Saturday, April 19, 2008

Gutwrenching Decision

Posted by Susan

Back in 1992, a beautiful feral kitty came to live with me. She was terrified of everything and it took a year, working with her every night at least once an hour, for her to trust me enough to let me touch her without being bitten. It took another year to be able to pick her up without her going into a complete frenzy.

It was worth the effort.

For so many of us, our furry family members are an integral part of our lives and we cannot imagine life without them. However, as all of us critter lovers are all too aware, our critters likely will not outlive us. Even with the advances in veterinary medicine, we just can't always fix what's wrong.

Several weeks ago my Louise was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma. It was like a physical blow to my heart.

Although chemotherapy was an option, it wasn't a good one in this case. I would have done it in a heartbeat if it would grant us any additional quality time together. The only humane option was hospice care as long as she felt good and had a quality of life.

"Susan's Medical Center" immediately commenced. She tolerated all the needles, pills and supplements with grace and dignity. Who knew a former feral would allow all this?

After a week, she had gained almost half a pound. She carried her fuzzy toy around while making her funny Louise-noise. She purred and made "kitty paws" while settled happily in my lap. There was hope that things were looking up ~ for awhile anyway.

Then, almost overnight, she began getting weaker and weaker. Her legs were slipping out from under her.

When she didn't bounce back after a couple of days, I saw that her quality of life was gone. All she wanted to do was sleep in her teepee. She didn't want to eat. The gutwrenching decision was required to let her go.

The vet is the kindest, most gentle and most compassionate person I've ever known. I think it hurt his heart almost as much as it did mine.

She only got 10 days out of the deal. It's just not fair.

There is a Louise-sized hole in my heart. A Louise-less world is just not OK.

The Lovely Louise


The Lovely Louise

1991-2008

Photo Essay - An Endless Fascination With Looking Up

Posted by BGH

~
I was going through pictures today, trying to clean up my drive and get rid of some of the wasted space. I ran across these today and thought I would share some of them.

I have had a fascination with the sky, weather and space for as long as I can remember. I have probably spent half my life looking up, either through a telescope or just lying on the ground looking at the stars, clouds and sunrise/sunset.

I dream of traveling past the atmosphere to space, but still very much appreciate fragile shield that surrounds our planet.

[Click on picture for full size view]













----

Pope Mephistopheles

Posted by JCE

***

In Latin, Benedict means blessed and the utter irony of Joseph Ratzinger's choice of name is enough to make even a believer cry. If one uses the political definition of blessed, that being, blessings that one manufactures for themselves, then, yes - Ratzinger is a very blessed man.

His visit to the United States prompted the usual spike in pseudo Catholics rushing to find their long-forgotten rosary beads and dust off their bibles in order to lay a false claim to faith pay top dollar in order to attempt to catch a glimpse of the pope. But let's not be to harsh on the Catholics-come-lately's - hypocritical hoards spend entirely too much time vying to see Britany only to gossip about her later. Besides, this post isn't about Catholics. It is about the political lying machine known as the Papacy.

Part of the pope's visit here included an address to victims of abuse at the hands of priests. This wasn't his first attempt at damage control on this problem. May 18, 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a memo to the Archdioceses essentially forbidding them to discuss any of the charges against priests and requesting their assistance in sweeping the situation under the rug. The memo made national news and an investigation followed, however, the good Cardinal was crowned pope before formal charges were filed. Once charges were filed, the Vatican issued a request that the pope be exempted from prosecution because he was a head of state and therefore above the law. The charges were summarily dropped. How remarkably convenient that he was elected pope at just the right time...how very blessed he is. One has to wonder if the Conclave, treating the world as one giant chess game, made this move in order to preserve the Church? Surely, the souls of those abuse victims could not be considered less important than protecting the church, could they? Hmmm...

Benedict has issued many controversial statements since his ascension to the papacy and the Vatican has been left with the unsavory duty of cleaning up more than one mess for him. In the process, the Catholic church is losing more and more victims as his stridently fundamental ideals are made known. Naturally, their solution to that problem has been to infiltrate third-world countries with even greater force and spread superstition and lies to largely uneducated portions of the world. There they have stripped these people of their money, their dignity and very often their lives. In short, Pope Benedict has proven to be a disaster and the Vatican have only themselves to blame. Sometimes I smile as the phrase 'What Would Jesus Do?' comes to mind and although I am not a believer in that Christian prophet, based on what I have read, Jesus would convert to another religion and then call upon his supreme father to smite the Vatican and all of it's manufactured glory.

