Pharyngula

Posted by: Walton | March 14, 2010 5:19 PM

Insane organisation of the day (I came across this group by accident when reading about the Norwegian royal family for purposes of the previous sub-Thread):

Fuck For Forest: the world's first eco-porn organisation

You'd think it would be some sort of parody, but apparently they actually exist. :-/

Posted by: Sili | March 14, 2010 5:20 PM

No no no no no.

This thread is supposed to be about heights and the monarchy.

(Christian X of Denmark was supposedly the highest king ever.)

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | March 14, 2010 5:22 PM

Steve Fielding may well protest that religion should be kept out of government, but what he actually means is that religions *other than his own* should be kept out of government.

Posted by: Carlie | March 14, 2010 5:24 PM

I'm going to take the huge liberty of reposting Bill's last comment, since it's important and was at the end of the last thread.

****
Might I interrupt with a modest request of those of you living in the U.S.? Tomorrow begins the week that will in all likelihood make or break healthcare reform, starting with key votes in the House of Representatives. I've spoken with my congressman today, and he tells me that the Tea Party types are continuing to protest and flood the phones and mailboxes of members, in an attempt to drown out the voices of support.

Even if you've already told your representative what you think... even if you're sure your rep will vote to pass reform, please take a moment to call or send an e-mail to reaffirm your support. Strange as it seems, the numbers of calls matters, and it will matter again in November when your rep will have to defend his/her vote against accusations of "not listening to constituents" from Tea-Party-driven opponents.

I know many of you are disappointed with the scope and reach of the proposed reforms, but AFAIK almost nobody supports retaining the status quo, and that's the only other option on the table: Republicans insist on no change at all, and backing the proposed reforms is the only way we'll ever get off the dime.

Of course, counting phone calls and e-mails in no more scientific than an internet poll... but there are people out there who take it seriously, and this is one poll that desperately needs Pharyngulating! You can locate the contact information for your elected representatives here; at the moment, it's the House that matters, but it wouldn't be amiss to call your senators, and the White House, too, for good measure.

I apologize for the intrusion to all you anarchists, communists, monarchists, und so weiter, who read these pages from outside the U.S.; you may carry on with your regularly scheduled conversation.
****

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 14, 2010 5:27 PM

Cath:

Steve Fielding may well protest that religion should be kept out of government, but what he actually means is that religions *other than his own* should be kept out of government.

That's what all politicians mean when it comes to religion.

Posted by: Walton | March 14, 2010 5:33 PM

Rule 34, Walton. They already have 3D porn (it comes with free 3D glasses!)

Yeah, but this isn't just eco-themed porn. This is a non-profit group, whose mission is to have sex in public in order to raise money for saving the rainforest. Seriously. Someone actually thought that this was a good idea.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | March 14, 2010 5:42 PM

fly @ #2

To hear Dawkins say that particular quote was one of the most memorable moments of the entire conference for me. Whilst it is a great quote written, it was truly awesome to hear him say it with such emotion.

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | March 14, 2010 5:48 PM

Fine, Walton, inbreeding is not as a concern as before. But, as I have been stressing, it is because the monarchy was defanged during the course of some horrific wars; wars brought about competing monarchies (Though many heads of states were cousins.) and in the aftermath of the collapse of said monarchies.

Why hold allegiance to s system that brought so much horror to the world?

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 14, 2010 5:48 PM

Bride of Shrek:

Whilst it is a great quote written, it was truly awesome to hear him say it with such emotion.

I imagine it was. I sincerely hope it made some people think. Hope springs eternal and all that.

Posted by: Walton | March 14, 2010 5:50 PM

Disappointed that Walton will not make an appearance, but understand.

Sorry... as much as I would love to, I am totally snowed under with work between now and June 11th (after which I expect to have much more free time).

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 14, 2010 5:54 PM

"Black" queen of Britain? (Wife of Mad King George III)

More royal gossip for Walton :) - "Princess" Margaret (Liz's dead sister) is known in my family as "That Bloody Fish Killer". At a party at my ex's house (when she was young), Maggie emptied her glass of some alcoholic drink (must have wanted a refill of something stronger) into my ex's fish tank, killing all her fish. Result - one heartbroken republican.

Actually I didn't really dislike Margaret as much as some of the other members of that family. She wanted to marry a "commoner", but wasn't allowed to. Maybe that was the cause of her heavy drinking.

Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | March 14, 2010 5:58 PM

The bias on this installment of Q and A is noticeable from the beginning when Tony Jones (the MC) introduces RD as “strident” and Richard pulls him up on it. Early on in the programme I had an suspicion that a few of the questions were "Dorothy Dix" opportunities for Dawkins to kick a penalty goal (why else were so many questions directed to him?), except it became blatantly obvious that some of the audience questions were hoping to extract a slip from Dawkins so they could unleash the attack dogs.

Some back up for Dawkins on the forum in the form of an intelligent, non-religious pollie (e.g. Bob Brown, Lyn Allison) would have been fairer, to balance the absurdity of Tony Brown, the nastiness of Julie Bishop, and the overwhelming clowning stupidity of Steve Fielding. Patrick McGorry was the only other individual from Dawkins to come out of this show with any positive credit, but he took a fairly backward stance most of the time.

(Finally: I decided to wimp out and go for a Moveable Type sign-in after seeing "Maledict" mangled once too often elsewhere. I'm not an Erisian or Discordian, but I was amused by their designation of any member of their religion being a "Pope". For the non-linguists out there, it's just a simple reversal of the current Bishop of Rome's assumed name ("Benedict" = blessed; "Maledict" = cursed). A nice use of both words appears in the Latin sequence for the dead, the "Dies irae":
Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis: voca me cum benedictis. (This charming sentiment may be translated as “When the accursed have been confounded and sentenced to acrid flames, call me along with the blessed.” Nice.) The Roman numerals are obviously symbolic, but relevant as Benedict is XVI, and you only need to add DCL to get that other number.)

Posted by: Carlie | March 14, 2010 6:01 PM

JeffreyD - aren't you a west coaster? I wish I could meet more Pharynguloids. Is anyone else going to see PZ when he's in Syracuse in April?

Posted by: Walton | March 14, 2010 6:03 PM

Pope Maledict: I will always instinctively associate the text of the Dies irae with Mozart's setting, which I think is by far the best ever composed. (Though, of course, he only set the first three stanzas - up to Quantus tremor est futurus / Quando iudex est venturus / Cuncta stricte discussurus.)

But you're right, the text is pretty depressing and self-righteous. Apparently, post-Vatican II, it no longer forms a part of the official Requiem Mass.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 14, 2010 6:07 PM

To hear Dawkins say that particular quote was one of the most memorable moments of the entire conference for me.

Yes, that was goosebumps and tears well-up material.

Posted by: efrique | March 14, 2010 6:16 PM

Steven Fielding, who is clearly the biggest idiot there, protests that religion ought to be kept out of government.

This is ironic because his platform and actions look to me like he's all about the opposite. He may not support compulsory prayers in parliament or whatever, but his religion is all over his policies.

Posted by: tbfoster | March 14, 2010 6:25 PM

Hahaha RD serves Fielding in the first 5 minutes! And did you see Bishop's stare at the audience member who yelled at her to 'answer the question'? Classic! RD's response regarding absolute morality at around the 25min mark must be my favourite bit from the show, near perfect answer.

The only other people there that even resembles reasoned thought was the professor of psychiatry, but even he towards the end made some soft waffle about hoping for an afterlife.

Thanks for the conference summary, Rorschach!

Posted by: JeffreyD | March 14, 2010 6:26 PM

OK, brain really has shut down (sigh). I believe it is more correctly, "I go, I go; look how I go,
swifter than arrow from the Tartar's bow."

And so I do, a crippled and aimless arrow - Achoooo!!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 14, 2010 6:28 PM

Dawkins' comment on children outgrowing Santa Claus, implying that people should outgrow religion and god, was pure gold.

Posted by: Walton | March 14, 2010 6:32 PM

David,

You had no real choice in that promise.

Yes, I did. I didn't have to join in the first place. We don't have conscription in the UK. :-)

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 14, 2010 6:33 PM

since this thread appears to have exponential growth rate regardless of medium, might I suggest calling the next iteration:

The Andromeda Strain

Posted by: Dogmeat | March 14, 2010 6:36 PM

@31

You are 100% correct, Fielding is a sly, manipulative piece of work. His party, "Family First", worked its way into parliament on very secular issues and it wasn't until Fielding had a seat that their true agenda started to rear its ugly head. They vehemently oppose civil rights and support censorship such as the government's internet filter, and even criticize it for being too lenient.

Posted by: Walton | March 14, 2010 6:39 PM

Hanging, drawing, and quartering. Yes, "and". That came up when the film showing actors disguised as James Hewitt and Diana became public.

FYI: any remaining capital offences in English law were abolished in 2000, when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. Prior to that time, although capital punishment had been abolished in practice in the 1960s, there were still a few obscure offences for which the death penalty was technically available, though never used in practice: high treason,* committing arson in a naval dockyard, and (in Scotland only) using the Queen's coat of arms or other heraldic devices without permission.

Today, the Human Rights Act 1998 (incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights) expressly prohibits the death penalty in all cases, and also prohibits "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", which would certainly apply to "hanging, drawing and quartering".

*High treason still exists as a statutory crime, though no one has been convicted of it in England since William Joyce (known as "Lord Haw-Haw" after the Second World War). The maximum sentence was reduced to life imprisonment by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 14, 2010 6:42 PM

:-o

D-d-d-d-d-do they have any kind of biologist who'd take a postdoc?

What the fuck. Money. Over two years in Austrian subsidies when I still got any.

...So, yes, congratulations indeed. :-)

Posted by: Rorschach | March 14, 2010 6:53 PM

Steve Fielding may well protest that religion should be kept out of government, but what he actually means is that religions *other than his own* should be kept out of government.

Since we're doing quotes from the Convention :

Dawkins : Fielding dumber then an earthworm

Posted by: Walton | March 14, 2010 6:59 PM

One mistake: in fact, I have just checked my facts, and it transpires that the death penalty for committing arson in a naval dockyard was abolished by statute in 1971.

Posted by: James F | March 14, 2010 7:09 PM

I've never bought this recurring argument from Dawkins, about 5 minutes into part 2:

RD: "It's a supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory...[than] if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we're looking at a totally different kind of biology."

Audience member: "How so?"

Yes, how so? If all we have is the natural world to observe and analyze, how do we divine - so to speak - a supernatural author? Certainly the ID crowd can't do it. The supernatural "poof" of ID and old-school creationism is one thing, but how is nature as it is, without an author, vs. nature as it is, with an author a scientific question? Is Dawkins really just talking about creationism?

Posted by: sandiseattle | March 14, 2010 7:20 PM

JefferyD

concider tequila for that cold, I've killed more than one cold with tequila (prefer Sauza brand, but sure any brand will do.)

Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | March 14, 2010 7:27 PM

Rorschack @ #49, but as Robyn Williams pointed out, they might be dumb, but at least earthworms are useful for something!

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 14, 2010 7:33 PM

I have always considered myself ugly, or average at best; before the Mad Women of Pharyngula (and even they haven't been very explicit as far as I remember), nobody ever complimented me on my looks however vaguely, and I don't think I look like what the media consider handsome men.

David M, I actually use some hyperbole of female on female aggression (truth I did grow up with girls like that... I remember one girl who was a little too high and mighty for some of the other girls who got jumped after school one day held down and had her hair splashed with peroxide and kool aid...) I digress.

But yeah, I also just honestly don't have very good self image. I was considered ugly as a little girl. Not just ugly, really really ugly... and I suppose the image stuck. Looking back on it I just was majorly bullied at one school during a particularly hard time in my childhood, but such things bend the tree in the shape it keeps I guess.

Since I didn't stick around one place that long or deal with many people my self image never really evolved so that in my teens I was modeling but I still thought of myself as really really ugly.

Sad life sort of... although there are lots I wouldn't trade it for.

But yeah, Bill I will say this. It's best not to assume when a woman says that, that whatever it is in her self image is entirely based around sex or attractiveness to men. There's all sorts of things going on in our heads.

Sadly on body image and the like my head has the rubber stamp of fucked up on it :(

Oh well that was weirdly oversharing. Ya'll have fun now. I gotta upload my pics, clean some stuff, and get out of here in time for dinner....

:D

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 14, 2010 7:44 PM

prefer Sauza brand

commemorativo or hornitos reposados?

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 14, 2010 7:59 PM

Watched all 6 parts. Fielding... during the first few parts I was thinking... who kidnapped Fielding and replaced him with a clown that was paid to make Fielding look ridiculous? It all looked so deliberate. And Ninio threatened to dissolve into bliss any second now. ~:-|

Yes, I did. I didn't have to join in the first place. We don't have conscription in the UK. :-)

You wanted to join, and the only way to join led across that oath. That's what I mean by "no real choice" (...as opposed to the more technical "no choice").

Prior to that time, although capital punishment had been abolished in practice in the 1960s, there were still a few obscure offences for which the death penalty was technically available

I know it was purely theoretical. Was "dead letter" the wrong term?

lol, did you forget already that US universities cost money? those grants are pretty much there solely to cover tuition

Well, I did know they cost money, and I did know that, say, Yale is 30,000 $/year (or was it semester even), but I wouldn't have expected the NDSU to be only one order of magnitude... uh... for how long is the grant supposed to last?

Dawkins : Fielding dumber then an earthworm

ROTFL!!! I only stopped laughing once while reading it :-D

about a million different things could happen between now and then that could result in me not going back to school at all, or dropping out and not finishing it. This has happened 4 times before

:-S

If we can, uh, help... the Thread is here for you...

nice. that's pretty close to what I had in mind

:-)

indeed; and i haven't made it to the store yet :-p

You know what? It's close to 1 am over here. I'll stay up a little and ask periodically if you're gone yet. :-þ I have stuff to do anyway – I still haven't started writing e-mails about postdoc positions... I'm probably too tired, and certainly too lazy, to actually start writing, but I'll at least compile a list of e-mail addresses.

If all we have is the natural world to observe and analyze, how do we divine - so to speak - a supernatural author? Certainly the ID crowd can't do it. The supernatural "poof" of ID and old-school creationism is one thing, but how is nature as it is, without an author, vs. nature as it is, with an author a scientific question? Is Dawkins really just talking about creationism?

Let's reword it: is there evidence for a Designer – evidence of miracles –, or is there not? If not, what sense does it make to assume a Designer Who... didn't actually do anything? If yes, "everything is the way it is because it got that way" comes into play.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 14, 2010 8:12 PM

Well, I did know they cost money, and I did know that, say, Yale is 30,000 $/year (or was it semester even), but I wouldn't have expected the NDSU to be only one order of magnitude... uh... for how long is the grant supposed to last?

If we can, uh, help... the Thread is here for you...

You know what? It's close to 1 am over here. I'll stay up a little and ask periodically if you're gone yet. :-þ

Posted by: boygenius | March 14, 2010 8:20 PM

Hmm.. Never heard of tequila being good for a cold, other than masking the symptoms by making you not care anymore.

However, the last time I had a nasty case of poison ivy my aunt told my mom to recommend tequila. I didn't know if I was supposed to apply it topically or ingest it, so I called my aunt to clarify. She verified that, indeed, you are to ingest it to help alleviate the itching. I was skeptical (of course) but, anecdottaly, it works! Even in non-intoxicating quantities.

I don't think it was a placebo effect because I never believed it would work in the first place.

Anyone else experienced this or have an explanation of the mechanism involved. It's got to have something to do with the chemical composition of tequila acting on the urushiol induced poison ivy rash, no?

Posted by: boygenius | March 14, 2010 8:30 PM

Oh. The main take-away from this episode of mine is:

When you are hanging out in a hot springs with the dogs, make sure the dogs haven't been running around in shoulder-high poison ivy before they get in the water.

The warm water washes all the urushiol oil off of their fur. Said oil then floats to the top and is absorbed into your skin at the waterline. It also coats your entire self when you stand up. (I had poison ivy blisters in places that I will not disclose here.)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 14, 2010 8:52 PM

I missed a periodic reminder. But it seems it wasn't necessary anyway :-)

Posted by: Rorschach | March 14, 2010 9:03 PM

So it's back to business as usual....*sigh*

Another day, another catholic abuse cover-up story :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8567144.stm

Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | March 14, 2010 9:07 PM

David,

you might be interested to know that “comparable” is occasionally stressed the same way in these parts, though there are several more variations there (for example, if the stress is on the first syllable, the second vowel will almost always be [a], but if the stress is on the second the vowel will change to [æ] or very occasionally [eː]). “Admirable” with the accent anywhere other than the first syllable though would be looked on as a vulgarism!

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 14, 2010 9:09 PM

Jessa:

I can't resist a show with a title like that!

That title had the opposite effect on me. Not watching. ;p

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 14, 2010 9:12 PM

The Redhead sent me on a "Packy the Mule" errand, and dinner was in the pile of packages I brought in. Not watching, but waiting for dinner (after a series of phone calls)...

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 14, 2010 9:17 PM

Anyone else experienced this or have an explanation of the mechanism involved.

*sheerug*

first I've heard of it, but then I'm not allergic to poison ivy/oak.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 14, 2010 9:22 PM

Looks like Peter Graves just found out whether there is an afterlife.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 14, 2010 9:27 PM

Found a fifth, in a paper that I had long hoped to stumble over and that turns out to be open-access. :-) It says that at least some of the extinct northern-hemisphere "marsupials" weren't marsupials in the strictest sense.

things you'd only consider edible if I sent them through a blender first, and things you wouldn't eat at all.

