusion then? Her answer was still no.

This is about not wanting to see what lies in front of you, not about not being able to or not knowing how. It's about her being religious, and she wouldn't want anyone calling Ratzinger Pope Spaghetti, so she just wont admit that one of the core and most important principles of a free country are being slowly but surely crushed underfoot. 

And ultimately, this is about not thinking what you do in life has any importance outside of the lab. If I was to think in this way regarding an experiment she'd be the first to kick my legs out from under me in utter disgust. 

I, on the other hand, was attracted to this line of work specifically because I value the importance of thinking scientifically, and I think it is the best, most fair, most objective and therefore most humble way to view life.

If you ever see me working backwards from a conclusion, slap me.

Ladies And Gents, Meet Bosses 4 and 5

Just like they said in the TYT video I saw on this subject this morning, I LOVE that it is football athletes that are being this vocal in support of gay marriage, that they are painstakingly breaking the stereotype that it's "unmacho" and "uncool" to support gay rights. Although linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo came out in support for gay marriage back in 2009, it is a more recent video that seems to have sparked a juicy controversy.

Oooh Emmett C. Burns Jr. did not like that. He was incenced that a football player from a team he actually likes could do something so offensive!!! He wrote the following letter to the owner of the Baltimore Ravens, the team this awesome athlete plays for:


"As a Delegate to the Maryland General Assembly and a Baltimore Ravens Football fan, I find it inconceivable that one of your players, Mr. Brendon Ayanbadejo, would publicy endorse Same-Sex marriage, specifically, as a Raven Football player. Many of my constituents and your football supporters are appalled and aghast that a member of the Ravens Football Team would step into this controversial divide and try to sway public opinion one way or the other. Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment and excitement. I think Mr. Ayanbadejo should concentrate on football and steer clear of dividing the fan base. 

        I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a National Football Franchise Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions. I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbedejo is doing. 

      Please give me your immediate response "



Emphasis my own.

Dude, what the Hell do you think you're doing?! You're a Democrat, and a black man from Jackson Mississippi!!! Are you serious? Do you need someone to explain the definition of the word irony, or hypocrisy?!

Actually no need, cause while Ayanbedejo may have been the first NFL player to speak publicly about this issue, he's got one more on his side, Vikings punter Chris Kluwe fires back with this awesome open letter:



"1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees,” more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for “beautiful oppressionism”).

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about penis? “Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole."

Ooh how I love it! I really hope the guy writes back, though I doubt it. Most importantly I hope that he royally shot himself in the foot with his constituents over this matter, and I hope that anyone that voted for him, even if they agree with him on the gay marriage issue, kick his ass out of office for his abhorrent views on the First Amendment. 

Is that too much to hope for? He is (technically) in the Democratic Party after all....

Says It All

I'm thinking of making "Says It All" a recurring theme here, especially if I'm going to be coming across any more of this awesomness

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Scientology, What A Joke

Recently for some reason I've been watching a load of documentaries on cults. Call it a bizarre and fleeting fascination with the crazy crap of the world, or that my store of wacky information needed some adding to for when I am talking to people that know less about these things than I do, either way I came across this episode of Panorama that I had seen a couple of years ago while living in Ireland. Of all the documentaries that I have seen so far on cults, this one is definitely the most aggravating and difficult to watch thanks to the yippy little mutt known as Tommy Davis.

Sweeney keeps apologizing for the way he reacted at the end to Tommy goading him, but I honestly don't think that he had anything to apologize for. I am amazed at how calm he had managed to remain for so long, when if it were me in his situation, I would have gotten very snarky with that asshole far, far earlier.

At the end of the day, Tommy Davis should realize that Sweeney did not need to present a biased view of Scientology or lie about anything. All he would have had to do was show back-to-back clips of Tommy Davis getting in his face, he did a bang up job of making Scientology look awful all on his own. I hope his bosses give him a raise, because if there is anyone that was on the fence about the way Scientology to begin with, all they had to do was look at the appalling way that jerk-off behaved himself and the way they were constantly keeping tabs on the BBC, spying on them and harrassing them.

Sweeney does one better instead, and came out with this follow-up which I had not seen

When you have time watch both of them. Sweeney refused to be intimidated by their ridiculous scare tactics and schooled them in this second documentary in the best possible way. OK I concede your ways are better than mine, I would have just snarked my way under Tommy Davis' skin and would have had to leave it at that. Bravo.

