Church of Critical Thinking

Planet X Here We Come

2008-04-17T09:20:00.000-07:00

2008 - Major Planet X Announcement - to be published in the peer reviewed Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy - Read All About It - and remember, we already pegged this over a year ago. :)

On a personal note, Hiya peeps!

And a big fuzzy wazzup to all our new found parishioners! I've spent the last hour going over some of the thousands (and thousands ---- and more thousands even), emails you all have sent the last couple months.

I am overwhelmed and humbled by your warm and supportive comments. Wow, what a groovy bunch of wacky thinkin' bipedal primates we are, huh? Connecting like this, all snugly like... thinking with a critical tint, no agenda other then saving and uniting our funked out and somewhat misguided species. I can deal with that.

Anydamnhow, I've done ZERO web marketing, nadda - just linked to a couple dozen of our other sites and low and behold, Shazaaam! The Church has taken on a life of its own! Over 150k unique hits monthly and growing two fold weekly! AND - over a quarter million now in our email list?

Yikes! Where did all you people come from? What am I suppose to say to all you folks? I'm just a ghost, a fleeting facade, pure and legendary in my own mind... I didn't think this concept would actually take off like a heat seeking missile of thought process conformity yadda yadda...

Sheesh, I've been really busy, ya dig? bla bla bla - thus our little Church blog wanders haphazardly through uncertain shards of ye' ole blogosphere suffering from serious data input neglect - a bad blog Poobah, so I am - BUT - That's all gonna change -

I'm going to do my very best to post at least three times a week so I can walk and talk like a regular bloody boomin' blogga, bruddah! Can I hava justa one -- Hallelujah!

Oh, I can feel it. **smirk** This of course will allow me the opportunity to communicate with my new found fellow Church Chums... That's the underlying vibe of your email's - Who am I really, how/why do I know certain things others might deem extraordinary, how did I arrive at various mathematical equations and when, bla yadda bla bla... To those type of inquiries I would say only this:

"DONT BELIEVE ANY OF IT! IT'S ALL BULLSHIT!"

and you really need to take our brief tutorial:

http://www.churchofcriticalthinking.org/critical_thought.html

Everything within this site (as far as you know) is for your entertainment purposes only.

http://www.churchofcriticalthinking.org/playtime.html <- see- we actually have games.

If the subject matter interests you, do some research, multiple sources kinna junk. Academia is your friend. Science is your biaach baybee, yah. Speak of it with others, it might just surprise you. Maybe freak you out a little - that's a good thing. Form your own conclusions based upon your interpretation. You'll be a better homo sapien space cadet cuzofit.

I'll only send a mass email under urgent church type congregation duress - (cuz I hate dem thar spammy thangs lik dat)

The way it's going - we should be a million strong by years end - that's freaking crazy! It does however, tell me that this project was not in vain, and that folks are actually really craving this sort of information.

The kinna stuff that makes sense and actually matters, ya know, like our survival as a species on this planet kinna junk. I'll also be researching and updating our news link:

http://www.churchofcriticalthinking.org/news/news.html

with relevant info as it becomes pertinent ---

Let's do this thing! Until next time my awesome churchcrit chums, remember to chant and spread to thy neighbor our Holy Creed, Scriptures, Gospel and Divine Doctrine:

"Kindness"

Yours Ever Devotionally,

Grand Whimsical Wizard PooBah

Political Lies Tsk Tsk

2008-04-09T13:09:00.000-07:00

No one is such a liar as the indignant man.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, along with a slew of administration underlings and a revolving-door cavalcade of brass hats from the Pentagon, have been making claims regarding Iraq for many years now.

They claimed Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, "enough to kill several million people," according to a page on the White House web site titled Disarm Saddam Hussein.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq was in possession of 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq was in possession of 500 tons, which equals 1,000,000 pounds, of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq was in possession of nearly 30,000 munitions capable of delivering these agents.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq was in possession of several mobile biological weapons labs.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq was operating an "advanced" nuclear weapons program.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq had been seeking "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa for use in this "advanced" nuclear weapons program.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons."

They lied.

They claimed America needed to invade, overthrow and occupy Iraq in order to remove this menace from our world. "It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country," went the White House line, "to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

They lied.

"Simply stated," said Dick Cheney in August of 2002, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Liar.

"Right now," said George W. Bush in September of 2002, "Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of nuclear weapons."

Liar.

"We know for a fact," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer in January of 2003, "that there are weapons there."

Liar.

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction," said Colin Powell in February of 2003, "is determined to make more."

Liar.

"We know where they are," said Donald Rumsfeld in March of 2003. "They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, south, west and north somewhat."

Liar.

"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about," said Paul Wolfowitz in March of 2003. "Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

Liar.

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were," said Condoleezza Rice in June of 2003, "where they were stored."

Liar.

"I have absolute confidence that there are weapons of mass destruction inside this country," said Gen. Tommy Franks in April of 2003. "Whether we will turn out, at the end of the day, to find them in one of the 2,000 or 3,000 sites we already know about or whether contact with one of these officials who we may come in contact with will tell us, 'Oh, well, there's actually another site,' and we'll find it there, I'm not sure."

Wrong.

"Before the war," said Gen. Michael Hagee in May of 2003, "there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found."

Wrong.

"Given time," said Gen. Richard Myers in May of 2003, "given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction."

Wrong.

"Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do," said Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton in May of 2003, "because I think there's a lot of information out there."

Wrong.

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, is about to give testimony before the Senate regarding the current state of affairs in that battle-savaged country. He is a political general, one of many America has seen and heard over the last five years, one who would leap nude from the Capitol dome before telling the real truth about matters in Iraq ... or who would speak using words fed to him by liars, and thus be wrong.

Remember: they lie. They all lie, from the top man down to the bottom. If their lips are moving, a lie is unfolding. If they say water is wet, get into the shower to make sure.

They lie.

Period.

Viridian Principles 1.0

2008-01-15T16:28:00.000-08:00

A. Futurist principles

"Eat What You Kill"

It's perfectly acceptable to supersede some time-honored
tool or practice. However, you should take pains to fully
comprehend the thing you have rendered obsolescent. You
are removing some part, however modest, of the
infrastructure of civilization. You are destroying the
work of previous designers; you should offer them the
respect you yourself would hope for, under similar
circumstances. This is for your own good. You can't
comprehend your own accomplishment until you have fully
internalized and understood the accomplishment that you
are undoing.

"Avoid the Timeless, Embrace Decay"

Platonic visions of absolute reality, and Christian
visions of eternity, are very unhealthy for bipedal
mammals in a biosphere. Nothing physical is eternal.
It's very bad design to create some device which quickly
ceases to function, while its useless components persist
around us, ugly and dangerous. Entropy deserves our
respect and attention. Entropic processes such as
corrosion, rot, rust, degradation, delamination, and
disintegration should be closely studied, harnessed for
industrial use, and even aestheticized.

"Planned Evanescence"

"Planned Obsolescence" means that a product will be driven
off the market, within a known time-frame, by some
purported improvement. The Viridian principle of
"Planned Evanescence" extends this practice by demanding
that the product and all its physical traces should
gracefully disintegrate and vanish entirely.

