An experiment: an open thread

October 19, 2014 • 9:06 am

My absence in Bulgaria, and inability to post so often, has prompted this experiment: a readers’ thread.  Feel free to post links or even videos that you think might start a conversation, and see if you can keep it going. Feel free to change the subject if you’ve talked one dry.

Go!

413 thoughts on “An experiment: an open thread”

  3. The ukelele in modern, popular music. Discuss…

    For me, it’s a pseudo-postmodernist approach to music, whereby one can deconstruct the cultural paradigm of periphrastic expression.

    Wouldn’t you agree?

    1. Ugh. I was just lamenting the fact that ukeleles grew popular in Hawaii because of their contact with the Portuguese.

      If there was a musical hell for me, there would be a band playing tunes on ukeleles, steel (Hawaiian) guitars & accordions!

      2. The problem I have is that, for me, on UK TV at the moment, there are far too many overly-twee ads featuring breathy females singers performing songs with oh-so-quirky melodies and arrangements. And they all tend to feature the ukelele. So, it’s not the instrument itself I suppose, more of its overuse in this media. *sighs*

        1. The whole thing to me is preposterous – it’s very small and holding it is almost cartoonish & then the same strings are played on it over and over.

          1. The feelings these ads and their music engender in me are a sickly-sweet, saccharine-laden, vomit-inducing, toe-curling, cat-frightening, mole-irritating, puppy-buying, Coca-colaXmas-ad-infesting, Andrexpuppydog-overwhelming, bile-prompting, dismay-errupting, facepalm-cajoling, bowl-liquifying type of reaction. Other than that, I quite like them…

            Al

          2. I guess somebody should tell Yo-Yo Ma to stop playing those same four strings over and over if he wants to be taken seriously as a musician.

          4. What if the cello is reduced in size gradually until it (as they say in calculus circles) “approaches” the size of a ukulele?
            How close could it get to the size of the ukulele before you couldn’t stand it?

            What is your take on the “quatro” of Latin/South America? Surely a double-first cousin to the ukulele? And what about those small guitars for back-packers?

            Ukuleles come in several sizes. The bass ukulele is close to the size of the tenor guitar. (An acquaintance from yesteryear once denied the existence of the tenor guitar and, when he found he couldn’t deny it, promptly labelled it “a handicapped” instrument by virtue of having only four strings. Didn’t debate it with him as I had to get along with him in order to perform with him. Ah, the Accommodationist in me. I guess the whole string section of the orchestra is therefore handicapped, eh? I wonder if a 12-string guitar is handicapped by virtue of having “too many” strings. John Pizzarelli plays a 7-string; slightly/nominally handicapped? Glen Campbell played a 6-string banjo, using guitar chords. No doubt a faux pas amongst 5-string banjo purists, though there does exist an older 4-string banjo with a longer neck, such as what Pete Seeger played. Also, a shorter-necked banjo in 30’s jazz/ragtime bands.)

          5. When I think of the ukulele, I’m talking about the one I mentioned in my original post: the one favoured my Hawaiians from contact with the Portuguese. I have no experience with the others and the string instruments you mentioned do not sound like the ukuleles I mentioned so your reduction ad absurdum to make it appear as though I simply do not like the ukelele because of its size is, well absurd. I don’t like how they sound and it ruins Hawaian songs.

          6. Okie-Dokie. Fifty apologies. (Though the sound such an instrument makes is at least a function of its size/shape, if I may congenially presume to say so.)

            What do you think of the Hawaiian “slack” guitar? Pianist George Winston is an enthusiast.)

          7. Is the slack guitar like the steel guitar because I hate the steel guitar. As soon as I hear it in a song, the song is turned off.

          8. Can’t bear Hawaiian guitar sound, or any kind of Hawaiian music ( though do think the islands are gorgeous) but aren’t there some rock steel guitars that sound totally different? Those ones you play flat on your lap. Dubro or something like that? I like the sound of those.

          9. Those stupid steel guitars and ukelele’s nicely represent how the Hawaiian culture was polluted. Their songs are quite nice without them.

          10. My first thought of ukulele is Arthur Godfrey as in god-awful. But times have changed – google Jake Shimabukuro and watch his playing on YouTube – I think that some of you might change your mind about ukulele. 🙂

          11. Yes that sounds much better – playing it like a regular guitar and not strumming all the strings the same way in every single song ever sang.

          12. Diana, you did say “The whole thing to me is preposterous – it’s very small and holding it is almost cartoonish”. So I think Filippo can be excused for thinking you had a problem with the size.

          13. But the size was a separate issue from the sound which was put together as one issue in Filippo’s response as if to show that if I saw a small cello I’d hate the way it sounded too.

          14. @ Merilee

            The Dobro has a distinctive twangy sound and it famously featured on the cover of Dire Straits’ ‘Brothers in Arms’ album. Here’s Mark demonstrating that it can be good, properly used: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y6_z8RaOXU (Romeo and Juliet)

            Now you WOULDN’T want to hear it on every track! But IMO any instrument can be made to sound good, properly played in the proper setting.

          15. @Merilee

            “Those ones you play flat on your lap.”

            I think you must mean the lap steel guitar (which is quite unlike a Dobro!). According to Wikipedia, it evolved into the pedal steel guitar, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedal_steel_guitar

            And yes, I really like the sound of a pedal steel, properly used. Many groups use them for backing or occasionally lead.

            The terminology of these stringed instruments gets really confusing though. Try also this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lap_steel_guitar

          16. Then there’s Duane Allman & his slide guitar…I think I’m free-associating here…

            (Also, I love Dire Straits’ Romeo & Juliet.)

          18. @Merilee

            Yes. According to Wikipedia, Dobros were resonator guitars, designed to be louder than ordinary so they weren’t drowned out by the other band instruments, and resonators could be played lap style, and with a steel. (Electric guitars overcame the loudness problem).

            It’s all VERY complicated, see Wikipedia ‘Resonator guitar’ and ‘Steel guitar’. Innumerable combinations.

            I was probably wrong to identify the Dobro with Mark Knopfler’s playing on Romeo & Juliet, since that may have been an atypical use of a Dobro.

          19. Thanks iip. My old musician boyfriend used to play drums ( and sometimes sax) with a guy who had a couple of beautiful dobros, and I seem to remember him at least sometimes playing them on his lap ( but I could be wrong: it was10+ years ago).

          22. Well this is a timely discussion.

            Last night I was out with a friend and he bumped into a friend who was going to a ukulele concert. I was like “wuh?” My pal said “Yeah, and she’s involved with this new documentary coming out about (some Ukulele player). It’s the latest in thing. Everyone is playing one. X and Y’s kids are taking Ukelele lessons. In the guitar shops, ukuleles are being bought and rented more than guitars.”

            Wow. I had no idea. The fad had completely passed me buy. Maybe for the better….

          3. Hahaha! My dad was forced to take accordion lessons and hates them for that reason. I’m sure hell is populated with accordions.

    2. Once I saw George Harrison and Tom Petty playing ukuleles, they became much more interesting.

      And really, what’s not to like – portability and fun.

    5. Useless pieces of information #437 (may or may not be true, but sounds slightly credible) : George Formby, with his ukulele, lamp post and smutty innuendo was one of the most frequent targets of BBC song censorship in the pre-WW2 era.
      Hmmm, my spelling checker says “ukulele”, not “ukelele” ; I never thought I’d ever need to check that for trans-Atlantic disagreement.
      Ohh, odd ; -u- for EN_US and -e- for EN_GB, and the spelling checker has got it wrong too.

  5. Great thinker, poor tweeter. Many of my intellectual heroes write remarkably good books but create a lot of confusion when they tweet. Why is that? My thesis: They do not understand the psychology of (a fraction of) their readers hiding in the anonymity of the internet.

    1. I’ll bite.

      My completely unscientific, first-things-to-come-to-mind theories would include:

      1) Great, insightful thinkers tend not to be overly concerned with formatting their communications for mundane, polite conversation.

      2) People who invest most of their time exploring and explaining complex phenomena probably don’t spend much time getting used to how various types of communication are perceived on the interwebs. They don’t realize how their tweets will be interpreted.

      1. ” . . . probably don’t spend much time getting used to how various types of communication are perceived on the interwebs. They don’t realize how their tweets will be interpreted.”

        Yea, verily, “perceived.”

        A Jezebel/Delilah from yesteryear once told me that “Email is SO one-dimensional.”

        Yep, one is not in the presence of another to evaluate tone of voice, facial expression, eye contact, so as to possibly more accurately evaluate whether someone means what s/he says, inasmuch as people will say most anything, as I was dismayed to discover at a more youthful, callow age. (As some anonymous minister said, “Experience costs me more than I should have to pay, but I can’t seem to get it for any less.”)

        (Plus, I learned in a NY Times front-page article a few years ago, from an expert on the matter – a thirteen-year-old girl – “Email is so lame.”)

        So, if email is “SO one-dimensional,” what does that make tw**ts? Some fraction of a string in string theory? 😉

    2. “remarkably good books”

      The books are a filter that ensures that the majority of people encountering the author’s ideas are already somewhat committed to his point of view.

      It’s not that they’re bad tweeters, it’s that they now have a bad audience.

      2. Good point Greg, never thought of it. Prof. Dachbodenkatze has it right: use twitter as a pointer to longer articles.

      3. Yes, I agree. Though even in the case of books, there are plenty of people who will just read the title before deciding they know everything they need to know about the book and the author, and then furiously attack what they assume it says.