Sounds healthy :-)

“comparable” is occasionally stressed the same way in these parts,

Interesting.

though there are several more variations there (for example, if the stress is on the first syllable, the second vowel will almost always be [a], but if the stress is on the second the vowel will change to [æ] or very occasionally [eː]).

That much is logical...

“Admirable” with the accent anywhere other than the first syllable though would be looked on as a vulgarism!

So I should watch more YouTube :-þ

People want royalty to act like regular people but OTOH they also want to keep up the pretense that the royals are somehow a class above in their personal lives. The process of assimilating the royalty into normal society is probably furthest along in Scandinavia, but once they are just as ordinary as everyone else, what's going to be the point?

<lightbulb above head>

1 shot tequila
add one half squeezed lemon.

Squeeze lemon juice onto your wrist. Salt it. Lick that. Then drink the shot of tequila. ¡Chinga tu madre!

Haven't tried it myself. :-S

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 14, 2010 9:33 PM

Nerd:

The doctors already on the elevator all recommended whiskey and (lemon, honey, sugar, molasses, lime, etc, and in combination).

My grandparents were firm believers in a hot toddy with a liberal dose of booze for a cold, even for us kids. Not because they thought it would kill the cold, but it was good for making us less grouchy and putting us to sleep. :D

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | March 14, 2010 9:46 PM

And just which of the women of Pharyngula do you consider 'mad' pray tell?

Posted by: Carlie | March 14, 2010 9:58 PM

I look a lot cuter from in front than from a side.

Ha! You're not getting rid of your fan club that easily, Marjanović.

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | March 14, 2010 10:02 PM

Oh mon dieu! Certainly not the sluts. There's not enough time to be both. *smirk*

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 14, 2010 10:15 PM

Patricia, yes, being mad sluts is considerable work and quite time consuming. I could perhaps do eccentric slut. Yes, that would work. ;D

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 14, 2010 10:24 PM

And just which of the women of Pharyngula do you consider 'mad' pray tell?

Posted by: SC OM | March 14, 2010 10:34 PM

I checked in at the Pile-Up earlier, and at the time the last comment (seemingly trying to calm those calling for drastic measures) was by one Gaythia, containing this bit:

@Everyone: Civilization is always in danger of Collapse, but still possible and extremely worthwhile to maintain.

The extent of the loss of perspective on that blog is truly astonishing.

Posted by: Carlie | March 14, 2010 10:39 PM

I'm probably in the mad category, regardless if it's mad as in "Grrr", or mad as in "I'm just mahd about you, dahling".

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | March 14, 2010 10:42 PM

Otrame - Mad women and sluts (all sexes) are always welcome here. We encourage such strumpetry!

Caine - An exccentric slut is good...but be careful, enquiring minds might want to know. ;)

Posted by: SC OM | March 14, 2010 10:43 PM

1: Human rulers, not butterflies. This is not about entomology, unless of course it turns out that it is.

I thought you were going to suggest we make the butterflies the new royalty. They were named for William III, so it is their due. And it would be a neat reverse-Kafka political transformation.

Posted by: SC OM | March 14, 2010 10:48 PM

Are you telling me this is still going on?? What did we miss?

Oh, just Stu and Pharyngula bringing about the demise of civilization.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science/

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 14, 2010 10:50 PM

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science/

Must.Not.Click.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 14, 2010 10:53 PM

Crossroads blather:

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for Hagar the Horrible and his online fan club.

Oh what wit! Could these people possibly be more lame?

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 14, 2010 11:02 PM

Barbarian savages Christians

I’m no Christian, but I do know that the Pope and Feilding are so influenced by their faith that they would never be as personally vicious as a Dawkins. If only Dawkins could assure us that a life free of religion would not leave us at the mercy of humankind’s nastier impulses.

ABC presenter Robyn Williams was just as troublingly abusive:

“I can give you a devastating argument against religion in two words,” Williams said in his introduction.

“Senator Fielding. Richard Dawkins said his IQ is lower than an earthworm, but I think earthworms are useful.”

A public apology for such a nasty crack would be the least we could expect. A public reflection on the civilising virtues of Christianity, after all, would be what we could hope for.

And so on...

Posted by: Jessa | March 14, 2010 11:04 PM

Oh what wit! Could these people possibly be more lame?

C'mon, are you trying to throw us softball questions?

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 14, 2010 11:06 PM

Jessa, well, they aren't fit for hardball. They'd get the vapours.

Posted by: windy | March 14, 2010 11:12 PM

Many different solutions could be implemented and tested, and perhaps used simultaneously depending on circumstances : a set of animatronic monarchs; an android royalty; muppet, mascot, or mannequin kings; giant puppet princes ; machined queens of loving grace.

Wow, that's very ambitious. I was going to suggest cardboard cutouts.

--

Yeah, because even though we are constantly subjected to violent verbal abuse and made to feel unwelcome here, we come anyway.

No we don't, I'm the only woman on Pharyngula! /s

Posted by: boygenius | March 14, 2010 11:16 PM

Ichthyic,

first I've heard of it, but then I'm not allergic to poison ivy/oak.

You're a fortunate soul [sic]. I'm so hypersensitive that I can't even eat cashews. :( I understand they have the same/related urushiol oil in them.

I love cashews.

*pouts*

Posted by: SC OM | March 14, 2010 11:26 PM

Ah, I love those sketches. Following the links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqp2MjnYmf8&NR;=1

Posted by: redrabbitslife | March 14, 2010 11:42 PM

I clicked the link.

*shakes head*

That's a lot of hot air. It must take superhuman effort to sustain that level of righteous outrage over something so obviously misconstrued.

I have relatives who do that. We don't send them x-mas cards, mainly so they'll have something to be *properly* outraged about.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 14, 2010 11:45 PM

Wowbagger:

That there were about 20 Kwok comments out of the last 30 was also kind of hilarious. He's a bitter little creep, isn't he?

It's just 'cause he didn't get his camera. :P

I laughed at Kwak's reposting every long comment due to typos. This is from one of his "corrected" comments:

Biding farewll to Pharyngula is the best, and only, hope Science Blogs has for maintaining its credibility within the scientific blogosphere.

Posted by: ambulocetacean | March 15, 2010 12:02 AM

Speaking of sperm galloping through the desert...

I actually review TV shows for a living (nice gig, I know) and I'm forever infuriated by the amount of woo that History and Discovery keep peddling. There are far too many ghosts and demons and Bible codes and chupacabras and all the rest of it. And any time History does something on Armageddon they get Timothy LaHaye on to talk about raptures and stuff. Or that Pastor Bob Larsen or whatever his name is to talk about how he has to exorcise the demons out of his congregation every week.

I get really annoyed when actual scientists front these shows and talk up non-scientific crap. I remember one series about exotic diseases and parasites that was presented by an actual virologist. He got some leeches put on him at an ayurvedic clinic, explained that the idea is that the leeches suck out "impure blood" (presumably leaving "pure" blood behind), and said that there must be something to it because people have been doing it for thousands of years. I mean, really...

From time to time I'm pleasantly surprised to see the likes of Richard Wiseman, Joe Nickell, Michael Shermer and James Randi get a bit of air time, but the narrator almost inevitably writes them off.

So anyway what do you guys think are the best and worst science/pseudoscience shows out there?

Posted by: ronsullivan | March 15, 2010 12:11 AM

Ichthyic: I'm not allergic to poison ivy/oak.

Pssst. Neither am I. Possibly the only goddamned thing on earth I'm not allergic (or sensitive) to. When I was gardening for a living, I was so far in the closet about that that I'm still shaking mothballs out of my cuffs.

(How ya feeling, Ich'?)

boygenius: You're a fortunate soul [sic]. I'm so hypersensitive that I can't even eat cashews.

Cashew fruit is nice too. I confess I've only had it in dried form and it seems it's hard to fine even like that. (OK, I'm being rude.)

Rorschach: I do like the sound of 'Hagar the Horrible" though, I have to say.....:-)))

OK, who's getting our boy a Viking helmet? There must be lots of them in Minnesota, no?

Patricia: And just which of the women of Pharyngula do you consider 'mad' pray tell?

I know I am.

I found out today that I can get Lebanon bologna at a supermarket just up the road in Pinole! I am just now a heppy heppy ket.

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 15, 2010 12:23 AM

before the Mad Women of Pharyngula (and even they haven't been very explicit as far as I remember), nobody ever complimented me on my looks

Hah, I missed round 1 of this, but I'm assuming it was in response to the charming, red-eyed photo of you PZ posted some weeks (months?) ago? Well, if you'll forgive me for slipping into Cougar mode for a moment, let me just add: MMMMRRRRRRAAOOOOOOWWWWWWW.
;-)

Oh, I'm Mad. Definitely a Mad one.

I laughed at Kwak's reposting every long comment due to typos. This is from one of his "corrected" comments:
"Biding farewll to Pharyngula is the best, and only, hope Science Blogs has for maintaining its credibility within the scientific blogosphere."

And that's just for the typos. The content is worth a contemptuous snort or two.

best and worst science/pseudoscience shows out there?

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 15, 2010 12:35 AM

@ Carlie, #82:

I'm turning to Celebrity Apprentice now. Cyndi Lauper is better than this.

She was my GIRL back in the day! In my tradition of providing irrelevant commentary*. . .I begged my mother for Cyndi Lauper's "She's So Unusual" in 1984 for Christmas. That was the best Christmas. I got my first Walkman (OK, it was a bulky JC Penny knock-off, but it rocked), and got the Lauper album on cassette in my stocking. Wore that fucker out.

It was in 1984 that I also discovered, as teh ghey of my generation almost invariably did, that I was in love with Madonna. I spent every last cent from my paper route and my allowance on her 45 singles (n.b., Gyeong Pikachu - those were vinyl records that played at 45 revolutions per minute and cost 50 cents each). I even convinced my bus driver to keep the bus radio tuned to OK-100, the local pop station. He always turned it up for me when "Material Girl" was in heavy rotation. And he was this grizzled old Korean War vet who went by the name "Sarge." Go figure.

In 1985, my mother cut off my (admittedly meager) allowance for a whole summer because of my heavy spending on Madonna records. "You have an unnatural obsession with that woman," she said. Unnatural? Please. It was my birthright as an 80s fag. Got her back good, too, when I moved out of the house and finally bleached my hair white blond (which she had absolutely prohibited).

* For some reason, I find almost all my Pharyngula contributions are on the frivolous side. I have a career I take seriously, I care deeply about politics, education, and church-state separation issues. I'm far more serious in other electronic venues, and politically active in my private life. Guess I've been feeling sheepish about being a silly SpokesGay here, and don't want you all to think I'm half as flighty as I affect to be:)

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 15, 2010 12:40 AM

Josh, maybe you enough seriousness in those other venues. :)

Posted by: Menyambal | March 15, 2010 12:45 AM

Josh, Official SpokesGay, I have always appreciated your writing (and Cyndi Lauper, too). And I enjoyed reading that. Thanks.

P.S. Cyndi Lauper's _Time_After_Time_ is our song for my girlfriend and me. Well, as much as any song is. If it was my song I'd have to dress nicer. :)

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 15, 2010 12:52 AM

@Menyambal:

P.S. Cyndi Lauper's _Time_After_Time_ is our song for my girlfriend and me.

Oh, that's a sweet, sweet song. Heartbreaking even. It has the mysterious quality of being tear-inducing yet in a major key, something I'm trying to figure out.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | March 15, 2010 1:11 AM

MrFire,

Sure - I don't own an mp3 recorder as far as I know, but plenty of people I know should, and I'll see what I can get my hands on. Also, just so you know, we're still waiting for confirmation that we have actually seats for it :-\

I understand if you can't make it happen, for whatever reason. Regardless, thanks for thinking of me.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | March 15, 2010 3:06 AM

It is not too difficult to spot who the moron is (are). It is not RD.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 15, 2010 3:20 AM

Bride Of Shrek, that's impressive, congratulations.

Posted by: boygenius | March 15, 2010 4:26 AM

Good on you, BoSOM.

*clenched tentacle salute*

Posted by: John Morales | March 15, 2010 5:21 AM

... and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.

The very opposite of freedom.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 15, 2010 5:44 AM

Walton,

what's a primate of all-Ireland? ??

;)

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 15, 2010 5:51 AM

#53

>>>>RD: "It's a supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory...[than] if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we're looking at a totally different kind of biology." Audience member: "How so?"

If universes and life can come into existence naturally, according to physical and natural laws as we know them from scientific theories, then they can also be produced artificially by a sufficiently technologically advanced civilization.

If universes can come into existence naturally, then a sufficiently adavanced civilization should be able to produce one : if intelligent life evolved in that artificially produced universe, how would it know whether that universe came into existence naturally or was created by an intelligence ?
I think they'd have no way of finding out. The physical laws and scientific theories would be exactly the same in that artificially created universe as with a universe that came into existence completely naturally.

Same thing is valid for life. Suppose a team of scientists was able to produce artificially in a lab a live replicator. Then suppose they were capable of sending this through space and that it landed on a planet in a far away system in our galaxy millions of years after this (both aren't unlikely suppositions for a sufficiently technologically advanced civilization). Then that replicator evolved after millions of years into intelligent beings. How would they know if life came into existence on their planet completely naturally or not ? I don't think they could either.

I'm not assuming that's what happened in our case. I just think we have no way of finding out whether we live in a universe that came into existence naturally or not. We can't even say what's more likely. Why would it even matter ?

Does that mean we can't settle the question of the existence of Gods who can transform water into wine, answer prayers and send homosexuals and non believers to hell ? No, that one is easy.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 15, 2010 5:58 AM

shoe even

Posted by: Rorschach | March 15, 2010 6:08 AM

Walton @ 158,

Awesome, man, thank you.

I was lazy and didnt read up on it myself, I admit....

Your post reads like an Onion article, or a description of clergy hierarchy in 1275, and it's actually all true and current, that's just fantastic.

(I know, I know, primate = number one and all that...)

Posted by: John Morales | March 15, 2010 7:12 AM

Walton:

Too much popular control of the judicial system is dangerous, IMO; it leads to the kind of politicisation of the judicial process that we see in many US states, and the consequent frequency of miscarriages of justice.
[...] So I think it's good to have an independent judiciary and prosecution service who depend on the Crown, not on "the people", for their authority.

I take it then that you heartily approve of Sharia Law, by that same basis. ;)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 15, 2010 7:39 AM

I know most readers of this blog will yawn at this but the Pharyngula NCAA bracket challenge is open. If you want to join in email me at bigdumbchimp [at] gmail

We've got 4 people so far.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 15, 2010 8:05 AM

What's that ?

A US basketball tournament that has 64 +1 teams. You pick each team throughout the tournament and then see how you fair against others.

Its the #1 productivity killer in the US this time of year and it's somewhat entertaining to follow the tournament and see how your picks match up.

Usually friends, offices whatever get together and have a pool where you pay $5, $10 $25 or whatever amount to enter and whoever had the best picks at the end wins the pot. It usually ends up being Marge from accounting who has no clue about basketball but plays anyway. ;)

We're just doing a gentlemanly "bet" for the hell of it.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 15, 2010 8:26 AM

Its the #1 productivity killer in the US this time of year and it's somewhat entertaining to follow the tournament and see how your picks match up.

I think this is called footy tipping over here.

but this summer when the world cup starts (you know, the one where they play real authentic football), I'd be up for a similar gentlemanly betting challenge amongst those Pharyngulites who are interested.

I'm in.

Argentina, England, Spain, Italy in the Semis.
How do you want to do this?

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 15, 2010 8:48 AM

we could do it via email.

Let's get this organised when the time comes. It kicks off on 11th June (87 days left), so we could start with the email registration process sometime end of may.
I don't mind organising it.

England ? No fucking chance.
Spain ? They'll dissapoint.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 15, 2010 9:00 AM

I'd be up for a similar gentlemanly betting challenge amongst those Pharyngulites who are interested.

Count me in for that as well

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 15, 2010 9:04 AM

I'm sure there is some website that is set up for the brackets for the World Cup similar to the way ESPN does it for basketball. Hell ESPN might even have a bracket set up.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 15, 2010 9:08 AM

I'm not sure what these guys did to Isis's prose, but it nearly makes sense!

I am obviously not the only one who sometimes has trouble working out what the Kwak she is on about.

Posted by: Walton | March 15, 2010 9:20 AM

Professional sport is such a strange endeavour. I've never really understood it. I can understand why you might want to play sport to keep fit, but why would anyone be interested in watching a group of hugely overpaid people play sport?

In particular, I've never understand the psychology of sports fandom. I just don't get how people become so emotionally invested in whether "their" team wins, and act as though it was a personal achievement on their part. Why would I care whether the England team wins at football or cricket or anything else? I didn't personally contribute to their victory in any way. It's not my achievement, and I don't get anything out of it. So why would I be "proud" of some other people winning a sports fixture simply because they happen to be from the same nation-state as me?