"The Future is History -- Be When You Are"

The future is not a stage set. The past is not a sacred
myth. The past and the future are this place at a
different time. The future is advancing upon you, and the
past retreating, at a remorseless rate of one second per
second. You can seek understanding anywhere, but you can
only act in the moment. "You Own Modernity." It's easy to
get transfixed by romantic ideas of historical
inevitability: glamorous marches of progress, or gruesome
congenital declines. But your own epoch is your own
problem. If you call yourself "post" or "former," or
"neo" or "retro," you are begging for someone else's
troubles.

"History Accumulates"

The arrow of time moves only in one direction. As long
as civilization persists and our records multiply, we
have more and more history. The compost of history is
thicker for us than it was for our predecessors -- and
thinner than it will be for our descendants. We need
better ways to manage our increasing wealth of history.

B. Moral Principles

"Look at the Underside First"

Legions of people are paid large sums to promote the
positive aspects of commercially available products.
Very few people earn their daily bread by pointing out
malfunctions, bugs, screw-ups, design failures, side-
effects and the whole sad galaxy of trade-offs and
failings that are inherent in any technological artifact.
To counteract this gross social imbalance, a wise designer
and a wise critic will make it a matter of principle to
look at the underside first.

"Design For Evil"

Any innocent product which becomes suddenly genocidal in
the hands of a tyrant has been designed by a dangerous
naif. Every design process is incomplete unless it takes
into careful consideration what could be done with the
product by a dictatorial megalomaniac in command of a
national economy, a secret police, and a large army.

"Design for the Old"

The median age is advancing steadily around the world.
The 21st century will have a historically unprecedented
demographic structure. Short of catastrophe and mass
slaughter, we will never see the 20th century's youthful
demographics again. The senior members of society have
their own ergonomics and anthropometrics. If you don't
design for them, you're designing for an ever-shrinking
fraction of the world.

"Superstition Isn't Inspiration"

Creative inspiration isn't a lab product, but it doesn't
come from your fairy godmother, either. There's no
effective substitute for experimental verification and
reproducible results. A tarot deck can trigger strong
feelings of creative insight, but it doesn't convey
higher wisdom. Like horoscopes and ouija boards, it uses
suggestion to allow you to tell yourself a story that you
already know. Don't mistake mystic wish-fulfillment and
the promptings of your unconscious for objective evidence.
It's a breach of taste to imagine that the vagaries of
your own imagination are more interesting than the world.

C. Political Principles

"Viridian Inactivism"

Activism is an attention hog, and very time and energy
intensive. A better approach is to find the things you
are doing that intensify the problem, and just
cease doing them. Put in less overtime. Sleep late.
Have a nap after lunch. Burn less midnight oil. Park
your car, turn off all the lights in your apartment, and
go outside in the sunshine and read a book. Spend an
hour on your mascara if you feel like it. Don't allow
yourself to be spooked into Stakhanovite overdrive; seek
command of your own life, and enjoy being yourself.

"Do Less With Less"

We're altering the climate by burning too much fossil
fuel. We should struggle valiantly to find alternative
sources of energy, but it's rather more gratifying to
simply become less frenetic. What exactly are we doing at
the moment that is worth ruining the climate for? Relax.

"There's No One So Green As the Dead"

Zealous moralistic arguments about who is more-Green-than-
thou are very counterproductive. We're all adding to the
global CO2 load as long as we continue to breathe. Dead
people are the ultimate Greens (trumped only by people
who never existed in the first place). If you feel
helpless with guilt because of your bad environmental
habits, pause and think of the very brief time in which
you employ the earth's resources, and the long, long eons
in which you'll be just raw material again.

D. Principles of the Avant-technogarde

"The Biological Isn't Logical"

Design tends to follow the leading technical products of
its period; in an age of aviation, even pencil-sharpeners
are streamlined. Given this longstanding trend, the
coming bio-genetic technical revolution should produce a
biomorphic epoch in 21st century design. But the living
world was not designed by a teleological, rationalist,
reductionist process. The living world grew irrationally
through non-systematic, genetic exploration of niche
possibilities, pruned back by natural selection and
occasional massive disasters. So if you're building
distributed networks, learn from crabgrass.

"Augment Reality: Aestheticize All Sensors"

From the age of desktop calculation, through the age of
networking and bandwidth, computation/communication will
progress toward omnipresent, on-chip sensors, the
"intelligent environment" or "augmented reality." While
calculation is mathematical, and bandwidth is highly
technical, sensors must interact with the human sensorium,
and are therefore a strong aesthetic challenge. Sensors,
instrumentation, and mediated monitoring systems of all
kinds are the next aesthetic frontier.

"Make the Invisible Visible"

Our primary advantage over previous generations of artists
and graphic designers is that we can see much better than
they could. We can manipulate, store, create and analyze
graphic imagery with historically unprecedented ease and
power. This trend should be recognized, advanced, and
artistically exploited. Advances in instrumentation can
be used to change the zeitgeist. If carbon dioxide were
blood-red, our skies would look ominous indeed.

"Less Mass, More Data"

Physical resources should be replaced with information
when possible. If you always know where something is, you
don't have to chain it up. If it can see stress coming
and duck, it doesn't need to be sturdy. If it pops up
and vanishes repeatedly on signal, it doesn't have to take
abuse.

"Tangible Cyberspace"

The obverse of "Less Mass, More Data" is "Tangible
Cyberspace," introducing computer-generated artifacts and
processes into the basic texture of the physical world.
This transcends mere CAD-CAM, in that it seeks for a
profound new interrelationship of the computational and
the environmental. We seek to make the screen permeable,
and to turn "computers" into worldly, sensual entities.

"Seek the Biomorphic and the Transorganic"

"Nature" is over. There's not a liter of seawater
anywhere without its share of PCB and DDT, and an altered
climate will reshuffle the ecological deck for every
creature that breathes. A 21st century avant-garde must
deal with those consequences and thrive in that world.
We have already painted flowers. We want to know what a
flower means when a flower has onboard processing, amped-
up genetics, and its own agenda. Thus a central Viridian
aesthetic dictum: "A Rose is No Longer a Rose."

"Datamine Nature"

"Seeking Truth From Nature" was a rhetorical and
ideological support of the Pre-Raphaelites and Art
Nouveau. It worked well twice and can work again. Since
our understanding of natural processes has advanced so
hugely, there is a wealth of aesthetic novelty to be found
in previously invisible aspects of nature, such as
cellular metabolism, noninvasive medical imaging,
hybridomas and chimeras, artificial life entities, and
chemosynthetic life forms.

"Grow Complexity"

It is now absurdly simple to create graphic patterns of
any level of busy-ness and complexity. Without human
esthetic intervention, this art is puerile and ugly. A
Viridian aesthetic looks for patterns that are both
tasteful and previously impossible.

E. Research Principles

"Walk Through the Walls of Knowledge Guilds"

The boundaries that separate art, science, medicine,
literature, computation, engineering, and design and craft
generally are not divinely ordained. The most galling of
these boundaries are socially generated entities meant to
protect the power-interests of knowledge guilds. This is
not to say that that all research techniques are
identical, or that their results are all equally valid
under all circumstances: quantum physics isn't opera. But
there exists a sensibility that can serenely ignore
intellectual turf war, and comprehend both physics and
opera. You won't be able to swing a grant or sing an aria
by knocking politely at the stage door. They won't seat
you at the head of the table and slaughter the fatted
calf. But you can take photographs, plant listening
devices and leave. If you choose, you can step outside
the boundaries history makes for you. You can walk
through walls.

