TIME to Graduate

QFTD

"Our souls belong to our bodies, not our bodies to our souls."  - Herman Melville

Hoffman's Keys

Mo at Neurophilosophy:

ON August 15th, 1951, an outbreak of hallucinations, panic attacks and psychotic episodes swept through the town of Saint-Pont-Esprit in southern France, hospitalizing dozens of its inhabitants and leaving five people dead. Doctors concluded that the incident occurred because bread in one of the town's bakeries had been contaminated with ergot, a toxic fungus that grows on rye. But according to investigative journalist Hank Albarelli, the CIA had actually dosed the bread with d-lysergic acid diethylamide-25 (LSD), an extremely potent hallucinogenic drug derived from ergot, as part of a mind control research project.

Although we may never learn the truth behind the events at Saint-Pont-Esprit, it is now well known that the United States Army experimented with LSD on willing and unwilling military personnel and civilians. Less well known is the work of a group of psychiatrists working in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, who pioneered the use of LSD as a treatment for alcoholism, and claimed that it produced unprecedented rates of recovery. Their findings were soon brushed under the carpet, however, and research into the potential therapeutic effects of psychedelics was abruptly halted in the late 1960s, leaving a promising avenue of research unexplored for some 40 years.

More here.  (h/t Scienceblogs, and Robin Varghese)

Hitchens on Beck-Dreck

Hitch in Slate:

so strong is the moral stature of the Rev. Dr Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement that even the white right prefers to pretend to emulate it. (This smarmy tactic long predates Glenn Beck, by the way: I remember Ralph Reed trying it when he ran the Christian Coalition more than 10 years ago and announced that he wanted to remodel the organization along the lines of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.) Thus, it is really quite rare to hear slurs against President Barack Obama that are based purely on the color of his skin. Even Beck himself has tried to back away from the smears of that kind that he has spread in the past. But it is increasingly common to hear allegations that Obama is either foreign-born or a Muslim. And these insinuations are perfectly emblematic of the two main fears of the old majority: that it will be submerged by an influx from beyond the borders and that it will be challenged.

This summer, then, has been the perfect register of the new anxiety, beginning with the fracas over Arizona's immigration law, gaining in intensity with the proposal by some Republicans to amend the 14^th Amendment so as to de-naturalize "anchor babies," cresting with the continuing row over the so-called "Ground Zero" mosque, and culminating, at least symbolically, with a quasi-educated Mormon broadcaster calling for a Christian religious revival from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

More Here.

QFTD

"A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to."  - Granville Hicks. 

I might add 'mistakes that he' before 'knows more.'  Just sayin'.

Dennett on A.I.

QFTD

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshiped anything but himself."  - Sir Richard Francis Burton

Unintelligent Design: Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve

Richard Dawkins Demonstrates Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe
Uploaded by blindwatcher. - Videos of the latest science discoveries and tech.

QFTD

"Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh."  - George Bernard Shaw

The Color of 1910

This rare series of photos was taken 100 years ago in Tsar Nicholas II's Russia.  The photographer took triplicate black and white photos, in quick succession, each with a red, green, and blue filter.  The resulting color photographs seem incredible to modern eyes, trained to see the distant past in different tones.

I have to admit that, though I always knew it was ridiculous to imagine the past appeared any different to the present, these photos have a jarring effect on me.  Remember that these were shot before the Russian Revolution, and the First and Second World Wars.  The full series can be found HERE.

(h/t 3QD)

QFTD

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."  - Thomas Jefferson

Crazy Like a Fox

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

A Protest by Prayer

Why don't people get behind a peaceful protest movement in which Muslims pray at ground zero, everyday, until hysteria boils over and then evaporates? A protest like this would expose the irrationality at the core of setting arbitrary geographical limits on where the faithful should worship without fear of persecution or harassment.

It would, judging from recent events, manifest some ugliness on which the media would feast, but perhaps a visible distillation of the emotions driving Cordoba opposition would end up being corrective.  Muslims could simultaneously exercise their right to peaceably assemble and their right to worship, as protest for being made to shoulder the collective guilt for actions taken by terrorists. Just a thought.

I'm no friend to religion. And when it comes to tolerance and human rights, Islam has certain structural, or doctrinal, challenges that have not been ameliorated by any significant reformation. As well, Imam Rauf may have said things that rub me the wrong way, though he's hardly an extremist maniac (our State Department employs him as an emissary). None of these factors, however, should prompt us to behave in a way that fuels the Jihadist argument that America is fighting a war against Islam, while also convincing moderates that they 'offend our sensibilities'. A tolerant America that embraces religious freedom, not just technically but truly, embodies precisely those values which Islamic Jihadis despise with every one of their few and pathetic fibers. That it would anger Islamists, alone, is not reason enough to support any position. Though, in this case, the position in question has the added quality of being in keeping with important American values.