I'm not being critical; it's your right to enjoy sports, and I certainly don't think it's a bad thing. I just find the psychology perplexing. :-\

The thing I really can't stand is the idea (sometimes heard in this part of the world) that "real men" should be interested in sports (along with cars, beer, porn and so on). Why should the type of genitalia I happen to have been born with make any difference to whether I want to watch some very rich people running around on a patch of grass? I know that no one here has said, or would say, anything so crassly heteronormativist as that. But it's an attitude that seems to be associated inextricably with sports in the Western world; I know quite a few men who are really uninterested in sports, but pretend to exhibit some basic level of interest simply to fit in with social convention.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 15, 2010 9:40 AM

In particular, I've never understand the psychology of sports fandom. I just don't get how people become so emotionally invested in whether "their" team wins, and act as though it was a personal achievement on their part.

I don't understand it either. I've never been much into sports, but all I know is once every four years I get this vibe and get crazy at the idea that France is going to win. I just love following the games with some friends and family, drinking, getting all nervous and sweaty and anxious. It's really not what I usually do, so when it happens that infrequently it works for me.
And I'm just not gonna miss this once every four year occasion to do those silly things and live those rather peculiar emotions.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 15, 2010 9:46 AM

Matt:

I am obviously not the only one who sometimes has trouble working out what the Kwak she is on about.

You aren't alone on that one, either.

Posted by: Carlie | March 15, 2010 9:49 AM

Paul, I just bald-facedly stole from your post at #298 in the last incarnation. I was restraining myself from bringing it up until one Ram*ey just said that Isis would give PZ all kinds of crap for letting such language slide by on his blog. I found a couple of other choice references, added yours, and posted it at the Site Which Must Not Be Named. I would have cited you there but I didn't know if you wanted your name dragged back into it, so I erred on the side of plagiarism. But here's the citation right here.

Posted by: Carlie | March 15, 2010 9:53 AM

It's a strange human concept called fun.

fun?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 15, 2010 9:56 AM

fun?

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | March 15, 2010 10:01 AM

SC, something very strange happened in the comic Mary Worth, Emma Goldman was quoted. Perhaps we will have a better idea where this person is coming from by if Kropotkin or Bakunin is quoted. Or maybe a complete curve ball and quote something from Leo Tolstoi's The Kingdom Of God Is Within You.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 15, 2010 10:02 AM

You can add me to the camp of people who just don't get sports that much.

"Did you see that ludicrous display last night?"

Posted by: Sili | March 15, 2010 10:18 AM

Just had a visit from the meterman. Seems I've managed to save 7 m^3 of water despite taking loooong showers lately. Go me!

Power's up a bit and heat is a dark art that I have no idea how they calculate. My consumption looks to be level with last year, but I have no clue as to what the unit prices might be this year. (I can't find last year's bills either, so I can't extrapolate.)

Posted by: AJ Milne | March 15, 2010 10:28 AM

... I'd add that I seriously loved Chomsky's comment on sports fandom being some kind of training for irrational jingoism. Honestly, being around sports fans (I was an outlier amongst my siblings this way, too) and not so much getting it, it is a bit scary, sometimes...

I sometimes just want gently to murmur... 'Umm... We are all still aware it's only a game, right? And the screaming... We don't really need the screaming, do we? I mean, putting pucks past guys in pads, it's cool, it's impressive... But... Umm... Let's try the next one with less screaming...

(/Please? I mean, I just hate having to be defibrillated twice in the same day...)

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | March 15, 2010 10:39 AM

In particular, I've never understand the psychology of sports fandom. I just don't get how people become so emotionally invested in whether "their" team wins, and act as though it was a personal achievement on their part.

But you have an abiding affection for British royalty?

Not a sporto, myself, but it isn't so incomprehensible that other people might enjoy watching something with lots of action* and an outcome that isn't pre-determined.

You, Walton, are an unusual cat...and there ain't nothin' wrong wit dat.

*"football" in the European sense excepted...ghastly, is how you'd say it, guvnah?

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 15, 2010 10:55 AM

following Rev's suggestion, I've set up a PHARYNGULA world cup bracket open to all pharyngulites:

http://games.espn.go.com/bpredictor/en/group?groupID=9042

It is set to private, which means you'll need the password to join.

How should we proceed next ? I can let people know what the password is on Pharyngula, or should we do it via email ?

Do we need to make a pool with a minimum donation of say 10$, or we just leave it free ?

What do you suggest ?

In anycase, I'll add 3 bottles of French Champagne for the winner.

Posted by: MrFire | March 15, 2010 11:16 AM

Wu-Tang Clan - C.R.E.A.M.

I just spent a wet, blustery week-end in NYC. I have never before seen such a miserable swathe of dead umbrellas: inverted, mangled, and abandoned,
like so much accessory-related roadkill.

However, the image that will haunt me most came right at the very end. It was the stark decline in the socio-economic quality of a single road - Madison Avenue - as we made our way out of Manhattan. Our bus left behind the looming skscrapers and penthouses of downtown and midtown, plowed through an area with increasing numbers of barred windows, and finally ended up amongst the crumbling tenenments and projects of Harlem, all while driving in one single, straight line. It reminded of some of the worst areas in which I grew up, and inspired me to post the above classic track.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 15, 2010 11:19 AM

Given that he's now arguing that a sideways knife is not a large implement, I think I need a sanity break from that place. I like your updated reference. :) It also cheers my heart to no end to know that you read Comics Curmudgeon.

The image I had of the rusty knife was somekind of chef's knife. Given those are normally around 8" long, excluding the the handle, and that it was to be inserted sideways I can only assume Kwak is has a huge arsehole.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 15, 2010 11:45 AM

neg I think password via email is probably a good call. And I think free is probably better as we're talking about gathering cash from all over the world and all the fun that comes with that.

Posted by: Paul | March 15, 2010 12:18 PM

Carlie,

I really don't care how my comments are used (without attribution, whatever, it's not like I'm Owlmirror extensively documenting Biblical scholarship) as long as they're not being misconstrued. Thanks for the notice, though :-).

....and Kwok is name-dropping McCourt again. Looks like he got over his fear of dropping the actual name instead of just using roundabout references after the McCourt's passing. Weird fellow.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 15, 2010 12:25 PM

Rev,

if we are doing it free, why not simply publicize the password here ?

Well good point. The reason I didn't do it is my ESPN login has my real actual name in it and there are strange people that visit here who's intentions I don't really trust.

But yeah you could publish it here.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 15, 2010 12:31 PM

A more truthful reason for closing would have been "Chris and I realised that not only did I look an idiot in my initial post, our regular commentators are making us look even more like idiots, so we will close comments on this thread to avoid us looking even more stupid".

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 15, 2010 12:43 PM

I picture this when I see Kw*k's name:

http://www.greatdreams.com/political/Don-Quixote-Windmill.gif

Posted by: Opus | March 15, 2010 12:49 PM

The sad thing is that I read the thread at the Intersuction immediately after coming home from seeing Alice in Wonderland. Each time that Kw*k slipped the rails and descended into namedropping I was visualizing Johnny Depp spinning out of control. Now every time I see Depp in that costume I'll be reminded of Kw*k. Ruined the movie for me, dammit.

It is amazing, though, to see how quickly Kw*k can slip down the rabbit hole into the namedropping underground universe.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 15, 2010 1:10 PM

Has anyone heard from Josh the geologist recently.

I hope he's doing ok and wasn't deployed overseas.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 15, 2010 1:15 PM

Too many links, triggered moderation, so posting in two parts:

Are you hoping to trigger another episode of MWP? :)

What, that way? And besides, I don't need that much attention from so many people… :-]

Also, we've already surpassed the Medieval Warm Period. :-þ

See how cleverly I allude to the history of centralization of political power being tied to the rise of agriculture?

Absolutely brilliant post, except for this part… maybe. Neolithic societies (in the Old World) seem to have been egalitarian, and still are in the highlands of New Guinea.

So… how old is sliced bread?

How old is bread? Grueling gruel Porridge is certainly older.

In short, I have no idea if monarchy is older than bread.

Slicing could have come immediately. Or a lot later. Who knows.

Lick the salt, down the tequila shot, and then suck the juice out of the lime wedge.

But the purpose of this is to alleviate the taste of the tequila, right? The True Mexican way is the reverse.

Oh what wit! Could these people possibly be more lame?

It's Doc-tor Horrible for Kwok. Therefore…

Hägar the Horrible's Sing-Along Blog!!!

Death to the world,
Great Cthulhu's come…

(Not original. Most good ideas are stolen.)

I am so personally, viciously, sick and tired of Dawkins being portrayed that way. The man simply states the truth, stands his ground, and that's what he gets branded with. Those people believe in talking snakes, how the hell can their opinions be taken seriously? *snort*

It being Australia, most of them don't believe in talking snakes.

Fielding does, though.

Hey look, a poll that needs some special attention:

"Do you believe that vaccines and autism are linked?"

Yes: 21 %
No: 79 %

Really, I thought of the phrase "animatronic monarch", and just wanted to write an essay to justify using it.

ROTFLMAO!

In light of Jadehawk's grant for education and David's questions about the cost of higher educations, PhD Comics seemed entirely appropriate.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive_print.php?comicid=1291

Ah yeah. I saw it and was so stunned I promptly forgot about it.

Note the kinks in the red line at the accessions of Raygun and Fearless Flightsuit, and the kink in the green line during the late Clinton years.

Average tuition + fees at public universities is above 7000 $!?! I just can't grasp it.

BTW, over here, the salaries of university presidents is a matter of national law, AFAIK.

Incidentally, the oath I took is:

I, [real name], swear by Almighty God

See? That's your loophole right there. A God-shaped, God-sized hole.

If universes and life can come into existence naturally, according to physical and natural laws as we know them from scientific theories, then they can also be produced artificially by a sufficiently technologically advanced civilization.

That's where Ockham's Razor comes in.

If, on the other hand, it takes a miracle to get universes and life, we're looking at the Finger of God from Exodus 8:19*. It's very simple.

* Read the previous verses of that chapter for context.

I think it's a good thing, in many respects, that in Britain and the Commonwealth, justice is done in the name of the Crown, not "the people".

In Austria it's done in the name of the republic :-)

(Before that, of course, it was done in the name of the German People. Perhaps any reminiscences to that are deliberately avoided.)

In my view, the judicial system should be completely independent from democratic politics. Accordingly, I think it's good that judges and prosecutors in the UK and other Commonwealth realms are appointed […], not elected as they are in many US states

They're not elected in pretty much any country. That's normal. The USA is just the odd one out.

(I'll never forget the horror when I once watched TV during the US 2004 campaign and saw "[name] – Republican for Judge". That guy advertised that he would not be impartial!!! <barf>)

I'm not sure what these guys did to Isis's prose, but it nearly makes sense!

~:-|

Transkoreanization-aided parody? That would be a new form of art.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 15, 2010 1:27 PM

... I'd add that I seriously loved Chomsky's comment on sports fandom being some kind of training for irrational jingoism.

It can go the other way around, too.

For instance, in football, all of Austria is against Germany. This goes so far that last worldcup one game was in Vienna, and both the German chancellor (Angela Merkel) and the Austrian president (Heinz Fischer) were present. It was Germany vs Spain. In spite of his guest, Fischer was for Spain. Why Spain? Because Spain is $NOT_GERMANY.

And this even though that has already been avenged most successfully (an interpretation that is by no means original, I hasten to add). The minority complex is strong. :-)

....and Kwok is name-dropping McCourt again. Looks like he got over his fear of dropping the actual name instead of just using roundabout references after the McCourt's passing. Weird fellow.

Oh, the Chinese taboo on the names of the dead. <vehement nodding> For emperors it was so strong that entire characters were retired from the written language for the rest of the dynasty's duration – it's sometimes difficult to reconstruct old texts if the manuscript itself isn't old enough.

Funny story… a king of Korea (vassal of the Chinese emperor) once requested a list of forbidden characters so he wouldn't inadvertently insult anyone in diplomatic correspondence. (A Necronomicon, one is tempted to say.) He actually got it.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 15, 2010 1:44 PM

Isn't odd how cultures with the same language can vary so much.

Here in the UK it is normally considered odd for a politician so indicate their religious views in any election literature. So odd that people would wonder about a politician who did so, and it is normally considered a voter turn-off to do so.

Posted by: windy | March 15, 2010 1:49 PM

Slicing could have come immediately. Or a lot later. Who knows.

The oldest bread was probably some kind of flatbread. So at most, it would have been sliced like pizza, not like "sliced bread".

Antiochus E., did you find an answer to your earlier question about structure yet? I think the method of getting the probability of each K is explained in the original paper by Pritchard et al, where they also admit it's kind of a kludge.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 15, 2010 2:01 PM

Every election cycle I get flyers from the various candidates for judge with a nice little biographical sketch about how he/she is a family man/woman, attends such and such church, is involved with various (usually religious) charities, etc.

Yeah... that sort of thing really makes my stomach turn. For too many judges, the woman in the symbol of justice isn't wearing a blindfold... she's wearing a ViewMaster with pictures of a 20-something, long-haired, bearded, anglo-looking dude who's apparently supposed to represent a 2000 year old Jew from the middle-east... and other pictures of biblical wonderifics.

The problem I see, at least in the US, is that even if the judges were not elected, they would be appointed by someone who was elected. That might actually lead to judges with far less impartiality and far more religiously motivated rulings, as they would not be accountable to the voting public for the decisions they make.

Posted by: Paul | March 15, 2010 2:06 PM

Wow, so it got shut down! It's probably my fault for pointing out to Ramsey how sick and twisted he is.

Sadly, I doubt it. Kirshenbanned probably finally took more than 30 seconds to consider the situation and it's context, and the sort of people/arguments marshalled on her behalf, and recognized how silly she looked. The initial post wasn't some well-thought-out point she was trying to make, it was an impromptu fit of pique brought on by a flood of emails to her from commenters who were shocked, SHOCKED, to see bad words on Pharyngula (and who didn't mention to her that there was any context at all, and of course she couldn't be bothered to actually read any of the 300 or so comments she actually had to actively approve for the previous thread (allowing for the low-ball estimated 200 that didn't go into moderation)).

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | March 15, 2010 2:20 PM

Bill,

I called my rep and expressed support for passing health reform, and then I called both of my senators and said I wanted a public option and didn't care if they have to use reconciliation to get it.

Posted by: MrFire | March 15, 2010 2:41 PM

Antiochus Epiphanes: glad to see you're down with the Wu.

Bring da ruckus. ahem.

Posted by: El | March 15, 2010 2:54 PM

Whether on an individual level, or as a group (team), the goal is the same: out-compete the other individual or group for what would normally be critical resources. For most of us, from a very early age we realize that the outcome of conflict or competition, winning or losing, means something... something innate and important that we don't fully understand.

I know that the football extremist fanatics, (like hooligans for example), are only looking for an excuse to behave like barbarians. But they seem to me, too similar to the religious fanatics, they can
kill people because the other not belongs to their team.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 15, 2010 2:55 PM

I actually wrote the following a couple hours ago, but have been having trouble getting my browser to give me a Sign In To Comment link. This is perhaps the cosmos' way of telling me I should reconsider my post, but... fools rush in where angels fear to tread, eh?

David M (via Ol’ Greg @59):

I have always considered myself ugly, or average at best; before the Mad Women of Pharyngula (and even they haven't been very explicit as far as I remember), nobody ever complimented me on my looks however vaguely, and I don't think I look like what the media consider handsome men.

Oy, there’s a world of distance between “what the media consider handsome men” and ugly. You don’t have to look like the cover of GQ in order to be not ugly.

Personally, I’ve commented before that (AFAIK) nobody has ever looked at me with unbridled lust or been attracted to me on purely physical grounds… but I would never describe myself as ugly. I think I’m pretty objective about my physical flaws — I’m noticeably overweight (though not grotesquely so); I have a bit of a weak chin (which I try to cover with as much of a beard as my wife will tolerate); my face is roundish and a bit fleshy, and lacks a certain chiseled definition — but also my positive features — I have a full (and likely to stay full into my so-called golden years) head of fine hair, the ash-blond color of which effectively hides what little grey I’ve accumulated; my face is friendly looking and mostly unwrinkled (a side benefit of being a bit over-fleshy, I suspect), and looks at least 10 years younger than my actual age (this business of looking youthful was a pain earlier in my life, but now I’m beginning to like it); and despite being, as Paul Simon might put it, soft in the middle, my legs are fit and well muscled and I have (or so I’ve been told) a non-hideous ass.

In short, nothing about my looks makes me feel especially better than anyone else, but nothing about my looks makes me feel especially worse than anyone else, either. I suspect that, if our self-images were based on anything like an objective evaluation of our true physical realities, the vast majority of people ought to feel at least as good about themselves as I do. The people who conform to “what the media consider handsome men [or beautiful/sexy women]” are way at the far end of the distribution; the people who can legitimately be called “ugly” are (IMHO) way at the other far end. Most of us — virtually all of us, I think — fit comfortably in between.

So my question to Ol’ Greg presumed she wasn’t ugly (aka not palatable)… that in fact she’s at least normally attractive — a presumption for whose truth she had just provided photographic evidence! — and wondered what psychological or sociological factors compelled her to say otherwise, even in a relatively anonymous forum made up of mostly friendly voices.

Ol’ Greg:

I actually use some hyperbole of female on female aggression (truth I did grow up with girls like that... I remember one girl who was a little too high and mighty for some of the other girls who got jumped after school one day held down and had her hair splashed with peroxide and kool aid...) I digress.

I’d like to separate the manifest pathology of some individuals and microcultures (a term that, AFAIK, I’ve just made up; any resemblance to the actual technical language of sociology is purely incidental <g>) from the pathology (if any) of the larger culture. I desperately hope the kind of stuff you cite here is the former, and not evidence of the latter.