FEMA - Caught in Bullshit Lie!

2007-10-27T01:20:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, FEMA held what was called a "news briefing" on the California fires, but the questions asked did not come from reporters. They were asked instead by FEMA staffers.

“It is not a practice that we would employ here at the White House or that we -- we certainly don't condone it,” Press Secretary Dana Perino said. “We didn't know about it beforehand. FEMA has issued an apology, saying that they had an error judgment when they were attempting to get out a lot of information to reporters, who were asking for answers to a variety of questions in regard to the wildfires in California. It's not something I would have condoned. And they, I'm sure, will not do it again.”

One reporter asked Perino who is responsible?

“Well, FEMA is responsible,” she said. “And they have accepted that responsibility, and they issued an apology today. They have admitted that they had an error in judgment. I would agree with that. They've issued an apology. And, you know, you'll have to ask them about why they decided to do that."

Why fake it? Apparently, the FEMA briefing was called with little lead-time and reporters didn't get there fast enough. Instead of acknowledging that reporters were not there they apparently pretended and even used the typical practice of calling a "last question."

The briefer, FEMA's Deputy Administrator Harvey Johnson, did not indicate that the questions were coming from staff who were in essence playing reporters. Six questions were asked and the phrasing and subject matter were not typical for a news briefing give and take.

Senior administration officials are looking into the matter and suggest the "intentions were good," but acknowledge that was not an appropriate "tactic."

The suggestion is that so many media questions had been coming in to FEMA and the briefing was a way to get information out. But instead of transparency, a senior FEMA official appears to have faked it.

Below are the actual questions and excerpted responses from Johnson:

QUESTION 1: What type of commodities are you pledging to California?
"So I think we're well ahead of the requirement and we'll be able to make sure that all the shelters that are stood up are, in fact, all sustained and have sufficient materials and quantities of commodities to make sure they meet the demand of the people who might seek shelter."

QUESTION 2: Sir, there are a number of reports that people weren't heeding evacuation orders and that was hindering emergency responders. Can you speak a little to that, please?
"So I think you're seeing more compliance and more conformance with expected norms of travel."

QUESTION 3: Can you address a little bit what it means to have the president issue an emergency declaration, as opposed to a major disaster declaration? What does that mean for FEMA?
"As an emergency declaration, it allows us to provide -- to open up the Stafford Act and to provide the full range of protective measures and all the things that they need now in order to address the fire, If the governor had asked for a major declaration, that would have talked about individual assistance and public assistance at greater levels. And at this point, the governor has not asked for that."

QUESTION 4: Sir, we understand the secretary and the administrator of FEMA are on their way out there. What is their objective? And is there anyone else traveling with them?
"..all the key leaders who are directing this effort and demonstrating a partnership through their effort will be out there at San Diego this afternoon. So I think it's a good demonstration of support, recognizing that our role is not to usurp the state but to support the state. And they'll demonstrate that by their presence."

[Off-camera voice asks for another question)

QUESTION 5: Are you happy with FEMA's response, so far?
"I'm very happy with FEMA's response so far. This is a FEMA and a federal government that's leaning forward, not waiting to react. And you have to be pretty pleased to see that."

[Staff voice off camera: Last question.]

QUESTION: What lessons learned from Katrina have been applied?
"I think what you're really seeing here is the benefit of experience, the benefit of good leadership and the benefit of good partnership; none of which were present in Katrina.

“So, I think, as a nation, people should sit up and take notice that you have the worst wildfire season in history in California and look at how well the state and local governments are performing, look at how well we're working together between state and federal partners."

Here's FEMA's statement from Vice Admiral Harvey Johnson:
STATEMENT
October 26, 2007

STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO FEMA'S TUESDAY PRESS BRIEFING
FEMA's goal is to get information out as soon as possible, and in trying to do so we made an error in judgment. Our intent was to provide useful information and be responsive to the many questions we have received. We are reviewing our press procedures and will make the changes necessary to ensure that all of our communications are straight forward and transparent.

At FEMA, our focus is disaster operations and, in this case, it means working closely with the State of California to support their response to the devastating fires. We're committed to being there for the State and being good partners. In working to do so we did not put enough focus on how we communicate to the public.

The real story -- how well the response and recovery elements are working in this disaster -- should not be lost because of how we tried to meet the needs of the media in distributing facts.

We can and must do better, and apologize for this error in judgment.

### END OF STATEMENT # # #

The Movie "Idiocracy" proving true!

2007-10-27T01:15:00.000-07:00

I have this ongoing discussion with a reader who also just so happens to be a longtime Oakland high school teacher, a wonderful guy who's seen generations of teens come and generations go and who has a delightful poetic sensibility and quirky outlook on his life and his family and his beloved teaching career.

And he often writes to me in response to something I might've written about the youth of today, anything where I comment on the various nefarious factors shaping their minds and their perspectives and whether or not, say, EMFs and junk food and cell phones are melting their brains and what can be done and just how bad it might all be.

His response: It is not bad at all. It's absolutely horrifying.

My friend often summarizes for me what he sees, firsthand, every day and every month, year in and year out, in his classroom. He speaks not merely of the sad decline in overall intellectual acumen among students over the years, not merely of the astonishing spread of lazy slackerhood, or the fact that cell phones and iPods and excess TV exposure are, absolutely and without reservation, short-circuiting the minds of the upcoming generations. Of this, he says, there is zero doubt.

Nor does he speak merely of the notion that kids these days are overprotected and wussified and don't spend enough time outdoors and don't get any real exercise and therefore can't, say, identify basic plants, or handle a tool, or build, well, anything at all. Again, these things are a given. Widely reported, tragically ignored, nothing new.

No, my friend takes it all a full step — or rather, leap — further. It is not merely a sad slide. It is not just a general dumbing down. It is far uglier than that.

We are, as far as urban public education is concerned, essentially at rock bottom. We are now at a point where we are essentially churning out ignorant teens who are becoming ignorant adults and society as a whole will pay dearly, very soon, and if you think the hordes of easily terrified, mindless fundamentalist evangelical Christian lemmings have been bad for the soul of this country, just wait.

It's gotten so bad that, as my friend nears retirement, he says he is very seriously considering moving out of the country so as to escape what he sees will be the surefire collapse of functioning American society in the next handful of years due to the absolutely irrefutable destruction, the shocking — and nearly hopeless — dumb-ification of the American brain. It is just that bad.

Now, you may think he's merely a curmudgeon, a tired old teacher who stopped caring long ago. Not true. Teaching is his life. He says he loves his students, loves education and learning and watching young minds awaken. Problem is, he is seeing much less of it. It's a bit like the melting of the polar ice caps. Sure, there's been alarmist data about it for years, but until you see it for yourself, the deep visceral dread doesn't really hit home.

