1. What Will Change Everything?

Comment #310688 by Robert Maynard on January 1, 2009 at 8:16 pm

the end of biological deterioration (aging) as a cause of death.

2. Obama the Secularist

Comment #280167 by Robert Maynard on November 7, 2008 at 4:24 am

A great speech, but seriously, how many god-damn times is this video going to get posted?

3. Religion: Bound to believe?

Comment #275711 by Robert Maynard on October 31, 2008 at 12:40 pm

I have Religion Explained in my bookcase, having snatched it from my dad's bookcase a few years ago, but I never took the time to read through it all. Now I'm interested again.

4. Video Game Pulled Due to Qur'an Quotes

Comment #266262 by Robert Maynard on October 18, 2008 at 1:28 pm

1) The artist behind the song, Toumani Diabate, is apparently a "devout Muslim".
2) The song, Tapha Niang, which you can hear for free on Diabate's MySpace page, isn't half bad.
3) The design of the game, LittleBigPlanet, is premised on incredible customisation and user-generated content, and some particularly angry fans have already floated the idea of flooding the servers with levels with Qur'anic verses scribbled all over everything in protest.

Could this foot get any more shot?

5. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248726 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2008 at 5:50 pm

An excellent point.
After all, the church shown in this video is not the church she was a member of until 2002. The video of THAT church is in video in the other post on this matter, also produced by the talk2action blog. :P

Remember when people tried to charge that Ron Paul was connected to racist newsletters? It was too tangential, too vague, and too hard to pin on him, and it fell flat. It distracted people from the more important task.. making the case that dismantling most of the government is probably a really bad idea.

This is kind of the same situation. I guess at the end of the day there's still more than enough meat to chew on without digging at her relationship with far-far-far-far-right churches.

6. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248605 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2008 at 2:16 pm

The irony is that the more you and others engage in this kind of panic, witchhunt approach the more likely you are to drive people to vote for Palin.

7. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248492 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2008 at 10:18 am

Neuro, Wright's radical opinions were largely questioned for their political content, and used to call Obama's patriotism and views on race relations into question - asking how closely aligned his beliefs were with Wright if he had happily tolerated hearing things like "GOD DAMN AMERICA" at church before receiving public scrutiny. When people called him on it, he formally denounced Wright's radical opinions, made clear his incidental reasons for maintaining a connection to the church and Wright up to that point, and promptly left the church. Deeds to words.

Now, what is being called into question here (by here I mean the general scrutiny of her background, not these two videos, which make incidental references to the depth of her belief) is the actual content of Sarah Palin's religious beliefs, and the direct evidence of how they have in fact influenced her politics in the past, and could influence her political opinions going forward. Can it be said that his crazy former pastor shaped Obama's views on foreign policy? No? Okay, how about Palin's? Soldiers in Iraq are on "a mission from God," eh? Was that statement.. not scary to anyone here? Anybody at all?

Will she address the concern over these beliefs, and distance herself from this church of nutbags? No, because that's part of the reason she's on the ticket in the first place.

8. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248454 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2008 at 9:08 am

"I can't concentrate because someone in the background has a laugh like a monkey."
I know right? Yikes. Sounds like a zoo. "I didn't come from no ape" indeed.

9. YouTube Removes Viral Video on Palin's Churches For Inappropriate Content

Comment #248321 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2008 at 4:02 am

It's a funny example of Dawkin's Mount Improbable metaphor. :P
From 2000 years in the future it seems highly improbable that a belief like that could last so long without payoff, yet when you look at the generational gradualism it rode in on it starts to make sense :D

10. YouTube Removes Viral Video on Palin's Churches For Inappropriate Content

Comment #248298 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2008 at 3:35 am

Reposted from my blog on this: The scenes in that video are nothing short of insane, fevered delirium. It's how the best ones all work. Heat those brains up, make 'em all soft and supple and suggestible, then they're yours.
What is the functional difference between those revival sessions and a drug-fueled rave? The Christian answer is presumably that the passion comes from a purer place. This is debatable, and in fact quantifiable and researchable (if we can somehow measure the brain states of someone jumping around in a Jesus-derived ecstasy and someone jumping around in an ecstasy-derived ecstasy :P)
There doesn't seem to be a functional difference in the outcome - these are not human beings behaving in rational ways. While fundamentalists like this rail against secularism and evolution, they bring the truth on themselves by acting and sounding more like animals here than anyone I've ever met. Moreso than even the few ravers I've seen in my fairly sensible life. "If evolution's true why don't we just get together in groups and holler nonsense sounds like a bunch of apes?" Oh wait.

