Astronaut Alan Bean confronts a Moon-landing denialist

May 27, 2018 • 1:00 pm

Astronaut Alan Bean (born 1932), the fourth person to walk on the Moon, died yesterday at age 86. His moonwalk was in 1969, and, after participating in the Skylab program, he retired in 1975 to devote himself to painting. Here’s a photo of him on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission:

Bart Sibrel is an infamous Moon-landing denialist who has made ludicrous movies about his theory that the CIA faked all the landings; the Wikipedia article linked to his name details some of the problems with Sibrel’s ideas. He’s also confronted several of the astronauts, asking them to swear on the Bible that they went to the Moon. (Sibrel appears to be religious, as you can see in the Buzz Aldrin video at bottom, so I don’t know what he thinks when someone like Bean actually does swear on the Bible! Would he change his mind? Clearly not!).

At any rate, here’s a video posted by Bo Gardiner showing Sibrel asking Bean to swear on the Bible that he walked on the Moon (after looking at pictures of Sibrel, I think he’s wearing a wig here). The video notes:

By misrepresenting himself as a legitimate “documentary” filmmaker, Bart Sibrel (famously punched by Buzz Aldrin) invaded Alan’s home in 2004 and took advantage of the astronaut’s down-home gentility. Even as Sibrel’s nasty craziness became increasingly obnoxious, Alan generously humored him. But the easygoing gentleman had his limits, and he showed this creep the door with the most gracious of f-yous.

It’s beyond my ken why people think that all the Moon landings are fake, as that would be an expensive piece of fakery! And why would the CIA fake this? (I could look up why Sibrel thinks this, but I can’t be arsed as he’s a bull-goose looney).

Sibrel’s most famous confrontation was with Buzz Aldrin, described by Wikipedia below and shown in the video. Aldrin, who I believe was in his eighties when he was confronted, threw a heavy punch at Sibrel. I can understand why an astronaut who risked his life to perform this risky feat would be really pissed off when confronted by a jerk like Sibrel, but I can’t countenance physical violence. Still, watch the video below, which shows you the religious motivations underlying Sibrel’s endeavors (as you can hear on this and other videos, Sibrel asks “Do you think you can get to Heaven without repenting?”).

Sibrel confronted several Apollo astronauts, who did not respond positively when they realized that they were being challenged on their accredited achievement of landing and walking on the Moon.[1 The most infamous incident involved Apollo 11 crew member Buzz Aldrin. According to Aldrin, he was lured to a Beverly Hills, California, hotel on September 9, 2002, under the pretext of an interview on space for a Japanese children’s television show. As he was leaving the hotel, Sibrel was there requesting that he swear an oath on a Bible that he had walked on the Moon.

When Aldrin refused, Sibrel followed him and said “you’re the one who said you walked on the moon when you didn’t”, and then called Aldrin “a coward, and a liar, and a thief”. Aldrin, after asking Sibrel “will you get out of my way for me?”, reacted by punching Sibrel in the jaw, while being recorded by Sibrel’s camera crew. Sibrel later attempted to use the tape to convince police and prosecutors that he was the victim of an assault. However, it was decided that Aldrin had been provoked and no charges were filed. Many talk shows aired the clip, usually siding with Aldrin’s response. Sibrel said later that he wrote a letter of apology to Aldrin for speaking to him harshly.

Before this incident, Sibrel had interviewed Aldrin in a hotel room, as shown in Sibrel’s film Astronauts Gone Wild. During the interview, after Sibrel confronted Aldrin with a videotape containing, according to Sibrel, newly discovered footage from the Apollo 11 mission, Aldrin replied: “Well, you’re talking to the wrong guy! Why don’t you talk to the administrator at NASA? We were passengers, we’re guys going on a flight.”

The weaselly Pope Francis and his views on gays

May 27, 2018 • 11:30 am

The word “weaselly” is weighing on my mind again today, and Pope Francis is instantiating it well with his latest comments on homosexuality. As usual, he’s being conciliatory towards those the Vatican has historically demonized—and here I mean gays—and the press is lapping it up like a cat laps cream.