  6. CJ Whirligig is now claiming (via Twitter) that Sam Harris is also a plagiarist. So, you see, his plagiarism is OK now and there is no controversy.

        1. We will see how this develops. But even it it seems true, so what? Werleman is still a repeat offender.

      1. I love how he blames his attacks on Harris’s fans for him criticizing Sam Harris. Like anyone who likes Sam’s work is standing there, rabidly hoping to attack anyone who criticizes Sam’s ideas.

        So sad. He really has a fragile ego.

        1. Yes, and now he’s just in damage control mode to maintain his fan base.

          He really doesn’t get, or doesn’t want to get, that he’s being criticized for plagiarism, and that the Harris stuff is beside the point (although that can [and has] been criticized).

      2. Aaaarrrghghghgh! I have just realised that I have bought one of this man’s books. I didn’t read much of it, it wasn’t great. But I gave him some of my money!! Noooooo.

        1. Well, judging by the amount of plagiarism, maybe they were someone else’s books. 😛

      1. Zero is definitely a “thing”, even though it has value zero. Does it help if you consider it as the identity for the operations of addition and subtraction, in the same way that “one” is the identity for multiplication and division.

          1. I think we’ve also inadvertently stumbled onto a proof of God.

            There are 0 gods.
            0 is definitely something.
            Something is not nothing.
            God is not nothing.
            God exists.
            Q.E.D.

          3. Actually, if you were to take seriously the Zalta-Oppenheimer computer-assisted proof of the ontological argument, I believe that concluding that god is the platonic 0 is one possibility. (Another is that god is the number 1 in the same sense.) Of course, Z. and O. would tell you that even this odd result in some sense begs the question, but …

          4. Well, if this doesn’t add to the evidence that theology is the art of making stuff up, I don’t know what does. And now you’ve piqued my interest to go look up what the Z. and O. ontological argument is…

  8. The recent kerfuffle with Sam Harris, Ben Affleck et al. along with interactions I’ve had at work this past week really has me thinking about the art and practice of listening and understanding what others are saying.

    Affleck’s aggressive obtuseness was strange but surprisingly common in human discourse. What is it about our commitment to an idea that makes us impervious to reason? Harris posted a nice follow up to his exchange with Affleck:
    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself

    I’d be interested in learning more about this aspect of human psychology, for anyone with insight on the phenomenon.

    1. If the hypothesis that reason originated as away to convince others of our opinion, rather than as a method of truth discovery it correct, then perhaps this is just a throwback to the origins of reason, rather than being impervious to reason per se.

    2. “What is it about our commitment to an idea that makes us impervious to reason?”

      It reflects the extent to which one has “dug into” an idea – to an extent where it’s become part of one’s identity. Once an idea has become that deeply ingrained, statements to the contrary are perceived to be attacks, this the response – an attack (e.g. “That’s racist and gross!” – ugh).

      I think there’s a name for this type of cognitive bias, but it escapes me now.

      2. I don’t know either, but I can think of several candidates:

        False equivalence: an attack on my belief is an attack on me (this is grounded in the idea that knowledge by faith is a reflection of a personal choice to know.)

        Red herring: changing the topic to divert the debate (“So, you’re saying I’m stupid?”)

        Ad Hominem: attacking the arguer instead of the argument (“You’re only doing this because you hate happy people living happily in diversity!”)

        Poisoning the Well: discrediting the argument by defining the source as negative (“Only bigots attack Islam.”)

        Appeal to Pity (aka The Little People Argument): emphasizing the weakness or vulnerability of the opponent in a plea for forbearance (“If I didn’t believe this I would fall apart.”)

        Of course, we could just call it the Argument from Identity: if someone no longer differentiates between a factual claim and their own existence, then we have to grant them an automatic pass and let them be who they are.

        1. Argument from Identity nails it–I’ll have to remember that one. Related: the privileging of belief. Once a belief is stated or implied, the social expectation is that it gets a pass.

      3. Sunk cost fallacy? Committing more and more of your mental resources to an idea, and thus making it harder to let go if things go bad for said idea.

        1. Ah, thank you! That’s the one I was trying to recall. And I think the others suggested above could apply as well.

    1. Hmmm, I’ve been a bit busy with work the last few weeks – and another meeting in Glasgow tomorrow morning, sigh – so I’d not noticed anything about any petitions.
      Hmmm, not encountered this Paul Braterman guy before, though I’ve met the Skeptics in the Pub people before (didn’t they organise Jerry’s Glasgow presentation a couple of years back?, and the Aberdeen chapter brought Matthew Cobb up to the Noose and Monkey in sub-tropical Aberdeen not long after).
      Hmmm, have to do some follow up on this, but I’ve got that meeting tomorrow. Surveyors on Tuesday. Wednesday is Shell. Sigh, Thursday.

    1. guaranteed to start a flame war.

      Napalm, or the old warhorse white phosphorus?
      Vi vs Emacs?

      1. That’s a Holy War (TM).

        “The characteristic that distinguishes holy wars from normal technical disputes is that in a holy war most of the participants spend their time trying to pass off personal value choices and cultural attachments as objective technical evaluations.”

        Plagiarised from Foldoc http://foldoc.org/holy+wars

  12. Here’s a question I have:

    If, like me, you live in the US you’ve probably had the experience of having members of an evangelical branch of Christianity (I’m including Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons here) come to your home in order to tell you about their religion (which, since you’re in the US is something you’ve almost certainly already heard of). Why is this considered to be be polite behavior? I’m sure everyone here can imagine the uproar that would erupt if Muslims, Pagans, or atheists tried using that tactic, so why is it acceptable for Christian sects?

    1. Maybe I’m being terribly naive, but I don’t think here in my corner of the world (western New York state) people would be outraged by evangelical non-Christians. Also, I am a staunch and outspoken atheist, but I am not bothered by the occasional person wanting to tell me the ‘good news.’ So long as they take ‘no’ for an answer (almost, but not always, the case in my experience), I consider that perfectly polite behavior. No worse than an encyclopedia salesperson, for those of a certain age.

      1. Where I live there is a nearby JW college and they use the whole area as a training ground. One week a nice lady student came around and I talked her to a standstill as she could not counter my argument. She asked if she could come back and the next week appeared with her teacher. He got no further and asked if he could come back. Next week the leader came and started to show me the prophesies in their bible which I countered by saying that prophesies are easily retrofitted to events happening as in Nostradamus, so he showed men the prophesy for the end of the world where all newspapers and tv’s will show that there is peace on earth. I agreed with him that when that happened I would immediately knock on his door and ask for him to teach me the truth.
        The next week to 16 year old dolley birds in mini skirts knocked on my door and I slammed it in their faces saying that they were not playing fair. I’m still waiting for peace on earth but I still use it as an excuse now when others come calling that I have a deal with their church that they will not bother me and I will not convert their people to atheism.

        1. Once a very nice and probably rather dim woman came to explain to me that the lion would literally eat straw like the ox. I talked to her about different digestive systems of herbivores and carnivores, and said that that prophecy disrespected God’s creation of the lion as a carnivore. (One must use words that communicate.)

          Everyone native to that area new everyone else, and it was a long time before anyone else showed up to witness to me (the stranger) again.

    2. Is it considered polite behavior? Most people I know consider it on par with having your dinner interrupted by telemarketing phone calls. Even the people going round from door to door with pamphlets in hand often look as if they’d rather be anywhere else. But their church tells them they have an obligation to spread the word, even at the cost of being rude and intruding on other people’s privacy.

      So the real question is: why do people do what their church tells them even when they know in their hearts it’s wrong?

      1. Because they think they are saving souls and that over-rides politeness. At least they tend to go away when I assert that I’m not interested and refuse to take their pamphlets.

        2. Saving souls is what the church tells them they’re doing. But I wonder how many of them really believe they’re having any measurable success at that. I suspect most of them view it as more of a character-building make-work project that doesn’t actually accomplish anything (other than annoying the people whose doorbells they ring).

        3. refuse to take their pamphlets.

          Don’t you have cats? Don’t they have litter trays that need shredded paper, or something. That’s a better use than leaving them with leaflets that they can inflict on the vulnerable.
          I have a deep, deep aversion to burning literature of any sort. But that’s alleviated by having paper recycling.

          1. A former JW friend told me that if you take a pamphlet, they return because it gives them some hope that you are open to them. Every time I’ve declined the pamphlet, they don’t return.

            I have on occasion had a pamphlet left at my door when I wasn’t home. The latest has a very European Jesus on the front. I so want to argue about that to them but that also encourages them to return so my policy is to tell them politely that I am not interested and thank you, have a nice day.

            One couple was really nice to me. It struck me how normal they are, save for this odd religious affliction. I often feel sad for them, especially when they haul their children around. For this reason I’m always polite to them and they never return. I get new ones every year or so but that’s about it.

      2. “…on par with having your dinner interrupted by telemarketing phone calls… rude and intruding on other people’s privacy.”

        You’ve captured it.

      3. Many people I know also consider the door-to-door Jesus salespeople to be annoying.

        But I also think microraptor’s not wrong in noting that the reaction would be far worse if the door- knockers were Muslims or atheists. That would truly be intolerable in this Christ-soaked culture.

    3. Polite behavior? Great Cthulhu man (or woman)! Don’t you realize that immortal souls are at stake?!? (Well, that’s what I think they’re thinking anyway).