But yeah, I also just honestly don't have very good self image. I was considered ugly as a little girl. Not just ugly, really really ugly... and I suppose the image stuck. … Since I didn't stick around one place that long or deal with many people my self image never really evolved so that in my teens I was modeling but I still thought of myself as really really ugly.

I’ve always been puzzled (I almost said “bemused,” but I don’t mean to make light of this) by the large percentage of inarguably beautiful women — models and actresses and pop stars, I mean… the sort of women whose pin-up posters end up on every teenage boy’s (and no small number of teenage girl’s, I’m guessing) bedroom walls — who report having been ugly, or having been considered ugly, in their youth. You’d almost think there was some sort of Conservation Law for beauty: You can be a beautiful child or a beautiful adult, but not both. But I don’t actually believe that. Instead, I suspect the allegedly ugly early versions of beautiful people were in fact already beautiful, or at least were obviously going to be, and the “conventional wisdom” of their age-peers was actually an expression of envy.

Bill I will say this. It's best not to assume when a woman says that, that whatever it is in her self image is entirely based around sex or attractiveness to men.

Oh, I didn’t mean to be making that assumption. Indeed, my first guess (which, unless I’ve misunderstood, your reply pretty much confirms) was that it had more to with the reaction of other girls (in your youth) and women. I included defense against sexism/objectification in my list of suppositions because, as a male, I’m presumptively one of the Guilty Parties© on that score (despite my best intentions to the contrary), and I’m always interested in understanding what I should be trying to fix about myself.

There’s obviously a large region of overlap between appearance and sexuality, but I’m well aware that human aesthetics (and our perception of same) is a much larger and more complex issue than simply what triggers lust. And even to the extent that it is about sex, I don’t assume it’s necessarily hetero, or that straight men’s opinions about what’s sexy trump anyone else’s.

In addition, I don’t assume that physical attractiveness, per se, is any more important than other personal attributes (e.g., intelligence, particular talents, fine or gross motor skills, etc., etc., etc.)… nor any less important. My view — which I’ve come to understand, based on earlier conversations here, is somewhat naïve and utopian, but maybe I’d rather be naïve than cynical in this particular regard — is that attractiveness is just something about you, perhaps more or less important based upon a specific context (profession, time of life, relationship goals, etc.), but fundamentally no more important than anything else about you.

That said…

Sadly on body image and the like my head has the rubber stamp of fucked up on it :(

…even though I know my opinion is cosmically inconsequential, if it does any good at all, you can take it from one harmless aging stranger that there’s absolutely nothing wrong (and many things delightfully right) with the way you look.

Posted by: Carlie | March 15, 2010 3:02 PM

I’ve always been puzzled ... by the large percentage of inarguably beautiful women...who report having been ugly, or having been considered ugly, in their youth.

It's because with the way beauty and culture are intertwined, you can't win. Either you're too fat or too skinny. Too short or too tall. Too curvy or too flat. Color of hair is good, but texture is bad. And so on, and so on. And we're also carefully conditioned to feel that any self-pride is being stuck up, and no one likes someone a woman who is egocentric. So you have a culture which actively discourages being proud of your own characteristics even if they meet the standard, and at the same time ensures that the standard is almost impossible to meet. Even the women who are considered to be the most beautiful get Photoshopped to heck for PR purposes; that actively tells them that they aren't good enough, and then of course what chance do the rest of us have?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 15, 2010 3:15 PM

Josh, OSG (OM Pending, ITAJ):

For some reason, I find almost all my Pharyngula contributions are on the frivolous side. I have a career I take seriously, I care deeply about politics, education, and church-state separation issues. I'm far more serious in other electronic venues, and politically active in my private life. Guess I've been feeling sheepish about being a silly SpokesGay here, and don't want you all to think I'm half as flighty as I affect to be:)

Don't go changin', to try and please us!

Seriously, I think too many of us undervalue frivolity and flightiness, which go a long way toward making bearable a life than can too often be dark and foreboding. I think the distinction between Serious and Frivolous is often arbitrary and false: Studying classical violin in college, for instance, is serious and playing basketball in college is frivolous, despite the fact that both are primarily physical skills that are developed through endless practice and repetition, and whose end product is a public performance intended to entertain people. If a violin player leaves school early to become the concertmaster of an orchestra, the music department reaps great praise; if a point guard leaves school early to become the first-round draft pick of an NBA team, the athletic department gets ripped for poor graduation rates... because classical music is Very, Very Important® while basketball is a Mindless Game©.

Josh, I don't actually agree that your contributions are usually frivolous or flighty... but when they are, wear it with pride, dude: You're doing FSM's work!

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | March 15, 2010 3:18 PM

David M.: I don't think any of this has been published yet, but there was a talk by some Kansas herpetologists at the Systematic Biology meeting last summer about this particular issue...essentially, how does one parameterize gamma? And you are dead on (as usual). Run time increases significantly. The difference between STRUCTURE's "K" and gamma, is that noone supposes that they have discovered that 4-rate classes exist, if the mean log-likelihood for a 4-rate class run is higher than for a 3 rate-class run. However, this is what has been discussed here (and elsewhere) regarding the discovery of human population groups by Rosenberg et al. (2003).

Posted by: snurp | March 15, 2010 3:20 PM

...I don't know the etiquette for this thread that never ends. Can anyone jump in?

I've developed a slightly more positive feeling towards sports chauvanism recently; my friends and family have all been too busy being incredibly giddy over the Superbowl to recall financial woes and personal illnesses, but unlike, say, heavy drug users (my initial suspicion when I picked up the phone and heard my widowed aunt shrieking with incoherent joy) they're not ignoring reality. They just don't mind it any more.

Also, I think the buying spree might have been some useful business for NOLA. Seriously, you could've taken a crap, painted a fleur de lis on it an sold it for twenty bucks.

Posted by: KOPD | March 15, 2010 3:37 PM

Etiquette? If there's etiquette involved here then I've already diddled the doorflap.

Posted by: Paul | March 15, 2010 3:39 PM

One doesn't get to break one's promises just because one has changed one's mind. If that were the case, then the concept of aOne doesn't get to break one's promises just because one has changed one's mind. If that were the case, then the concept of a promise would be worthless. promise would be worthless.

Are former Nazis bound to be forever loyal to Hitler's goals? If one joins a skinhead gang, is one morally obligated to never leave?

Seriously, listen to yourself. This "I must obey the royal family because of a compulsory affirmation made while my brain was still undeveloped" tripe is massively creepy.

Posted by: AJ Milne | March 15, 2010 3:54 PM

I see poor logic, bad reasoning and plain stupidity and I can comment on that...

... and I think it's safe to say, Rev., you'll never lack for material.

And seriously (or frivolously, or whatever works, here), Josh, it's not like you can't hear it coming since I'm saying it, but as far as I'm concerned there is immense value to being downright flippant when what you're answering hardly merits anything more substantive as an answer...

It goes back to that whole silly 'question' at the conference, incidentally. As in: sometimes the right thing to say is just putz, that isn't even a question. That's just stupid. Farting in your general direction would be bringing the level of discussion up from there, pretty much... You should count yourself lucky I don't just do that...

Besides which, much as I'd like to give you a heavily technical and technically correct answer, (a) you're not going to hear it anyway, and (b) it's kinda hard to do that when you're still spitting your drink through your nose from laughing at the sheer incongruity of the fact that someone stupid enough to ask that question has somehow survived long enough into this century to be posting on this blog...

Somewhat more to the point: it does say something. It says 'I really can't take this person seriously.' And since, seriously, sometimes I seriously can't, this seriously needs saying.

(/See also: they will pry my richly-earned frivolity from my heavily medicated hands.)

Posted by: cicely | March 15, 2010 4:03 PM

otrame:

I don't think I commented before on the "women made to feel unwelcome" bit over at the Intersuction.

Wait...am I meant to be feeling unwelcome here? Why did no one send me the memo?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 15, 2010 4:04 PM

Carlie (@239):

It's because with the way beauty and culture are intertwined, you can't win. Either you're too fat or too skinny. Too short or too tall. Too curvy or too flat. Color of hair is good, but texture is bad. And so on, and so on. ... Even the women who are considered to be the most beautiful get Photoshopped to heck for PR purposes; that actively tells them that they aren't good enough, and then of course what chance do the rest of us have?

I agree that these are the standards that are applied particularly to the people who are held up as public icons of beauty... whose livelihood depends in some part on being (or being perceived as) beautiful. But I don't think that's really the way people on the street assess each other. That is, the same people who delight at sneering over every cellulite-emphasizing candid shot in the National Enquirer really look at their friends and neighbors (and husbands and wives) with much more generous eyes. One of the truly sad bits about this is how many people judge themselves according to the artificial standards of the beauty elites, rather than seeing themselves through the same eyes the people they actually know and care about are using.

Then, too, I guess I'm some sort of a freak: I don't recognize terms like too curvy, too flat, too short, too tall, etc., except for values of too so great that we're verging on unambiguous physical deformity.

Which brings me to David M. (@240):

to me, "normal" and "attractive" are mutually exclusive

Now you're just being a curmudgeon. In my previous comment, I alluded to a "bell curve" distribution of attractiveness. My own curve is gently sloped and very broad; you're beginning to convince me that your version of the curve is so steep and narrow that it more closely resembles an inverted T than a bell. Perhaps my curve is broader than the average person's would be, but I'm pretty sure yours is much narrower... and honestly, I prefer my "error" to yours.

You presumed, unconsciously, that everyone more or less shares your taste in beauty and expressed surprise when it appeared that that wasn't the case.

No, and no:

I didn't at all presume that "everyone more or less shares [my] taste in beauty." In fact, if I were to describe in detail my ideoplatonic form©¹ of Beautiful Woman, the pictures Ol' Greg linked to wouldn't match that description very closely at all. The same, BTW, could be said about my wife, and pretty much all the women I dated before her, and virtually all of the real-life women I have silly media crushes on. It's not that I think there's some narrow definition of attractiveness — my own, of course — that I expect everyone to agree with; rather, I presume that the boundaries of the not-ugly "design space" (as my engineer friends might put it) are sufficiently broad that a large fraction of people fall within them. Clearly you don't agree, but please don't try to characterize our disagreement as some self-centered blindness on my part. I wouldn't apply the term ugly (let alone, as OG described her younger self, very, very ugly) to anyone who wasn't pretty close to objectively deformed, and I'd be almost as reluctant to use even the milder unattractive.

And I wasn't surprised that "everyone" didn't agree with my assessment of OG's attractiveness; I was surprised that she didn't. My question was not so much about what constitutes beauty, but about how people — and in this particular case, women — perceive and react to their own beauty.



¹ ideoplatonic form copyright Neologisms 'R' Us, 2010.

Posted by: Walton | March 15, 2010 4:09 PM

Basic research is where technical applications come from, and that's where industry comes from; occasionally, industry still creates jobs.

True. But most of the fourth-tier universities do very little high-level research. If we're talking about research alone, would be more cost-effective to pour more money into research at the top 50 universities.

# Lots of species are dying out while we don't know anything about them, including potential commercial, medical, whatever applications. We need more systematists, more, more, more. That requires a lot of education. # We're messing with the climate. To do anything about that, we need to understand it. Only fully educated climatologists have any chance of seriously understanding it. We need more, more, more of them.

As derisory as it may sound, a high proportion of the population don't have the intellectual ability to make decent systematists or climatologists. Not everyone actually has the capacity for success in the sciences. The extra students in higher education at the fourth-tier universities are not doing high-quality, high-level degrees or going on to postgraduate work and scientific research. They're doing degrees in Sports Coaching and Applied Recreation, or similar fields, and going on to low-paid non-graduate jobs.

In all seriousness, every spare penny should be thrown at research and teaching.

We don't have any spare pennies. We have a budget deficit and a spiralling national debt. Something has to be cut.

Posted by: nigelTheBold | March 15, 2010 4:14 PM

Something has to be cut.

Off with their heads!

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 15, 2010 4:16 PM

Perhaps my curve is broader than the average person's would be, but I'm pretty sure yours is much narrower...

Certainly. I never claimed not to be highly unusual in that respect.

(Even though I think there are several optima, not just one, and even though there are interesting things like… I don't seem to care about hair color at all. :-| Lots of people have beautiful hair, even though not everyone does. Go figure.)

And I wasn't surprised that "everyone" didn't agree with my assessment of OG's attractiveness; I was surprised that she didn't.

Why would you so strongly expect anyone to agree with your personal assessment, strongly enough that so much surprise resulted? :-)

And a self-assessment of beauty can hardly be founded only on one's own sense of aesthetics; it comes mostly from what other people say and imply. Those people are why I got generic and said "not everyone".

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 15, 2010 4:25 PM

True. But most of the fourth-tier universities do very little high-level research. If we're talking about research alone, would be more cost-effective to pour more money into research at the top 50 universities.

How do you know? What is "high-level research"? Except for plagiarism and fraud, every single paper ever published is new, it adds something to the global knowledge…

And why are there tiers of universities in the first place? That just doesn't make the slightest amount of sense. Why not pour money on the fourth-tier ones till they join the first tier?

As derisory as it may sound, a high proportion of the population don't have the intellectual ability to make decent systematists or climatologists. Not everyone actually has the capacity for success in the sciences.

Then they won't study sciences, or will drop out during the first 2 years, if not the first 6 months. :-| Complete nonproblem.

We don't have any spare pennies. We have a budget deficit and a spiralling national debt. Something has to be cut.

There are always possible performance improvements in bureaucracy… and then there's the military, which is almost everywhere financed to overkill. Stop me before I write a two- or three-screen rant about Austria :^)

For what it's worth, David, if you recall me chipping in about being able to tell someone is "attractive" in the previous thread, I was working with much the same understanding/definition being expounded in #255.

I understood.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 15, 2010 4:33 PM

My own curve is gently sloped and very broad;

The term is platykurtic.

you're beginning to convince me that your version of the curve is so steep and narrow that it more closely resembles an inverted T than a bell.

Leptokurtic.

In my previous comment, I alluded to a "bell curve" distribution of attractiveness.

Oh, but it's okay for bells to be the standard for curviness among distributions? As the future President of ADAN (All Distributions Are 'Normal') when it exists, I will fight for the recognition of beauty in the Poisson, Gamma, Pareto, Laplace, Rayleigh and other distributions in addition to the Gaussian.

Posted by: Walton | March 15, 2010 4:39 PM

and then there's the military, which is almost everywhere financed to overkill. Stop me before I write a two- or three-screen rant about Austria :^)

IIRC, Austria is a neutral country with no military commitments overseas, so I won't argue with the fact that Austria probably doesn't need a particularly strong military. This is not the case in Britain. Our armed forces are currently stretched to breaking-point (and under-equipped) in Afghanistan. We also have to spend lots of money maintaining other presences around the world, like a substantial operational garrison in the Falklands (which may seem bizarre, but the Argentinians are still very keen to invade the islands, especially with the newfound oil wealth).

Admittedly, the UK's military spending is sometimes misallocated; it's hard to see why Britain needs to spend billions building two of the new QEII-class aircraft carriers (other than, cynically, to create jobs in marginal constituencies). But we do need to maintain our high level of military spending overall.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 15, 2010 4:49 PM

David M.:

Why would you so strongly expect anyone to agree with your personal assessment, strongly enough that so much surprise resulted?

I think terms like so strongly and so much surprise constitute a somewhat revisionist view of my comments: I didn't exactly shriek and run from the room with my arms flapping! I saw some pictures that depicted someone whose looks, I judged, put her squarely within the general public's definition of attractive and that I found more than a little attractive (my choice of the word "delectable" was primarily a rhetorical nod to the food-related theme of the pictures)... yet the subject of those pictures described herself as "not that palatable," and I wondered why.

My curiousity was never about agreement with me, per se; it was strictly about how OG and, by extension, people generally perceive themselves. My opinion was entirely incidental, relevant only because my expression of it created the occasion for the rest of the conversation.

And a self-assessment of beauty can hardly be founded only on one's own sense of aesthetics; it comes mostly from what other people say and imply.

Hmmm.. IMHO, one's self-assessment of beauty ought to be founded on one's own sense of aesthetics; what other people say and imply informs one's understanding of how other people assess one's beauty... which one may or may not care much about. Ideally, one's self-assessment will roughly overlap with the assessments of others, so that one won't suffer too much cognitive dissonance or cultural dislocation... but first and foremost, I think one should like oneself, and let the chips of others fall where they may.

Seriously, my hope and expectation is that people — even "regular" people — will generally feel good about themselves, including about their physical being. To the extent that they don't, it... well, I guess I can't claim it actually surprises me, the world being as it is, but it certainly confounds my best hopes. When, as appears to be the case with OG, this condition is the residue of past cruelties, it also saddens and infuriates me.

None of this has anything to do with some invidious expectation that everyone else ought to agree with my own personal aesthetics.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 15, 2010 4:51 PM

Walking down the street while not wearing a smile is an invitation to a stranger to inform you that you should smile.

Ooooooohhh... that one's the absolute worst... I have the same opinion of those people as I do for those who tell me they'll pray for me...