Mephistopheles, the evil spirit whom Faust sold his soul to in the German legend, was a liar extraordinaire and the name fits the pope much better than the one he chose for himself.

***

Friday, April 18, 2008

Freedom of Religion or Freedom to Murder?

Posted by JCE

***

This past March, Carl and Raylene Worthington were indicted on manslaughter charges for refusing to seek medical treatment for their 15 month old daughter who died from pneumonia and bronchial infection - both easily curable with antibiotics. They claimed their religious order, Followers of Christ Church, prohibits them from using doctors (surprise) however Oregon law does not allow a religious exemption for these cases.

In a somewhat bizarre twist, their attorneys (that's right, plural) have filed a motion requesting their bail money back in order to fully litigate the charges and research the constitutionality of state law. I am not an attorney, so I have no idea if this is common practice or not, but it seems to me that the ONLY reason this avenue is being pursued is because religion is involved. Imagine Hannibal Lecter getting arrested and then requesting his bail money back in order to fight the charges. Uh huh. That seems reasonable. They have also established a web site to broadcast their message and evoke sympathy for their plight. (You may find the link through the Religious Blog article referenced above.)

While I support their right to present some kind of defense for their actions, requesting a refund of bail money for the charge of murder of their child seems a bit...oh I don't know...ballsy to me. If their faith is so damn strong, why don't they pray or appeal to their own congregation for financial support. Better yet, why hire attorneys? Just pray, god will come through with an acquittal, I'm sure. Just like he came through with a cure for Ava.

Oregon has faced this situation before with the Followers of Christ Church and consequently removed the shield of protection for just these very cases.

The Followers of Christ Church got national attention a decade ago when the number of child deaths among parishioners was brought to light. The ensuing media coverage led to the removal of Oregon’s spiritual healing shield, which protected parents who used prayer instead of medicine to treat deadly diseases.

There are states that allow exemptions from prosecution based on religious beliefs, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has never upheld a case involving endangerment to another individual for religious reasons. Should the Worthington's lose their case (and I predict that they will) and try to appeal to the Supreme Court, the history of the Court in such cases is to cite the fact that the First Amendment Freedom of religious expression does not provide protection from prosecution for harming another person and will defer the case back to the state.

Mr. and Mrs. Worthington are murderers. The freedom of religious expression begins and ends with the individual. The Bill of Rights is not a by proxy document and, therefore, the rights guaranteed do not extend to children on behalf of their parents. There are many other laws and legal documents in place that do provide protection for minors and in particular, allow the state to intervene on the minor's behalf in the event that their parent(s) fail to provide reasonable and adequate care for them. Allowing a 15 month old to die of pneumonia without seeking any medical attention falls square into the category of failing to provide reasonable and adequate care.

I sincerely hope that national attention of this case will prompt investigation into this church. A count of the markers in the church graveyard indicates that several more children have died since the change in Oregon law, but no cases have been investigated because the women in the church generally decline prenatal treatment and usually give birth at home, so the births and deaths go unreported.

The wall of Separation of Church and State was not built to hide murderers.

***

Thursday, April 17, 2008

A Looming Recession Is Now Called A 'Rough Patch'

Posted by BGH

~
President Bush, in another awesome display of his infinite wisdom and ethereal insight declared the U.S. economy is in a 'rough patch'.

"We're in a rough patch right now," Bush said in answer to a question at a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

In the last two days there have been news stories regarding rising food prices, crude oil tipping out over $115 a barrel and increasing unemployment. Our president, the financial wizard that he is, thinks the best terminology to describe the flailing state of the economy is 'rough patch'. A fight with the wife over doing chores is a rough patch, the U.S. economical situation is more akin to pushing your wife over a cliff.

I can't say I am surprised by the comment though, George W. Bush is an excellent denialist and will dispute evidence a mile high in order to keep from admitting mistakes. This is just another example of his complete detachment from reality and propensity to diminish the seriousness of situations that may be on his shoulders.

People are losing their homes, stores and shops are closing up and it is becoming increasingly more expensive to feed a family, for fuck's sake, wake up GWB!!
----

Delusions Of The Desperate To Rationalize The Belief

Posted by BGH

~
What level of cognitive dissonance must one hold to believe that when confronted in tragedy a 'god' will save you while your friends, who attend the same Christian school, die around you?