The latest news is about Francis’s comments to a gay man who was the victim of sexual abuse by a priest. As reported by CNN:

A victim of clerical sexual abuse has said that Pope Francis told him that God made him gay and that his sexuality “does not matter.”

Juan Carlos Cruz, a survivor of sexual abuse, spent three days with Pope Francis at the Vatican in April, in which he discussed his sexuality and the abuse he suffered at the hands of a Chilean priest.
Describing his encounter with the Pope to CNN, Cruz said: “You know Juan Carlos, that does not matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this. The Pope loves you like this and you should love yourself and not worry about what people say.”

I assume this is true, but it’s bizarre that Francis says that God made Cruz gay, despite Vatican doctrine (below) that being gay is “intrinsically disordered”, and their position that committing homosexual acts is a “grave sin” that, unconfessed, will send you straight to the Barbecue Below.  Why would God make someone who is “intrinsically disordered”? As some kind of test?

Before I comment on Francis’s hypocrisy, let me direct you again to the Church’s statements on gays (my emphasis):

From the Catholic Catechism in the Vatican Archive:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

From a 1986 letter to Catholic bishops by ex-pope Ratzinger on the Vatican website:

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

. . . The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

. . . What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian’s suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.

Got that? If you’re gay, suck it up and refrain from gay sex, no matter how much you suffer. After all, Jesus suffered too! And of course you want to go to Heaven, which you won’t do if you commit “sodomy”.

I don’t deny that Pope Francis has humane impulses towards gays; after all, I don’t think this gesture was simply public relations. But what is public relations is Francis’s repeated conciliatory statements about gays in the absence of his doing anything to change church doctrine about it. If God made gays and loves them, then you simply can’t call this a “disorder”.

It’s time that Francis, if he’s serious about this, does something to change church doctrine. He can try, you know, but he doesn’t: he simply makes highly publicized statements. The press loves this kind of stuff, for it gives the Pope a human face, and the press, by and large, is soft on faith.  But it’s time they held Francis’s feet to the fire, telling him to put up or shut up. After all, he still doesn’t want gays to be priests:

In a closed-door meeting with Italian bishops Monday, the pope warned against admitting candidates with “deep-seated” gay tendencies or those who engage in “homosexual acts,” the Catholic News Agency reports.  Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti, president of the Italian bishops’ conference, confirmed the remarks in a press conference Thursday, according to the agency.

“If you have even the slightest doubt, it’s better not to let them enter,” Francis said of aspiring seminarians with gay “tendencies,” according to Vatican Insider, an Italian site covering the church.

This isn’t a new stance for Pope Francis or the church overall, as the church has long held that men with “deep-seated,” as opposed to “transitory,” attractions to the same sex are not suited for the priesthood. Francis reiterated that policy in a 2016 document. Still, there are many gay men who are priests, and they, like heterosexual priests, are expected to remain celibate.

The Catholic church won’t change its dogma, I think. Rather, they’ll just hold onto the antiquated ideas of yore, resigning themselves to losing America and Europe (except for Poland), and placing their hopes in Africa and South America, where Catholicism is rife and homophobia is still deeply entrenched.

I wish the press would stop buying Francis’s talk and start asking when he’s going to walk the walk.

h/t: Grania

Sunday’s duck report

May 27, 2018 • 10:15 am

I’m happy to report that all eight ducklings are still alive and appear to be in good nick, though another male has arrived at the pond, so that Frank, Hank, and Henry (Hank and Henry are indistinguishable) are all there. The good news is that Honey seems to have established dominance over all the males, including the obstreperous Frank, chasing them all away if they get too close This means that the ducklings eat in peace. She is a great mother.

Here are my growing duck-tending supplies. Today I tried mealworms, corn, crushed Cheerios, oat shredded wheat, and quick-cook oatmeal. Honey ate some corn, for which she dabbled, as well as mealworms, and the ducklings ate mealworms (by far their favorite), but had a little crushed Cheerios as well. They seem to like oatmeal a little, but it sinks too fast in the water to do much good.