Posted by: windy | March 15, 2010 4:54 PM

to me, "normal" and "attractive" are mutually exclusive

addendum to #266: here David illustrates the problems with trying to fit discrete categories on a continuous distribution (but I suppose it speeds up computation?) ;)

Posted by: Paul | March 15, 2010 4:59 PM

-downright Piltonesque belief that things would be better if education was once again a privilege for the very few

That's uncharitable, and I think stretching what he said. What he really thinks is that hard-working people shouldn't have to pay for the equivalent of "college basketweaving". But the end result is he uses this preference to advocate making higher education less accessible. He just doesn't realize the end result of what he's advocating, whereas Pilty would revel in it.

Personally, I simply view Walton's opinions as heavily influenced by socialization with his social betters. And the sad part is he doesn't seem to realize that the sum of his "feelings" on government/education results from premises leading to your conclusion, he simply hasn't thought through them sufficiently/connected the dots to realize that.

But then, as I recently mentioned in another thread I am often too quick to assume good faith. Hm.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 15, 2010 5:03 PM

Bill, you seem genuinely concerned. So I’m going to try and take the time to answer you then. Please understand I speak for myself alone and not for “women” first and foremost. I know that my life differed from the norm, and where that intersects with “women’s issues” in general I’m not sure and probably never will be. In the case that I may be of interest to you, or to people who are concerned with how image, body, self can become distorted psychologically I will simply post what I think is accurate at this moment. I apologize if this post is disturbing to some. Please try not to hold it against me too much I’m really a bit depressed right now anyway.

Some here may find me pretty, some times I do too. Some here may find me not to their liking. Perhaps it should be noted that I don’t consider my looks for myself. I dress and look however people seem to like me to look and do my best to correspond to their desires. I don’t have desires about how people look. I know that sounds crazy but I don’t.

Personally, I’ve commented before that (AFAIK) nobody has ever looked at me with unbridled lust or been attracted to me on purely physical grounds… but I would never describe myself as ugly.

I have had the exact opposite experience. People have lusted after me but I have never found that made me feel more beautiful. I am lucky in some ways though maybe that I corresponded at times to norms of beauty because it did grant me at times an untouchable status which my less fortunate friends didn’t get. In other words they were expected to be grateful for unwanted lust and all its consequences. Witnessing this had an effect on me, I will not lie. When I was young I had fantasies of burning or mutilating my face so that people would see “the real me” instead. I spent years at around 100 lbs which considering my height is pretty damned thin. I threw away a career in modeling when I dipped down to 95 lbs and ended up in the hospital for some resulting health complications. Obviously I couldn’t represent a healthy American teen when I so obviously wasn’t one.

To understand you might have to imagine that no matter what I looked like I learned as a child it would never matter, I would always be ugly despite it. I also spent some time being told Iwas unusually beautiful. This also seemed to have no correspondence to my real looks. Now I am aging and I am told that I will never be as pretty as I was. It is maddening. Now some of this does move into women’s issues.

I suspect that the constant barrage of information that has in reality little to no relationship to what can actually be seen or sense distorts eventually even the basic ability to judge one’s self.

It is assumed that my body exists for people’s viewing pleasure, and I put that in practice ever day despite the fact that I will then be called vain for the effort.

People are always welcome to tell me whether they find me fat or skinny, whether my hair is pretty or a good color, whether I should wear more or less makeup, whether my breasts are large enough, whether they are sexually attracted to me or not. It is open at all times and I have no say or control in how this thing, this image, which over the years I have learned to consider less like you might consider yourself as your self and more like you might consider a rock or a tree out in the hills some were that for some reason your intrinsic value will always be tied to.

I’m noticeably overweight (though not grotesquely so); I have a bit of a weak chin

I don’t have this objective sense of myself. Instead I see my looks as a set of goals I will either do what it takes to make them or fall short of them. They are external to me and in reality my sense of identity is almost entirely detached. I resent some times being burdened with a physical body at all. I resent when my body will not conform or correspond to what I set out for it.

I’d like to separate the manifest pathology of some individuals and microcultures (a term that, AFAIK, I’ve just made up; any resemblance to the actual technical language of sociology is purely incidental ) from the pathology (if any) of the larger culture. I desperately hope the kind of stuff you cite here is the former, and not evidence of the latter.

I don’t really know. Can you really separate this way? Is it irrelevant? Too far away from what reality you have experienced to matter? Would the same thing apply if I were a black girl, if I grew up in another society altogether? I’m not sure that there’s anything but microcultures when you start doing things that way.

who report having been ugly, or having been considered ugly, in their youth. You’d almost think there was some sort of Conservation Law for beauty: You can be a beautiful child or a beautiful adult, but not both.

I’ve been considered beautiful and I’ve been considered ugly. Now I am aging, and already don’t recognize myself some times because I see the invisible old woman I believe I will become. I try to think of these things infrequently, but it weighs on me either way. I’m morbidly fascinated with my own face. I’m always curious whether people consider me attractive or not. I don’t see myself at all but rather see my relative beauty in their responses. Their saying so makes it, because I learned long ago that my own opinion could not really count, and yet it does regardless and usually in the negative.

Should I begin getting surgeries? Should I have some filler, botox, should I have taken the suggestion an agent made and had my nose cut a bit so that I wouldn’t look horsey and thin as I aged? Should should should. It will ruin your life, this.

Instead, I suspect the allegedly ugly early versions of beautiful people were in fact already beautiful, or at least were obviously going to be, and the “conventional wisdom” of their age-peers was actually an expression of envy.

Whether you or anyone finds me beautiful now, I was not so much ugly as a child as considered ugly. I was poor, from a damaged upbringing, and visibly from another class than then the children at that particular relatively isolated school. Remember that a big part of beauty is privilege too. The markings of privilege are a lot of what we consider “mainstream” beauty in the US.

I was strange, hyper sensitive, over thoughtful in my demeanor, and had trouble fitting in. I became the “it” that no longer is seen as human. Beauty, physical beauty, doesn’t matter. I knew even then that there would be nothing in my power that would make me more beautiful or better liked. Despite knowing that, the sense of ugliness infected me to my core. I learned that I would always be ugly no matter what.

Most abused children I think are not abused because of real physical defects but rather anything you do will be used against you. It wouldn’t have mattered if I was the most beautiful girl in the world. Also in my case over the course of a couple years I sustained broken teeth and facial scars that left me less pretty. I also had matted dirty hair, dirty poor clothes that stunk like smoke, and thick glasses. You might have seen a pretty girl under it all but most people don’t look that long. Chances are good you would have seen, no matter how benevolently you intended it, a dirty high risk hick child that would probably be pregnant in three or four years. What is beautiful anyway?

In some ways when you say that I look lovely to you in the pictures all you are saying is that I have achieved “passing complexion” so to speak, at least in your eyes.

Beauty…I compulsively read old medical manuals. After so many images of damaged tissue, real deformities, signs of illness… I’ve developed an aesthetic that includes it. Can you imagine a beautiful benign tumor? I can.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 15, 2010 5:04 PM

Girls are ruthless in assessing, manipulating, and maintaining the proper pecking order.

I fucking love the German 3-tier system (well, ok, it probably could be shrunk to 2-tier, similar to the old-fashioned American 2-track system), and I'm very unhappy to see it being slowly abandoned for large one-size-fits-all schools

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | March 15, 2010 5:09 PM

windy--the rate classes of the gamma could be treated in a similar way to the "K" populations if one were interested in identifying mutational hotspots or conserved regions in genes, in which case nucleotide sites could be treated as individuals to be assigned to populations. If one were to model "K" allowing the MCMC to jump between different values of "K"*, a secondary gamma distribution might be appropriate to describe it.

Brownian...I'm a Dirichlet man myself.

*But apparently, this represents a computational nightmare...mmmm.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 15, 2010 5:13 PM

Well, there are some 2 to 3,000 British nationals living on the islands - many of whom have lived there for several generations, and own property there - who really, really don't want to be governed by Argentina. But I guess the principle of self-determination doesn't apply to them, huh?

also, how many british had ancient possessions in, say, india, before it became independent?

seriously, those are non-arguments. the british empire is dead, it's high time britain finally realized that. (and the same goes for all the other major milirary empires)

Posted by: cicely | March 15, 2010 5:17 PM

blf:

Oh. Sorry 'bout that. I'll add you the list of Mad Women of The Hoard, and send you an official Ur Not Welcome certificate, redeemable at fine blogs everywhere (may contain bacon).

There, feel better now?

Yes, much better, thank you!

Ya know, I've been wondering whether "bacon in a can" is any good; could I have my certificate laminated on one of those?

Janine, MoFMA OM:

Walking down the street while not wearing a smile is an invitation to a stranger to inform you that you should smile.

Oh, yeah. I once had a total stranger (to whom I was passing fast food out a window; hardly a social function) tell me that if I didn't smile, my legs would grow together. Flabbergasted didn't even begin cover my reaction!

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 15, 2010 5:19 PM

Carlie:

Seriously, they do, and they do during puberty, when everything is out of whack and things that happen to you/are said to you are the things that stick with you FOREVER until you get them out in therapy. Or not. Mean Girls is not just a movie title. Girls are ruthless in assessing, manipulating, and maintaining the proper pecking order.

I was lucky, I never got that. I went to a large, public HS in Southern California. I was perceived to be an overly intelligent stoner, so I was left alone pretty much. (I was definitely the stoner part, the overly intelligent part, I don't really think so, but I was bored to death in school.)

The most I ever heard about my physical self was "you're just right!" which I found incredibly annoying, but that's all. Mostly, I didn't care about that sort of thing, all I wanted was to get out of HS, out of my grandparents house, into college and life on my own. I spent as little time as possible at HS; I showed up to turn in homework and take exams. I graduated a year early and never looked back. HS was something I had to do, nothing more.

Posted by: Walton | March 15, 2010 5:22 PM

I have no idea what you're talking about Walton. I was specifically referring to the Bar oath or affirmation which is nothing like that (and incidentally has nothing regarding the Queen in it and is all essentially blah blah, uphold the law, blah blah etc)and you, as student, could not have taken, and won't be for a few years yet.

I realise that. My discussion was carried over from a different thread; it's the oath I took when I joined the Officer Training Corps, as a first-year student more than two years ago. I wasn't talking about lawyers' oaths. Apologies for creating confusion (as I said above, I am very ill and not as coherent as usual).

Posted by: Walton | March 15, 2010 5:28 PM

nigelTheBold: I don't know why you seem to be assuming, a priori, that the Falkland Islands are somehow "naturally" part of Argentina. There are very few Argentines now living there. The only Argentine settlement ever on the islands, founded in 1828, was destroyed in 1831 (incidentally, by the US, not Britain), so there are no living former Argentine settlers with claims to the land.

Islands do not automatically belong to the country to whose coast they are closest. I don't know where you would get such an idea. Should we give the Channel Islands to France, too? It's much more sensible for sovereignty over a territory to be decided by the wishes of the people actually living there, expressed democratically.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 15, 2010 5:34 PM

walking down the street while not wearing a smile is an invitation to a stranger to inform you that you should smile.

Oh, yeah. I once had a total stranger (to whom I was passing fast food out a window; hardly a social function) tell me that if I didn't smile, my legs would grow together. Flabbergasted didn't even begin cover my reaction!

If memory serves, there is a term in the social sciences called 'badging'. Briefly, someone is 'badged' when there is some aspect about them that some members of the public feel it is acceptable to violate the normal rules of non-interaction. A classic example is of two individuals carrying a heavy object such as a couch down the street. Normally, it's rude (at least in Western cultures) to make a passing remark to two individuals, but if they're carrying a couch? "Heavy work, eh?" "Moving, huh?" or whatever.

Some would argue (and I don't disagree) that women and visible minorities are permanently badged.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 15, 2010 5:39 PM

Walton, I'm trying so very hard not to ask you if you went to the doctor :P

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 15, 2010 5:47 PM

Islands do not automatically belong to the country to whose coast they are closest.

True. Sometimes they belong to mad scientists, or even to actors who've portrayed in film mad scientists that own their own islands.

Posted by: JeffreyD | March 15, 2010 6:04 PM

Ol'Greg at #277

I am a little creepy at times, I know it, and do not wish to make you uncomfortable by focusing my attention on you. That said, whatever you feel about yourself and why you do feel that way, that was a brutal, brave, and beautiful comment you left. As painful as it was, I am glad I had a chance to read it.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 15, 2010 6:16 PM

Paul:

I can only imagine I had it much easier as a guy, though.

I don't know about that. I knew plenty of guys who had an absolute miserable time in HS. I really was lucky. Most of the people I know, their HS experience was a truly rotten time in their lives.

Things are very different now, as well. I was in HS during the dark ages (1971 - 1974).;p Back in the day, cutting class was common place. I wasn't actually at my school all that much. The narc who patrolled one side of the parking lot used to party with us, so I never got hassled for cutting. My grandmother knew I cut class, she didn't care as long as I kept up the As. I think I had an extremely easy experience in comparison to most people.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 15, 2010 6:33 PM

Ol' Greg (@277):

As it has in the past, your fearless self-disclosure humbles me. It also makes me ashamed to have been the occasion for it. I've read your comments several times now, and will probably end up doing so several more times in an attempt to truly take them onboard, but I fear I will, at some deep level, fail: There's just nothing in my experience to compare to what you report. While people — including my own father — have occasionally treated me badly, it's never been to the extent that would shake my confidence in the basic decency of my fellow humans. Certainly nothing in my past has ever made me see myself as anything other than my self.

I don't think there's anything useful I can say by way of direct response to your note, so let me just close by saying I never meant for a bit of casual (albeit no less sincere for that) gallantry and some sociological curiosity get this heavy. Forgive me for starting us down this road, and for not realizing sooner where it was heading. I wish for you only whatever it is that brings you peace and makes you happy.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 15, 2010 6:46 PM

so let me just close by saying I never meant for a bit of casual (albeit no less sincere for that) gallantry and some sociological curiosity get this heavy. Forgive me for starting us down this road, and for not realizing sooner where it was heading. I wish for you only whatever it is that brings you peace and makes you happy.

On the contrary. I don't mean to depress people, but I think that frank discussion of such things is at the root of understanding.

You started with a question, and I simply am of the disposition to think that if I were to attempt to speak in general I would be extrapolating from outlying data points perhaps, which would result in inaccuracy and distortion. It certainly isn't the whole of my being, but it is a part of me.

I'm just another person in the world. There are so many different stories and experiences among people.

Just remember if you ask me something about myself I'll probably answer you :P

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 15, 2010 7:02 PM

Jadehawk

british population of the Falkland islands: 29%

Now, I'm certainly no nationalist, and was totally opposed to Thatcher's opportunistic (down in the polls, likely to lose the next election) use of the Argentinian invasion dispute to escalate a dispute that might have been settled without bloodshed, but I have to agree with Walton here.

Argentina has a far weaker claim to the islands than Britain does. There were no indigenous inhabitants and sovereignty was tossed backwards and forwards between France, Spain, and Britain. Britons have been the inhabitants for far longer than any other nation. Why should the islanders who have been there for 170 years be made to leave, or live in another country, against their wishes, which "owned" the islands for about 20 years (and used it as a penal colony)?

I can tell I'm going to regret this :)

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 15, 2010 7:14 PM

(Apologies for all the grammar etc mistakes in #307. Firefox was "not responding" when I tried to preview, and when it returned my post had somehow been sent).

Posted by: leepicton | March 15, 2010 7:59 PM

Boy, can I relate to the "smile" command! I got it constantly as a young woman and it always pissed me off, but I was not assertive enough at the time to flip anyone off. Usually I just looked at the offender with my best stony look (which could terrorize a classroom of seventh-graders), and the smug grin would fade.
The biggest challenge came when, for one summer, I was teaching civil servants at Attica prison, and once a week had to walk outside the full length of D block. Fortunately, my bodyguard warned me ahead of time to walk at an even pace, and look straight ahead and not acknowledge in any way what I was hearing. Talk about being badged! I did however get an education in obscenity, at the top of hootin' and hollerin' inmates' lungs. It was probably the highlight of their day.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 15, 2010 8:16 PM

re Total strangers telling you to "smile!", or "cheer up!" in the street - I've had that the day my son died, and then a couple of days after my father died.
* ALL of PZ's baned words, and more *

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 15, 2010 8:30 PM

Caine, thanks :) They were British, Mind you it was a while ago, NOBODY except the mentally ill/religious speaks to strangers in the street here nowadays.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 15, 2010 8:49 PM

not sure I feel like playing the fucking euphemism game

Posted by: nigelTheBold | March 15, 2010 8:57 PM

nigelTheBold: I don't know why you seem to be assuming, a priori, that the Falkland Islands are somehow "naturally" part of Argentina.

What? You were talking about the Falklands? Never mind.

Seriously: I didn't know all that about the Falklands. I knew the US had wiped out villages during our adventurism in Central and South America. Didn't know there wasn't any indigenous population.

So, never mind. I apologize for my rant. It was the "self-determination" bit that set me off, and I shot off my mouth before my brain was loaded.

Thanks for the schoolin'.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 15, 2010 9:13 PM

nigelTheBold
The fascist Junta ruling Argentina at the time of the invasion probably just wanted the islands to use as a nice, out of sight, death camp anyway. Did you know that they used to fly out over the sea and push their political opponents out of the planes? After slashing open their stomachs so that the bodies didn't float, in case the evidence washed up somewhere. (Not that that has any bearing on the ownership issue, ofc.)

Knockgoats Heh. I was just about to post something along those lines about the Chagos Islanders, and then go to bed.