      I’ve had JWs at more door – I consider it mildly impolite but as an atheist I’m not offended. Slightly amused, yes. Last time they came to my door, the rationale they used for me to consider becoming a JW was “don’t you wonder about all the movies that depict disasters and the end of the world?” – not joking. My response “but ummm, those are just movies, right?” really seemed to stump them and they left (but not without leaving some hilarious literature with me).

    4. IMO, is is considered acceptable because it seems that in the US, Christanity is still equated with “good” and thus their actions are considered “polite”. However, I know that any other religion would be run off with little thought to politeness, especially in the parts of Pennsylvania that are “Pennsyltucky”.

      They are a waste of my time which I value very highly. I think that $20 should be fair if I have to answer the door and be bothered by them.

      1. I think that $20 should be fair if I have to answer the door and be bothered by them.

        Yeah, that one has been tried time ad nauseam. Never heard of a successful scheme – any joy from anyone else?
        The closest I get is an occasional bout of taking the garbage from one company’s spam and shoving it into another company’s envelopes, to drive up both their printing and postage costs.
        Nil illegitimati papier mache, perhaps?

          1. Oh sigh – we had the illegitimati (cursed be their parents, on their single meeting ; I hope they both caught something new and unpleasant) papier-macheing us a few years ago over double-glazing. And the rodents were back over the weekend. The usual things – misrepresentation, high-pressure sales (and the wife has been nagging me over DG for months, so I was feeling pretty carborundumed.
            It turned out that this weekend’s sales-slime actually worked for the company I ended up suing about 5 years ago. Their legal department remember me, and have accepted the cancellation (or so they say; we’ll see) without whinging about it.
            I apologise to any rodents who feel slighted by the comparison with double-glazing salesmen. And any slime similarly offended.
            OTOH, I have picked up a little facility with a CAD programme – I always found it quicker to get out the tube pens and tee-square in the past than to learn the ins and outs of a CAD system.

    5. I’m sure everyone here can imagine the uproar that would erupt if Muslims, Pagans, or atheists tried using that tactic, so why is it acceptable for Christian sects?

      I’m not sure there’d be an ‘uproar’ — because many devout Christians already consider the most common door-to-door proselytizers (Mormons and JWs) to be heretics. In many ways they’d be more dangerous than a pagan or atheist because they use the Word of God to entice people towards damnation.

      I used to help out at an atheist booth at the Wisconsin State Fair for a few years. Even the furious and outraged usually seemed to think we had a right to be there. Or, if they didn’t, it was a pretty easy argument to win. About the only thing the Outraged would back down on, iirc. After all, they always had their own booth (and imagined themselves as brave mavericks teetering right on the edge of being forbidden to join in ‘secular’ forums like fairs.)

      I don’t consider doorbell evangelists to be like telemarketers. I compare them to political campaigners, or folks with environmental concerns. Selling an idea is different than marketing a product — well, different enough.

      1. But they’re not really selling an idea. They’re selling membership in their organization. The ultimate purpose is to get more bodies in the pews and more dollars in the collection plate.

        1. Is it? Not necessarily.

          I suspect most people who preach door-to-door (not all, but most) are sincere. They’re ‘selling’ eternal salvation because they are nice people who are trying to love their neighbor as best they can. They also believe they can help people become happier in how they live their lives on earth. Good intentions — not money — are usually what motivates on the personal level, at least (and I’d argue for most of the leaders, too.)

          I respect them; that is why I want to rip their arguments to shreds. It’s actually a horrible philosophy (if that’s what you want to call it) hiding in the clothes of love and kindness. They can do better. We need to.

          And hey, none of this debate-is-disrespectful “nonjudgmental” crap: THEY came to ME for the purpose. I find that refreshing.

          1. I’m not doubting the sincerity of the individuals. (Whether they actually think they’re being effective at saving people is a different question.)

            But there are lots of sincere Christians who genuinely want you to be saved but who don’t come knocking door-to-door. The ones who do come knocking are the ones whose churches specifically instruct them to do that. And the reason those churches give those instructions is to put bodies in the pews.

    6. I used to politely turn them away. Now, I politely listen to them if they’ll politely listen to me. Most atheists have more bible knowledge(and related material)than most christians of any denomination. Perhaps something I say will trigger a desire to learn more.

      1. I remember a couple of JW ringing home 40 years ago when I was alone. I let them come in and sit, and they started delivering their messsage spiced with plenty of biblical quotations. Unfortunately for them, I’m an atheistic pastor’s son, and I did know the bible rather well (since this time, this knowledge became a bit rusted) and it was very easy for me to find counter quotations for everything they told me. At the end they did litteraly run away, saying they would send me “mature brothers”. I was unable to resist, yelling after them in the staircase that THEY were the lost lambs they were speaking about. And since 40 years or so, I didn’t have any more visit… I’m almost sure they mark the doors with a secret sign meaning “hopeless”.
        Remembering this story, I’m a bit ashamed…

      2. I used to politely turn them away. Now, I politely listen to them if they’ll politely listen to me

        Soak up their time with something that they’re not going to harm anyone else by doing. A good strategy, when you have the time.

    7. I don’t see it as polite, it is an act of hostility intended to maintain compliance to monotheistic dogmas. They are there to “correct your thinking”. You can easily test this by making reciprocal offers. I’ve often suggested that they give me their home address so I might drop by unannounced and provide studies on atheism, or to come to their church to teach the controversy about creation, called evolution. No-one’s accepted so far.
      We’re so mired in religion in the US public sphere that no one gives it a second thought anymore.

      1. I used to be annoyed with people witnessing, but now I mostly feel sorry for them. So I smile and say, “No thank you. Have a good day!” They usually seem happy that they got through the encounter without hostility.

        1. I’m not usually rude with christians, but if they approach me, I will give them the “business” as they say. 😉

  13. “if the human body is composed of billions of cells but with only 0.01% of these being involved with reproduction, are we not all 99.99% gay?” Discuss.

      1. My bit of whimsy was merely a counter to the trope that gayness must be a lifestyle choice because gays do not reproduce. The more serious point is that it is not the number of offspring that are produced which is the winning strategy but the success of those that are produced.

      1. I briefly considered that since TV is infatuated with mythical beings: vampires, werewolves, zombies, that the centaur should have its own show. Instead though, I think minotaurs would be even better. A whole series on a daft high school girl falling in love with the minotaur….but then I guess that’s just Beauty & the Beast.

        1. I’m trying to recall any reasonably convincing CGI/ animatronics centaurs. which may be an issue. And thinking about what human’s lower backs are like, I’d expect that right-angle bend in the upper lumbar region of a centaur to be a real, ummm, PITA.

          2. They tried centaurs in ‘Hercules’ and ‘Xena’ (the TV shows) with moderate success. Trouble is, centaurs just look anatomically wrong – too much weight on the front legs. I think they’d understeer badly. That, and the ‘fact’ that (if Herc/Xena writers got it right) centaurs were all male, they married normal human females – which leads to painful speculation about how baby centaurs arrive in the world…

          3. They tried centaurs in ‘Hercules’ and ‘Xena’

            You know, I’ve never watched more than a few seconds of either of them. Despite knowing that Xena allegedly involves someone called (approximately) “Lucy Lawless” and there is some soft-core lesbian stuff going on there to make the brows of adolescent males burst out into sweat.
            The things you file into the braincell for digging out in pub quizzes.
            Googles … yeah, too soft core for me. I assume that the Hercules stuff is similarly aimed at adolescent girls. Or gay boys.

          4. ‘soft-core’? It wasn’t _supposed_ to be porno!

            Oh, and Lucy Lawless is actually her genuine name. Nee Lucy Ryan, daughter of the mayor of Mt Albert, and married a guy named Lawless. Probably the most prominent New Zealand actress, but also outspokenly anti-nuclear and a supporter of Greenpeace.

            Altogether a more inspiring example than Kevin Sorbo (‘Hercules’), we’ve seen what happened to him recently.

          5. The upside to marrying a centaur is you don’t have to go to the expense of buying a car – free rides to work! 😀

          6. I’ve sometimes imagined that a “real” centaur would have a torso like a bison or musk ox, with front legs that are larger and more muscular than the hind legs, along with a long tail like a sauropod dinosaur to act as a counterbalance to the humanoid torso’s raised center of gravity.

          7. I think you described something more Minotaurish than Centaurish. Oh and enjoy this. I found it by accident & it managed to get that Tommy Tutone song out of my head.

          8. The Minotaur was properly a creature with the body of a man and the head of a bull. Alternate depictions of it having a bull’s body and a man’s head were due to imprecise translations from Greek.

    4. If a human being must be composed of human dna/rna(etc), viruses and bacteria in order to live, is the overall composition not weighted in the direction of viruses and bacteria?

      1. In terms of #s of cells, our bodies are mostly bacteria. And that is not counting the mitochondria which are descended from bacteria. Not sure how the complement of human vs bacteria stacks up, but most of our DNA is ‘junk’ so it too does not bode well for us.
        All hail our prokaryote overlords!

        1. And that is not counting the mitochondria

          I was having a “shout at the TV moment a day or two back – some piece of Discovery Channel tat, the details of which I forget. But their argument was something like :

          We did DNA tests.
          We could only find human mitochondrial DNA
          Mitochondrial DNA only comes from the mother.
          Therefore, the DNA from the father was not human.
          Therefore this … it was some Peruvian mummy, IIRC … was an alien-human hybrid.

          Shouting at the TV, even though I know fine well that they’re just after the viewer eyeball-seconds.

          1. My son (who is 10) likes to watch that stuff, but just for fun. He is puzzled when I finally explode: ‘why do you watch that crap on educational tv? Why don’t you play video games?’