Oh and one more thing, where are the pro-life right wingers when it comes to calling out an institution that actually pressures many of its female members into getting an abortion?! Is it because they will never dare touch a religion that isn't Islam, or because they don't go after people with money? 

Or maybe, unlike Sweeney, they're just too chickenshit

We Need To Add Some Extra Humanity

I'm still in the throes of those crazy deadlines I was telling you about, but I managed to squeeze in a little time to watch this video and felt I needed to share it.

While it specifically addresses a case of extreme misogyny in the online gaming community, it is more widely applicable as good advice to all men on how to respond when encountered with extreme sexism.

I know many guys that may see it and may even acknowledge it, but they'll never actually say anything about it. It's a "that's not really my problem" attitude, overlying a more deeply engrained sometimes unconscious "bros before hos" mentality. Grow up friends, time to overcompensate with your humanity

Ill Doctrine: All These Sexist Gamer Dudes Are Some Shook Ones from ANIMALNewYork.com on Vimeo.

Seriously Now, Enough Is Enough

Thank you Pharyngula for once again keeping us all informed when it is time to speak up and let our voices be heard. The Catholic Church is up to its bullying again, not that I can say that I’m surprised. The stream of crap that’s coming from the Vatican is never-ceasing, and now we can add this little nugget to the mess

Sanal Edamaruku, President of the Indian Rationalist Association, has for decades been a tireless campaigner for science and against superstition. He is widely known for his exposure of the tricks used by self-professed ‘God-Men’ and gurus and has often been on Indian television explaining the everyday science behind supposed miracles.

After one such exposure – he pointed out that the “blood” oozing from a statue of Christ at the Catholic Church of Our Lady of Velan kanni in Vile Parle, Mumbai was in fact water from a leaky pipe – the Catholic Church of Mumbai made a formal complaint about him to the Mumbai police. He stands accused of “deliberately hurting religious feelings and attempting malicious acts intended to outrage the religious sentiments of any class or community”, an offence under Section 295(a) of the Indian Penal Code. No arrest warrant has been issued but the case is "cognisable" meaning the police can arrest without warrant at any time. He is being harassed daily by the Mumbai authorities who, under pressure from Catholic groups, are insisting that he turn himself in. His petition for “anticipatory bail” was turned down on 3 June 2012 on the bizarre grounds that he would be safer in custody. If he is arrested he will therefore most likely be detained in jail until court proceedings are concluded, which could take several years. Fearing arrest, he dares not stay long at home or work.

Sign the petition, and do not let the self-righteous robed bullying cowards to get away with this anymore.

The Streisand Effect Strikes Again

The Doonesbury cartoon this week hit the nail on the head when it comes to the all-out war on womens' reproductive rights that is being waged in the US at the moment, so of course there were many newspapers that refused to run it. Their various reasons (excuses? maybe some) can be found here, but all in all I think they did us all a favor. Honestly, how many of us would even be aware of a Doonesbury cartoon if it hadn't sparked so much controversy? Ah beloved internet, we love you so.

So here it is: the controversial newspaper comic strip

Monday:

Tuesday:

Wednesday:

Thursday:

Friday:

Saturday:

I will update this post as the new strips are released.

Wow, comic strips have gotten serious. What's next, will Garfield get diabetes? 

Where Do We Draw The Line: Free Speech vs. Bullying

I have talked about something similar to this before, but this is slightly different and came back to mind when I saw a video by ProfMTH on the subject this morning (wonderful youtuber btw, highly recommended)

Basically, there is some new legislation that has recently passed in Michigan that tries to address the problem of bullying in schools. The question put to ProfMTH is whether or not the fact that a clause has been added to the bill, protecting people holding a strong religious belief to voice said belief without repercussions for doing so, was unconstitutional or not.

While I am sure that ProfMTH knows better than I do when he says that the clause does not, I have to disagree with him regarding the notion that this clause protects free speech. It is a very fine line to draw, but I find it to be necessary: when does free speech become bullying?

The clause is very awkwardly worded:

ProfMTH points out that the clause does not say that the student is allowed to bully based on his or her religious belief, only that they are allowed to state what their belief is, and that this is protected speech. OK, but really? The clause also does not contain a very important HOWEVER if you bully for whatever reason you're screwed, which I believe is the legal term. Why do I think this is important?