So now I'll just go to bed :)

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 15, 2010 9:42 PM

Ooops, when deleting what I was going to say about the Chagos Islands (because Knockgoats beat me to it) I also deleted what I was going to say about the strange connection between the Falklands/Malvinas and Mauritius (of which the Chagos Islands were part). Too tired to retype everything, so here's a much shorter version (lucky people :) ).

The first woman to circumnavigate the globe (disguised as a boy) was part of Admiral Bougainville's company when he evacuated the French settlers from the Falklands after the French sold them to Spain. She and her lover (the expedition's botanist Philibert Commerçon) later disembarked in Mauritius (after she had been rumbled in Tahiti, where they arrived weeks before Captain Cook). She lived there for a number of years until Commerçon died and then returned to France, making hers one of the longest cirumnavigations ever. She was also a botanist, but because she and Commerçon were beaten back to Europe by Cook and many years (zeugma :) ) Joseph Banks became world famous, and she didn't.

'Tis Himself probably knows the story. Every sailor, and feminist, should :)

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 15, 2010 9:51 PM

'Tis:

I'm not a smiler.

I'm not either. I do smile, when I actually have a reason to do so, but I have never been one to wander around with a fake smile pasted on my face.

People who want everyone to walk around with pasted smiles make me think of 1984 and Brave New World. Fake smiles are awful; I really don't understand why so many people like to see pretend enjoyments. Feh.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 15, 2010 10:03 PM

The Argentine invasion of the Falklands/Malvinas in 1982 happened for because the military junta hoped to mobilise long-standing patriotic feelings towards the islands and thus divert public attention from the country's chronic economic problems and the regime's ongoing human rights violations. With inflation and unemployment both running at 30% the junta tried to get the populace fixed on an external problem.

There's the further point the junta didn't think the British would or even could react militarily. It turned out they were wrong.

The Argentine military, with the exception of the Air Force and Fleet Air Arm, did not cover itself with glory during the war. Because of concerns about Chile, the best Army units remained in Argentina. The British, knowing they could only send a few units 8,000 miles away, chose the best units they could.

The Argentine loss of the war led to ever-larger protests against the military regime. It is credited with giving the final push to drive out the military government. Democracy was reestablished in Argentina.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 15, 2010 10:35 PM

Ol'Greg, if I say anything at all, it's along the same lines as what I said in #290.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 15, 2010 10:44 PM

Carlie (@274):

Mean Girls is not just a movie title. Girls are ruthless in assessing, manipulating, and maintaining the proper pecking order.

If a male of any age said something like that around here, I predict he'd get his head adjusted pretty quickly!

I don't mean to be flip, really, but I guess I really am a child of the feminist age, because my instinctive reaction to that observation is to deny that girls are any different than boys. However, I have no basis to deny your experience, and my own experience with my (male) age-group peers was entirely different.

I was nearly two years younger than my class in HS (due to the combination of a late birthday and having skipped a grade earlier), scrawny (oh, what I wouldn't give...), a brainiac, a band geek (actually, what they really said was band queer, back in the days when it was still common to use queer as a generic insult), and a speech-and-debate dork... and I was so socially (which is to say, romantically) backward that insulting my looks would've been a pointless waste of time. And yet... my memories of HS are, on balance, fond ones; certainly nothing happened to me that will stay with me as a scar until it's fixed in therapy (there are one or two aspects of my relationship with my father that might have benefited from an hour or two of couch time, but that's another subject).

Sometimes the conversation here seems to lead toward the conclusion that people just suck... but my life's experience really hasn't borne that out. To be sure, some people just suck, and everybody sucks now and then, but... maybe I've just lived a charmed life (I'm mindful, of course, of the social privilege inherent in being a white middle-class male, but that's not what I'm referring to here), or maybe I'm too much of a dopey optimist to know any better, but it seems to me that most people don't suck, most of the time.

None of which is meant to deny the authenticity or power of anyone's personal story, of course, nor am I in any position to question what women and girls tell me about the unique experiences of women and girls; I just have no personal predicate for viewing the world as generally bleak and inhumane.

Ol' Greg:

I'm just another person in the world. There are so many different stories and experiences among people.

Indeed. I probably should've quoted this to begin with, in place of all the blathering I did to Carlie immediately above.

Just remember if you ask me something about myself I'll probably answer you :P

I'll keep that in mind. I'm willing to listen to anything you have to say, and certain I'll learn from it; I just hate being the guy who rips the bandage off an open wound.

Posted by: windy | March 15, 2010 11:14 PM

The lease is due to expire in 2016. Bets on whether the islanders will be allowed to return then?

The islanders shouldn't be so selfish, those islands are needed for more important things:
Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 15, 2010 11:16 PM

I don't mean to be flip, really, but I guess I really am a child of the feminist age, because my instinctive reaction to that observation is to deny that girls are any different than boys.

Hmmm. I don't think that it is really the goal of feminism to deny any difference between the behavior of males and females but rather to work to better identify the factors that influence behavior and also options available to each as a means of expression.

Female bullying is real. I don't think it would be a normal feminist position to pretend that it is not, but perhaps it would be to argue that female bullying does not highlight an inherent "evil female nature" or some such.

I'm not very articulate right now, I apologize. I've been drinking an unusually good wine and playing with photoshop. Incidentally all this talk of beauty plus the recent discussion of Carlos II got me thinking about historical standards of beauty and I decided to shop a photograph to attempt a Tudor standard of beauty. It has been fun, but now I'm pretty tipsy.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 16, 2010 12:04 AM

I don't mean to be flip, really, but I guess I really am a child of the feminist age, because my instinctive reaction to that observation is to deny that girls are any different than boys. However, I have no basis to deny your experience, and my own experience with my (male) age-group peers was entirely different.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 16, 2010 12:23 AM

Then there was the problem, as there is now, of what counts as real education. Before this turns into a rant, let me simply say that, yes, we do need theoretical physics to have the internet but do, please, show me a theoretical physicist who could design the Mac I'm doing this on or come up with the algorithm for Google. They may well have the intellectual capacity but do they have the imagination? Or the basics of psychology? Or the applied knowledge in design and materials science? Probably not!

I'm not sure what your point is. The benefits of physics to society tend to long term*. Yeah the physicists didn't directly design computers or the internet themselves, but they provided the theoretical framework needed in order to invent them. To have transistors you need quantum mechanics. For integrated circuits you need solid state physics. In order to not have the computers overheat you need thermodynamics. Future advances in technology (e.g, quantum computers) will be a result of the work physicists are doing now. The field has more than paid back its investment.
___

*I actually think there's intrinsic worth in finding out how nature works, but that argument isn't going to get you a lot of funding.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 16, 2010 12:34 AM

Did you happen to be watching Alice In Wonderland and Delicatessen side-by-side one day?

No, Lunacy actually. My friend and I got a brilliant idea to do a perverse easter, something that originated with a desire to make fun of satanic ritual in film with kitsch but then just began to play with the images and ideas of various rituals. As we brainstormed it turned out I had a beef tongue handy to fix up and it's just my nature to push things more towards the disturbing. We sacrificed a plastic bunny because that's funny,and we made our little black cross cake out of lil' Debbie snack cakes because we're Americans dammit.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 16, 2010 12:56 AM

< andy rooney >

Count me as someone who hates it when they get told to smile, especially by strangers. I'm not even in a bad mood when I get told to smile, but am thinking about something or just have a neutral expression on my face.

Personally, I find fake smiles more offensive than any of the words that are banned this week.

I also hate it when tellers or custom service people start calling you by your first name when you don't know them. I know they are probably trained or told to do that, but it's still weird.

</andy rooney>

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 16, 2010 4:00 AM

Glad to hear you're feeling better Walton.

Posted by: Walton | March 16, 2010 4:22 AM

Re the discussions of high school above: I had a completely miserable time in secondary school.

I maintain that the school system is set up in such a way as to inevitably breed misery. Forcing a large number of teenagers, at an unstable stage of emotional and hormonal development, to spend large amounts of time in close quarters, in a disciplinary institution where most of them don't really want to be, is a recipe for conflict and emotional trauma. Young people can be extraordinarily vicious to each other, and those who are "weird" or don't fit in are persecuted. Many people never really recover from the bullying and self-esteem-crushing they get as teenagers.

None of this is a secret; most people are well aware of the bullying, conflict and pressure towards conformity that occur in high school (so much so that it's become a TV and movie archetype). Yet people still keep sending their children to these places. That's why I much prefer the idea of homeschooling. Obviously, not everyone is capable (economically, emotionally or intellectually) of homeschooling their kids effectively; I'm certainly not sure that I am. But that's why I think people should think much more carefully before having children than most currently do.

Meh. Sorry for the rant.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 16, 2010 4:44 AM

Walton #347,

you sound as if everybody ends up, like you, having a miserable time in secondary school.

I had a wonderful time then. So did my sis and many people I know. It's certainly true that some end up having a miserable time in high school, but it would be a more constructive discussion to explore the ways to improve on this, rather than to suggest that parents should systematically prefer homeschooling.

Posted by: Walton | March 16, 2010 5:01 AM

I had a wonderful time then. So did my sis and many people I know. It's certainly true that some end up having a miserable time in high school, but it would be a more constructive discussion to explore the ways to improve on this, rather than to suggest that parents should systematically prefer homeschooling.

Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of ways schooling could, in theory, be improved. But in practice, if I were faced with a choice between sending my child to an ordinary secondary school run along authoritarian disciplinary lines, or homeschooling him or her, I would choose to homeschool. This would apply irrespective of how allegedly "good" the school was in academic terms.

This is, of course, hypothetical: like I said, I wouldn't have children unless I was confident that I had sufficient financial means and could afford to put my child before my career, and had the knowledge and expertise to educate my child at home if necessary. I'm very unlikely ever to have children in any case; but if I were ever in a situation where it was possible for me to do so, these would be the considerations I would be thinking about.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 16, 2010 5:12 AM

I would never do homeschooling to my (hypothetical) kids. I already know I'm too much like my mom, and if the potential spawn is anything like me (or the currently most likely sperm donor, for that matter), any attempt at homeschooling would result in either filicide or matricide, depending on which one of us would lose their last bit of patience and sanity first. My mom and I fought bitterly over merely getting me ready for school in the morning, and her one attempt at teaching me how to drive a stickshift resulted in exactly the same. More time together of her trying to teach me anything would have ended disastrously, and I see no reason to assume a different outcome with my own spawn

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 16, 2010 5:17 AM

yeah, I still don't see how the desire for a large military presence of 3000 british descendants on a piece of rock acquired relatively recently as an act of colonialism are a sufficient reason for the existence of a military fit for an Empire, when the money could be better spent on providing far more people with enough education to make a living in a post-industrial world. education of EVERYONE makes more people's lives better than having a military beyond a national guard.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 16, 2010 5:22 AM

But in practice, if I were faced with a choice between sending my child to an ordinary secondary school run along authoritarian disciplinary lines, or homeschooling him or her, I would choose to homeschool. This would apply irrespective of how allegedly "good" the school was in academic terms.

And why so ? I was forced to be partly homeschooled for 2 years when we lived abroad (went to American public school mornings and my mother homeschooled me in French stuff in the afternoon), and I hated it.
Why would you force something on your children solely based upon your personal miserable experience ?

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 16, 2010 5:45 AM

Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of ways schooling could, in theory, be improved.

It's not only in theory, but also in practice:
Finland has generalised the Freinet School concept to all its public schools and gets the best results of all nations.

I'm from Vence, the town where the first Freinet School was established. It still is a private school, as when I was a kid, and my parents didn't think it was necessary to make the extra spending as I did very well in the public school system. But I have friends who were failing in the public school system and did much better when their parents sent them to Freinet. Now of course, their parents could afford it, which is the problem with private schools.

Walton, there are ways to make our public schools better suited to different types of children. That's what we should be discussing about, and not a nosolution such as homeschooling.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 16, 2010 5:58 AM

Oh, I was afraid you were thinking of this zombie-franklin !

NB: I wasn't afraid :-)

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 16, 2010 6:09 AM

I assume this is a joke, but if not, I should point out that FDR was a racist and an extreme authoritarian.

Ad hominem. The speech Jadehawk linked to "A second bill of rights" is more actual than ever before.

Posted by: Walton | March 16, 2010 6:17 AM

walton, kindly bugger off. If you don't understand or don't care why I linked to the video, don't respond.

There's no need to be like that. I do care about why you linked to the video; I may not have correctly understood your motivation, but I made a guess that you were intending to make a political point, since it was a political video. Since when do controversial political points usually go unchallenged around here?

If you were making some kind of a joke that I didn't get, then I apologise for my apparent sense-of-humour fail. :-\

I don't know why you're so hostile to me lately - between this comment, and comparing me to Piltdown Man yesterday, among other things. If I inadvertently insulted or offended you at some point in recent weeks, then I'm sorry. It was entirely unintentional.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 16, 2010 6:25 AM

Since when do controversial political points usually go unchallenged around here?

And I compared you to Pilty because the difference between your attitude towards "the people" and his seems to vary only in degree, not in kind. It's elitism of the bad sort.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 16, 2010 6:33 AM

And starting your comment with "I assume this is a joke" was silly. Very silly.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 16, 2010 6:41 AM

And not the nice kind of "silly". The painful Glennbeckesque kind of silly.

Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92 | March 16, 2010 7:05 AM

Feynmaniac @ 339

I think you have misread me.

Like you I think that working out how this planet and the universe generally work is fascinating and am very happy for any number of physicists to spend their lives on whichever branch of the subject most appeals to them, confident that in due course - if we manage neither to fry ourselves or to blow ourselves up - great benefits will come from what they are doing now.

In the meantime, though, I want my shower to work. Because of the topology hereabouts I have one which runs entirely on water pressure, the household tap and a lever - all ancient technologies, none invented by a theoretical physicist but by a series of craftsmen.

Or, if we stick to computers, I can draw on my own experience. I first worked with a computerised system - doing an analysis of workplace accidents and near-misses in a government department - in the mid-1960s. I never saw that computer. It lived in another building and was operated by people who understood how the machine worked but had no idea, no idea at all, either of the things non-specialists might want to do with computers or how the computer itself would develop.

So, I have seen for myself because I continued to work with computers somewhere around exactly how the changes happened. Hell, I was even part of a team once which tried to help very senior managers realise how more widespread use of computers would end up changing the whole way they thought - a Sisyphean task in some cases.

I saw for myself what drove those changes and that it was part social, part applied science. The development of the search engine - and I remember the early versions - owes as much to a recognition of the associative capacity of the human brain as it does to the sort of linear thinking which you'd find in a PhD thesis.

So, here I sit in happy retirement - still with only the vaguest of ideas how this thing in front of me works. I do, though, understand what I can do with it. And what other people might want to do with the same machine. And that the mobile phone sitting on top of the printer has more functions and more memory than the first computer I actually laid hands on.

But, anyway, none of that was the point.

My original post was about social attitudes vs. reality but that seems to have gone right over your head. And my shower works because the plumber who put it in it had sufficient grasp of the technologies in play to install it properly and sufficient social skills to get the job in the first place.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 16, 2010 7:17 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have been beaten, found out, refuted , it's all over for evolution, this from the comment section of Barney's opinion piece on the nationaltimes.com.au site :

"now, if you could produce a cat by selectively breeding dogs (note - not a "cat-like" dog, but a real "cat" ) then you would have "proved evolution"

Case closed.I'm off to praying.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 16, 2010 7:40 AM

I think you have misread me.

Possibly. I'm just sick of the "what's the use of physics" attitude I hear from some people, especially considering the reality. If I misunderstood you then I Walton.
_ _ _ _

The painful Glennbeckesque kind of silly.

Whoa, let's not say anything we can't take back....

If we are doing pools here, how many want in on guessing the date of Beck's (likely on air) complete meltdown?

If you need help, here is Glenn Beck:

-Creepily asking to photograph a woman
-Shrieking like as a mad man
-Barking like a dog at the camera

I have July 5th of this year.

Posted by: nyb.myopenid.com | March 16, 2010 8:40 AM

cicely:

I once had a total stranger (to whom I was passing fast food out a window; hardly a social function) tell me that if I didn't smile, my legs would grow together.

He thought not smiling would turn you into a mermaid? Fascinating.

Posted by: Walton | March 16, 2010 10:35 AM

OT: This post today by Ed Brayton, regarding liberal religion, atheism and equality, is fantastic.

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | March 16, 2010 10:47 AM

Walton, if you are going to condemn FDR for segregationist politics, you need to leave behind some of your American heroes. Many of the old line southern Republicans of the last forty years were Democrats. But they flipped over in response to a FDR acolyte, LBJ, passing civil rights legislation. Look up Nixon, 1968 and The Southern Strategy.

In a funny way, the segregationist past bit Trent Lott in the ass a few years when he praised Strom Thurmond, saying the country would not be in the condition it was in if only we followed Thurmond's policies. Keep in mind that in 1948, when Thurmond was still a Democrat, he ran on a anti-anti-lynching campaign.

Now, as for your hero, Ronald Reagan; he was an out and out racist. Back in 1980, after he was named the Republican candidate for President, he gave his first speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Now why would someone make their first speech in the middle of nowhere? Because in 1964, three civil rights activists were murdered there.

Walton, I did not provide any links. You can do a search and easily verify my statements. If you dismiss the views of FDR because of segregationist policies, you must be honest and summarily dismiss RR.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 16, 2010 10:53 AM

Ol' Greg (@335):

Hmmm. I don't think that it is really the goal of feminism to deny any difference between the behavior of males and females...