He cites studies, reports, hard data, from the appalling effects of television on child brain development (i.e.; any TV exposure before 6 years old and your kid's basic cognitive wiring and spatial perceptions are pretty much scrambled for life), to the fact that, because of all the insidious mandatory testing teachers are now forced to incorporate into the curriculum, of the 182 school days in a year, there are 110 when such testing is going on somewhere at Oakland High. As one of his colleagues put it, "It's like weighing a calf twice a day, but never feeding it."

But most of all, he simply observes his students, year to year, noting all the obvious evidence of teens' decreasing abilities when confronted with even the most basic intellectual tasks, from understanding simple history to working through moderately complex ideas to even (in a couple recent examples that particularly distressed him) being able to define the words "agriculture," or even "democracy." Not a single student could do it.

It gets worse. My friend cites the fact that, of the 6,000 high school students he estimates he's taught over the span of his career, only a small fraction now make it to his grade with a functioning understanding of written English. They do not know how to form a sentence. They cannot write an intelligible paragraph. Recently, after giving an assignment that required drawing lines, he realized that not a single student actually knew how to use a ruler.

It is, in short, nothing less than a tidal wave of dumb, with once-passionate, increasingly exasperated teachers like my friend nearly powerless to stop it. The worst part: It's not the kids' fault. They're merely the victims of a horribly failed educational system.

Then our discussion often turns to the meat of it, the bigger picture, the ugly and unavoidable truism about the lack of need among the government and the power elite in this nation to create a truly effective educational system, one that actually generates intelligent, thoughtful, articulate citizens.

Hell, why should they? After all, the dumber the populace, the easier it is to rule and control and launch unwinnable wars and pass laws telling them that sex is bad and TV is good and God knows all, so just pipe down and eat your Taco Bell Double-Supremo Burrito and be glad we don't arrest you for posting dirty pictures on your cute little blog.

This is about when I try to offer counterevidence, a bit of optimism. For one thing, I've argued generational relativity in this space before, suggesting maybe kids are no scarier or dumber or more dangerous than they've ever been, and that maybe some of the problem is merely the same old awkward generation gap, with every current generation absolutely convinced the subsequent one is terrifically stupid and malicious and will be the end of society as a whole. Just the way it always seems.

I also point out how, despite all the evidence of total public-education meltdown, I keep being surprised, keep hearing from/about teens and youth movements and actions that impress the hell out of me. Damn kids made the Internet what it is today, fer chrissakes. Revolutionized media. Broke all the rules. Still are.

Hell, some of the best designers, writers, artists, poets, chefs, and so on that I meet are in their early to mid-20s. And the nation's top universities are still managing, despite a factory-churning mentality, to crank out young minds of astonishing ability and acumen. How did these kids do it? How did they escape the horrible public school system? How did they avoid the great dumbing down of America? Did they never see a TV show until they hit puberty? Were they all born and raised elsewhere, in India and Asia and Russia? Did they all go to Waldorf or Montessori and eat whole-grain breads and play with firecrackers and take long walks in wild nature? Are these kids flukes? Exceptions? Just lucky?

My friend would say, well, yes, that's precisely what most of them are. Lucky, wealthy, foreign-born, private-schooled ... and increasingly rare. Most affluent parents in America — and many more who aren't — now put their kids in private schools from day one, and the smart ones give their kids no TV and minimal junk food and no video games. (Of course, this in no way guarantees a smart, attuned kid, but compared to the odds of success in the public school system, it sure seems to help). This covers about, what, 3 percent of the populace?

As for the rest, well, the dystopian evidence seems overwhelming indeed, to the point where it might be no stretch at all to say the biggest threat facing America is perhaps not global warming, not perpetual warmongering, not garbage food or low-level radiation or way too much Lindsay Lohan, but a populace far too ignorant to know how to properly manage any of it, much less change it all for the better.

What, too fatalistic? Don't worry. Soon enough, no one will know what the word even means.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID): Another Busted Gay Closeted Republican ...

2007-08-29T05:48:00.000-07:00

Stridently anti-gay Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig was revealed today to have been arrested on June 11th for lewd public conduct in the men's restroom of Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. Craig pled guilty on August 8th.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon. Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.
From the police report filed by plainclothes officer Dave Karsina, via TPM Election Central:
Craig then entered the stall next to Karsnia’s and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door.

“My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall,” Karsnia stated in his report. “From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me.”

Craig was wearing dress pants with black dress shoes.

“I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes. At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

In a recorded interview after his arrest, Craig “either disagreed with me or ‘didn’t recall’ the events as they happened,” the report states.

Craig stated “that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine,” the report states. Craig also told the arresting officer that he reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor.

“It should be noted that there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper,” the arresting officer said in the report.

Florida Republican Congressman Busted for Mouth-on-Dick Disease

2007-08-29T05:45:00.000-07:00

Yet another sleazy closeted Republican operative has busted into the news this week, this time the newly elected head of the Young Republican National Federation, 33-year-old Glenn Murphy Jr.

Murphy, who was elected last month after a six-month campaign for the position, resigned unexpectedly in an e-mail to his supporters a few days ago. The smarmy text informed his “dearest friends” that he’d had a “crazy weekend” trying whether to decide if he should accept a “life altering” business contract that obliged him to step down from the position he had so recently won.

“I spent the majority of my weekend shaking with anxious indecision,” he wrote. “I didn’t want to disappoint people. I didn’t want people to be angry. But I prayed with my family and we determined that I have to take this opportunity for my long-term security.”

What Mr. Murphy didn’t mention was that he was very likely about to be charged with criminal deviate conduct, a class B felony, after allegedly forcing oral sex on another man who was asleep at the time.

According to a police report, Murphy, the victim, and the victim’s sister had crashed at the sister’s house after a drunken Young Republican party on July 28 in Indiana. The victim awoke to find Murphy “holding my dick with one hand and sucking my dick with his mouth.” The man shoved Murphy aside, asking, “what the hell are you doing?” Murphy said nothing and the victim grabbed his clothes and left.

According to the report, Murphy later called the man and wanted to explain things. Murphy claimed he had found himself on the floor by the victim’s bed, and that the victim had started to run his fingers through Murphy’s hair while still asleep. Murphy, in turn, responded by caressing the unconscious man’s leg, and well, one thing led to another! The victim, who did not accept Murphy’s implausible scenario, told police that Murphy called him several times begging him not to report the matter. Murphy then hired a lawyer, Larry Wilder, who visited the victim to see if the situation could be “resolved.”

It couldn’t.

Making matters even more interesting is a police report from the same location, Clark County Indiana, from nearly a decade ago. Back in 1998, a different victim told police he had been sleeping, “when an acquaintance he had just met, Glen Murphy [sic], awoke him while doing oral sex on him while he was asleep.” The victim said he shoved Murphy backwards, “jumped up and ran to the restroom where he attempted to clean himself off.” The victim’s girlfriend was in the same room at the same time and woke when her boyfriend started yelling. She told police she saw Murphy extricate himself from under the covers and run out of the room.

I’m assuming no charges were filed, since Murphy went on to found the Clark County Young Republicans that same year. He served two terms as the chairman of the Indiana Young Republicans and was Clark County’s GOP chairman since 2001.

As for his national goals, he told the press last month that his goal was to double the membership of the Young Republican National Federation by November 2008. “I will essentially be the mouthpiece and effective leader for the tens of thousands of Young Republicans, 18 to 40 across the country,” he said.