If this bill is even needed, it means that the addressing of bullying in schools is severely lacking. Do we really believe that when interpreting this hazily written clause administrators are going to err on the side of being tougher on the bullies, or err on the side of letting them go? Especially if the administrator him/herself holds the same "religious" (translation: anti-gay, possibly anti-muslim) beliefs? My second question is, why is there even a need for such a clause to exist? The first amendmant is there for everyone. If something someone says qualifies as free speech they are protected by it, there is no need to restate people's constitutional rights in every piece of legislation. Why even specify someone's religious beliefs at all? Isn't a student equally allowed to voice their political ideology with the same fervor and still be protected without being accused of bullying someone with an opposing view? What is really needed is a clear definition of when free speech stops being free speech and becomes bullying.

Admittedly I have not read the bill, this next part comes from my own head. I'm sure that the bill must contain some form of a definition of bullying. If it does not, it's an even worse bill than I originally thought. If it does, then it reiterates my point that the clause regarding the protection of someone's religious beliefs is utterly useless, because if what someone says does not qualify as bullying then it doesnt matter what the nature of their statement is, religious or otherwise. Anyway, personally, I think the line can be drawn at a personal attack.

If someone generally states "I think gays go to Hell" that is a general statement. An extremely ignorant one, a stupid one, but a general statement nonetheless and one that is protected speech. If, however, someone repeatedly verbally harasses a person or a few people, says "I think YOU are going to Hell, YOU are a sinner, YOU should just kill yourself" over and over, and you direct that hateful speech at someone you know, repeatedly, that is bullying. At least, that is what I think bullying (verbal bullying of course, physical violence is much easier to define since there is no protection of assault in the constitution) should be defined as.

Where do you draw the line? Where does the law draw the line? Share your thoughts

Free Speech and Criminal Speech: Where Do We Draw The Line?

This morning this video caught my eye, mainly because it made me think about something at 7am when I would have much rathered watch something mindless with my morning stay-awake-or-you'll-spill-it-and-burn-yourself tea. It involves the very fine line between protected free speech and criminal, dangerous speech.

It involves a young man whose car gets towed from the college that he attends, and in the process of towing his car someone found a note inside which read:

If this account doesn't reach 50,000 in the next seven days 
then a murderous rampage similar to the VT shootings 
will occur at another highly populated university 
This is no joke

He claims they are rap lyrics, authorities thought otherwise, compounded with the fact that he is in posession of a gun and is also in the process of buying other ones on the internet, and promptly arrested him. The question is, should he have been? Was his freedom of speech violated?

First of all I wrote the "lyrics" down in order to confirm my initial suspicion: they don't rhyme (except maybe "days" and "rampage", but it's a stretch). Rapping without rhyming is, well, talking. Also I resent Jayar saying that they look just like Eminem lyrics, you may not like his music but he happens to be a master at rhyming.

Anyway, I have to disagree with the hosts a bit more on their opinion of this. Of course the man's attorney is trying to get the case thrown out because the note was not directed at a specific target, it did not outline or detail a plan of any kind, therefore it still classifies as protected speech. After a little thought I think I agree with his lawyer.

Ana argues that they should continue to investigate this man because there is the possibility that the note was, as it stated, "not a joke". However, you do not need to keep someone under arrest in order to investigate them. I think that the police should have investigated further before arresting him, since if a good judge realizes that they had no grounds for arresting him in the first place they will throw the whole case out and it could hurt their chances of prosecuting him in the future, if he turns out to be a criminal (also I think that if anything should be illegal in this case it should be to buy numerous weapons online, but in the US it is not and so that is a story for another day).

Despite the fact that, when I first heard the story I thought ARREST HIM!, I realized later that upon further reflection I don't agree with that gut reaction at all. Sometimes the fine lines that are drawn in the law seem arbitrary, but they really help when it comes down to making borderline decisions such as this one. If he did not break any laws they have no right to keep him under arrest. They can investigate him and see if they can find something that would give them the right to do so, they could question him to see if he is obviously unstable, but they can't arrest him for not breaking the law (is it even legal for them to be going through his things in his car and reading his notes when they were just towing it? Do let me know).

Initially I thought it was probably something he was going to post on his youtube channel or social media page, as in if I don't get 50,000 subscribers or 50,000 likes or 50,000 hits or whatever then I will do blablabla. Whether or not he would ever follow through with such a threat I can't have the faintest idea. The point is that I don't think he should have been arrested for it, nor do I think they should even be considering bringing him to trial for writing some words on a sheet of paper.

What are your thoughts on the matter?