Honey and all eight of her offspring:

The three males: Hank, Frank, and Henry. I wonder how many mallard drakes will show up? They know that this pond is the McDonald’s (or McDonald Duck’s) for waterfowl.

The ducklings like to walk around and forage on the rapidly-expanding patch of lily pads. It’s really cute.

Evolution largely omitted and diluted from Arizona’s new education standards

May 27, 2018 • 9:10 am

Arizona has revised its educational standards for the first time in 15 years: these guidelines cover kindergarten through grade 12 (age about 18), and they’ve watered down the evolution standards, deleting several mentions of the “e-word” and severely qualifying others. You can see the reports below, at The Hill (click on screenshot), at the Arizona Republic, or at The Scientist.

You can reaed the draft standards here. The word “evolution” appears only two or three times, once at the bottom of the list below, referred to as a “theory”, which of course is correct in the scientific sense, but evolution is also a fact, and the use of “theory,” without explaining its more complex scientific meaning to the kids, is clearly meant to impugn neo-Darwinism.

And the reports make it pretty clear that Diane Douglas, the Arizona Superintendent of Public Institutions, who thinks that Intelligent Design should be taught along with the “theory” of evolution, is responsible for these changes. She claims that she isn’t, but who can believe that?:

“What we know is true and what we believe might be true but is not proven and that’s the reality,” Diane Douglas, state superintendent of public instruction, tells 3TV/CBS 5. “Evolution has been an ongoing debate for almost 100 years now. There is science to back up parts of it, but not all of it.”

“Not proven”!!!?? She fails to clarify, of course, that nothing is “proven” in science: we just get better and better explanations. But if you use “proven” in the vernacular sense, as something on whose truth you’d bet your house and life savings, then yes, evolution is as “proven” as is the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun and that benzene has six carbon atoms arranged in a ring.

Further, the “ongoing debate” about evolution is not whether it happens, and whether natural selection helps cause it, but about various arcane things that are of no relevance to secondary school education (i.e., what are the relative importance of the several proposed mechanisms of sexual selection?).  Here Douglas is duplicitously impugning the entire theory of evolution by lying: by implying that “evolution has been an ongoing debate”, meaning “whether evolution is true.” This woman does not belong on any committee having to do with education, as she’s a lying weasel, and I don’t say that lightly. Why does she do that? The answer is below (I bet she’s religious, too):

Although Douglas has publicly expressed her support for creationism and intelligent design in the past, she emphasizes that there are no moves to include any reference to them in the new standards. “My personal belief and my professional opinion are two very different things,” she tells 3TV/CBS 5.

The draft standards have not been well received by many school officials, teachers, and parents in Arizona. “Parents like me should be concerned because our kids need to be prepared to compete in a scientifically-sound world,” Tory Roberg, director of government affairs for the Secular Coalition for Arizona, tells The Arizona Republic. “Colleges and universities use evolutionary basics and build on this in advanced science classes. We can’t give our kids a second-rate education. We must demand the best.”

One Department of Education employee has reportedly already resigned over the proposed alterations to the standards. “I was directed to make changes to adjust the wording to ‘evolution,’” Lacey Wieser tells 3TV/CBAS 5. “I turned in my resignation and said, ‘I will not be part of this.’” She left the job in February, she adds.

Douglas:

Some of the changes outlined by the Arizona Republic:

In the draft, the word “evolution” is crossed out multiple times and replaced with different phrases which were in bold, underlined or written in the color green.

In one area of the draft focusing on life science essential standards for high school students, “evolution” is replaced with the words “biological diversity.” This section reads: “Obtain, evaluate, and communicate evidence that describes how inherited traits in a population can lead to evolution biological diversity.”

In an area regarding the “Core Ideas for Knowing Science,” it reads, “The theory of evolution seeks to make clear the unity and diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of evolution organisms. Our [sic] countless generations changes resulting from natural diversity within a species are believed to lead to the selection of those individuals best suited to survive under certain conditions.”