But will they be awake at the time?

Bob Allen: Blacks Made Me Do It
Speaking of closeted Republicans behaving badly—an increasingly vast subject area—have you heard how Florida state representative Bob Allen explained away his rendezvous with an undercover cop in the men’s room of a Titusville public park the other day? You recall that Allen walked in and out of the facilities at Veteran’s Memorial Park several times, drawing the attention of some undercover cops who were on the lookout for a burglar. Finally, one of the cops went into the men’s room and sure enough, back popped Allen, who looked into the officer’s stall and said “hi.”
I won’t dig up the police report from the other week, but suffice to say that Allen, a married father of two girls, agreed to pay $20 if he could perform oral sex on the officer in a remote part of the park.

Now, Allen claims he was intimidated by the officer, “a pretty stocky black guy,” and scared of the “other black guys around in the park.” Afraid he was “about to become a statistic,” Allen told police he came up with the solicitation scheme in order to get away. “I certainly wasn’t there to have sex with anyone and certainly wasn’t there to exchange money for it,” Allen blustered insanely.

It’s not clear in his account why Allen was roaming the park at 3:30 in the afternoon. Nor did he explain why he entered the men’s room three times, let alone why he initiated a conversation with the frightening black dude in the next stall. And in a new detail, the Sun Sentinel reports that when Allen was taken under arrest, he asked “if it would help” that he was a state representative. The answer was no.

Fire Fighters Pissed Off At Pride Duty
Now, here’s an interesting tale.

It seems that the firefighters who volunteered to ride in the San Diego Pride Parade on July 21 had to cancel because one member of the team had a death in the family. I’m not sure why the rest of that unit couldn’t participate, but at any rate, the battalion chief ordered a different four-man team to represent the city fire department in the annual event.

The problem was that this particular division consisted of a bunch of homophobes, who strongly objected to riding in the parade, who complained about the assignment, and who refused to comply without a direct order. They were given a direct order, and they reluctantly donned their suits and drove their truck over to the staging grounds.

During the parade, their worst fears were realized when gay men blew kisses, rubbed their crotches, yelled provocative comments, and stuck out their tongues. To complicate matters, they were also given grief by Christian protesters who told them they were going to Hell. And finally, their colleagues ribbed them unmercifully.

The finicky foursome is now poised to sue the San Diego Fire Department for failing to protect them from sexual harassment on the job. Fire Chief Tracy Jarman, a lesbian, has apologized and promised to ask the San Diego Equal Employment Investigative Office to look into their complaints.

I guess my problem with this whole affair is this. I’m always pleased to see police officers and firefighters in the parade, displaying their solidarity with the GLBT community and making us feel as if we’re part of the larger life of the city etc. etc.. But the last thing I want is a crew of hard core gay haters, parading under protest, and barely containing their revulsion along the route. It’s an insult to the gay community to force a hostile contingent of firefighters to join our Pride celebration.

And how would gay or lesbian firefighters like it if they were ordered to show the colors at a parade or festival devoted to traditional family values?
Of course, firefighters and police can’t bring their political views to bear on their jobs when people’s lives are at stake. But showing pride and support for gay rights must be voluntary, otherwise it’s a worthless, if not counter-productive gesture, don’t you think? I’m not saying that their suit is valid or not valid. I’m just saying that disgust has no place in a pride parade, period.

In other firefighter news, the New York Post reports that a naughty video has led the Fire Department of New York to cut its ties with the annual firefighter calendar, even though the fund raising item generates $150,000. Apparently, 2008 calendar cover man Michael Biserta appears on a video displaying his “enormous member” in a hotel shower. And for those of you who must know, the video is called Guys Gone Wild, and is available somewhere on the web.

Department spokesman Francis Gribbon told the Post “we will no longer be participating in this. There will be no more calendars.”

Maybe the San Diego force can pick up the slack.

Bush Will Veto Hate Crime Bill
In other news, George Bush has pledged to veto the hate crime bill, even if lawmakers manage to attach it to the defense appropriations bill. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the president will veto any bill that contains the hate crime language, because: “The qualifications [in the bill] are so broad that virtually any crime involving a homosexual individual has potential to have hate crimes elements. The proposals they’re talking about are not sufficiently narrow.”

This is utter nonsense. In fact, as Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force pointed out, “the provisions of this legislation are identical to those that have been on the books since the 1960s. Just as those provisions have not led to any crime committed against a black person or a Jew constitute hate crimes, this legislation would not make any crime committed against an LGBT individual a hate crime.”

I, for one, would like to see Bush veto the defense appropriations bill. How the hell would he explain that to the American people?

As a matter of fact, there’s a ruling just this week out of New York that clarifies the use of the Empire State’s hate crime law. Three men with robbery on their minds deliberately picked a gay man to lure to a remote area, using a gay chat room because they thought it would be easy to convince a gay man to meet them somewhere. Indeed, Michael Sandy rendezvoused with the young thugs, who beat him up and chased him into traffic on the Belt Parkway. Sandy, 29, later died of his injuries.

Charged with hate crime enhancements as well as murder, the defendants claimed they didn’t “hate” gays, but simply thought they might be easy targets. But despite its name, the judge ruled that hate crimes don’t punish emotion, they punish criminals who select their victims based on race, sexual orientation, and the like.

“The grand jury evidence shows that this is not a case where hate crimes are charged simply because the victim just happened to be of a certain sexual orientation,” wrote Justice Jill Konviser. “Rather, this is case where the defendants deliberately set out to commit a violent crime against a man whom they intentionally selected because of his sexual orientation. Thus, the hate crimes charges in this case are consistent with the intent of the Legislature.”

Apparently, selecting victims based on sexual orientation is just fine with this administration. We wouldn’t want to hamper the free expression rights of violent robbers and killers.

Brits Tinker With Moth Sexuality
There’s more, but I’m running out of time and space. Our Gay Bishop Gene Robinson has come out in favor of Barack Obama. There’s a dust up in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, where dozens of clergy came out of the closet at a national assembly in order to protest the denomination’s requirement that gay ministers remain celibate. And Rex Wockner just sent me an e-mail about a gay moth. Hang on a second.

Apparently British scientists have developed a technique to trick brown-tailed moths into having homosexual sex in order to lower the population of the noxious pests and their poisonous rash-inducing larvae. The biologists douse the breeding grounds with female moth pheromones, and the males go crazy for all the new hatchlings, regardless of gender. The resulting confusion is enough to keep the unpleasant creatures in check.

Brown-tailed moths, we learn, are in fact white. With their “voracious appetite” they can strip an area of its greenery in a twink, causing skin irritations in the process. Lately, they’ve wrecked havoc on a lifeboat station at Spurn Point on the Humber estuary, home to seven itchy crew members and their disgruntled families.

You be the Judge! Sheesh

2007-08-11T06:09:00.000-07:00

From The Economist

Low pay and partisan elections are threatening judicial integrity

A $54m lawsuit over a pair of pinstriped trousers that went missing from a Washington, DC, cleaners was thrown out by a judge this week. It had attracted worldwide ridicule. The fact that the case was brought, not by a random loony, but by a former judge has added to the sense that something is wrong not just with America's litigation laws, but with the kind of men and women Americans choose to sit in judgment over them.