...

Like Mr. Engle there at the end of the video, I also think it's necessary to shed light on the so-called "underground church" he describes as fast as possible. He says "once they get the stage, it's over with". I agree, but not in the way he seems to mean.
Hopefully our grandchildren will look back on this kind of insanity the same way we can look back at the historical popularity of cigarettes, or the use of asbestos in construction. Students will learn all about our long-lasting love affair with delirium, the ease with which it can hijack ones better judgment, and the great diversity of spiritual inebriation it yielded - from the wine-fueled orgies of Bacchus to the tongue-flapping rock concerts of Pentecostalism.

..you know, unless Jesus returns. ;)

* * *

Tyler Durden,
From a recent Salon piece worth the read (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index.html)

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'"

11. Dark matter 'bridge to nowhere' found in cosmic void

Comment #247716 by Robert Maynard on September 15, 2008 at 12:53 am

"Bridge to nowhere.."
I'm trying to work in a Sarah Palin zinger here, but my heart's just not in it. :|

12. Our scientists must nail the creationists

Comment #247213 by Robert Maynard on September 14, 2008 at 6:14 am

thewhitepearl
Okay, either/or/or :P
I'm just sayin', without preferential voting it doesn't seem to make sense to vote for a third party candidate, because at the end of the day most would-be supporters of independents would be too afraid to vote for their favourite in case they hurt the "lesser evil" major party they'd prefer, so the only support they ever seem to get are protest voters and people not fully aware of the gravity of their choice.
It's always worth remembering that if Nader was not a candidate in 2000, Gore would have very likely won Florida and been the President for 2001-2004, and probably til today. :(

13. Our scientists must nail the creationists

Comment #247196 by Robert Maynard on September 14, 2008 at 5:15 am

thewhitepearl,
I hear America doesn't even have preferential voting, so if you bother going into a booth, yeah, you kinda do have to be either or. :P

14. Our scientists must nail the creationists

Comment #247081 by Robert Maynard on September 13, 2008 at 11:46 pm

SnowyDoc
Yar, there's a timeout. I've made it a habit to just tap ctrl-a ctrl-c before pressing post so I don't lose long messages. :D

robotaholic
Huh? Who thinks they're Jesus? I don't understand.

15. Comedian Sabina Guzzanti 'insulted Pope' in poofter devils gag

Comment #245935 by Robert Maynard on September 11, 2008 at 2:44 pm

yikes, tough crowd.

16. Bizarre Anti-Spore Website Takes Issue WIth Stance On Creationism

Comment #244908 by Robert Maynard on September 9, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Definitely satire. :P
The entry about National Geographic and SimCity were over the top enough to change my mind.

17. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242154 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 12:34 pm

"Are these the same democrats that employ that little toad in Illnois who ridiculed an atheist during his testimony for not believing in god in "the Land of Lincoln"? Are these our saviors? The ones to deliver us from the evils of American stupidity?"

It's a matter of ideology more than individuals. There are of course social conservatives in the Democratic party, particularly in some rural districts where you'd have to be to have any chance of getting elected. But it's not like it's a club that gets to kick disagreeable people out to maintain brand discipline. Look at that slug Joe Lieberman!
That toad from Illinois is "employed" by her constituents.
The Democrats are worth the support of atheists mainly because it will be an easier task for secular progressives to mould the Democratic party and staff it with people who are on their side, than to attempt to do the same with the Republicans, which is way too infested with the far far far Christian right.

18. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242132 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 12:14 pm

it's an easy B), for me at least.

19. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242104 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 11:42 am

To be fair, elements of the media did do exactly what they're doing now with Palin to Obama with the Wright business, and even after he repudiated Wright, left the church and gave a speech responding to the controversy, Fox pundits and McCain surrogates still take the odd opportunity to try and hang it around his neck, as recently as the "how many houses" business. I doubt people wouldn't be making the same sort of assumptions if he never addressed it and didn't leave the church. We're just going to have to wait to see how or if Palin responds to all of this.
The difference here is that the gossip is carrying on unabated without any response from the McCain campaign, partly because they're in the middle of their convention and partly because there's so much else to respond to, the AIP being one of the juiciest right now. :|

20. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242087 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 11:24 am

Bamlett,
for what it's worth, Palin's church is a pentecostal church, which specifically holds as doctrine that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God - ie. literalism, seven 24 hour days, James Ussher and all that.
As for whether she herself is subscribes to their young earth creationist doctrine, we'll have to ask her that when the campaign decides to let her out of her bunker for a press conference or a TV interview or something.
If you wanted to play the induction game, all we apparently know is that she is a Christian, says crazy Christian stuff on other topics, is from a literalist church, and her quoted 'teach the controversy' remarks imply she sees a measurable amount of merit in creationism (young earth or old earth?), as opposed to none. Everyone familiar with the purpose of the 'teach the controversy' meme in the 'wedge' strategy knows not to take her call for innocent curiosity at face value.

From my own limited experience, I have a friend who's a pentecostal Christian, and I spent several weeks attending his church for a university assignment. Those guys are the real deal, tongue talking and all that. No one I spoke with was old earth. Science and the Bible really seem like oil and water to them.

21. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242052 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 10:51 am

Al, I amended the childish ending to my original comment but unfortunately you saw it before it was updated. Here's the thrust of my edited comment.

"You charged that his campaign had not clearly laid out what he intended to do, to "change" as President. Quote "What "Change" does Obama propose? ... How is he functionally different from McSame?" That's what you asked, facetiously or no.
Having been shown what he says he'll do, you instead called him a liar on page 3, which was never under discussion, and on that basis felt free to ignore the rest, cheerfully ignoring the fact that your question has been answered. Don't move the goalposts on me, Al."

So here's the thing: there are specific policies in that pdf file. I admire his community service for college education idea, and no other candidate remaining supports science as strongly as he does. But don't dodge what you originally asked, which was "what change is he proposing?" Perhaps this was simply an error of clarification, but you didn't ask anyone to prove that he's never lied and is a sinless lamb, and you didn't ask people to recite policy papers from memory. The change he's proposing is right there, lies or not. Now you're accusing me of trying to brush your question aside because I essentially said "Do your own research"
It's not difficult to see foreign policy isn't his strongest suit, besides that mistake about Russia the foreign policy section of that pdf is the sparsest. That's the hole Joe Biden is intended to plug up.

Change for me has meant a very simple issue from the beginning, as I'm not a US citizen: Supreme Court appointments. Stevens will probably kick the bucket in the next four years, and he's one of the good guys.
Obama will put secular, liberal judges on the Supreme Court, McCain will put social conservative judges on the court that please reptiles like Rev. Pat Robertson and Dr. Dobson. This is a matter of record. I mean, that's just it, for me. Done. I'd donate if I was legally allowed. That shit is too important to ignore with a protest vote. (EDIT: Oh, you already said that too.)
The rest of Obama's policy promises are simply icing on the cake.

22. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242028 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 10:27 am

Woah slow down, Al: What else have I got?

You've demonstrated that he received money from lobbyists as a junior senator, with an article from 2006 (which didn't mention your smear about donations from kids, so we'll ignore that uncited claim for now)
The statement says "unlike other candidates, he refuses to accept campaign (that's Presidential campaign now) contributions". Now show that he's received lobbyist money since February 2007, since he announced his run for president, and released these policy papers explaining how much he intends to put the squeeze on them, and I'll be happy to call him a liar on that front.
In fact I'll be happy to call him a liar if he doesn't do any part of what is outlined in these policy papers - and I'll be really disappointed too, because some of this internet/transparency stuff is Democracy 2.0-style gold. I understand that this may be all puff talk. But that's not what you charged.
You charged that his campaign had not clearly laid out what he intended to do, to "change" as President. Quote "What "Change" does Obama propose? ... How is he functionally different from McSame?" That's what you asked, facetiously or no.
Having been shown what he says he'll do, you instead called him a liar on page 3, which was never under discussion, and on that basis felt free to ignore the rest, cheerfully ignoring the fact that your question has been answered. Don't move the goalposts on me, Al.

23. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241996 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 9:41 am

Good grief Al,
You're on the internet, you are already halfway there. So please don't pretend the Obama campaign hasn't made policy information available on its website, or that his specific policies haven't been discussed in the press. Don't pretend you can't type in something as simple as "Political positions of Barack Obama" and "Political positions of John McCain" in Wikipedia and compare them yourself.
Obama has clearly enunciated what "Change" is supposed to mean in the context of an Obama presidency throughout his 19 month campaign, and it's nothing but sheer laziness on your part to shrug and claim "change" is an empty buzz word simply because you haven't bothered to look into it.

EDIT: the link Gregg posted is as good as anything I s'pose, but really, this stuff's been in circulation for a while now. Didn't anyone see his tax policy next to McCain's in the NYTimes? Thing of beauty. :P

Now if only I lived in America :|

24. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241710 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 1:53 am

Flux, you're in the pocket of Big Moron.

Besides what amounts to about 11 years in elected offices, Obama has also been running his campaign organisation for the same amount of time as Palin has been governor of Alaska. This organisation employs hundreds if not thousands, has built a national movement of volunteers, raised over 300 million dollars of capital, and deftly out-competed the presumed nominee Hillary Clinton. So don't try and tell me Obama hasn't run anything, and run it extremely efficiently.
The campaigns mobilisation during the primaries and caucuses can only be described as hyper-competent.

Take a look at what Palin's actually done in those offices. Palin's executive "experience" left Wasilla in debt, and she is currently under investigation for abuse of power. Awesome work!

EDIT: Abiotic oil? Ohh gawd..
Even if there was more oil than we currently presume there to be.. it's not a good sol- oh..
According to the Atheist Conservative, AGW isn't real either! Delightful. Now we know the kind of nutjob we're dealing with.

25. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236627 by Robert Maynard on August 24, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Quick skim of Wiki, library of babel for the lazy learner: "Jupiter has been called the Solar System's vacuum cleaner, because of its immense gravity well and location near the inner Solar System. It receives the most frequent comet impacts of the Solar System's planets."

People who note this as evidence of 'design' should also understand that Jupiter is likewise credited with the chaotic coalescence of the asteroid belt and the rocky inner planets, including Earth.

26. To learn biology, just pick up the console

Comment #231049 by Robert Maynard on August 15, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Will Wright is an atheist, btw. :P

In regards to the creature creator being more of an "intelligent design" simulator, keep in mind that Wright has said that your power to sculpt your creature is not as unlimited as it has been in presentations and the Creature Creator demo. Players of the demo may note that each body part has a cost. You earn 'genetic' points each generation of your creature, with which you 'buy' bits and pieces to improve your creature incrementally. While the design of a creature is fully within the hands of the player, there is no doubt that it's a design trajectory, not an enormous leap of 'special creation'.
When you think about it in terms of the old geological paradigms of catastrophism vs. gradualism, Spore is unequivocally teaching concepts of gradualism, and that is more than enough to start eroding belief in creationism. When 66% of Americans believe humans were created by God in the last 10,000 years, this has the potential to be a very eye-opening piece of software for kids.

Another recent item of news is that Spore features religions. In the Tribal phase your creatures develop religious rituals and traditions that may last through the Civilisation phase. The article I saw this in also mentioned that a small group of 'militant atheists' had been protesting this feature, which I found bizarre. :|
I think watching a religious tradition evolve on screen is going to have the same kind of effect as teaching comparative religion.

27. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #221715 by Robert Maynard on July 30, 2008 at 3:06 am

Careful, stephenray, anyone not familiar with typical sample sizes might be led to believe that 0.5% is WAY too small to draw conclusions from! You wouldn't want to mislead people, would you?

So let's not be deceptive. 1,400 even 600 students, the number of Muslim students interviewed for this survey, is a larger sample size than many polls taken during the US presidential primaries. [Link]
Even now in the general election, it's not common to see sample sizes larger than 1400.[Link]

These are national polls we're talking about. One of the general election polls there has a sample size of 3000 "likely voters". Well holy crap, that's less than 0.001% of Americans! Less than one thousandth of one percent. Well that's not fair, only 56% of America actually turned out to vote in 2004. Let's just say 0.002%. Much better.

What about that recent Pew poll about religion in America? They had an impressively large sample size of 35,000 American adults, but it was also less than half a percent of American adults.