          2. The sad thing is how right he is: many video games are now more educational and better researched that the junk that so-called educational channels produce these days.

    1. It is compelling for christianists, for skeptics not so much.

      The “Jesus” myth was a reformist take on the judaist sect as it struggled out of the cornucopia of abrahamist myths that the the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to. If it was entirely benign, why would later reformations take place? The article claims the crusade wars as benign, when it wasn’t. We can add the Inquisition et cetera.

      This is exactly the pick-and-choose bull that Sam and Jerry objects to. Quite literary: “The Christian Reformation aimed to get rid of un-Christian practices.” If you believe that, I have this bridge that I need to sell cheap…

    2. The author, which is an ex-muslim, seems to believe in both the “Muhammad” myth and that everything derives from mohammedanists. Hardly historical: “the Inquisition was the copycat of mihnah, a practice started by Caliph Ma’mun, which means “inquisition.””

      First, there was a 200 year period between “mihnah” was abandoned (848) and “inquisition” instated (1184). [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma'mun ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition ]

      And the jurisdiction that made heresy was christianist and predating all of this, the Code of Justinian [ibid] from 529 – 534.

    3. I have some issues with the argument. Jesus said, for example, that people should abandon their families if they don’t follow him. That’s evil imo, and some religions still practice that. Most ignore it. His historical knowledge of the Crusades and Inquisition is also wrong.

      As an atheist, I see all religion as wrong, and it’s to understand how anyone can go along with it once you’ve realized that. But millions of Christians are wonderful people despite what their religion says – they ignore the bad bits. Someone coming from the Muslim world possibly doesn’t know much about the history of Christianity.

      It’s harder to reform Islam because public debate is shut down. Those who speak out literally put their lives at risk. It used to be the same in Christianity.

      However, despite the fact that all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence as well as Shi’a law mandate death for apostasy, tens of millions of Muslims don’t consider death an appropriate punishment. That means there’s hope the religion can be reformed.

      Christianity continues to reform. More often than not there’s a groundswell of change within society that forces change on the religion itself. Do you really think the Vatican would be discussing the things they are currently if there wasn’t a demand for change from their followers?

      I think this guy is feeling pretty dispirited about the state of Islam, which is understandable, and feels like the job is so big it’s impossible. He sees moderate Islam as impossible and wants to immediately make all Muslims see atheism is the only rational choice. That’s unrealistic.

      Islam will be harder to reform because of the way Muhammad spent the last ten years of his life, but the Bible, especially the Old Testament is full of a god doing and approving a helluva lot of evil.

      1. I like your optimistic take on Muslim support for death for apostasy. Let us hope that you are right.

    4. Personally, I find it to be a remarkably distorted take on the matter.

      For one thing, even a cursory review of the New Testament shows that there are numerous violent aspects of the gospels.

      The larger issue (to me) is the take on the Crusades & Inquisition. The Crusades were predominantly a response to Muslim aggression (despite claims to the contrary, Islam has been stupendously, violently expansionist since its inception) — but even so, the Crusades sure as heck weren’t a moderate or benign response.

      As for the Inquisition, the lack of supporting citation in the article is revealing. Yes, the first documented executions of ‘heretics’ in *high medieval Europe* (that I know of) occurred on 28 Dec 1022, when roughly thirteen people were burned at Orleans. However, it is very important to note that this was most definitely NOT the first-ever xtian-on-xtian heresy ‘trial’ & execution in the West. Instead, it constitutes a revival of the practice following approx. six centuries of disuse.

      Heresy first gained legitimate (i.e., state-sanctioned) legal standing in the xtian West with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE. The first confirmed xtian ‘heretics’ to be tried & executed by the church were the heresiarch Priscillian & a small group of his followers. They were beheaded following an inquisition at Trier in 385. (A few may have been executed for heresy in 380×1, but historians are not in agreement on this earlier group).

      Thus, inquisitorial rooting out & executing of ‘heretics’ actually predates Islam by several centuries.

      Good places to start, for those who may be interested, include Bazemore’s “Wellsprings of Heresy: Monks, Myth & Making Manichaeans in Orléans & Aquitaine”, & Moore’s (2012) The War on Heresy: Faith & Power in Medieval Europe, which is directed at a lay audience, but still has some ‘meat’ to it. (While Moore is a highly-respected medievalist, he has, of late, taken a slightly unorthodox approach which may be of interest to readers of this bl*g; for a concise overview of the debate: http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1546). On Priscillian in particular, see Burrus’ The Making of a Heretic (U Cal. P, 1995).

      2. Thanks for the plug! I didn’t think anyone read “Wellsprings” who didn’t have to 😉 Of course, that it is available for free might help. Glad you found it useful.

    5. The author of that article, Ali Sina, knows a lot but he is a bit of a lunatic. I am not surprised Sam Harris ignores him.

      Sina has for years wanted to make a movie about Mohamed. That is an interesting idea and the fact that such a movie cannot be made (by anyone) speaks volumes.

    2. I like Jazz, up until the advent of bebop.

      I think I was first hooked when I saw the Benny Goodman Story. They use a Goodman riff of “Memories of You” as a recurring motif. I really like that, but it wasn’t on the soundtrack. It was included in the Carnegie Hall concert sequence, so I bought the Carnegie Hall concert (a rare live concert recording from the period). It wasn’t on there. But I was hooked by the sequence “A History of Jazz,” and went and got a record of the Original Dixieland Jazz Band, the first jazz group to be recorded. Since then I’ve been stuck on jazz, especially small groups from the 20s and 30s.

    1. My knee-jerk reaction – not any more than any other religion. However, seriously in need of a reformation – as we’ve heard from Hitch, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, et al.

    2. If we consider Islam a pathology, can we exempt other religions? I would say no. Islam may have worse symptoms than say, Jainism, but the underlying issue is the same.

    3. I think “pathology” — like “psychosis” — have scientific, technical definitions which are diminished when people use them to mean “seriously screwed up.” It does no favors to those with actual pathologies or mental illnesses, either.

      So no. Islam is not a pathology.

      1. Agreed.

        Also, if it is a ‘pathology’, then they are ill & not responsible for their actions — & that seems somewhat problematic.

          1. Great point! That is a fascinating dimension of the question! I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable on the topic to weather a debate, but I’m torn between Dennett & Peter Tse. (I’ve long endorsed Dennett’s view, yet have come to suspect that Tse might be onto something — although his theory is not without problems).

            I was thinking more along the lines of legal culpability, &, to a lesser extent, of religious accommodations. Yet the free will question has significant ramifications there, too — especially given the emergence of ‘neurolaw’. In light of the neurosci of free will, it seems likely that our legal systems will need major revision at some juncture. Do we have adequate scientific understanding (& consensus) to commence that project right now? (I don’t know, but I’m doubtful … & concerned the lawyers & politicians will muck it up horribly).

    1. Nice film. The teasing banter between the kids is charming. They seem to pay very close attention to the price of their product. Naturally.

      1. Yes, the banter is winning, isn’t it, juxtaposed to the work they’re doing. They might be sorting bottles as a high school recycling drive in the states.

    2. These people should never have had children.
      I wish this story were very rare, but I know of other cases. In the ones I know of, family stepped in and supplied what was needed to ensure that the children received care and support. There are way too many reasons to abhor religion , but abuse of children is the absolute apex of the list.

  20. I do not have anything add or ask at the moment, but I do want to say to Jerry that I think this is an excellent idea. There have been times in the past when I wanted to ask a biology-related question, or just share a gotta-see-this cartoon, but did not, because I did not want to go off-topic from the thread set in motion by one of PCC’s postings. Too much of a “look at me” feel for comfort.

    Well, wait a minute, maybe I do have a couple of those cartoons handy.

    This one, for obvious reasons.

    This one, closely related.

    And this one, just because. Regular followers of this web site will recognize the location where this comic is set as north of the north pole; the protagonist himself is a married bachelor.

      1. Love the cat ninja warrior. My cats have wrecked many a couch and box spring bottom by doing the “dindin” routine through the years🐯

      3. The first one is awesome. Of course, now I’ll probably waste an afternoon looking through all 540 previous Abstruse Goose cartoons…

  21. Is parasitism the biologist’s equivalent to the astronomer’s magnetism? When an astronomic phenomena is hard to predict, “magnetic fields did it” is the ad hoc attempt. It has become a sort of joke.

    Now parasitism is claimed to lie behind the mitochondrial endosymbiosis. Fun thing is that I could buy it:

    “Previous studies have reconstructed the last common ancestor … of all mitochondria (proto-mitochondria) … it would be imperative for us to reconstruct pre-mitochondria [the LCA to bacteria]”.

    “Our study therefore provides strong and additional support to the hypothesis that pre-mitochondria were capable of oxidative phosphorylation under low oxygen condition.

    Pre-mitochondrion was an energy parasite

    Intriguingly, pre-mitochondria were predicted to encode the plastid/parasite type of ATP/ADP translocase (COG3202; posterior probability 0.93), a hallmark protein of many obligate intracellular bacteria that is used to import ATP from the host,…”

    The Rickettsiales the new phylogeny show the pre-mitochondrion clade with branced earlier than the free-living SAR11 clade, but they are now all parasites if I understand correctly.

    So the claim is that the mitochondria derived from a parasite that insinuated itself in low oxygen conditions inside an aerobic archaea/eukaryote. When the host-parasite combination survived, the pre-mitochondria and/or the host over time evolved genes that benefits the combination rather than the parasite, such as co-opting an ATP exporter.