A whole series of judicial misdemeanours, ranging from the titillating to the outrageous, has emerged over the past year. Take the Florida state judge, John Sloop, who was ousted after complaints about his “rude and abusive” behaviour. This included an order to strip-search and jail 11 defendants for arriving late in traffic court after being misdirected. Or the Californian judge, José Velasquez, sacked in April for a plethora of misconduct, including extending the sentences of defendants who dared question his rulings.

Then there was the Albany city judge, William Carter, in New York, censored for his “utterly inexcusable” conduct after jumping down from the bench during a trial, shedding his robes and apparently challenging a defendant to a fist-fight. Another time, he suggested that the police “thump the shit out” of an allegedly disrespectful defendant. Mr Carter wasn't carrying a gun; many judges now do. In Florida, Charles Greene, chief criminal judge in Broward County, had to step down after describing a trial for attempted murder involving minority defendants and witnesses as “NHI” (No Humans Involved). Then there are the sexual peccadilloes. In Colorado, a (male) judge resigned after admitting having sex with a (female) prosecutor in his chambers. In California, a former judge was jailed for 27 months for downloading child pornography. And in Oklahoma Donald Thompson, a judge for more than 20 years, was jailed for four years for indecent exposure and using a “penis pump” to masturbate during trials.

More serious are the cases of corruption. On June 5th Gerald Garson, a former judge in Brooklyn, New York, was jailed for taking bribes to rig divorce cases. Another judge was convicted of accepting money to refer clients to a particular lawyer. Rumours of buying and selling of judgeships in the district abound. At one time, one in ten Brooklyn judges were said to be under investigation for sleaze.

“To distrust the judiciary,” said Honoré de Balzac, “marks the beginning of the end of society.” In Britain, judges are one of the most respected groups. But in America they tend to be held in low esteem, particularly at state level. For this many people blame low pay and the fact that judges are elected. In 39 states, some or all judges are elected for fixed terms. Federal judges, usually held in much higher esteem, are appointed on merit for life—as in Britain.

Most states allow judicial candidates to raise campaign funds. Huge sums are often involved, leading to inevitable suspicions that, once on the bench, judges will pass judgments that favour their benefactors. In 2004 the two candidates in one Illinois district (with a population of just 1.3m) raised a staggering $9.4m between them. Some of the states with the highest levels of campaign spending—Texas, Louisiana and Alabama—are also those whose judges are most criticised.

In the past, judicial candidates were banned from discussing controversial legal or political issues on the campaign trail. But in 2002 the Supreme Court ruled such bans to be unconstitutional, leading candidates to advertise freely their views on abortion and suchlike. Personal attacks have also become more common. Indeed, Sandra Day O'Connor, a former Supreme Court justice, fears that judicial elections have turned into “political prize-fights, where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the constitution.”

The meagre salaries of judges, whether at state or federal level, do not help raise standards either. Federal judges have not had a real pay rise for 17 years; a district court judge earns $165,000 a year, about the same as a first-year associate in a top law firm. John Roberts, chief justice of the Supreme Court, earns just $212,000—half the salary of England's top judge and one-fifth of the average income of a partner in the majority of America's 100 top-grossing law firms. Around 40 judges have left the federal bench over the past five years.

In his annual report to Congress in January, Mr Roberts said that the issue of judges' pay had reached “the level of a constitutional crisis”. It was threatening the judiciary's strength and independence. In February, Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, promised legislation to fix it within the current session. The judges are still waiting. Meanwhile, state judges in New York are preparing to sue the state for their first pay rise since 1999. The battle is joined.

Those Savvy Ancient Folk

2007-05-22T15:06:00.000-07:00

There has always been speculation about the technological prowess of ancient civilizations, and whether they were more advanced than is generally believed. The evidence is often fragmentary and controversial – a scrap of corroded alloy, or the remains of an ambiguous artifact, like the Baghdad battery and the Antikythera mechanism. But in one case the evidence is solid, substantial – and if one researcher is correct – gigantic.

The term ‘cement’ dates back to the Latin ‘cæmentium’, meaning rough stone. The Romans found that crushed rock mixed with burnt lime and water formed a mixture which hardened to a stone-like consistency. It was an invaluable construction material, and there are many buildings from the Roman era made (partially) with this cement that are still standing today, including the Pantheon and Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheatre) in Rome. (Technically this is ‘hydraulic cement’ because of the hardening action of water in forming it; mud and clay were used in early cements, but these are non-hydraulic and quickly worn down by water). Cement mixed with more stone is concrete and can be used for making building blocks.

Different recipes for cement were discovered independently by the Mesopotamians, Egyptians and Romans. For some reason, the technique kept getting lost – perhaps because of stonemasons’ desire to protect their trade secrets – and the method of producing high-quality mortar was not discovered again in Europe until the 14th century. Modern cement owes a great deal to the chemists of the 18th and 19th centuries. Many great Victorian buildings, including the Houses of Parliament, were made with Portland cement, which was patented in 1824 and is still the basis for most modern cement and concrete.

But while the Roman buildings have endured 2,000 years or more, modern cement does not survive so well. Modern concrete can decay dangerously within decades. The problem was particularly significant in the Eastern bloc, where planners had seized on concrete as the ideal material to rebuild cities shattered by the war.

In 1957, Ukrainian scientist Victor Glukhovsky investigated why the ancient recipes were so much more durable than modern ones. From the earliest times, various additives were found to make a difference, and the ancients seem to have tried just about everything. The Romans are known to have used animal fat and milk, and more gruesomely, blood. Modern research has found that the blood altered the texture of the cement and introduced air bubbles, which help it to withstand the effects of freezing and thawing. It would be interesting to know whether the practice of making an animal or human blood sacrifice when laying the foundations of a new building is related to this. The tradition of foundation sacrifices is known across Europe, Asia and North Africa.

Glukhovsky discovered that superior cement could be obtained by mixing alkaline activators based on sodium and potassium, which occur in many natural minerals. His findings were quickly taken up in the Ukraine, but attracted little attention elsewhere. However, his work was important in inspiring Joseph Davidovits, a French chemical engineer. Davidovits developed a theory that the Egyptian pyramids were not constructed by assembling stone blocks as had always been assumed, but that the blocks were a type of artificial stone, made using reconstituted limestone, which had been cast in place.

If correct, Davidovits’s theory would solve a number of mysteries concerning the building of the pyramids. Small barrels of liquid concrete would be much easier to move than multi-ton stone blocks, and the casting process would explain how some of the blocks fit together so precisely. It would also remove the need to explain how the Egyptians worked huge quantities of stone using just stone and copper tools. This theory would require the Egyptians to be capable of manufacturing a material that is every bit as strong and resilient as natural limestone, capable of withstanding over 4,000 years of weathering. In other words, far better than any modern cement. Davidovits set out to re-create such a material. The startling thing is that he succeeded.

In 1979, Davidovits discovered a new class of materials known as geopolymers, which are similar to Glukhovsky’s building cements and have aluminosilicate mineral powders added. Technically they are formed by condensation polymerisation and (unlike other cements) do not incorporate waters of hydration within their crystal structure. They are significantly stronger than other cements, impermeable to water, and much more durable to erosion caused by temperature change or chemical action.