All polls are 'conditional' on the quality of the sample size. This survey was conducted by an organisation of qualified statisticians who know how to put together statistically valid surveys. These are perfectly valid findings. What percentage of Muslim students would convince you? 1? 5? 10? 25? 50?

P.S Dammit, I took too long to write this.. kevmont beat me to the basic point. :P

P.P.S. Clarification.. 1,400 was the total number of students polled, including non-muslim students. 600 Muslim students in total were interviewed [Link], which is a little lower than a lot of the general election polls I linked to. Even so, those polls are national. This is a poll of a very specific demographic.

28. Jefferson Bible reveals Founding Father's view of God, faith

Comment #214371 by Robert Maynard on July 20, 2008 at 10:38 am

No one here yet, which is why I said "it WILL be said". I pre-empted it, hopefully. :P

I keep seeing remarks like that on other articles here. When it's said on articles which have already been posted at this portal it's kind of understandable, but sometimes it's just STUFF that is interesting and people are like "Duh, geez, obviously".

29. Jefferson Bible reveals Founding Father's view of God, faith

Comment #214367 by Robert Maynard on July 20, 2008 at 10:33 am

It will be said by some here, as it often is, that this is old news. What reason to publish it then, if I know it? :P
Catch your tongues, smartypants. If it's not new to you it's because it wasn't written just for your benefit.
I'm tired of reading people complain to let people know that they know so much. :P

30. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212415 by Robert Maynard on July 17, 2008 at 7:25 am

Judson: Hey guys, let's get rid of the term Darwinism. I think it's continued use in our culture promotes a limited conception of what has really grown into a really expansive field of diverse research

Creationists: Yeah, I see your point. Okay, we'll stop using that term. Because we respect you.


Good luck with that. Seriously, this seems as dumb as the call a short while ago to just start calling evolution a law instead of a theory to shut up creationists. Yeah, that'll work. Awesome. Or not.

31. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210979 by Robert Maynard on July 15, 2008 at 10:34 am

people always want "something more, something more, something more."

32. Host Desecration is Old Anti-Semitic Nonsense

Comment #210088 by Robert Maynard on July 13, 2008 at 10:54 pm

The historical recounting of host desecration and the other shit Catholics used to get away with was one of the saddest parts of The End of Faith.

Some of them clearly wish they still had that kind of muscle today.

33. An Irishman's Diary

Comment #209790 by Robert Maynard on July 13, 2008 at 11:03 am

You scored 93% Beginner,
100% Intermediate,
100% Advanced,
and 80% Expert!

Ha, same as Peacebeuponme! :D
Neat quiz.

34. Biologist Teaches the Nation's Judges About Genetics

Comment #203400 by Robert Maynard on July 2, 2008 at 8:14 pm

utelme said:

I meant that if our genes predispose us to certain forms of behaviour then "free will" is not entirely free. If this is the case then, to be fair, courts should take into account these genetic factors in determining their verdicts.

35. Biologist Teaches the Nation's Judges About Genetics

Comment #202635 by Robert Maynard on July 1, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Ditto to Veon, except for the lock away for life part.
When it comes to terminal illness, typically from a genetic disorder, we give palliative care; I don't see why a genetic predisposition to ill will, also a genetic disorder, gives us license to treat a human like a dog. There has to be a better solution than jail and execution, although I can't think what it is while keeping budgets in mind. :P

We aren't being remote controlled by our genes, we are an expression of them.
I don't see how you can transfer culpability onto a persons genes in order to defend the person, who is a literal embodiment of those guilty genes. It simply isn't a transfer of guilt from one entity to another, exculpating the former - the human agent and his genes are the same entity.

36. Charles Darwin was not the father of atheism

Comment #201877 by Robert Maynard on June 30, 2008 at 11:11 am

I liked the part where they made up that anyone has ever suggested Darwin is the father of atheism, or that his religious opinions have any bearing on anyone elses.

37. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192276 by Robert Maynard on June 12, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Two things to say:

1) This is an unsurprising result, but I don't like how it's reported for the simple reason that without providing the strict meaning of IQ (and automatically assuming IQ equals "intelligence") many atheists will more than likely misuse it to argue the conclusion in reverse: that being an atheist means you're more intelligent.