QFTD

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."  - Oscar Wilde

Forget "Running Out of Steam..."

that will never happen.  Running out of gas, however, could be a different story.  Nobel laureate Robert Richardson says our cavalier use of helium is a serious threat.  Should party balloons cost $100 each?  I pity the pol who makes that argument.  "Hydrogen balloons for the kids" will not go over very well.

Raw-Foodists, Relent

Raw-food demagoguery never fails to irritate me in the very special way only a neo-luddite fad can.

Richard Wrangham covers most of the reasons in this great TED-style talk. Yes, certain compounds may be degraded by high temperatures, but vastly more nutrients are simultaneously made available for easy digestion (through cell-wall rupture, for instance). The ability to cook food played an integral role in our evolutionary success.


Harvard Thinks Big 2010 - Richard Wrangham - 'Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human' from HTB2 on Vimeo.
(h/t Dish)

QFTD

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."  - Steven Weinberg

Sunday Laugh

Aid for Pakistan's Flood Victims

QFTD

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."  - George Bernard Shaw

New(s) Formulae

QFTD

"Everybody hates me because I'm so universally liked."  - Peter de Vries

Light vs. Copyright

Was copyright law, or lack thereof, responsible for Germany's rapid industrial and economic expansion in the 19th century?  German historian Eckhard Höffner thinks so.  Frank Thadeusz in Der Spiegel:

Höffner has researched that early heyday of printed material in Germany and reached a surprising conclusion -- unlike neighboring England and France, Germany experienced an unparalleled explosion of knowledge in the 19th century.

German authors during this period wrote ceaselessly. Around 14,000 new publications appeared in a single year in 1843....  The situation in England was very different. "For the period of the Enlightenment and bourgeois emancipation, we see deplorable progress in Great Britain," Höffner states...

Indeed, only 1,000 new works appeared annually in England at that time -- 10 times fewer than in Germany -- and this was not without consequences. Höffner believes it was the chronically weak book market that caused England, the colonial power, to fritter away its head start within the span of a century, while the underdeveloped agrarian state of Germany caught up rapidly, becoming an equally developed industrial nation by 1900.

Even more startling is the factor Höffner believes caused this development -- in his view, it was none other than copyright law, which was established early in Great Britain, in 1710, that crippled the world of knowledge in the United Kingdom.

More here.

Dali on "What's My Line?"

TV gold:

(h/t Stephen Fry)

Stunning - STS-124 Launch w/ Sound

Prepare to be moved (starting at 2:00 mark).

QFTD

"When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, 'Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?'"  - Quentin Crisp

Israel, Iran, and Goldberg

Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus critique the reaction to Jeffrey Goldberg's article for the Atlantic, as well as the article itself.

QFTD

"Nostalgia isn't what it used to be." - Peter De Vries

Define 'Bafflegab'

At the presentation, Milton Smith was asked to briefly define [this] word. It was, he said succinctly, “multiloquence characterized by consummate interfusion of circumlocution or periphrasis, inscrutability, and other familiar manifestations of abstruse expatiation commonly utilized for promulgations implementing Procrustean determinations by governmental bodies.” Just so.

From Michael Quinion at World Wide Words.

The Outrage Will be Televised

When I heard Newt Gingrich say we'll allow a mosque to be built in Manhattan when the Saudis allow synagogues in Mecca, my reaction was one of physical revulsion. To hear such a bargain coming not from an uneducated airhead, but from a 2012 candidate who has historically enjoyed the labels of 'thinker' and policy-wonk, is as stunning as the metallic sound one hears after a severe bang on the head. Since when do we couple American ideals and policies to those of the very people we don't want to be like? I am confounded.

And for what stand the Democrats?  For shame.  For spineless shame.

I won't give up my personal Battle of Ideas, though Beinart thinks we, as a nation, may have already lost the war:

So almost nine years after September 11, we need to confront a few painful truths. First, while the military and counterintelligence aspects of the struggle against al Qaeda will likely last long into the future, the “war of ideas” is over. America has thrown in the towel...