Geopolymers are only very slowly being accepted into the market in spite of their obvious advantages. Other concretes have been studied in depth for many decades and their properties are well known. To the industry, geopolymers are black magic: it works but we don’t know why. As further study reveals more about their physical and chemical properties, they are likely to spread.

Of course, Davidovits may be wrong about the pyramids. Critics have pointed out the archæological evidence that large stone blocks were moved and quarried. Further, there are tool marks visible on many of the blocks that make up pyramids, which would not be consistent with the theory, as well as technical issues around how cast blocks would appear. 6 On the other hand, Davidovits’s studies point to air bubbles and other signs that at least some blocks were cast, not carved.

Davidovits was awarded the Ordre National du Mérite for his achievement, and is now President of the Geopolymer Institute. 7 While Sixties tower blocks crumble, Roman structures stand firm, and the pyramids may yet prove to be concrete evidence of the

Republican Debate

2007-05-04T07:23:00.000-07:00

Rudy and John may join the Dems of the Oval table, the rest of these guys need to slowly back away...sheesh

I think we should nominate Bill Marr and Jon Stewart - yeah yeah - that's the ticket!

The Democrate Debate?

2007-04-28T05:01:00.000-07:00

Was it actually a debate or just a Bush admin bashing. Seems they all have that in common. Also noticed they're on a casual first name basis, why not just roll with it.

It seemed to PooBah that most of those presidential dreaming Dems individually have certain strengths and/or weaknesses, but not one candidate had the "whole package" thing going on.

So, of course, PooBah has a solution that said Dems should consider. They should all just run together, on the same platform. We could call it the "Dems of the Oval Table". (No offense intended to noble knights on more circular tables)

Do we really need a singular president? Why not have the seven leading candidates rule and govern jointly? Each taking on a "political calamity" that they're most passionate about - And Maybe Actually Get it Done!

The White House is certainly large enough. It would be like a 4 year change the world slumber party. Simply meet once a week in the Oval office and make the big decisions the old fashion "democratic" way. Seems to work for the Supreme Court, why not the Supreme leadership?

In conclusion, Poobah was not impressed by any one of them that would garner a vote. However, if they could pull off a political "Dream Team" type of arrangement, the Bah seemed to indicate a vote would possibly be forthcoming!

So, now we wait to see what thrills and spills the Republican debate has in store for us. Safe to say that ole GWB is quite elated that he doesn't have to take part in that sucker, huh?

Until then - PooBah out

Boda Bing Boda Bang Boda Big Bang Boom

2007-04-16T12:10:00.000-07:00

On my constant quest for knowledge, determining the actual orgins of the Universe has been one of the most difficult. This of course due to the current impossibility of definitive proof. After researching several points of view, my critical thinking path leans toward the old Big Bang Aroo.

It's not surprising that many folk just don’t like the Big Bang Theory for some reason or other.
Of course most all religious types have their minds made up without even looking at the evidence.
It somehow offends their preconceived notions of how earth, man and indeed the entire universe
came to be.

Many try to articulate arguments against the Big Bang by either trying to poke holes in it or by inventing their own alternative cosmologies that seem to make more sense to them, in a biblical sorta way. Most of those who won't even try to back up their ideas with evidence. The bible explains everything, period.

The anti-Big Bang crowd has never really jived with mainstream science. (surprise surprise). Needless to say, they are confused by even the concept, as are many other folk who either aren’t aware of how strong the foundations of the Big Bang Theory are, or how weak the foundations of the alternative theories are.

So Uncle PooBah is going to attempt to enlighten and answer in simplistic terms the age old question; How did we get here? What are the origins of the Big Bang Theory and why is it so widely accepted by scientists?

1915 -- Einstein publishes his General Theory of Relativity. In its original form it predicts an expanding universe. Astronomers say the universe is not expanding, so Einstein adds a “fudge factor” called the Cosmological Constant to relativity to make it predict a steady state universe in accordance with the best astronomical data of the time. The idea that the universe could be expanding though is the first inkling of a Big-Bang origin for the universe.

1924 -- Edwin Hubble discovers that the universe is much larger than previously thought. He discovers that the so-called spiral nebulae are made of stars and are very far away. Up till then, these nebulae were thought to be part of the Milky Way Galaxy, and that the Milky Way was thought to constitute the entire universe. After 1924 it is known that the Milky Way is only one Galaxy among billions in an unimaginably huge universe.

1929 -- Edwin Hubble (among others) notices that the light from distant galaxies is redshifted and that the more distant the galaxy, the more the redshift. Since a redshift implies motion away, and everything seems to be moving away from everything else, Hubble proposes that this is the result of the universe expanding. Here is the true birth of what would eventually be called the Big Bang theory.

1948 -- Physicists Ralph Alper and George Gamow work out the timeline of events that must have taken place during the Big Bang. Modern Big Bang Theory is born. Their theory makes testable predictions about the properties of a universe born out of a Big Bang. One of those predictions is a Cosmic Background Radiation permeating the universe. However, the technology does not exist in 1948 to look for this radiation. Validation of the theory will have to wait until some future date.

1949 -- Fred Hoyle coins the term “Big Bang Theory” for the first time, as he mockingly refers to the new theory in a BBC interview. The name sticks. Hoyle does not believe in the Big Bang. He is an advocate of a Steady State universe.

1964 -- Hoyle & Tayler in "The Mystery of the Cosmic Helium Abundance" showed that most of the helium in the Universe could not have been produced in stars. This effectively killed off the various Steady State models of the day since none of them could account for the Helium except by producing it in stars. However, The Big Bang could account for it. The irony here is that Hoyle does not believe in the Big Bang but his work helps validate it. Still rejecting the Big Bang, he goes on to try to rework the Steady State theory to try to salvage it in some form.

1965 -- Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two radio astronomers using an ultra-sensitive radio telescope at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, unexpectedly detect the Cosmic Background Radiation predicted by Alper and Gamow in 1948. This put the final nail in the steady state coffin. Since steady state theories cannot account for the radiation.

After 1965 -- The Big Bang Theory is considered totally validated and from that point forward is accepted by nearly all cosmologists. Okay, that seems simple enough. So what’s the beef then? What are some of the main issues some people have with the Big Bang and what arguments and evidence do they offer? Lets look at a few.

Argument: Good evidence is lacking that supports the Big Bang Theory and discredits alternative theories.

Counter: Actually there is a lot of good evidence. Here is a partial list.
The universe almost certainly had a beginning (though some people may dispute that)
The universe is expanding. So it must have been smaller in the past. Keep going back in time and you must reach a point where the universe reaches zero size. The we have the Cosmic Background Radiation.
The abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium found in the observable universe.

Argument: Big Bang assumes that the Doppler Effect is the cause of the observed Redshift but what if it is not? Why assume an effect originally observed in sound waves also applies to electromagnetic radiation from distant quasars?

Counter: The Doppler Effect is demonstrably real and the only known agent that could cause the observed redshifts. The Doppler Effect is seen in electromagnetic radiation, and all other forms of waves.

Argument: The Big Bang depends too much on interpretation of quasar redshifts. Quasars could be made of some sort of exotic matter that has far different properties than ordinary matter and this could explain their redshifts.