Yeah, I understand that arguments for equality are not the same as arguments for sameness, and thus discussions of difference do not imply inequality; I was really musing on my own socially conditioned first-blush instinct to push back against a generalization like girls are mean, rather than the actual truth of the matter. Note that I ultimately accepted Carlie's reported experience; what else could I reasonably do?

This is tangential to the conversation we'd been having, but there's an inherent dilemma in talking about differences between two groups when there's also a well-recognized problem of endemic discrimination between those groups. Absent formal scientific findings that are well supported by objective data and logically valid argumentation (i.e., in informal conversations like this one), it's very difficult to separate valid observations about difference from expressions of prejudice. Sometimes it's difficult to know in one's own mind whether a comment is a validly arguable, useful discussion of real difference, or just the promulgation of a (perhaps unconsciously held) stereotype.

It's especially difficult when one is speaking from the privileged side of the inequality, and even more so when the observation of difference looks like a negative comment against the discriminated-against group.

So when Carlie says "girls are mean" and you and Janine and Jadehawk (aside to Jadehawk: Most blogspot sites are blocked from work, so I haven't yet clicked on your link... but I'm not ignoring it) affirm that girl-on-girl bullying is real, I really can't say much more than "I hear you, and I accept your experience." Obviously, I don't have the experience or the standing to disagree; OTOH, if I agree too enthusiastically, I risk being seen as a sexist jerk (or seeing myself that way, even if nobody else makes that charge).

However, when I take Carlie's stark reporting of girl culture and add it to Walton's repeated insistence that school teachers and administrators (without reference to gender) are invariably tyrannical control freaks and David M.'s assertion that everybody is ugly and your... well, FSM knows your story reflects darkly on pretty much everyone... when I add all that together, it becomes a dark commentary on people generally, and in that context, I'm not on the wrong side of some historic inequality, being bold enough to count myself among "people." I'm not only free to say, but feel compelled to assert, that it's not really all that awful... at least not always! In service of this assertion, I can offer my own experience with people, which is admittedly idiosyncratic and anecdotal, but it's no more so than anyone else's personal narrative, and it serves at least as a counterexample to the proposition that people just suck.

All y'all's MM, of course, V.

Posted by: MrFire | March 16, 2010 11:15 AM

Walton, I find it hard to find anything admirable about Reagan.

Bollocks. His acting once cured a bout of insomnia I was having.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 16, 2010 11:17 AM

Caine (@334):

The beef & Guinness stew sounds scrumptious, but sadly, I'm afraid I'd never get a chance to cook it: I rarely if ever have occasion to cook a full meal that I don't share with my wife, and she needs to avoid gluten. I'm sure I could substitute cornstarch or a non-wheat flour for the little bit of flour in the recipe, but the Guinness is the sine qua non, and it's not gluten-free. I've seen some gluten-free beers in the liquor stores, but I can't recall ever seeing a gluten-free stout.

BTW, reaching waaaay back to the beginning of the thread (@4), please don't fail to post the Habanero Lime Cheesecake recipe when the proper season arises! While most cheesecake recipes aren't gluten-free, either, my wife has a couple, and I'd like to take a try at merging whatever your recipe is with one of hers.

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | March 16, 2010 11:21 AM

MrFire, I would say that it was RR's lack of talent that lulled you to sleep. That is hardly an admirable trait for RR. Just something that happened to be momentarily useful for you. Hell, I once cured a bout of insomnia by watching Mannequin.

I will say nothing more about that.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 16, 2010 11:44 AM

Walton (@384):

Reagan's not my "hero". ... I think, on balance, that his presidency did some good - but that doesn't mean that he was a great person or that everything he did was morally justified.

From my current political vantage point, it's a fairly shameful confession, but I voted for Reagan... twice. For a long time, even after I completed my journey to the Democratic Party, I thought like you: That Reagan was, on balance, a good president.

More recently, though, I've come to see him as the single figure who, more than anyone else, made American politics safe for the pernicious anti-government ideology that so dogs us today. Arguments about the relative goodness of what he actually did while in office are almost irrelevant to this point: The real problem I have with Reagan is his historical legacy, which includes Bush 43 (much more so than Bush 41, who was never really an ideological Reaganite), Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist (and all his ilk), and right down to Sarah Palin and the Tea Party whackos... not to mention legions of strutting right-wing fanboys who (still) call him things like Ronaldus Maximus.

Every now and then (usually when the White House is about to change hands) you'll see lists, compiled by historians, of the best and worst presidents in our history. Reagan still places high on many of those lists, which is a testament to his political skills... but the ideas he put those skills in service of are evil, and we've been more or less stuck with them now for three decades. There are two presidents whose positions on the best/worst lists are, IMHO, likely to change significantly with the accumulation of greater historical distance and perspective: Reagan, who I think will sink like a stone with history's growing understanding of what he's left us with, and his immediate predecessor, Jimmy Carter, whose stock I think will rise as personal recollections of his dour personality are gradually replaced by a dispassionate look at his actual record.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 16, 2010 12:33 PM

Ol' Greg:

Bill, it just isn't all anything.

I get that.

Bill... why can't people be beautiful despite the darkness. Why deny?

They can, of course, and I don't deny it... in fact, it was sort of my point: Not that no people are dark or that people don't do dark things, but that the totality of "people" is, in fact, "beautiful despite the darkness." Sometimes, though, in the (likely somewhat random) ebb and flow of comment around here, it feels to me as if the darkness is piling up, and I feel moved to push back with some sort of affirmation.

Then, too, my reactions can be influenced by factors external to what's written here: Yesterday, I read your long, emotionally devastating reply just before I left my desk. I then walked out the office door into a hideous day... too cold for the light jacket I had with me, ugly grey skies, and rain... not a romantic, dramatic storm, either; just nasty wetness. When I got to my car, I turned on the audiobook¹ I've been filling my commute with and was immediately confronted by an operatic, Tarrantinoesque description of a horrifying mass murder, a crime redolent with themes of misogyny and racism (a Barbadian domestic worker kills the white lady-of-the-house, and then pretty much everybody else in the household including several children, specifically because she intervened to stop him from beating his wife) and detailed at sufficient length that it consumed my entire drive home. By the time I arrived, I was literally on the verge of bursting into tears... which is unusual for me. Then I sat down to a batch of e-mails detailing petty, unworthy bickering between some of my most trusted local political friends.

<sigh>

I guess I needed to bark some affirmation at the world, as much to remind myself as to convince anyone else.

I love people.

Cool; me too.

Think about that, will you?

I will indeed. It's quite clearly much more difficult for you to say that than for me. Of all the things you've so fearlessly shared with us, I think I might be most grateful for I love people.



¹ T.C. Boyle's The Women, a fictional telling of Frank Lloyd Wright's relationships with the four main women in his life (three wives and a mistress). I strongly recommend it!

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 16, 2010 12:58 PM

Here is my Butter Chicken Recipe.

For the Chicken:

1 pot mild plain yoghurt.
2 boneless & skinless chicken breasts, or 4/6 skinless & boneless chicke thighs.
1 tsp chilli powder.
1 tsp garam masala
1 tsp salt
2 cloves minced garlic
1" fresh ginger, finely chopped.

Combine all ingredients except the chicken and mix well.

Cut chicken into bite size pieces and add to yoghurt mix.

Allow to marinade for at least 2 hours, and preferably overnight.

Heat oven to about 200C, and place chicken on baking sheet. Cook for about 10-15 minutes until just cooked through, and the edges of chicken are beginning to char. You could also cook the chicken under the grill, or on the BBQ.

Set chicken to one side.

For the Sauce:

1 can chopped tomatoes.
1 tsp ground coriander.
1 tsp garam masala
1" ginger, finely chopped
2 cloves garlic, finely chopped
50g butter
50ml double cream
Bunch fresh coriander.

Heat some oil or ghee in a pan, and add ginger, garlic, ground coriander and garam masala. Fry for couple of minutes.

Add blended tomatoes and cook for about 5 minutes.

Add chicken, and cook for a couple of minutes.

Add butter, and allow to melt, then add cream.

Check for seasoning, and add more salt if needed. If the tomatoes were very acidic you might need 1/2 tsp of sugar.

Add fresh coriander, stir in and serve.

Can be served with an Indian bread, or rice.

Is even nicer if made the day before and re-heated.

Feel free to add more chilli.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 16, 2010 1:10 PM

Here's my Butter Chicken recipe:

get in car.
drive to Trader Joe's.
Navigate to freezer section; choose Butter Chicken with Basmati Rice.
Purchase.
Return home.
Microwave.

Yeah, but which will taste better ? :)

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 16, 2010 1:16 PM

I just have trouble imagining what is entailed when one says "I love people".

Well... I certainly don't, and won't speak for Ol'Greg... but try this...

I can see myself making the statements "I love people", and in the same day, "I hate people", and sincerely mean them both.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | March 16, 2010 1:21 PM

I was going post another recipe, but had an attack of SIWOTI over at The Questionable Authority. Mike Dunford is wrong on the Internet.

Here's my rant, which pounds on some familiar themes:

Mike,

Actually, there are cases - quite a few of them, in fact - where theological statements can be investigated scientifically, and where they can, and have, been shown to be false. The circumstances that surround these cases are very similar to cases where ESP, ghosts, ghoulies, and things that go bump in the night have been investigated by science.

The common thread that connects these cases, and, more importantly, excludes quite a few others, is fairly simple: there is some sort of set of measurable criteria that all parties - skeptic or otherwise - recognize as a required consequence of whatever is being investigated.

Sorry, this doesn't wash.

Consider the Galileo example I brought up in the earlier thread, here:

http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2010/03/cities_solipsism_scientism_and.php#comment-2341162

The Catholic authorities (well, some, anyway) wanted Galileo to say that his model didn't actually describe reality, which would contradict scripture, but was predictive.

They proposed that the Sun went around the Earth in just such a way as to be observationally indistinguishable from Galileo's heliocentric model.

They were scientifically wrong, weren't they?

Science is simply not neutral toward unfalsifiable hypotheses, especially those that

1) appear contrived precisely to avoid falsification, and/or

2) are arrived at by dubious methods, using intuitions that have systematically failed in the past

To the extent that it has any interesting, distinctively religious content at all unfalsifiable religion meets both these criteria.

It's a scientific fact that unfalsifiable hypotheses are usually wrong---they have to be, because there's an infinity of unfalsifiable hypotheses that mostly contradict each other.

It's a scientific fact that hypotheses contrived to evade falsifiability are especially likely to be wrong, or worse than wrong.

It's a scientific fact that religious hypotheses in particular are usually wrong. They have to be, because of the contradictions between religions. (E.g., on the number and traits of god(s), the basic nature of morality, the origin of the universe, the specific moral claims, etc.)

Religion in general is demonstrably wrong in most cases, even if we can't say for sure which ones it might luck out and be right in.

Without some extraordinary evidence for particular religious claims, we should scientifically discount religious hypotheses in the very same way we discount other unfalsifiable hypotheses contrived to evade falsification, e.g., Bigfoot, UFO reports, homeopathic nonsense, and various paranoid conspiracy theories. There's no special rule about religion.

Scientifically, we should be at best agnostic toward religion, and extremely skeptical. That's not optional, or a particularly "philosophical" or "metaphysical" claim; it follows from the science.

It is not okay to say that if science can't strictly disprove something, it's okay to believe it's true, as accommodationists often do.

Science is simply not about strict disproof, never has been, and never could be. By that standard, we still haven't proved that the Earth isn't stationary.

And yet it moves, as Galileo said.

It could still be true that the Sun goes around the Earth in just such a way as to be completely observationally indistinguishable from the best scientific theory of planetary motion. That doesn't mean that it isn't scientifically wrong to take such an idea very seriously, much less actually believe it.

Likewise other religious claims.

Accommodationists want to make unfalsifiability and supernaturalism into virtues that protect religious beliefs from scientific scrutiny.

That's utter bullshit.

Science can study religion's claims, and religion's methods, and find them sorely wanting as means of getting at anything resembling truth.

NOMA is wrong, and unfalsifiability of hypotheses doesn't mean science can't say it's probably wrong---it generally means science should say exactly that: distinctively religious beliefs are probably wrong.

Calling something "supernatural" isn't a science-stopper, either.

The scope of science isn't limited to the "natural" world in any sense that's relevant to the "natural"/"supernatural" distinction.

Science can study anything with observable effects, and purported supernatural entities systematically do have (supposed) observable effects---that's how we're supposed to know about them. (E.g., transcendent spiritual experiences, revelation, etc.)

That makes them fair game for science whether they reduce to materialism as we know it or not.

Consider Lamarckism and vitalism. Both of those theories had a supernatural character, assuming teleological properties of living things that nobody knew how to cash out in "reductionistic" materialistic terms. (And in fact, many thought it was impossible---that's why Darwin is so important.)

That did not keep scientists from taking them seriously, scientifically, and it shouldn't have. Darwin was right to be skeptical of irreducibly teleological weirdness, and to make an educated guess that a purely materialistic, nonteleological account could be successful, but to keep an open mind about the possibility of very special principles at work, which could not be reduced to monistic, materialistic Science As We Know It.

The success of materialistic monism in science is not and never was a matter of an a priori constraint on what science can study, or what hypotheses it can entertain. A priori methodological naturalism is simply false---that is not how science worked then, or works now, or ever should work, or ever could work. Science blinkered in that way would not be science---it would be science bowdlerized to accommodate religion, and that's not just unscientific but antiscientific.

Accommodationists still don't understand the significance of the most important examples in the history and philosophy of science, and constantly misrepresent the nature of science. It's very tiresome.

link:
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2010/03/more_on_the_material_and_metap.php#comment-2355009

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 16, 2010 1:25 PM

Alan, the Text Formatting Toolbar can be found at http://codefisher.org/format_toolbar/ - it's a nifty add on.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 16, 2010 1:30 PM

Bill, I'm sorry about the Guinness stew. It just wouldn't be the same without the Guinness. :) Here's the recipe for the cheesecake, it really is tasty, so I hope you can re-work it. As always, the habanero should be adjusted to personal taste:

Habanero Lime Cheesecake

Crust:
1 1/2 cups wheat-meal biscuits (or about 26 graham cracker squares) ground to crumbs
Pinch salt
1/3 cup melted butter

Filling:
3 habanero peppers
2 tablespoons sugar, plus 1 cup
24 ounces cream cheese
Pinch of salt
4 eggs
2 tablespoons heavy cream
1 lime, zested
1 very juicy or 2 less juicy limes, juiced
1 lime sliced thinly, for garnish
1whole habanero, for garnish

Preheat the oven to 400 degrees. Position top rack in the center of the oven. Place a baking pan on the rack below this. Boil water.

Make crust: Mix the crumbs and salt together in a small bowl, then add butter and stir to mix. Set aside 1/4cup for topping. Press the rest into the bottom and sides of a 9-inch springform pan.

Turn on kitchen or stove exhaust fan. Skewer and roast the habaneros over an open flame (gas burner is fine) and set them to steam under a towel. When they are cool enough to handle, put on plastic gloves if desired. Peel and de-seed habaneros, then pound in a mortar with the 2 tablespoons of sugar until a coarse paste results.

Cream the cream cheese, then add remaining sugar and salt. Beat in the eggs 1 at a time until incorporated. Add the cream and blend. Beat the zest and lime juice into this mixture. Add the habanero paste last and beat until well mixed. Pour into the crust, then gently tap the pan to level the filling. Sprinkle the reserved crumbs on top.

Pour boiling water into the pan on the oven's lower rack. Place the cheesecake on the rack above it. Bake for approximately 1 hour or until the cheesecake pulls away from the edge of the pan. Remove from the oven and allow to set for 20 minutes. Wrap and keep in the refrigerator overnight, or if rushed, place in the freezer for 2 to 3 hours.

Garnish, if desired, with slices of lime and place a whole habanero in the center.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 16, 2010 1:33 PM

Yeah, but which will taste better ? :)

I don't know, man. That TJ's shit is pretty damn good.

p.s. fuck euphemism week

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 16, 2010 1:37 PM

RTL (@402):

I presume you aren't using "I love" in the same way as when you say "I love chicken", or "I love oysters".

Oh, yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what she means: She loves people... with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

8^/

Being a veggie, my instinctive reaction when someone says something like "I love salmon" is to think "No, you frigging don't. You hate them".

Srsly?? If you want to argue that meat is unnecessary and slaughtering animals is cruel, that's reasonable... I disagree, but it's clearly an arguable point. But do you really think people who eat meat are motivated to do so by hatred of the animals the meat comes from? Do you eat bread because you hate wheat plants?

In fact, AFAIK many people think carefully preparing and cooking food is a sign of respect for the food source... including animals. I'm not big on that sort of touchy-feely approach myself, but when I eat bacon, it's attributable to some combination of I'm hungry and I like the taste of bacon; hatred of pigs is no part of the equation.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 16, 2010 1:41 PM

Following Sven: I prefer to eat food that is prepared by someone other than me. It is more delicious that way.

I do not disagree with that in principle. I love having an Indian take-away for example, but ready meals very seldom reach the same quality as home cooked, or restaurant food.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 16, 2010 1:44 PM

I love people.

I don't. I like a lot of people; I love some. As a whole, I don't care for people at all, nasty animals for the most part.