A teen in New Zealand, along with a group of fellow students, was 'canyoning' in a national park when the group was taken over by a flash flood. There was an unfortunate series of event's where six students and an instructor from the school lost their lives while one student, Kish Proctor, managed to survive.

"All I can say is this is my story and this is what happened to me and God saved me," he told the Herald.

Kish does himself, whatever god he believes in, and his friends who lost their lives a very large disservice. It must be offensive to the families of those who were lost to listen to Kish credit 'god' with saving his life while their children perished in the raging water.

A common rationalization is that 'god' has a plan and he called the deceased 'home'. In an instance such as this story, it comes across as arrogant and self righteous to make the claim that your life, your future is somehow more important, more valuable than others who were not so fortunate as to have survived. I find this one of the most disgusting parts of god belief, that the faithful willfully insult the lives and importance of friends, family and even strangers by claiming they were spared by a divine hand while others perished without the same intervention.
----

Darwin's research available online

Posted by Pariahjane

Original Article

Charles Darwin's first draft and research notes will be available online for all to see!


Papers which led to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution were
previously only available to scholars at Cambridge University's
library

This release makes his private papers, mountains of notes, experiments and
research behind his world-changing publications available to the world for
free."


I think that making this information available to the public will be invaluable. I hope that schools will utilize Darwin's notes and research in their science classrooms to further education on evolution.


Unfortunately, when I was in high school I avoided science classes like the plague. It was only a few years ago that I tried to self educate myself about various topics including evolution. I'm excited to check out the website and hope others will as well.


Since we're on the topic of evolution, if anyone is going to be in the Philadelphia area in the next year or so, check out the Year of Evolution exhibit. It will be held by multiple museums such as the Penn Museum, The Franklin Institute and The Mutter Museum.

While I have yet to visit the Mutter Museum I understand that it's really a great (and weird) place to go. The Franklin Institute is a fantastic place to take kids because there are lots of exhibits that are hands on.


Visit the Site below to view his complete works:

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Women in Science - Emilie du Chatelet

Posted by JCE

***

Every time I research one of these women, I become more and more impressed by human abilities and less and less impressed with cultural laws. These women have left permanent footprints on the path of intellectual growth and yet their contributions are largely overlooked in the schoolbooks and by the media in favor of equally accomplished men. This gap in information has been our loss, but fortunately their work lives on, recognized or not.

Today's Woman in Science focuses on Emilie du Chatelet who, I must admit is my favorite so far. She received education because it was decided early on by her father that she would never achieve enough beauty to secure a good marriage. Born December 17, 1706, against all odds she succeeded in nearly everything she studied. She ran through tutors, frustrating them with endless questions and outpacing them intellectually. Fencing, riding and gymnastics were among her physical pursuits and by the age of 12 she was fluent in Latin, Greek, Italian and German. She was an accomplished musician, actress, songstress and dancer and a high-stakes gambler using mathematic formulations to assist her card skills. She did, in fact, get married, but she did so much more than that and I hope her father eventually wised up to the fact that by educating her he helped to nurture one of the most beautiful minds in history....

A synopsis of her work from Wikipedia:

In 1737, Châtelet published a paper entitled Dissertation sur la nature et la propagation du feu, based upon her research into the science of fire, that predicted what is today known as infra-red radiation and the nature of light. Her book Institutions de Physique (“Lessons in Physics”) appeared in 1740; it was presented as a review of new ideas in science and philosophy to be studied by her thirteen-year-old son, but it incorporated and sought to reconcile complex ideas from the leading thinkers of the time. In it she combined the theories of Gottfried Leibniz and the practical observations of Willem 's Gravesande to show that the energy of a moving object is proportional to its mass and the square of its velocity (E ∝ mv²), and not directly proportional, as had previously been believed by Newton, Voltaire and others. The exact formula was later shown to be Ek = (1/2) mv², where Ek is the kinetic energy of an object, m its mass and v its velocity.

In the year of her death, she completed the work regarded as her outstanding achievement: her translation into French, with her own commentary, of Newton’s Principia Mathematica, including her derivation from its principles of mechanics the notion of conservation of energy

Her personal life was almost as exciting as her work in mathematics. She married the Marquis Florent-Claude du Chastellet at age 19 and bore him three children. The marriage had been arranged and although they remained married, the couple agreed to live separate but respectful lives. She reportedly had four known affairs, the most famous and enduring was the affair with the philosopher, Voltaire with whom she remained close friends long after the affair ended. Her last affair with poet, Jean François de Saint-Lambert resulted in a pregnancy. She carried the child to term, but died shortly after the birth from an embolism. She was 42 when she died, but I think it is safe to say that she lived a very full and satisfying 42 years.