2) Richard Lynn is one of those people hounded because his research offended people.. maybe he is too obsessed with IQ and maybe he is a racist because of his fascination with it (I wouldn't presume to know). As others have noted, the important thing is that when you have a grasp of how subtly meaningless IQ can be his conclusions don't really carry that much of a racist sting - they're more like indicators of differences in learning opportunity and style. This implication was further drawn out by his research in "IQ and the wealth of nations". The research doesn't seem to indicate intrinsic racial differences, any more than intrinsic class differences.
It reminds me of that old chestnut that people who drink a glass of wine everyday have a longer life expectancy. What isn't immediately apparent to the smug pricks that tout this argument is that not everyone can afford casual wine drinking every day, and the effect on life expectancy may have a little more to do with the lifestyle that enables that kind of indulgence (*cough* health insurance). :P
There's no indication you would magically extend the lifespan of starving African kids if you airlifted them a glass of red wine every day, for example.

38. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186018 by Robert Maynard on May 29, 2008 at 11:09 am

Well.. okay, I'll defer to you on the matter, since I don't live in America, and am honestly not as experienced in the racial politics there.

Just be careful with:
One, acting as if I said ALL blacks live in poverty and ALL of them need and/or deserve government help.
Two, implying it's the responsibility of successful black people to fix urban educational systems, and
Three, conflating "treated like shit" and "enslaved for multiple generations, and officially segregated for several more." ;)

P.S I'm not implying that African Americans have genetic memory and need help because they can remember being a slave, I'm merely saying they have inherited a legacy of degradation and systematic marginalisation, with long-term effects the likes of which immigrants simply have not experienced.

39. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186003 by Robert Maynard on May 29, 2008 at 10:41 am

116. Comment #185988 al-rawandi

Again, I'm not fully read up on affirmative action, but the policy doesn't seem disrespectful so much as bureaucratic - it is attempting to treat the symptom rather than the problem, which is that many African Americans are still growing up in low-income environments, and this has biased their upbringing and constrained their prospects.

Not to start a tussle, I just get a little queasy here in Australia when I hear people say "If Aboriginals want to be proper Australians, they should rescind their special social privileges, until then they're not equal." Clarence Thomas is entitled to his views, and I've also seen successful Aboriginals echo the above sentiments. I think it's a ...erm.. 'can't see the roots from outside the forest' kind of thing. "What's wrong with those trees? Why can't they grow tall like I have over here?" It ain't the trees, it's the soil! ...maybe a lousy analogy. :P

It's not really respectful to back away and let them pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they don't actually have boots.
I basically don't agree that it's patronising to try and give African Americans a leg-up in some cases. If we stopped, a lot of them would still be growing up in low-income environments - only then, NONE of them will get the chance to study at college and prosper despite their adverse upbringing. Hooray! That's not a solution.
I think it's just a matter of being cheaper than working to alter the actual conditions that necessitated the policy.

Anywho, off-topic. :P

40. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185960 by Robert Maynard on May 29, 2008 at 8:34 am

To be fair,
Slugs like Michelle Malkin are a whole different kettle of crazy bitch.

That goes for the rest of the gum-flappers on Fox too..

41. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185952 by Robert Maynard on May 29, 2008 at 8:06 am

Photographs are illegal in Saudi Arabia ... they are worried that photos will lead to idolatry

42. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185950 by Robert Maynard on May 29, 2008 at 7:53 am

Ditto to al-rawandi's remarks on the article sjk posted. Again, it seems to have all the hallmarks you'd think to find amongst neoconservative talking points. Yet it rings true.

It comes down to the same lesson Sam Harris stresses that it's so important for us to realise if we're ever going to have a sustainable global community - religions (and cultures) are different, and not all of them are equally good at providing humans with happiness. That's just.. IT.
You just can't convince me that I should let obscure tribes in Africa believe cameras steal your soul, and that doing this is respecting fellow human beings. Or that despotism 'just works' for some people and not others. You just can't.

43. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185918 by Robert Maynard on May 29, 2008 at 4:52 am

HunterZolomon,
Great video. :D

It's depressing sometimes how ingrained the paradigm of left-wing and right-wing politics is. This article and the links is the first I've seen of Steyn, but reading up on him he reminds me of Hitchens. Someone that sounds pure "secular progressive" in their principles, and who I identify right down the line with on what they're saying (or at least in this case, what I've seen them say so far).
But because of how firmly ingrained multiculturalism and post-modernism seem to be with left-wing thinking, guys like Hitchens not only find themselves drifting into a conservative crowd who share their views (usually for other reasons, imperialistic, religious, racist, what have you..) but then also become repulsive to the left. It's the same deal with Hirsi Ali and Harris.
I felt really sad when I saw commenters on Daily Kos (which I love to read, even though I'm not American ^_^) ragging on her for being involved with a neocon thinktank, and calling her a racist.