    [Any similarities to religion such as catholicism is purely coincidental, I’m sure.]

    1. Yes, I have heard about this recent thing. It makes sense to me as well, especially since they are related to the parasitic Rickettsia group. I would like to see additional precedent, where an endoparasite, bacterial or other, becomes a beneficial guest.

        1. Indeed. I was thinking of that earlier, still I wrote “they are all now parasites”. So thanks, not least for helping me spot a mistake!

          1. Thanks to all of you for providing these scientific references to the parasitism of bacteria into archaea/eukaryotes producing a symbiosis, mitochondria: life. I’m surprised that religious communities haven’t stated that their “God” is/was a parasite.

    1. explanation: after someone created an ‘art’ project showing that a McDonald’s hamburger left out in the open did not rot, someone with scientific mojo examined the results by comparing it to a homemade hamburger. The results: dessication is too fast for mold to grow unless sealed in a ziploc.

      Science. It works!

      2. The funniest thing I’ve heard involving the not-rotting hamburger was when some guys at my old job were talking about it while eating homemade jerky.

  23. I have never seen the point of meditation. Just sitting there quietly, trying to empty your mind. I mean I can use that time to do something.

    Has anyone read Sams’s new book? I intend to read it to see if I have got it all wrong about meditation. But I’m not sure about the word “spirituality”. I’m not spiritual at all. But I AM full of awe and wonder about nature, being conscious, and how amazing it is how far we have come in understanding the universe in only about 400 years.

    2. I take nap/meditation breaks many afternoons at work. I wake up/come to more refreshed and less distractable. Rest is a good thing.

      3. Fine if it works for you, of course, but if I’m mentally tired I find that going out for a walk is much more effective. If I did hard physical work then a nap would probably be a good move.

        1. A walk also clears the mind. How refreshing it would be probably depends on the likelihood of encountering conversation that would reverse the effect. I need to get away from people as well as my own thoughts!

      4. I strongly believe in a quick ‘power nap’ for about 15 min. I am then up and at it for many more hours. I wish it worked for everybody.

    3. I mean I can use that time to do something.

      I think part of the point of meditation is the realization that you don’t need to be doing something all the time in order to be happy. Sometimes just being is better. You don’t want your life to be like the tourist who misses his own vacation because he never stops to look up from his camera and guidebooks.

      Similarly, you’re not obliged to pursue every thought that comes into your head. Some of them you’d rather let go of, so that other, better thoughts can surface. But doing that well takes practice, just like any other learned skill. Meditation is how you practice letting go of things.

      I haven’t (yet) read Sam Harris’ book, but I have read and recommend a book by Dan Harris (no relation) called 10% Happier that covers some of the same ideas.

    4. My brother is Zen Buddhist and both practices and teaches meditation. When I think about it I think the reason it doesn’t appeal to me is that I don’t feel as if I, personally, have problems it will help or insights I will find interesting.

      I’ve no objections to it (absent the woo of course), but I don’t feel the need for the experience. Since my brother (this brother) and I have similar pretty temperaments and personalities, I suspect I am getting the same thing from other processes or sources.

      1. That was supposed to be “pretty similar” temperaments and personalities, not “similar pretty” ones. Though on consideration it might be fair to say that yes, we’re both so pretty on the inside.

      2. That’s exactly how I feel about meditation, that I haven’t felt it could do anything for me. But I’ll see how I feel about it after having read Sam’s book.

    5. I’m on chapter 4 of Sam’s book. The idea is not to do nothing but to clear your mind of the unnecessary chatter and to observe the self as the illusion that it is. That last part is very hard and the first part also difficult to do for extended times without a lot of practise. I found doing some of the meditation that comes with yoga to have been very helpful for me. I was able to be more aware of my thoughts and more aware of how I reacted to others. It led to less angst and over thinking.

    6. “in only about 400 years.”

      That would be 4000 years, thank you. It is amazing how much people can sometimes underestimate the contributions of the ancient Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians, Indians and Greeks (among others) towards “modern’ science.

    7. I’ve read the first chapter and I’m not going to buy it. A lot of it is stuff I’d worked out for myself years ago, and I expect a lot of women would say the same. It’s a bit of a ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus’ thing. I can see it might be a revelation to many men.

      I sometimes do a form of meditation called mindfulness, which helps me to relax my body when it’s especially tense from pain. It includes clearing your mind and it helps.

      I’ve never felt the need for any other form of meditation though.

      1. There are a couple of chapters devoted to how the brain works, consiousness and the illusion of the self. You may find this interesting.

    8. “I have never seen the point of meditation. Just sitting there quietly, trying to empty your mind. I mean I can use that time to do something. ”

      By the way, one could make the same argument about listening to (especially, classical) music, appreciating art and what not.

      At least when I was a kid, it (meditation) was presented to me as a sort of “mental exercise”, in the sense you try to “train” yourself to deliberately concentrate on one thing. Whether there is double blind evidence that it actually achieves that, I don’t know. But it certainly does seem to have (at the very least) a nice placebo effect.

      2. Maybe you fell into a wormhole. This is not your universe. Quick, who is the Beneficent Protector of The United States of Mormonia?

  25. I’ve got to run to the airport in a bit, but I thought I’d share this.

    One of the most insightful statements about politics I’ve heard comes from the movie “The Best Man,” written by Gore Vidal. The general plot is about about presidential candidates (Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson) vying for their party’s nomination.

    Each is trying to get the endorsement of the party’s previous president. Robertson plays Joe Cantwell, a McCarthyite type, and has this exchange with the former president, Art Hochsteder:

    Hochsteder: “Young man, you’ve done a remarkable job in the Senate…most of the time.”
    Cantwell: “Most of the time?”
    H: “Oh, there’ve been moments when I’ve questioned your methods.”
    C: “Well, you’ve gotta fight fire with fire, Mr. President.”
    H: “And the ends justify the means, huh?”
    C: “Yes, I believe that.”
    H: “Well, son, I’ve got news for you, about politics and life. May I say the two are exactly the same. There’re no ‘ends,’ Joe, only ‘means.'”
    C: “I don’t like to disagree with you, sir, but that’s just plain sophistry, you tell me there’re no—”
    H: “Oh, now, now, now, none of those high-falutin words at poor, old Art Hochsteder, I’m just an ignorant boy. All I’m saying is that what really matters in our profession, which is really life, is how you do things, how you treat people, and what you really feel about ’em. Not some ideal goal for society, or for yourself.’

    I think that that statement — There are no ends in politics, only means — is an very important truth about politics. Many zealots act as if their goals can be achieved in a brief flurry of agitation and violence, and don’t recognize that any achievement (baring Carthage) can be overturned. Ends are transitory, unless popularly supported. Some people can justify ignoring human rights because they feel that their goal transcends their goodness with a superior state (f grace, if you will). But if that ultimate state is not only questionable, but likely to be transitory, doesn’t that mean that human rights are the important thing?

    Two other very good movies this election season: “Advise and Consent” and Capra’s “State of the Union”.

    1. I like that.

      I have seen ‘humanism’ defined as “the belief that the means ARE the ends.” Or maybe I did that one myself.

    2. Hmm, no, I don’t agree with that at all. Politics can and should have ends. The fact that achievements can be overturned doesn’t somehow make them undesirable. How many set-backs has same-sex marriage had in the US? How many times have attempts at democracy failed or been subverted? Yet democracy is immensely more widespread in the world than it was forty years ago.

      The point is that ends don’t justify means that would otherwise be unjustified. Both ends and means must be acceptable.

      1. I think the point of the OP is that stuff like gay marriage and even democracy, are in fact ‘means’, not ‘ends’.

        So politics has – rightly – focused on these means to get closer to the ends: equal rights for homosexuals and representation (or whatever technical term is best) for everyone.

        I guess you could even argue that these, in turn, are not ends themselves, but means towards a happier mankind.

        I quite like the point made by DrBrydon’s quote.

    3. Agreed, the motto “there are no ends, only means” is something I often find very useful as a guide or reminder. I’m pretty sure I got it from an Ursula Le Guin novel, probably “The Dispossessed”.

      Similarly, remembering Sturgeon’s law that “90% of everything is crap” often heads off unwarranted whingeing.

  26. I’ve seen the claim before in social media, and I just read it again on a blog stating “Science wouldn’t exist without the church.”
    Anyone beg to differ?

    1. I think it’s a deepity. If you look at it one way, it’s true but trivial; interpreted differently, it’s extraordinary but false. People who bring it forth as a profundity trade on the confusion.

      In the trivial sense, the Christian religion was so deeply embedded in the history of Europe that it would be hard to predict what might or would have occurred in its absence. So sure, modern science grew out of a world which revolved around religion. So? Might as well say World War II wouldn’t exist without the church. Fast food wouldn’t exist without the church. Hell, not a single one of us would have ever been born, had the influence of religion not been what it was and the church wasn’t the church. It’s a trivial truth.

      But the spirit of rational inquiry, of minds competing on the level public field of the agora, of isolating confounding factors because biases mislead us? The church? Mystical revelation and dogma? Give me a break.

      What does Athens have to say to Jerusalem?

      2. Complete agreement here. I hadn’t, however, thought to frame it as a deepity; that’s a nice insight. Well put.

      3. I agree with your thinking. It pains me to give any credit to the church for any reason, but that’s just me I suppose. I’d rather think that the formation of Universities/Colleges were the institutional platform that allowed the leaps in thinking by collecting information previously scattered and unavailable to the individual. It was a move away from the hoarding and proprietary use of technology for personal gain, and more sharing for the collective good.
        The church allowed the formation of Universities because it thought to control their use and output. The advent of the Protestant Reformation dampened the ardor of the RCC to supporting science it considered heretical to canon. Cats will vigorously resist going back in the bag unless it’s their idea. Et,voila. The industrial revolution and many enlightenments since.