In a letter to King Frederick II of Prussia, Voltaire wrote that she was "a great man whose only fault was being a woman".

Read more about this remarkable woman at:

Wikipedia
Women In Science

***

What gives you the right?

Posted by Pariahjane

There is a fine line between being a menace and exercising free speech. It is one that Jon Clifford III crosses rather frequently.

Mr. Clifford is known as the Bully of the LIRR (Long Island Railroad).

Cowering commuters on the 8:02 a.m. from Long Beach to Penn Station say
they've witnessed Clifford scream, punch and poke, swat cellphones, pour coffee
over heads, and even throw an egg sandwich - an incident he denies but which
earned him the nickname "The Eggman" among fellow travelers.


This man has been arrested 10 times but:

None of the charges stick - a point prosecutors from Nassau County, Queens and Manhattan concede - because the victims never show up in court, he notes proudly.
He claims that he's sticking up for civility and exercising his right to free speech but his behavior is anything but civil. Frankly, it's despicable.

For example, the pouring coffee over a person's head incident? According to him in this article was caused by -

"Four hefty girls get on and yap, yap, yap," he recalled. Then one woman
nudged him, causing him to spill coffee on his pants. Clifford returned the
favor by pouring coffee on her pants. She poured the cup of joe on him again, so
he answered by dumping the contents of his cup on her head.


She nudged him? Perhaps it was an accident. Granted, the situation escalated but still, his behavior seems more harassing, not freedom of speech.

Another incident (link for whole article):

In the latest trial, three passengers and Clifford described how he screamed
at 19-year-old dramatic-arts student Nicholas Bender, who'd been talking on his
cellphone on the 8:03 a.m. from Long Beach.
Clifford waved his hand at the
kid, snapped his fingers in the kid's face, and started cursing loudly, all
agreed.
Clifford really blew a gasket - screaming "F- - -ing faggot!" - when
the kid then suggested, comically, that Clifford himself not blow his nose and
rustle his newspaper so loudly.
When fellow passenger Lydia Klein gave the
kid her business card, offering to be a witness should he call the cops,
Clifford slapped Klein's hand twice during a scuffle for the card, the witnesses
agreed.



Clifford even openly admits "clocking" a barely 5-foot-tall female passenger in the head with his fist. "


I commute as well and yes, it is very annoying when people talk loudly or are disruptive. However, that behavior does not give anyone a license to abuse and assault other passengers. He is not exercising his right to free speech. He's abusing other people's rights.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

What Obama Said Isn't Elitist, It's Honest

Posted by BGH

~
The recent speech given by Barack Obama, referenced in JCE's post, Hillary, Say Something Original....PLEASE!, isn't elitist or uppity as Faux (Fox) News and Hillary are trying to tell you it is. What he said was an honest and clear reflection on the psychological propensity for humans in distressful, disenfranchised situations to seek an outlet such as Mr. Obama said, "guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment". These people also turn to drugs, drinking or a sort of cognitive dissonance wherein they end up defending, often times vehemently, the institution that has caused the cynicism and those who have most wronged them.

Our country is in the shitter right now, we are in an illegal, dead end war, begun under false pretenses and lies, a flailing economy that has utterly taken a nose dive and an ineffective elitist government. Mr. Obama is absolutely correct in his statement and though he has called it a poor choice of words, as of this morning, he hasn't recanted the sentiment. In response to some of Mr. McCain's attacks of his statement, Mr. Obama essentially restated what he iterated in the speech, clarifying that, especially during the last eight years this sentiment has grown and if he were Mr. McCain, who is left with the task of defending the George W. Bush administration, he too would nitpick at his opponents statements to deflect attention away from the harm this president has done to the country.

I applaud Barack Obama for standing by his words and not giving in to the political pissing match, at least he has the wherewithal to speak to Americans like adults. That is the type of leader, who could restore some of the integrity America once had on the world stage.
----

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Hillary, Say Something Original....PLEASE!

Posted by JCE

***

Recently, Barack Obama gave a speech in Pennsylvania, which has received national attention for his choice of words to the voters. Here is copy of the text from the Huffington Post (emphasis added):

OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.


Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laughter), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.


This speech is not terribly significant, it isn't the best example of his speeches, it isn't a complete picture of his campaign platform and yet, the Clinton camp has chosen to jump on it and use it against him.

Mrs. Clinton has exhibited over and over again a willingness to sink to new depths in terms of campaign behavior. She isn't the first one to do this, but this tactic turns many people away from a candidate and has lost more than one political race. I, for one, would like to hear what she has to say in comparison to Mr. Obama. I would like to hear where she stands on issues and what her plan is to lead this country. I do not want to hear her take a bit from a speech Obama made and make more of it than necessary. In doing so, she gives more credence to his words than he ever intended.

The thing is, Barack has said several things I vehemently disagree with, most notably his penchant for blathering on about his faith. (In fact, the candidates - all of them - chose to forgo an opportunity to debate about science in order to debate about faith. WTF? Are these politicians or priests?) He has also been a moving force behind the Global Poverty Tax Bill. So, here we are - the dollar is bottoming out, our economy is going straight down the crapper and he wants a special tax to help impoverished countries. (Ummm...who do you think is going to help us when we are impoverished? Yeah. No one.)

Here is what she could have said: "I agree with Mr. Obama that middle-class Amercians are disgusted with their treatment by our current government. Mr. Obama made an excellent point regarding their frustration with the status quo. Change is needed and here is how I plan to change things if elected......"

But she didn't say that. Instead she chose to use this as an opportunity to degrade him. The problem with doing this is that it focuses attention on your opponent and since people, in general, do not like nasty insinuations they tend to look to the other person and evaluate their words for themselves. Very often they find that the person making the insinuations is making too much of it and will become sympathetic of the opponent.

So, Mrs. Clinton, with a few months left in the race, do you have anything to say that shows me you can stand up and think for yourself? That you are capable of understanding? That you actually have an original idea or thought? That you, like others before you, won't use fear and sensationalism to run your administration? Now is the time to prove yourself and while I was so hoping you would be the one to make a difference, based on your latest reaction to Mr. Obama's comment, I suspect you will bring more of the same to the White House and that is not acceptable to me.

***

Who made Morality?

Posted by Pariahjane

Over the weekend I had a conversation with someone about our childhoods. I grew up in a household where religion was non-existent; it was simply not an issue and not something that was generally talked about unless us kids had specific questions. I explained this to my friend and she asked ‘well, were you did learn right from wrong, then?’ Admittedly, I was a bit taken aback by this and got a bit flustered. I tried to explain to her that we learned right and wrong the same way everyone else did – by everyone around us, specifically our parents. She pressed a bit and I explained that I think morals are inherent in human beings and that we generally ‘do unto others as we would want them to do unto us’. Well, of course, the Golden Rule! I had a feeling that this little phrases and satisfied her that God had indeed given me morality regardless of whether I believed in him or not.

I didn’t want to press the issue. I didn’t want to point out that paganism also has it’s rules of morality, often known as the Wiccan Rede (or crede) – “An’ it harm none, do what you will’ or something along those lines. I didn’t want to say that if she looked up every single religion the majority of them would probably have something very similar to ‘the golden rule’ and that many of those religions probably pre-date Christianity.

In my defense, I was among polite company and didn’t think it appropriate to engage in a religious debate. And anyway, I’m dreadful at debating. Nevertheless, this conversation has been bouncing about in my head for these past few days.

I have a difficult time understanding why people can’t accept that perhaps the morals we find in religion are there only because those morals were established in a culture first. Human beings existed before religion did and our ancient ancestors had communities and families. It makes sense that if you’re a surly motherfucker who lies, cheats and kills you aren’t really going to be very welcomed into the community. We are a social species; we want other people to like us. We need other people to like us since we really can’t survive on our own. That is where morality comes from. It’s called humanity.

Morality is also incredibly subjective. What is morally acceptable in one culture is definitely not a-ok in another. I personally find the treatment of women in Middle Eastern cultures to be atrocious. To them, it’s completely acceptable (for the most part, anyway). I’m viewing their moral standards through the haze of my own.

I do not think that morality came from religion. I think that religions picked up on their (at the time) current vibe of morality and cultural taboos and perpetuated it. It was (and is) a means of population control. Let the people know what is ok and what is not and make sure they realize that if they don’t toe the line they are going to suffer consequences so great that it will haunt them long after they are dead.

God did not invent morality. Morality was made by the same people who made God. Man.