Get that— “changes in natural diversity” are “believed to lead to the selection of those individuals best suited to survive.” Not only is the “believed to” a weasel phrase, but this gets it exactly backwards: it is natural selection (and other evolutionary forces like drift) that cause changes in species—as well as the appearance of new species. The changes don’t lead to natural selection! How savvy are these people.

Here are some of the changes from the draft document:

And this, mentioned above:

Naturally, educators, as well as the National Center for Science Education, have objected to this dilution of truth, and you can see their statements at the three links above (especially the Arizona Republic).

This effacing of truth comes, of course, from religion: Arizona is a conservative state and full of believers, and it is those states that most strenuously object to evolution. As I’ve always said, if there were no religion, there would be no creation myths, and thus no reason to object to the truth of evolution. It is religion, and religion alone, that leads to opposition to evolution. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, because the evidence for evolution is as strong as that for any other biological theory, yet it is evolution alone that is the subject of public disbelief in America.

If you want to register your reaction to these changes, simply go to this site and make comments, which will be given to the standards committee. You have until TOMORROW! (I’ve said my piece on that site.) If you object to these shenanigans, and especially if you’re an educator or a scientist, Professor Ceiling Cat (Emeritus) urges you to weigh in. You’re supposed to fill in the county in Arizona where you live, but I didn’t do that, and they still accepted my comment. But of course Arizona residents are the most important commenters.

h/t: Gregory

Reader’s wildlife video

May 27, 2018 • 7:45 am

When I met Tara Tanaka in Florida in April, I told her that my favorites among her many wildlife videos were those showing wild ducklings leaping from their nest box to join their mother on the ground. In response, she edited this video just for me (with narration!), and I’m touched. It shows what happened when three different species of ducks laid eggs in a single nest box, but only one mother incubated them. (If you have questions about this, Tara may respond in the comments).  Be sure to enlarge the video.

She adds this:

In this video I mentioned that we had an alligator appear when our very first Black-bellied Whistling ducklings were jumping from this box – here is that video: vimeo.com/125943891.

Tara’s Vimeo page is here, and her flickr page is here.

Sunday: Hili dialogue

May 27, 2018 • 6:30 am

It’s Ceiling Cat’s Day: Sunday, May 27, 2018, and it’s National Italian Beef Day, a sandwich made famous by Chicago and made properly only in Chicago. It’s also the start of National Reconciliation Week in Australia, a celebration of aboriginal rights and their long-term neglect.

I haven’t yet done the daily Duck Count and Feeding, but I have to say that my first visit to the pond each day is always fraught with anxiety. Yesterday, thanks to kind reader Linda Calhoun, who found them, I ordered $35 worth of floating “starter duck pellets”. This morning I go on another shopping trip to buy corn, shredded wheat, and oatmeal. (The ducks eat better than I do!)

On this day in 1703, Peter the Great founded the city of Saint Petersburg. On May 27, 1927, the Ford Motor Company made its last model T, preparing to make its successor, the Ford Model A. On this day in 1933, the Walt Disney company released its cartoon Three Little Pigs, considered the most successful animated short ever made. It was helped by its hit song, “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?”  Here it is! The song starts at 1:55:

On May 27, 1937, the Golden Gate Bridge opened—first to pedestrian traffic only—connecting San Francisco and Marin County, California.  Exactly three decades later, Australians passed a constitutional referendum giving the government power to make laws ameliorating the plight of indigenous Australians, who before that weren’t even counted in the census. (See “National Reconciliation Week” above.) Finally, exactly two years ago, Barack Obama became the first US President to visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and meet survivors of the American A-bombing of that city.

Notables born on this day include Cornelius Vanderbilt (1794) and Amelia Bloomer (1818), best known for giving her name to the ladies’ garment (the first widespread attempt of women to wear pants), but in reality a well known journalist and feminist activist. About those bloomers, shown below, Wikipedia says this:

In 1851, New England temperance activist Elizabeth Smith Miller (aka Libby Miller) adopted what she considered a more rational costume: loose trousers gathered at the ankles, like women’s trousers worn in the Middle East and Central Asia, topped by a short dress or skirt and vest. The costume was worn publicly by actress Fanny Kemble. Miller displayed her new clothing to Stanton, her cousin, who found it sensible and becoming, and adopted it immediately. In this garb Stanton visited Bloomer, who began to wear the costume and promote it enthusiastically in her magazine. Articles on the clothing trend were picked up in The New York Tribune. More women wore the fashion which was promptly dubbed The Bloomer Costume or “Bloomers“. However, the Bloomers were subjected to ceaseless ridicule in the press and harassment on the street. Bloomer herself dropped the fashion in 1859, saying that a new invention, the crinoline, was a sufficient reform that she could return to conventional dress.