    2. What is true is that historically, the origin of science had it roots in scholarship and the natural theology promoted by the church. Also, the powerful state religion of Christianity did lend stability and allowed for growth of an intelligentsia. So, yes the growth of science was helped by the church. But I think it would have happened anyway. A secular but powerful government would have also done the trick, as it would be in their interest to advance knowledge if only for the sake of technology.
      What I like to point out is that if humanity had mass amnesia and forgot all religion and science, what would happen? We would no doubt re-invent both. Our reinvented religions would not be Christianity or any other religion that once existed. But our science would come out pretty much as it did.

    3. I think it’s an unprovable statement, seeing as we can’t rerun history without religion to see if science would arise.

      However, judging from how the ancient Greeks went about things – their science seems to have developed quite well, independent of (and unbothered by) their religion – I would tentatively consider that as evidence “against”.

      I don’t know enough of ancient China to know how much of its science depended on, or was independent of, religion.

      1. From what I gather (note that this is outside my area of expertise), at a very early period, China developed a strong & complex state bureaucracy from which their version of universities (the “Higher Schools”) arose. The state, requiring large numbers of educated officials to keep the vast empire running efficiently, established the first Higher School ca.2200–2300 BCE; a formal Imperial Civil Examination system followed sometime in the Zhou Dynasty (1046–256 BCE).

        So, one common factor seems to be a large, centralized bureaucracy.

        1. No — sorry: I err. The Imperial Civil Examinations emerged in the Sui Dynasty (6th–7th cent. CE). It was the Central Higher School that was created during the Zhou.

          1. (I would add that fact-checking me on this before repeating it anywhere is probably advisable).

      2. Actually, given that the statement is about the Church (Christianity), it’s quite easily falsifiable from what you just described: since the roots of modern scientific inquiry date back to ancient Greece and China centuries before Christianity arose, the idea that Christianity was necessary for the development of modern science is false.

        1. I personally fully agree with that, but as a strict statement there is the problem that modern science really did only develop in the “Christian” West. So we are left with smug Christians who make such statements, ignoring not only the partial development of science elsewhere but also the rather obvious obstruction by Christianity of scientific progress, as well as the equally obvious incompatibility of science and Xity.

          1. Yes, but as Islam arose after Christianity I didn’t think worked quite as effectively as a counterargument.

  27. Reza Aslan claims that religions don’t shape people’s moral views – people’s moral views shape how they interpret religion.

    It follows that religions can’t be blamed for anything morally bad that believers do, because they haven’t got their moral outlooks from religion.

    I don’t think that is right, and I think Aslan’s supporting argument for *why* religions don’t affect people’s moral views contains an obvious flawed.

    Explained here:

    http://www.atheoryofus.net/blog/15/10/2014/gbeqts0ozf2b8o146lr1kii649y4kv

    2. Nice link.

      And if religion can shape what people believe and how they behave, it is going to need to be an extraordinary case of special pleading which says that this stops short of moral values.

      Exactly. Religion is related to what we know and how we know it. The unique aspect which religions and only religions (or ‘spiritualities’) provide are a particular kind of fact claim in which everything else is supposed to be framed. Supernatural fact claims. Specially revealed supernatural fact claims.

      Our moral choices are embedded in what we understand about facts. What is the situation — the real situation? Sure, there are value vs. value disputes which may have no resolution, but if you follow most moral and ethical conflicts down most of the time it seems to me people are really arguing about facts.

      If you believe zygotes have souls and every conception is glory to God and a test of obedience to the Purpose of existence — you’re going to draw different conclusions than if you don’t. If you believe Mohammed was a perfect role model then you’ll probably frame moral questions in a way which is distinct from someone who asks “who’s Mohammed?” Aslan is either being naive or disingenuous — though I wouldn’t rule out ‘both.’

      1. Thanks, yeah I agree with you re: most moral disagreements are about facts rather than about *values* per se. I’ve continued using the language of moral values in that post simply because it allowed me to write a shorter one where I didn’t point that out! And because that is the language of how Aslan’s interview was written.

    3. Excellent point.

      It’s exactly what I have argued against the simplistic one-sided Aslan-type views of religion. That people clearly bring some set of motivations and beliefs TO scripture does not meant they don’t also take additional beliefs FROM scripture. Once one part of scripture is in sync with your intuitions or beliefs, seemingly ratifying them, people often go on to ask “What ELSE does this wise book have to tell me?” And they take on some new scripture-influenced beliefs as part of the process.

      The relationship of people to their religious texts is a feed-back loop, which takes different forms among individuals and communities. It’s a very complicated and varied process, along a spectrum from those who only take seriously passages that already sync with their intuitions to people who decide to take much more of the bible seriously in guiding their lives.

      And obviously religion has deeply influenced culture. All sorts of cultural quirks are made explicable via the holy texts venerated by the people in question. If, for instance, in trying to understand why so many southerners believe in a 6,000 year old earth, an ancient global flood and all the animals being preserved on an Ark, and you DON’T connect those beliefs to the stories in the bible these people venerate as history written by God, you are being obtuse.

      1. Our nearest cousins, Apes and Bonobos, have morality. Some other animals also have been shown to have a sense of fairness, sharing and caring. I think these concepts preceded the development of religious codification and ritual imposed at the cultural level. First: perception of behavior that increases group cooperation and, then, formalization into religion.

  28. Good thread here so far. I’m enjoying this novelty.

    My questioning thought for the day:
    Liberals have been getting some bad press on this site recently for their perceived inability to take a stand against Islam in particular and for woolly thinking generally.
    I presume (perhaps wrongly) that most people who comment here would not describe themselves as Conservative, the traditional opponents of Liberals. So how do you all describe your political/social leanings?

    Personally, I’m happy to be considered socially liberal/progressve/leftist/socialist. I believe in trying to create an egalitarian, meritocratic society where individuals are free to do as they wish (so long as they remain within the bounds of the law & do not harm others). I won’t pretend to be actively doing a whole lot to make this utopia come about.

    1. This is a great question. I’m very interested to see what others write.

      As a Canadian, I refuse to describe myself as a liberal because our liberal party is centrist.

      I am far, *far* left. On occasion, I describe myself as an anarcho-socialist, but a more accurate description would be a ‘cautious socialist’ or Socialist with anarcho-syndicalist sympathies/leanings. Similar to you, I think adults should do as they please with the sole caveat they do no harm to other sentient beings, & I’m deeply opposed to most forms of social control, authority, hierarchy, surveillance, etc. … even most existing social norms & structures. So, in my general orientation towards the world, I am anarchic.

      Nonetheless, I also believe in the provision of ‘Big State’ services, such as free, universal public education, health care, higher education, disability supports, human rights-enforcing mechanisms, etc. (the chief function of the state should be to foster the flourishing of all citizens — unfortunately, we’re not doing a particularly great job). Hence the Socialist dimension.

      1. Did you ever take the political spectrum test? Many of the questions are somewhat American ones, but you will get the idea. I am left and anti-authoritarian. The closest party for me would be the Greens in Europe. In Canada no party really addresses where I land.

        1. Yes, I have taken it! The results situate me in the far left margin, prob. 3/4–5/6 (? it’s been a while) of the way down. IIRC, I wasn’t near any parties, but I’d need to take it again to be sure.

          Those tests are interesting. There’s another similar one, based on an alternate theory, with different axes… (the name eludes me).

        2. Interesting. I thought many of the questions were flawed and/or contradictory, but I muddled through enough to be determined a left moderate social libertarian.

      2. That raises the question of who pays for the “Big State” services. Presumably your answer is that adults are not entirely free to do as they please with their wealth; a portion of that wealth may be rightfully claimed by the state to fund services.

        I don’t disagree with that position; I just think it needs to be spelled out. It’s not enough that free citizens do no harm; they also have an obligation to do some good for their less fortunate fellow citizens. And state enforcement of that obligation is a good thing, not a form of tyranny.

        1. Of course. I agree on all points, & made no claims to the contrary. (I didn’t get into the nitty gritty because I am aware of my tendency to ramble & was striving to be fairly concise).

          For the record, I think Cdn personal & corporate taxes need to increase (but also need to be better distributed). I situate taxation under the ‘no harm’ rubric: those who evade them are doing harm. That is, doing no harm is not solely negative (avoid doing x), but also positive (an integral aspect of doing no harm is upholding responsibilities & obligations).

          It may be worth clarifying that, as a political philosophy, anarchism, despite popular misconception, does *not* mean complete freedom to do whatever the eff you want. Libertarianism is not anarchism. The term anarchy comes from the Greek ‘an-’ (without) + ‘arkhos’ (leader); it denotes non-hierarchical structure/organization (the standard metaphor is of a lattice structure vs a chain of authority). For the record, there are successful, longstanding anarchic organizations in existence. Examples include W.H. Gore (manufacturers of Gore-Tex), Mondragon Corp., & the Co-Op in which I live (it’s the oldest in Canada).

    2. I also consider myself to be liberal/leftist/progressive, but I see many who are popularly considered in the same camp with above-mentioned ideologies but instead with with anti-enlightenment ideals guiding them,
      which are corrosive to the foundations of liberalism and progressivism.
      I think Steven Pinker gave the clearest analysis in The Better Angels of Our Nature, about the historical counter-movement which rose in response to the huge success of the enlightenment ideals, and they have smuggled themselves into areas of liberal discourse.