Once upon a time, Republicans were so confident that the vast majority of Muslims preferred freedom to jihad that they believed the U.S. could install democracy in Iraq within months. Now, confronted with a group of Muslim Americans who want to build a cultural center that includes Jews and Christians on the board (how many churches and synagogues do that?), GOP leaders call them terrorists because they don’t share Benjamin Netanyahu’s view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Once upon a time, the “war on terror” was supposed to bring American values to Saudi Arabia. Now Newt Gingrich says we shouldn’t build a mosque in Lower Manhattan until the Saudis build churches and synagogues in Mecca—which is to say, we’re bringing Saudi values to the United States. I wonder how David Petraeus feels about all this. There he is, slogging away in the Hindu Kush, desperately trying to be culturally sensitive, watching GIs get killed because Afghans believe the U.S. is waging a war on Islam, and back home, the super-patriots on Fox News have… declared war on Islam...

Congratulations, Republicans, you’ve safeguarded ground zero against the insidious threat of religious liberty. I’ve always found going there a deeply moving experience, but for the time being, at least, I’ve lost my desire to go. Hallowed ground? After the unforgivable events of the last month, it’s become a little less hallowed for me.

And for me.  That hole in the ground, and the coming tower to fill it, stands for something.  It is a reminder of the atrocity committed against Americans of all faiths and none, by the forces of intolerance and medieval barbarism.

The number of times I have heard "they hate us for our freedom" flowing robotically from the mouths of conservatives is inestimable. Is it the case, then, that the Neo-Republican strategy is to defeat the terrorists by bargaining that freedom away?

Of course not. The real reason is every bit as bad, with the added property of being cynical. The hysteria we see pervading television and print is a mere calculation to rally the base in the worst way.  So I ask: is it worth it? To gain the levers of power for handful of years - this? Apparently, they think so.

Will we still be able to describe the first amendment to our children in a few years time - and with a straight face?  Or will we qualify that description with the follow up: "well, you can technically worship freely in the United States of America, but if too many people don't like the idea, you should probably go do it somewhere else."

Beinart's take here.

QFTD

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup."  - H. L. Mencken

Catholics Can Build a Church Next to a Playground...

but should they?  Jon Stewart on the non-mosque that's not at ground zero:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The New Science of Morality

Videos from the Edge conference The New Science of Morality can be found HERE.

Speakers include:  Roy Baumeister,  Paul Bloom,  Joshua D. Greene,  Jonathan Haidt,  Sam Harris,  Marc D. Hauser,  Josua Knobe,  Elizabeth Phelps,  David Pizarro.

Diablo Rojo

Rodrigo y Gabriela perform Diablo Rojo:

We Will Absolutely Say "I Told You So,"

repeatedly, as each new report of low-vaccination rate correlated outbreak emerges, and for as long as the misinformation is spread.  From NPR:

California is in the midst of its worst outbreak of whooping cough in a half-century. More than 2,700 cases have been reported so far this year — eight times last year's number at this point. Seven of the victims, all infants, have died.

And here's what really worries pediatricians like USC's Harvey Karp: Doctors thought they wiped out whooping cough when they developed vaccines decades ago.

The disease hits young children hardest, especially ones who are not vaccinated or who have not yet built up full immunity. The prescribed vaccination regimen begins with a shot at two months and continues until children are 5 years old. For many children, it can take that long for complete immunity to develop — and until then, they're vulnerable.

The California epidemic has raised plenty of questions about the role of vaccination and the increasing numbers of parents who decide not to vaccinate their children. California's Department of Public Health cites three schools in the state where 80 percent of parents have signed a "personal belief exemption" to keep their children from being vaccinated.

That's part of what's behind this epidemic, Dr. Karp tells NPR's Guy Raz. "And it's in part because the immunity of people who were immunized earlier has waned," he adds.

More here.

QFTD

"I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this."  - Emo Phillips

Love Can Get You Stoned...

A couple was discovered dead in Afganistan yesterday, having been stoned for planning to elope:

They were discovered by the Taliban on Sunday and stoned to death in front a crowd of about 150 men.

Amnesty International said it was the first confirming stoning in Afghanistan since the fall of Taliban rule in the 2001 US-led invasion. The Taliban-ordered killing comes at a time when international rights groups have raised worries that attempts to negotiate with them to bring peace to Afghanistan could mean a step backward for human rights in the country.

Read full report from UKPA.

Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer Spat

On the Dick Cavett Show:

Big tip to 3QD!

Scary Babies, or Scare You Maybes

Rep. Louis Gohmert goes a little bit (OK, maybe a lot) nuts when asked by Anderson Cooper to provide evidence for the claim he made on the House floor that terror-babies are infiltrating the U.S.