It's like (liberal) atheists are in this sad middle ground that wants to be left, and feels left, but ends up agreeing with people condemned by "the left".

I'm rambling by now, but nowhere did this shine through more than in The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, where he just kept on recounting case after case of honest, liberal scientists who became shunned and smeared by the academic left, because they didn't like the conclusions they drew from their research. And then, in turn, reading idiot humanities professors review that very book and call Pinker a thuggish conservative, when everything he wrote bled liberalism. :(

It is exactly the same problem here. The numbers are not good. There are elements of Islam that want to destroy us, and having "the West" formally renounce lingering colonialism and getting rid of intrusive military outposts throughout the world won't make them sit down and join any global community that isn't a caliphate. We absolutely have to deal with those external elements somehow. We absolutely have to deal with the elements within our own society that would shelter local crazy ideologies.
I don't feel like that's a "right-wing" thing to say, and I get really frustrated when I see these opinions just get rubber-stamped "RIGHT-WING" or "RACIST" or "ISLAMOPHOBE" by people I'm supposed to be identifying with.

It's a divisive paradigm. I hope we can get past it. (that was an unintended Obama plug! Hatcha!)

44. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185472 by Robert Maynard on May 27, 2008 at 10:10 pm

This is worth little more than a weirded-out chuckle. No point in anyone getting uppity about this being 'offensive' as if that means squat.

If there ever is a significant atheist lobby in America, I hope all they ever do is have a group that issues press releases making fun of things of like this.

P.S Anyone in need of a chuckle should look at the Google Maps link Quine posted. Or just check out Mojave's Wikipedia page. Keep it all in perspective. :D

45. Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests

Comment #185199 by Robert Maynard on May 27, 2008 at 7:24 am

"It's only a model."
"Sh."

46. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184273 by Robert Maynard on May 24, 2008 at 9:07 am

Homer: This book doesn't have any answers!

'nuff said.

47. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals

Comment #184005 by Robert Maynard on May 23, 2008 at 11:47 am

EeekiE,
This is the original article mentioned under the emotions section, containing the story of the magpie funeral and others. The incident is anecdotal, but it's touching anyway. :P

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19426051.300-do-animals-have-emotions.html

48. Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'

Comment #183573 by Robert Maynard on May 22, 2008 at 9:45 am

Fucking retarded and tragic. Next.

49. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182506 by Robert Maynard on May 20, 2008 at 9:35 am

clearmind says:

Oh man this is getting funnier. Latso you wrote something and your guys think that I wrote it. Please surrender to the authorities.

Many prophets lived in different times and told the same truth.

There is God and there is judgment day.

50. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182431 by Robert Maynard on May 20, 2008 at 5:13 am

I don't understand how clearmind can write this,

"Simply claiming ... won't do either. First, you'd need to supply evidence that this was the case,"

and then write this with a straight face.

"God created us and taught us through his prophets and the books how to live in the world ... These laws started with the first prophet Adam and passed on to other prophets."

Says who, on what grounds?
Double standards won't do.

..

Secondly, on topic, isn't the definition of discrimination the use of different standards based on race/sex/class? Isn't it a kind of discrimination to suggest that comparing someone to Hitler becomes worse when you do it to a Jewish person? Would it not be as bad if it was done to a German person, or is that okay because they're descended from the baddies? :P
bluehuw and co., are you or are you not applying different standards of ethics on the basis of race?

I think it's pretty crass to compare anyone to Adolf-motherfucking-Hitler lightly, so perhaps Dawkins was a bit of a goose by fulfilling Godwins Law in this case and should drop it. But it is ridiculous to suggest that it becomes a worse offense because of Boteach's Jewish heritage - to suggest we have to treat a certain group of fellow human beings with kid gloves when it comes to talking about a person who wanted to kill all of them, seems to me to be a well-intentioned but subtly racist sentiment. "Oh no, don't mention Hitler, not in front of the Jews! Cover their ears!" Away with your infantilism!