Bloomers

Others born on this day include Julia Ward Howe (1819), Wild Bill Hickok (1837), painter Georges Rouault (1871), Dashiell Hammett (1894), Rachel Carson (1907), John Cheever (1912), Sam Snead (1912), Henry Kissinger (1923), and Ramsey Lewis (1935).  Kissinger is 95 today, and outlived his nemesis Christopher Hitchens, who once said one of the worst things that could happen to him (Hitchens) was to die before Kissinger. He did.

Those who died on May 27 include Niccolò Paganini (1782), Robert Koch (1910; Nobel Laureate), Robert Ripley (1949), Jawaharlal Nehru (1964), Gil Scott-Heron (2011), and, just last year, Gregg Allman (2017).

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is acting like royalty again:

Hili: In principle we understand each other without words.
A: I’m glad.
Hili: But you could try harder.
In Polish:
Hili: W zasadzie rozumiemy się bez słów.
Ja: Cieszę się.
Hili: Ale czasem mógłbyś się lepiej starać. ​

Out in Winnipeg, Gus, briefly untended, got into the catnip plant, winding up completely baked!

Before:

After:

 

Matthew sent a bunch of tweets. Here’s an example of scientific inflation.

https://twitter.com/TheropodaBlog/status/1000318416266424320

If you didn’t believe the photo I put up the other day of goats grazing on the side of a dam, standing on tiny bits of protruding wall, have a look at this:

Why did this cat make such a big leap? Have a look:

A banana eel:

One would think this would hurt the bobcats, but they seem to climb cactuses frequently:

And an optical illusion:

Duckling report

May 26, 2018 • 1:15 pm

All eight ducklings are alive and well—thriving in fact. It’s still anxiety-provoking to feed them, as Frank is dominant over Honey and her brood, and tries to chase them away from food. It’s best to separate them, and to do that you need two people. Fortunately, Sanja showed up yesterday afternoon to feed Frank while I took care of Honey and her family. Then we switched places.

I still need to get more food down Honey, as she’s too attentive to eat while I feed mealworms to her brood. I’ve also tried new foods:

Cheerios: not a big hit with either Mom or brood
Lettuce: (red-leaf kind) ditto; nobody eats it
Corn: Honey loves it, but because it sinks I have to feed her on land, and she won’t come ashore if Frank is around.
Chick starter food: A kind person sent me a ten-pound bag of finely ground chick “starter” food, which is also great for ducklings, and they like it; but it sinks quickly in the water and therefore can be fed only on land—the usual problem. If I could only get the family on land and keep Frank away from them!
Mealworms: The perennial favorite, and good because a. they float and b. Frank doesn’t like them. But that’s not a balanced diet. I trust the family gets other stuff from foraging in the pond.

I’ll also try fruit this week.

Here’s Sanja feeding mealworms to the brood yesterday. When they get big enough, perhaps they can get names, though they’ll still be indistinguishable. Note that you can see all eight ducklings.

Frank and Henry pal around, but Honey regularly chases Henry out of the pond while Frank goes after her. The dominance hierarchy is weird. Here they look as if they’re enemies, but they’re not. Frank is also dominant over Henry at feeding time. I still feed the drakes, but Honey (who is thinner) is the one who really needs to be fed up.

Frank, on the left, has a lighter breast, which makes me think he’s a backcross hybrid involving a white duck somewhere in his ancestry. Henry (right) has the typical brown breast of a wild drake.

More reports as things develop. The ducklings are perceptibly bigger than they were a few days ago. Fingers crossed!