I would just like to point out that it wouldn't matter much whether or not a terrorist had U.S. citizenship.  One wouldn't have to be a citizen, of course, to be in the country for extended periods of time.  Nor does citizenship protect one from being surveilled by the DHS.  So it seems Gohmert's "loophole" argument is instead against the 14th amendment, which, as we've seen, many Republicans are in favor of altering.  Not for fear of terrorist babies, but rather to strip citizenship from the innocent babies of undocumented immigrants (for, axiomatically, they had no part in any scheme).  Punish the children for the sins of their fathers (which is not without biblical precedent, it should be said - it's right there in the decalogue).

However, the motive here is so clearly to scare the credulous into reactionary voting.  That Rep. Gohmert was a judge and yet shows so much irritation at the presumption that he should provide evidence for such a claim is deeply troubling.

Science and Religious Conflict Panel

High Stakes, Fates, and Rogue States

Image credit: Alex Williamson 

Jeffrey Goldberg's cover story for The Atlantic is a must read for anyone interested in the possible permutations of US and Israeli policy toward Iran.  He thinks, more likely than sanctions working or Obama launching a strike,

that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft. (It’s so crowded, in fact, that the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility is the greater Middle East, has already asked the Pentagon what to do should Israeli aircraft invade its airspace. According to multiple sources, the answer came back: do not shoot them down.)

In these conversations, which will be fraught, the Israelis will tell their American counterparts that they are taking this drastic step because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people. The Israelis will also state that they believe they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years. They will tell their American colleagues that Israel was left with no choice. They will not be asking for permission, because it will be too late to ask for permission.

When the Israelis begin to bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the formerly secret enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research center at Esfahan, and possibly even the Bushehr reactor, along with the other main sites of the Iranian nuclear program, a short while after they depart en masse from their bases across Israel—regardless of whether they succeed in destroying Iran’s centrifuges and warhead and missile plants, or whether they fail miserably to even make a dent in Iran’s nuclear program—they stand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever; of sparking lethal reprisals, and even a full-blown regional war that could lead to the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Iranians, and possibly Arabs and Americans as well; of creating a crisis for Barack Obama that will dwarf Afghanistan in significance and complexity; of rupturing relations between Jerusalem and Washington, which is Israel’s only meaningful ally; of inadvertently solidifying the somewhat tenuous rule of the mullahs in Tehran; of causing the price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973; of placing communities across the Jewish diaspora in mortal danger, by making them targets of Iranian-sponsored terror attacks, as they have been in the past, in a limited though already lethal way; and of accelerating Israel’s conversion from a once-admired refuge for a persecuted people into a leper among nations.

If a strike does succeed in crippling the Iranian nuclear program, however, Israel, in addition to possibly generating some combination of the various catastrophes outlined above, will have removed from its list of existential worries the immediate specter of nuclear-weaponized, theologically driven, eliminationist anti-Semitism; it may derive for itself the secret thanks (though the public condemnation) of the Middle East’s moderate Arab regimes, all of which fear an Iranian bomb with an intensity that in some instances matches Israel’s; and it will have succeeded in countering, in militant fashion, the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, which is, not irrelevantly, a prime goal of the enthusiastic counter-proliferator who currently occupies the White House.

Read the full article here. It also includes a short video interview with Hitch and Amis on the subject.

QFTD

"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."  - George Bernard Shaw

Warren For Consumer Financial Protection

Reid Cramer thinks a vehemently bitter confirmation battle will meet anyone President Obama nominates to head the newly minted Consumer Financial Protection Agency (really, you don't say?). There is in this fight, however, an opportunity to illuminate for the public the fundamental contrasts between the Neo-Republican and the Democratic parties, as they head into an election.  A tough contest could also set the tenor of relations between the new regulator and the regulated, which should not, of course, be a cozy and comfortable one.  It's hard to disagree:

A battle against congressional antagonists and an array of financial firms can readily be turned into political advantage. By creating a clear contrast in which Obama and the Democrats line up on the side of families facing off against financiers, the president can embolden his political supporters and rally the base before the fall elections.

Perhaps more consequentially, a high-profile confirmation battle can serve vital policy goals. This is because effective government oversight requires competence and vigilance, but the essential—often overlooked—ingredient is empowerment. Regulatory agencies have to resist forming cozy relationships. At many turns, regulatory law opts for discretion rather than dictates. This means an agency can turn up the heat or turn it down with a large degree of autonomy. History shows that it takes a large dose of political will for an agency and its officials to resist the dangerous phenomenon of regulatory capture. There may be no better way to demonstrate resolve than by commencing the inevitable battle at the get-go, during the confirmation process...