Counter: Emission and absorption lines in quasar spectra show they are made of normal matter. Deep images of quasars show them to be embedded in ordinary galaxies. There is no evidence of anything exotic about quasars.

Argument: Quasars are too often seen “close” to nearby galaxies, more often than chance would allow, and so they are more likely to be nearby objects that have been ejected from those nearby galaxies.

Counter: Over 50 examples of quasar lensing by foreground galaxies disprove theory that chance alignments are rare. The laws of chance actually require there to be many more “close” alignments than exact alignments, so such “close” alignments are expected and aren’t proof of anything. Also, gravitational lensing only works if there is a vast difference in distances between the observer and the foreground and background objects. So quasars are indeed very far away. Also, all surveys done to date show quasars are distributed randomly across the sky, and not clustered around nearby galaxies as some alternative cosmology backers claim.

Argument: General Relativity could be wrong, and then all the assumptions about the Big Bang based on Relativity would be wrong too.

Counter: General Relativity is the most thoroughly tested and validated theory in the history of physics. No theory for the origin of the universe will be taken seriously if it does not work within the confines of General Relativity.

Argument: Fully formed galaxies and galaxy clusters appeared “too early” if the universe is as young as the Big Bang theory claims.

Counter: How early is “too early?” When the universe was younger, matter was closer together and gravitational attraction was stronger, allowing much of the large-scale structure of the universe to form in only the first few billion years after the Big Bang. One wouldn’t expect many new galaxies or galaxy clusters to be forming now that the universe has expanded and matter has thinned out.

Argument: Too many holes and unknowns in the Big Bang theory.

Counter: Nobody ever claimed it was complete. It hangs together better than any of the alternatives though. Arguing that the Big Bang Theory is invalid because it is incomplete is like arguing against evolution because of holes in the fossil record. The record is still there, even if we can’t quite see all of the details, the big picture is pretty obvious.

Argument: Big Bang theory is constantly being tweaked and modified to fit new discoveries, like epicyles being added to the old Earth-centered universe cosmology.

Counter: Big bang is more flexible than other theories which totally fall apart and must be discarded when new discoveries are made that can’t be integrated into them. The Big Bang Theory has many adjustable parameters and variables. New discoveries and concepts like Dark Matter and Dark Energy can not only be integrated into the Big Bang Theory, but even help explain some of the unanswered questions.
Alternative cosmologies like Steady State and Quasi-Steady State fall apart because they have rigid rules and make absolute predictions about the nature of the universe that just don’t pan out in observation.

Argument: Alternative cosmology proponents have been blacklisted and there is a conspiracy to silence critics, suppress the truth and protect the status quo.

Counter: The various alternative cosmologies all seem to be “junk science” at their cores. People who waste limited resources (like telescope time) on bad science do sometimes get blacklisted, and rightly so.
Truth can’t be easily suppressed in science because science works the same everywhere. Proliferation of the A-bomb and H-bomb are good examples of this. There are lots of telescopes on every continent. A conspiracy to suppress alternative cosmologies would have to be world-wide and involve cooperation between rival nations and rival scientists all trying to be the first to announce the next big discovery. Not a likely scenario.

To sum it up, there's a large body of observational evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory which puts it on a very firm foundation compared to any other alternative theories i've researched. It makes predictions which are validated by repeated observation.

The alternatives lack supporting evidence. They make predictions that are not confirmed, and sometimes even refuted by observation. They resort to assuming exotic forms of matter, dowop physics or even biblical babble are at work to try to make their case.

It’s not hard to see why the Big Bang is accepted and the alternatives can’t seem to gain any traction with scientists. All one has to do is open ones eyes. One might even be amazed at what one might see. :)

Imus and my Ho Ho's

2007-04-13T21:11:00.000-07:00

Dom Imus is now fired. Chalk one up for politically incorrect free speech! I must say, the Girls from the Rutgers B-Ball team were very well spoken and quit gracious towards the I-Man considering the stupidity of his remarks.

Is he a racist person? I think not. I think he was for most part being his usual satirical, albeit abnoxious self towards societies perception of these young college atheletes, and young women of color in general. It only takes a few minutes of viewing your "MTV" to actually dig the rap of what this entails.

The real tragedy is the most certain dimise of what happens to be one of my favorite night time snacks.

I can't even imagine walking into Super Market USA and asking; "Excuse me? Where's the black frosted outside white creamy inside Ho Ho's, maam?"

Sheesh, I spose now I'll have to indulge my sweet tooth amidst the one true pure and white snack treat, Le' Twinkies. My new personal safe zone of white snack supremacy

Kentucky Fried T-Rex

2007-04-13T18:02:00.000-07:00

CHICAGO, Illinois (Reuters) -- Tiny bits of protein extracted from a 68-million-year-old dinosaur bone have given scientists the first genetic proof that the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken.
"It's the first molecular evidence of this link between birds and dinosaurs," said John Asara, a Harvard Medical School researcher, whose results were published in Friday's edition of the journal Science.
Scientists have long suspected that birds evolved from dinosaurs based on a study of dinosaur bones, but until recently, no soft tissue had survived to confirm the link.
That all changed in 2005 when Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University reported finding soft tissue, including blood vessels and cells, in a T. rex bone dug out of sandstone from the fossil-rich Hell Creek Formation in Montana.
Schweitzer, in another study appearing in this week's issue of Science, found that extracts of T. rex bone reacted with antibodies to chicken collagen, further suggesting the presence of birdlike protein in dinosaur bones.
For his study, Asara used a highly sensitive technology called mass spectrometry to determine the chemical makeup of bone fragments provided by Schweitzer and her team.
He first had to purify the bone extract, which came in the form of a gritty brown powder that remained after minerals were extracted. Asara then broke it down into peptide fragments, little bits of proteins, isolated into the amino acid sequences that make them up.
"It was very tough to get anything," he said in a telephone interview. He wound up with seven separate strands of amino acid, five of which were a particular class of collagen, a fibrous protein found in bone.
Next, Asara had to interpret the sequences. He compared his results to collagen data from living animals. Most matched collagen from chickens, while others matched a newt and frog.
"Based on all of the genomic information we have available today, it appears these sequences are closer to birds or chickens than anything else," Asara said.
Ultimately, scientists had hoped to find genetic material that was unique to the T. rex. That was not possible with the tiny T. rex sample.
"We never found unique T. rex tags," he said.
In a similar study of mastodon bones supplied by Schweitzer, Asara had more luck.
He compared the samples to a database of existing amino acid sequences and against a theoretical set of mastodon sequences and found a total of 78 peptides, including four unique sequences.
Still, Asara said the T. rex protein sequence was useful in providing clues about the evolution of the species.
The researchers said the results may change the way that people think about fossil preservation.
"The fact that we are getting proteins is very exciting," said paleontologist Jack Horner, who dug up the T. rex in 2003 and is co-author of the paper with Schweitzer.
Horner said paleontologists will need to dig deeper for specimens that have not been corrupted by ground water and bacteria.
"I think we are going to find that many specimens are like it. It will be a matter of paleontologists getting into sites that are not necessarily easy," he told reporters in a telephone briefing.

Greetings Humans!

2007-04-10T04:54:00.001-07:00

Welcome - Do Behave, Huh?