After the childhood I had, I consider myself lucky I didn't end up wantonly slaughtering a great many people. Basically, I kept my head down and did what I had to do to get out - I graduated HS at 17 and promptly moved out on my own, got through college, all that. I've spent years building up a clientele for my artwork so I can work on my own, when I want to and where I want to. I live in a place with next to no people (pop. 79). People here mind their own business, and I have no neighbours on either side of my house. I can handle people if I don't have to be around them for any length of time.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 16, 2010 1:48 PM

Matt, nice recipe, thanks. I snagged it for my recipe files. :)

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 16, 2010 1:49 PM

Probably obvious, but WTH...to say that a deity exists that does not intervene with the universe sort of beggars the meaning of the word "existence".

Absolutely. I originally planned to explore that, but then I realised this was not The Intersection and I do not have to do the thinking for people here.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 16, 2010 1:52 PM

Caine:

Here's the recipe for the cheesecake, it really is tasty,

Thanks so much!

...so I hope you can re-work it.

Should be (you should pardon the expression) a piece of cake: At first glance, the only gluten I see is in the crust, and I know my Lovely Bride has wheatless options for that.

I have a recipe (not my own invention, but one of my favorites to make) for Margarita Pie: A frozen cream pie made with tequila and lime juice (along with the usual cream, sweetened condensed milk, etc.) with a pretzel-crumb crust (mimicking the salted glass rim) in place of the traditional graham cracker crust. Pretzels aren't gluten free, of course, but this is what I always make when I need to bring a dessert to a potluck event. (Note that I only serve it to adults, though in fact there's only a single drink's worth of booze in the whole pie.)

I'll try to remember to post the full recipe when I get home.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | March 16, 2010 2:11 PM

Paul's Dal Masala (lentil spice mix) & spiced lentils

Use 1 to 2 tablespoons dal masala per cup dry lentils.

(This resembles a commercial dal masala mix I like except that
the commercial mix is way too salty---you can't use a lot of masala (mix) without oversalting the dal (lentils). I usually mix up about 10x what it says below, and keep it in a jar.)

1 tablespoon amchoor (ground dried unripe mango) powder
2 tsp ground cumin
1 tsp salt
1 tsp ground coriander
1/2 tsp black pepper
1/2 tsp cayenne
1/2 tsp asafetida powder
3/8 tsp ground dry ginger
1/4 tsp ground nutmeg

Sample recipe for spiced lentils:

(I usually make a batch 2x or so this size)

1 1/4 cup green/brown lentils, washed & cooked up the usual way, and not too soupy (pour off and reserve some of the liquid if it's soupy) Red lentils work fine too, if you prefer a less discretely beany texture. You can puree it if you want; I don't bother.
1 medium onion, chopped fairly fine
1 medium to large tomato, chopped
2 tablespoons peanut oil or neutral vegetable oil
2 tablespoons dal masala

Heat the oil in a large skillet over medium heat.
Saute the onions in the oil until they're translucent and browning a bit.
Add dal masala.
Saute a minute or so more, mixing well. (You want to make sure that the masala is oiled & heated well to activate the spices, I think.)
Add chopped tomatoes, and saute 3-4 minutes.
Add cooked lentils, mix well.
Heat through and simmer 10 minutes or so, covered.

(Note: this should be distinctly moist but not soupy, because you should be able to pick it up a glob in a hunk of tortilla without making a mess. If it's too wet, simmer with the lid off to try it a bit. If it's drying out and sticking, add a little reserved lentil liquid or water.)

Serve with wheat tortillas or whatever you like.

(I usually serve this Ethiopian style, with lightly toasted Santa Fe style tortillas, with a couple of other suitable dishes like Saag or Gomen, so people can tear off a piece of a tortilla, grab some food in it, and pop it in their mouths.)

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 16, 2010 2:23 PM

La femme est l'avenir de l'homme
Jean Ferrat 1970

This song attacks those who decree through the bible women's infinite serfdom.

Woman is the future of man

The poet is always right
Who sees higher than the horizon
And the future is his kingdom
Facing our generation
I declare with Aragon
Woman is the future of man

Between old and new
Your struggle, at all levels,
From ours is undivided
Amongst men who make laws
If some sing through my voice
Others decree through the bible

The poet is always right
Who destroys the old oration
The image of Eve and the apple
Facing the old maledictions
I declare with Aragon
Woman is the future of man

For birthing without the suffering
For the control of natality
It took millenaries
If we are coming out of the Middle Ages
Your centuries of infinite serfdom
Still weigh heavily on the earth

The poet is always right
Who announces the blossoming
Of other loves in his kingdom
Who puts the song aright
And declares with Aragon
Woman is the future of man

We will need to relearn living
Write together a new book
Recover anew the possibilities
Each thing at last shared
Everything in the couple is going to change
In an irreversible manner

The poet is always right
Who sees higher than the horizon
And the future is his kingdom
Facing all other generations
I declare with Aragon
Woman is the future of man

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 16, 2010 2:37 PM

Ring Tail Lemurian,

It seems to me that many people have turned a necessary activity into a fetish something they like.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 16, 2010 2:41 PM

TROLIS! POŽEMYJE!

Creationist sighted in the otherwise long-dead Kent Hovind is still in jail thread. Wow, the thread is a year old.

Good question. This is probably another good reason for me not to have children.

It's a good reason for you not having children right now. Given your current development, however, you're likely going to make a pretty fine father 10 years from now, if not in fact less.

can we elect zombie-franklin to be President of the World?

Much of that speech is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

But he was not a particularly good human being

Good is not nice. It looks like FDR was a Type III antihero.

In my defence, I'm still a little ill and really not thinking straight.

When you're too ill for discussing, why do you discuss? Just lie down, read a book or sleep.

and seem to have completely exhausted myself merely from walking to the shops this morning to buy food. :-(

At least you eat, my grandmother would say.

However, when I take Carlie's stark reporting of girl culture and add it to Walton's repeated insistence that school teachers and administrators (without reference to gender) are invariably tyrannical control freaks and David M.'s assertion that everybody is ugly and your... well, FSM knows your story reflects darkly on pretty much everyone... when I add all that together, it becomes a dark commentary on people generally, and in that context, I'm not on the wrong side of some historic inequality, being bold enough to count myself among "people." I'm not only free to say, but feel compelled to assert, that it's not really all that awful... at least not always! In service of this assertion, I can offer my own experience with people, which is admittedly idiosyncratic and anecdotal, but it's no more so than anyone else's personal narrative, and it serves at least as a counterexample to the proposition that people just suck.

Oh, please take me out of this. :-] When someone is ugly, that just means I can't fall in love with them. Big deal. It doesn't mean that people suck or that I can't talk to them normally (while looking at their faces), let alone that I'm blaming them for something or whatever (just for the sake of completeness – you didn't imply that).

But, yes, there's a lot of suckitude in human societies. However, I agree with your point that there is still hope.

I find it hard to find anything admirable about Reagan.

"Nobody is useless – they can still serve as a bad example."

(Probably wasn't really worth it, though.)

Here is my Butter Chicken Recipe.

Sounds pretty good except for the tomatoes.

Being a veggie, my instinctive reaction when someone says something like "I love salmon" is to think "No, you frigging don't. You hate them".

What's the difference between botanists and zoologists?

Botanists actually like animals.

(…As a paleozoologist I get out of this free, though :^) )

It could still be true that the Sun goes around the Earth in just such a way as to be completely observationally indistinguishable from the best scientific theory of planetary motion.

Only if the theory of relativity is majorly wrong.

You should mention the principle of parsimony somewhere in your rant. :-) Methodological naturalism is just one application of it.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 16, 2010 2:53 PM

negentropyeater Yes, agreed, and many others have fetishised food.
You can't turn on the TV in the UK now without having to flick through cookery programme after cookery programme. Amateur cooks, professional cooks, zelebrity cooks, cooking competitions, alcoholic cooks, politicians cooking, hairy bikers cooking all over the world, dancing cooks, cooking on ice.....

Posted by: Sili | March 16, 2010 2:58 PM

Anyone have anything to say about sourdoughs? I have a coupla recipes, but it doesn't hurt to get a third opinion.

Given how long it's taken me to get around to trying to make one, I suspect I need something that can do without too much love - such as being forgotten about for long periods of time until I discover it at the back of the fridge.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | March 16, 2010 3:00 PM

David Marjanović:

It could still be true that the Sun goes around the Earth in just such a way as to be completely observationally indistinguishable from the best scientific theory of planetary motion.

Only if the theory of relativity is majorly wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean. Of course it would be wrong if we take it to be an actual truth claim that there's no absolute or privileged frame of reference, but...

I would think we could still come up with an observationally indistinguishable model by adding a couple of relativizing axioms to the mathematical/geometrical model---or more precisely, de-relativizing axioms.

I would guess that would be an exercise in vacuity, in that it would hold the Earth stationary in just such a way that you could pull the same trick and hold anything else stationary instead---but that's sorta my point. It would make no new predictions, and all the same old ones, as far as any possible observations go, and would be unfalsifiable and not scientifically neutral, but antiscientific.

But I may be missing something---physics is not my strong suit. Care to elaborate?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 16, 2010 3:02 PM

Are McCarthy, bilbo, and Kwok accepted stand-ins for Mooneybaum?

I wonder, if asked in an honest moment, how they would feel about that perception?

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | March 16, 2010 3:11 PM

Bill Dauphin

Sorry to hear that

To you, is sex also simply a gamete delivery mechanism?

Now you can feel feel sorry for me.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 16, 2010 3:32 PM

Ring Tailed Lemurian: Actually, I am totally with you in that I eat whatever fills the gnawing hole in belly without caring that much what it is. It's not like I don't prefer tasty food. I just can't be bothered to take any extra effort in obtaining it. I was a veg for ~6 years. But my wife wasn't, and it was just easier to eat whatever she wanted to cook (I always clean...we both prefer it this way).

I'm with you guys! I mean, I enjoy food more or less, but it's like waiting for the bus to take me to work. It's nice, and it gives me a few minutes in which to think, but on the whole I'd teleport to work if the opportunity existed and save the bus for the really pleasant days outside. Similarly, I'd happily have my daily nutrient injections and save the 'eating' for special occasions.

For those who feel sorry for us, consider this: I can come home from work, open and rinse a large can of chickpeas into a bowl, add a half cup of flax seeds and a teaspoon of good soy sauce and call it a meal. Throw in a couple of apples if need be and I've had all the dinner I care to. Prep time ~45 seconds. (Of course, given the options at a buffet, for instance, I'll tend toward the more savoury, fatty, and sweet just like most of us.)

Now, if only I felt the same way about beer.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 16, 2010 3:46 PM

Speaking of spot the moron, guess who is coming to Charleston.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 16, 2010 3:54 PM

David,

Much of that speech is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights

The USA signed and ratified the UN DHR. But it's really the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) that expanded on the specific rights included in the Second Bill of Rights. As of today, the ICESCR has been ratified by most countries on the planet.

Paradoxically, the United States, where the Second Bill of Rights originated, is one of the very few countries not to have signed that Covenant.

FDR's Second Bill of Rights has to this day only been partially implemented in the US.

Check the reasons why in Cass Sunstein's book:
"The Second Bill of Rights – FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More Than Ever"

It looks like FDR was a Type III antihero.

What's mean about FDR ?

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 16, 2010 4:04 PM

Only if the theory of relativity is majorly wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean.

If the Earth stands still, the outer planets or something are moving faster than light according to the same reference frame. I don't know the details, but it's famous.

David M...I don't think I ever have written "LOL" in response to anything, but the "wheat embryos" thing made me giggle audibly.

o_O

You're a botanist, and this has never occurred to you? Er… you do work on embryophytes, don't you? ~:-|

What's mean about FDR ?

If half of what Walton wrote about him (I don't bother checking, I'm actually trying to work here :o) ) is true, he wasn't very nice. That's all.

Posted by: SteveM | March 16, 2010 4:11 PM

re 435:

But I may be missing something---physics is not my strong suit. Care to elaborate?

For the Earth to be stationary and the rest of the universe to revolve around it, would require distant objects to be moving at greater than the speed of light. The fact that light is a constant, finite velocity precludes a completely consistent Earth centered model of the universe.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | March 16, 2010 4:21 PM

You're a botanist, and this has never occurred to you? Er… you do work on embryophytes, don't you? ~:-|

Sure it occurred to me. I just never expect it to occur to anyone else--hence the delight in being reminded that I am not entirely alone in the universe. I wasn't going to get all pedantic, but you have given me the small nudge required*. The bulk of whole wheat flour is comprised of endosperm (triploid tissue that originates with the fertilization of polar nuclei). All of the refined flour is composed of endosperm. The liquid portion of a coconut seed is also endosperm. This last fact will give freshman botany students the sillies.

*No need to call me an ass. I know this already.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 16, 2010 4:30 PM

It seems to me that many people have turned a necessary activity into a fetish.

Posted by: Walton | March 16, 2010 4:40 PM

Go.To.Doctor.

Going to the doctor would involve walking somewhere, which is just not going to happen in the immediate future (especially since it's the evening, so I'd have to use the out-of-hours service). And calling the doctor to come here would be a massive waste of health service time and resources.

My headache's gone away, though. Ibuprofen is my best friend right now. :-)

Posted by: boygenius | March 16, 2010 4:58 PM

Walton, have you had your meningococcal vaccination?

Symptoms of meningococcal disease often resemble those of the flu or other minor febrile illness, making it sometimes difficult to diagnose, and may include high fever, severe headache, stiff neck, rash, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and confusion. Students who notice these symptoms - in themselves, friends, or others - especially if the symptoms are unusually sudden or severe, should contact their college health center or local hospital.

You do live in a dormitory setting, do you not? IANAD and don't presume to be able to diagnose anything, much less over the intertubes, but I did have a friend who almost died of meningococcal meningitis/septicemia that was contracted in a university dormitory.

Posted by: Walton | March 16, 2010 5:03 PM

When you wake up tomorrow morning, go on to the doctor even if you feel better at the moment. Stop being so silly, it would suck if you turned out to have something more serious and it screwed up your semester.

I don't think it's anything more serious - my mind seems to be working fine, and I can still talk, type and even argue. I just can't move around very much. :-\

Posted by: Walton | March 16, 2010 5:06 PM

Boygenius: Yes, I've been vaccinated against meningitis, and the university goes to a lot of effort to make sure everyone is aware of the symptoms (there are posters about it everywhere). I'm 100% certainly I don't have meningitis - I haven't been vomiting or even feeling nauseous, don't have a rash, and can still think and talk coherently. My fever is only fairly mild and intermittent.

I think I've probably just got 'flu or another mild viral infection. But I probably should call the doctor tomorrow morning.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 16, 2010 5:13 PM

I don't think it's anything more serious - my mind seems to be working fine, and I can still talk, type and even argue. I just can't move around very much. :-\

Yes, but you are not really qualified to make that diagnosis. You won't know based on how you feel at the moment if it is something that *will* get worse before it has any chance of getting better or not until you get there to find out. A doctor will have a much better chance at making sure you don't end up spending the next month or two in poor health.

You are a much bigger drain on health resources if you end up needing chest x-rays in three weeks than if you need a round of antibiotics now.

My mind worked fine while I was raging with strep by the way. It's not uncommon to feel fine mentally when you are physically ill with viral or bacterial infection.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 16, 2010 5:26 PM

Paul W., OM@403,

Prezactly!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 16, 2010 5:32 PM

Hear that, Marjanović?
Not clever in Finnish.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 16, 2010 5:37 PM

@#403:

I don't disagree with what you wrote -- but I'm not sure that the paragraph that you're responding to is wrong.

Is it not the case that this:

The common thread that connects these cases, and, more importantly, excludes quite a few others, is fairly simple: there is some sort of set of measurable criteria that all parties - skeptic or otherwise - recognize as a required consequence of whatever is being investigated.

Is just another way of arguing for falsifiability?

Of course, looking at his complete post, I see that the paragraph about transubstantiation looks like an implicit rejection of parsimony. In which case, SIWOTI indeed.

Posted by: Walton | March 16, 2010 5:41 PM

I've now had some food and some Pepsi, and am feeling a little better. Nonetheless, another early night would seem to be a good idea. And if I still feel bad tomorrow morning, I might see a doctor. (Though I really just don't want to waste doctors' time.)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 16, 2010 5:46 PM

I've now had some food and some Pepsi, and am feeling a little better. Nonetheless, another early night would seem to be a good idea. And if I still feel bad tomorrow morning, I might see a doctor. (Though I really just don't want to waste doctors' time.)

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | March 16, 2010 5:49 PM

Man Says Bible Let Him 'Marry' Girl, 10

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) ― A 58-year-old man accused of sexually abusing a female relative for nearly a decade after she was placed in his care believes the Bible gave him the right to make the girl his "wife" when she was 10 years old, police said Monday.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 16, 2010 5:54 PM

So, wait, it's your claim that diseases are caused by embryos?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 16, 2010 5:58 PM

So, wait, it's your claim that diseases are caused by embryos?

Ever talk to a new parent? If that neurological fascination with feces isn't some sort of mental disease I don't know what is.

Posted by: Paul | March 16, 2010 6:01 PM

@C_E, 437

I wonder, if asked in an honest moment, how they would feel about that perception?

They have been asked. It was inevitable when Mooney took a post from a commenter here (Aquaria) and made a blog post where he referred to it without attribution as "Classic PZ".

They ignore the question.

And Walton, need to second what Jadehawk said in 473.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 16, 2010 6:50 PM

So, wait, it's your claim that diseases are caused by embryos?

WAIT!!

Maybe it's that diseases CAUSE embryos