But the same interest groups will line up against any nominee. And if that’s the case, the show ought to begin with a star. Warren's visibility and public credibility certainly can be tremendous assets in such a clash. She's a highly effective communicator and has received high marks in running the Congressional Oversight Panel (which should mitigate some of the whispers that she doesn't have sufficient management experience). She will garner the full throated endorsements of many ready to back her up during the confirmation battle

Winning this showdown is crucial for getting the policy reform process underway. Whoever is nominated, he or she should be expected to explain clearly how the law establishes a new accountability framework and be prepared to fight in the regulatory trenches to implement it. Exerting authority right out of the gate will make it easier for the new agency to play tough. Issuing cease-and-desist orders, filing lawsuits, and seeking damages should become commonplace and signal that there will be no tolerance for the marketing of financial products deemed unfair or deceptive. A high-profile confirmation battle—supported and waged by the White House—will not only be a clear demonstration there's a new cop on the beat, but that the Obama administration is ready and willing to do what it takes to put the financial pirates out of business for good.  (Reid Cramer's full article here)

There are few in Washington who come across as trustworthy as does Elizabeth Warren.  In fact, indeed I may regret saying this, she sometimes gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.  She's tough, honest, and can, with ease, communicate the justifications for whatever actions she may take.  That is why Wall-Street is scared of her.  Hopefully they can channel that fear into a proper respect for the new regulations, mild as they may be.

*Ha*

Megan Carpentier in TPM:
"To many conservatives, almost everything is a secret liberal plot: from fluoride in the water to medicare reimbursements for end-of-life planning with your doctor to efforts to teach evolution in schools. But Conservapedia founder and Eagle Forum University instructor Andy Schlafly -- Phyllis Schlafly's son -- has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity.

If you're behind on your physics, the Theory of Relativity was Albert Einstein's formulation in the early 20th century that gave rise to the famous theorum that E=mc², otherwise stated as energy is equal to mass times the square of the speed of light. Why does Andy Schlafly hate the theory of relativity? We're pretty sure it's because he's decided it doesn't square with the Bible.

In the entry, "Counterexamples to Relativity," the authors (including Schlafly) write:

The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.^[1]

To what does that reference lead? Why, a note by Schlafly:

See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by Barack Obama. Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold"

Science, Society and the Meaning of Life

Lord Martin Rees, Patricia Smith Churchland, AC Grayling:

Consider the Morality of Allied Bombing on the Anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -

A truly great discussion.

QFTD

I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a week sometimes to make it up.  - Mark Twain

QFTD x 2

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.  - Stephen Jay Gould

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - Carl Sagan

Hitchens on Goldblog

Fareed Zakaria Returns Award to ADL

Fareed Zakaria has taken a principled stand against the ADL's opposition to the Cordoba Center, an opposition blatantly in conflict with the organization's own charter.  His letter to the ADL explains:

You are choosing to use your immense prestige to take a side that is utterly opposed to the animating purpose of your organization. Your own statements subsequently, asserting that we must honor the feelings of victims even if irrational or bigoted, made matters worse.

This is not the place to debate the press release or your statements. Many have done this and I have written about it in Newsweek and on my television show – both of which will be out over the weekend. The purpose of this letter is more straightforward. I cannot in good conscience hold onto the award or the honorarium that came with it and am returning both. I hope that it might add to the many voices that have urged you to reconsider and reverse your position on this issue.  This decision will haunt the ADL for years if not decades to come. Whether or not the center is built, what is at stake here is the integrity of the ADL and its fidelity to its mission. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain your reputation.

Cordoba Article Here.
Letter to ADL Here.

Palin/Cavuto Schooled in Civics/Logic

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Californigaytion
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

But You Can't Prove There AREN'T Any....

Monstrous Wildlife from Frank Robnik on Vimeo.

Krauss on Religion

Lawrence Krauss in Scientific American:

Surprisingly, the strongest reticence to speak out often comes from those who should be most worried about silence. Last May I attended a conference on science and public policy at which a representative of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences gave a keynote address. When I questioned how he reconciled his own reasonable views about science with the sometimes absurd and unjust activities of the Church—from false claims about condoms and AIDS in Africa to pedophilia among the clergy—I was denounced by one speaker after another for my intolerance.