      1. Yes, this makes sense. Do you find that, in some contexts, it makes you hesitate to self-identify as leftist or progressive? I sometimes do because the terms seem to have acquired substantial ideological baggage which I find objectionable (e.g., overuse & misapplication of the ‘Islamophobia’ claim).

    3. I find it curious that positions on a range of topics are lumped together even though there is no apparent connection. Or there were historical reasons that are now obsolete. For example, the right is typically pro-Israel, the left in Europe is often more Russia-friendly and so forth. As a result, I eschew those labels as people will otherwise assume I have positions on various issues in accordance with the label — I don’t like being seen as a member of some tribe.

      I’m left-leaning anti-authoritarian. Other than that, I have real trouble finding some category I can fully agree to.

      1. I’m all over the place when it comes to issues & often I have no idea where it comes from. Like most Canadians, however, I’m unaware when my stances are actually typically Canadian.

    4. I used to be a liberal Republican, back in the day when that was a minority position, not an oxymoron. My former party has moved far to the right. Now, I feel more and more liberal politically, though socially rather conservative (in a married lesbian kind of way).

      I have always felt, even in my Republican days, that we have a strong responsibility to do good for our society, in part by voting for and paying taxes so that we can have things we humans need, like health care, strong educational systems, care for the poor, and protection for our environment.

      1. These days it is difficult to believe that “health care, strong educational systems, care for the poor, and protection for our environment” were ever characteristic of any Republican.

        As for being socially conservative in a married lesbian kind of way. it sounds like the set up of joke/riddle:

        Q: When are married lesbians social conservatives?

        A: When they’re married to men.

        1. That reminds me of a line from Roy Zimmerman’s song Loving Vs Virginia: gay men could always get married. It’s just that their wives tended not to think too well of it.

    5. Christopher Hitchens used to distinguish between the anti-imperial left and the anti-totalitarian left. The anti-imperial left is often illiberal.

  29. This article is a few years old, but I don’t think Jerry was aware of it (or at least he didn’t appear to have posted on it).

    It involves the archdiocese I grew up in and I stumbled upon it after I was curious whatever became of some of the priests there about which many rumors circulated 10-15 years ago. The article is an interesting read and also has a link to 400 pages of evidence gathered to write it. It details just how rotten at least this one little corner of the Catholic Church is. Additionally since the investigation was carried out by lay Catholics, it contains the old trope conflating homosexuality with pedophilia, but casting aside the view on practicing gays, there are plenty of legitimate concerns here from blackmail to racketeering and theft to pedophilia. I wouldn’t say the whole thing is stunning, but I am at least somewhat surprised it was never picked up by the mainstream media anywhere insofar as I can tell.

  30. Question for piano players:

    How long does it take for beginners to get the hard parts for Fur Elise? Because it took two weeks for the easy part! It’s a little daunting lol.

    1. Yes, that was different. There are highly eccentric people everywhere.
      In a circumscribed way, we might envy him a little. He lives in a world of wonder in his own backyard…

    3. Nice to know a stodgy Curator of Antiquities can take the time to pen such an amusing reply. Who says scientists have no sense of humor! ?

    5. FYI, Snopes says the letter is fake. “Harvey Rowe” doesn’t exist, and the Barbie incident never happened.

      Which is a good thing, because I was all set to be pissed off at the museum staff whose best idea about what to do with this poor deranged guy was to invite him in for a visit so they could laugh at him in person.

  32. … rattling her purrbox like a rusty motor.

    In the book that I was reading (almost as fast as it disintegrated – I was alternating between cold swimming pool, hot-dry sauna room, and steam room) this afternoon.
    Can anyone name the book without Googling? Hint : it helped me to solve a clue in yesterday’s general knowledge crossword. Indescribablyboring will give it away to Brits of a certain persuasion.

  33. Biology Question, and probably a simple one:

    I was reading this the other day:

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/141003_ebola

    There’s a line in there that reads:

    “… the viral family to which Ebola belongs (the Filoviridae) seems be about 10,000 years old…”

    The part about the age of Ebola seems odd to me. Is this age of 10,000 years old the time since last mutation? The article doesn’t seem to support that. Is it the time since this viral family split with some other viral family?

    If I equate this to humans, it’s odd to say “Humans are 7 million years old.” Isn’t it more correct to say “Humans split with chimpanzees 7 million years ago.”

    Maybe that analogy isn’t correct and I’m missing something. I’m hoping someone can enlighten me.

    Thanks

    1. Your statement about humans is actually not quite correct, as the lineage from which humans derived separated from that of chimps (ancestor of modern chimps) about 7 mya. There were other species of things that could be called “human,” like Neandertals. The viral family statement probably means that the group of species (family) to which Ebola belongs separated from other species (the “outgroup”) about 10,000 years ago.

  34. I’m taking advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to post some d*g photos. While the cat’s away …

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/110292855@N05/14959003334/

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/110292855@N05/15580583312/in/photostream/

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/110292855@N05/15579723875/in/photostream/

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/110292855@N05/15579724405/in/photostream/

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/110292855@N05/15393116399/in/photostream/

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/110292855@N05/15393608168/in/photostream/

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/110292855@N05/15393118559/in/photostream/

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/110292855@N05/14959007744/in/photostream/

    4. Great idea, Stephen! I love Border Collies! Is the second one down a mixed breed? Do you have sheep?

        1. 15 years old, that’s wonderful! She’s beautiful.

          One of my dogs will be 15 in 10 days, the other is 12…I really like old dogs, except for worrying about them…

          2. All too true.

            It’s…I can’t think of the right word…I guess there are just too many possibilities, from gratifying to unsettling…to think about all we’ve been through in our time together.

        1. Yes. The Kong is an acceptable outdoor toy. Yesterday it was cute when I told her to go get an outdoor toy & I could hear her rustling around in her toy box to finally come back with her squeaky bone (was called “blue bone” but she would mix that up with “chew bone”.

          7. I’ve always preferred mutts. They seem to live longer and often be smarter. Currie’s supposed to be half Lab, but she seems more German Shepherd/husky/fox hound. Long-legged (unlike her owner).

          9. Her ears are slightly asymmetrical like Tramp’s in Lady and the…Sadly her hearing is almost gone, but still has excellent sight and “nosar”.

          10. “Nosar.” That’ good! 😀

            Yes, my oldest is nearly stone deaf. And a bit in la la land as well, but still a dear. I use a lot of sign language and physical contact with her these days…she hasn’t lost a beat when it comes to anticipating meal-time, though.

          11. When I was a kid, we had a dog that when she got older went completely deaf and also go gassy. Because she was deaf, she’d bark for no good reason so she’d run through the house barking and farting in the morning. It was pretty funny.

          12. Yup, always underfoot at mealtime:-). We’ve taken to carrying a high-pitched dog whistle when hiking, so if she wanders off the trail…

          14. You can have her DNA tested. DNA My Dog does it. I had my dog tested because I figured she must be part Great Dane or maybe Rhodesian Ridgeback but it turned out she was all lab.

            My parents had their dog tested (I bought the test as a present) & their dog was all sorts of things even though he looks like a black lab.

          16. Merilee, your first link doesn’t work for me for some reason, but that last one’s so sweet! How did Currie get her name?

          18. That’s wonderful!

            Every time I “need” a new dog, I fantasize about many different breeds, then end up at the pound for some sweet mutt of usually unknown derivation.

      2. Aw, Diana, what a cute shot! She looks nothing like I’d been imagining from your references to her. And she sounds very smart! (Like her person.)

        1. Thanks! I try to be more like my dog. She lights up a room when she enters and her interactions with people and dogs are very authentic. I’ve never met someone who hasn’t immediately liked her (and I’m always cautious because, as a bigger dog, some may find her intimidating).

          1. Sounds as if you both are very lucky. 🙂

            “I try to be more like my dog.” If more people did so, the world might be slightly better. (Now wait to hear from the anti-dog faction…)

        1. No, her fur is pretty much the same for a lab. She really sheds a lot and is a bit softer but I’ve always found yellow labs shed more than the other colours.

    9. Now that this thread is dying…I finally find some dog pics. They’re not great shots, but I gotta show y’all my canine kids.

      Louis is extremely sensitive to humans. He absolutely hates dissension and will go find any cave he can if he hears raised voices. (Note–no, we don’t yell at him, I’m talking about people-arguments.)

      Once after some tiff I couldn’t find him anywhere…I was getting desperate…till I finally found him in–of all places–the back of Phoebe’s crate! Apparently he’d walked right over her…

      Phoebe, 15 years old…and Louis, 12, trying to look inconspicuous:

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/82741306@N03/15586885791/

      Only fair, though–Louis sometimes finds his beddy-bye occupied:

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/82741306@N03/15565865516/in/photostream/

      (Posting to see if I remember how to embed pics. Standby–I’ve got more dumb shots.)

      1. Awwww poor sweet Louis. I had a dog like that – he’d run away if there was raised voices and he’d get in such a panic that he’d run and run. I often comforted him so he started to just run right into my arms if he was upset.

        I often mutter at my computer (usually annoyed at something it is doing) & my current dog looks at me worried. I guess I sound really vexed when I do that.

          1. Oh, jeez, does Louis hate to see a suitcase!

            It was hard on both dogs to have both my son, then my daughter move out of the house.