Religious leaders need to be held accountable for their ideas. In my state of Arizona, Sister Margaret McBride, a senior administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, recently authorized a legal abortion to save the life of a 27-year-old mother of four who was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from severe complications of pulmonary hypertension; she made that decision after consultation with the mother’s family, her doctors and the local ethics committee. Yet the bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olm­sted, immediately excommunicated Sister Margaret, saying, “The mother’s life cannot be preferred over the child’s.” Ordinarily, a man who would callously let a woman die and orphan her children would be called a monster; this should not change just because he is a cleric.

More Here.

Hitch on the Bitch

Hitchens writes about his illness in Vanity Fair:

The notorious stage theory of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, whereby one progresses from denial to rage through bargaining to depression and the eventual bliss of “acceptance,” hasn’t so far had much application in my case. In one way, I suppose, I have been “in denial” for some time, knowingly burning the candle at both ends and finding that it often gives a lovely light. But for precisely that reason, I can’t see myself smiting my brow with shock or hear myself whining about how it’s all so unfair: I have been taunting the Reaper into taking a free scythe in my direction and have now succumbed to something so predictable and banal that it bores even me. Rage would be beside the point for the same reason. Instead, I am badly oppressed by a gnawing sense of waste. I had real plans for my next decade and felt I’d worked hard enough to earn it. Will I really not live to see my children married? To watch the World Trade Center rise again? To read—if not indeed write—the obituaries of elderly villains like Henry Kissinger and Joseph Ratzinger? But I understand this sort of non-thinking for what it is: sentimentality and self-pity. Of course my book hit the best-seller list on the day that I received the grimmest of news bulletins, and for that matter the last flight I took as a healthy-feeling person (to a fine, big audience at the Chicago Book Fair) was the one that made me a million-miler on United Airlines, with a lifetime of free upgrades to look forward to. But irony is my business and I just can’t see any ironies here: would it be less poignant to get cancer on the day that my memoirs were remaindered as a box-office turkey, or that I was bounced from a coach-class flight and left on the tarmac? To the dumb question “Why me?” the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply: Why not?...

It’s quite something, this chemo-poison. It has caused me to lose about 14 pounds, though without making me feel any lighter. It has cleared up a vicious rash on my shins that no doctor could ever name, let alone cure. (Some venom, to get rid of those furious red dots without a struggle.) Let it please be this mean and ruthless with the alien and its spreading dead-zone colonies. But as against that, the death-dealing stuff and life-preserving stuff have also made me strangely neuter. I was fairly reconciled to the loss of my hair, which began to come out in the shower in the first two weeks of treatment, and which I saved in a plastic bag so that it could help fill a floating dam in the Gulf of Mexico. But I wasn’t quite prepared for the way that my razorblade would suddenly go slipping pointlessly down my face, meeting no stubble. Or for the way that my newly smooth upper lip would begin to look as if it had undergone electrolysis, causing me to look a bit too much like somebody’s maiden auntie. (The chest hair that was once the toast of two continents hasn’t yet wilted, but so much of it was shaved off for various hospital incisions that it’s a rather patchy affair.) I feel upsettingly de-natured. If Penélope Cruz were one of my nurses, I wouldn’t even notice. In the war against Thanatos, if we must term it a war, the immediate loss of Eros is a huge initial sacrifice.

On the Limitations of Lungworm Experience

ADL Doublethink

Peter Beinart rips into the Anti-Defamation League for their self-defeating opposition to the planned Muslim community center near ground zero:

For a long time now, the ADL seems to have assumed that it could exempt Israel from the principles in its charter and yet remain just as faithful to that charter inside the United States. But now the chickens are coming back home to America to roost. The ADL’s rationale for opposing the Ground Zero mosque is that “building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain—unnecessarily—and that is not right.” Huh? What if white victims of African-American crime protested the building of a black church in their neighborhood? Or gentile victims of Bernie Madoff protested the building of a synagogue? Would the ADL for one second suggest that sensitivity toward people victimized by members of a certain religion or race justifies discriminating against other, completely innocent, members of that religion or race? Of course not. But when it comes to Muslims, the standards are different. They are different in Israel, and now, it is clear, they are different in the United States, too.

What most churns my stomach is that those who seek to ban this center seem oblivious to their becoming ever more like the forces of intolerance we would legitimately oppose overseas.  This is the United States, to highlight the obvious.  We do not ban religious centers, and let's please hope we never will.

The ADL's charter says one thing, while the ADL itself is entirely happy to do the other.  It is a true shame.

More Here.