            (That made three of us…)

      2. What sweeeeeeeet faces!! What kind of mixes are they.

        Btw, thanks to Diana’s reminder I’ve sent away to DNAYourDog for two kits, the 2nd for my son’s big orange fox ( most likely Chow/Akita, but we shall see). It’s nice to know what your granddogs are:-)

        Don’t worry, PCC. We’ll get all this doggie stuff out of our systems before you return.

        1. The shelter had no clue about their heritage…For years we thought Phoebe was some sort of Border Collie/Husky type dog–she was high-strung (has mellowed in her dotage) and is very smart. And we felt that, whatever else Louis was, he must be part pit, partly since practically every dog in the shelters is, nowadays, and partly because he has some bully features–he’s all front end, big wide head, had a pink spot on his nose as a puppy, and esp. in light of his extreme sensitivity to his humans. (But don’t get the impression he’s a quivering mess–quite the contrary; when there’s nothing to worry about he’s quite the happy-go-lucky character.

          DNA tests however said Phoebe was part Afghan (?? well, I could see some kind of sight-hound in her I guess) and–part Pekinese! WTH?

          And Louis came back part Lab (all the shelter dogs that aren’t part pit are part lab 🙂 ) and part Bull Terrier. I can buy that. Bull Terriers also smile.

          We guessed right on part of BB’s background–she’s part pit; but of the other two breeds that turned up, one was Newfoundland. Uh…?? (I forget the third.)

          Do let us know how your pooches’ kits turn out! (If you can sneak it by PCC somehow.)

          1. Afghan Hound/ Pekinese? Now there’s a mix!!! i’ll try to remember to sneak the results past that mean ol’ CC, maybe in code-LOL. My old neighbors in Palo Alto had 2 Afghans and when one was in the front seat of the car you’d swear it was a blonde woman. They put their ears back in barrettes when they ate so they wouksn’t chew them.

          2. Cute afghan stories. 🙂 I do like their looks, but would never want to have to take care of that coat. Back in the…60’s, probably–I think there was a short afghan craze then–my cousin had one. IIRC my uncle thought it was a real doofus.

            But doofusness isn’t necessarily a bad quality in a dog. 🙂

    10. Louis is the most affable dog I’ve ever known; he smiles, he talks, and he’s always attuned in to his humans.

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/82741306@N03/15402929369/in/photostream/

      Some week-ends & vacations my daughter comes home with BB, a 7-year-old shelter mutt Liz adopted just this year. BB’s a real sweetheart–most affectionate, a quick learner, and amazingly obedient.

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/82741306@N03/15403936250/in/photostream/

      The last two shots & this one are from a session in which Liz tried to get a good shot of all three together. Yeah, right. This is as close as she got:

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/82741306@N03/15565862306/in/photostream/

      All three were shelter dogs; we’ve had Phoebe & Louis since they were pups. So–that’s the pack. 🙂

      3. My daughter’s boyfriend got all 5 extended family dogs to sit together once for a photo, though Currie is looking nervously off to one side: Why is this happening in MY house??

        1. Can we borrow him?

          Currie is a good family citizen! Five sounds like a houseful and then some. 😀

          3. Most def a foxy tail! I believe we determined that foxes can’t breed with dogs, but Lloyd sure looks like a fox with a head like an anvil;-) Yes, the darker-haired mammal is my older child, and the cat toys strewn on the floor are Fred’s (including a Doofus Dog (TM)).

          7. PS, your son’s cute, too. 🙂

            (Though I don’t think they like to hear that after…oh, maybe, 3rd grade, say?)

          9. You must get interesting looks when you introduce them to people–“Hi! I’d like you to meet my son, Bear, and his dog, Lloyd.

            (All he needs now is a cat named Parsley.)

          10. That I do, though Bear’s really Barrett ( wanted a name that didn’t devolve into a nickname but he immediately became Bear) and he lives in Whistler where everyone knows Lloyd. Like the name Parsley, but Bear’s allergic to cats ( though Freddie’s officially his).

          11. I have an embarrassing confession to make. I have just been talked into part-sponsoring a blind guide dog’s training. That is, a guide dog for the blind, not a blind dog. A guide puppy at this stage I guess. My only excuse is they don’t do guide cats.

            Hmmm, a guide cheetah would be kinda cool (though I guess one might have trouble keeping up with him…)

          12. Awww – good on you! I’ve always wanted to help train the dogs by fostering a puppy for socialization but 1) I would be too heart broken to give the puppy back. 2) My own dog would be super pissed.

          13. Errm I said ‘sponsoring’, that doesn’t mean I have to actually, like, socialise with the little mutt. 🙂 I’m more of a cat person, actually.

  36. Two items of geology/ palaeontology news (which I’ve got to rush through) :
    (1) Scottish fish had first sex.
    (Or, in Nature-speak, “Fossils rewrite history of penetrative sex” (free comment article, the main paper is pay-walled)
    <P.They're placoderms, which puts the old complaint about "it's like having a bath with your socks on" into the shade somewhat. Mind you, having seen some of those mediaeval armoured cod-pieces … you're never short of somewhere to hang your hat.
    Alternatively, “Hallucigenia’s onychophoran-like claws and the case for Tactopoda” … Hallucigenia … got to go.

    1. Damn, missed the train, half-hour to kill.
      And a HTML-fail on the previous post, .P>
      Implications.
      The placoderms were an early group of fishes in the Devonian (some as early as the late Silurian, off the top of my head), characterised by a whole-body armour of bony plates and scales covering the whole body. Typically, large plates covered the head forming an armoured carapace, while smaller plates and/or scales covered the tail and rear part of the body, providing flexibility to swim ; some (including this one, judging from the BBC graphic) had elongated pectoral fins, others had less elongated fins (I hope to have some specimens from a recent fossil-hunting trip to Achnaharrass Quarry ; I also wish to find time to prepare them!) ; visible external jaws were also a variable character. And these seem to have had an externally visible “penis”, or like some sharks, “claspers,” which is the term that the researchers use.

      “The little arms are very useful to link the male and female together, so the male can get this large L-shaped sexual organ into position to dock with the female’s genital plates, which are very rough like cheese graters.

      What’s that male inhibatory fantasy called? “Vagina dentata”, or something like that. Lovely. On the other hand, that a fossil long-named for “dicki” has such … appendages … just seems highly appropriate, and will provide howls of laughter to future generations of undergraduates to lighten their palaeontology lectures. Which can be as dry as old bones otherwise.
      The article about Hallucigenia – the little dream organism that just keeps on giving – appears to be drawing parallels between the structure of it’s terminal (end-of-leg) claws and those of modern tardigrades, and Onchyphora, and hopefully tieing together some of the deeper roots of the “super-phylum” of the “Panarthropoda”.
      And it’s train time again.

  37. Confession:

    I never read the “Hill dialogues.” I don’t even know what they are about. I did click on one once, and still couldn’t figure out what I was supposed to be getting from them. I guess it’s a “cat” thing.

    (shrinks away quietly…)

    1. It’s an exercise in anthropomorphism. Conversations Hili might have if she[?] could speak. I find them delightful and an opportunity to see the Polish have a different word for everything 🙂

      1. Dadgummit I keep thinking of stuff after I hit return. Reading that might excite you: “Archy and Mehitabel” by Don Marquis.

      1. Ha ha! It seems Canada gives the US something that is a little bad and the US just goes mega crazy with it. Example: Justin Bieber & Celine Dion – Canadians that made it big and became obnoxious in the US.

        That this happened with creationism is therefore not too surprising.

        😀

        2. Don’t forget Conrad Black, Bryan Adams, & (since we’re on the subject of *ahem* supersizing…) Pamela Anderson.

          1. I’d include David Frum but I can’t speak badly of him because 1) I liked his mom 2) he is smart and I agree on a lot of things he says, except when it comes to politics.

          4. Really? He annoys me to no end … perhaps because he was at peak fame when I was in junior high, so that’s what I associate him with: junior high — & Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves. (Not sure which is worse).

          5. Yeah, I find Bryan Adams is OK. Pamela Anderson doesn’t annoy me either – does she sing?

          6. Pamela Anderson.

            That reminds me – I need to put the patched up tube back onto the bike.

  40. It seems like this thread is still active; hoping PCC will see this. A new comic strip at gocomics, called “Breaking Cat News” and, like “Ten Cats” it seems like it will be all cats, all the time.

    First, or very early strip here.

  42. Since this is an open thread…there’s just been a shooting in Parlisment building in Ottawa! Don’t know any more details…

    1. Yes – and again police are pointing their guns are regular people – this time journalists. The military never do that. They really need to be trained not to point their weapons unless they mean to shoot it.

      1. Yeah, I read that the police ordered all the journalists to hit the floor – at gunpoint. Some young fenale journalust tweeted her mom that she was OK and hiding. Any news on the shooter(s)?

        1. I never thought I’d say this, but the police truly frighten me. So much, that I often consider leaving Canada.

          1. But where would be better?? i’m flying to Colorado from Pearson in the morning. Hope there’s not anything weird going on there…

          6. ;-)) By “there” I meant Toronto’s Pearson Airport. I’m assuming you mean Colorado. I’m just changing planes in Denver, flying to Grand Junction, and then driving to Moab, Utah, for hiking and gabbing with some old old friends from HS.

          8. My fault for being unclear;-) Love Colorado, too. (Tattered Cover book store in Denver). Wish I had time to hike along the way in Colo Nat’l Monument.

    1. OMG! The deer mouse with its cute little whiskers!! Cutely spreading hantavirus. 😀

Comments are closed.