Saturday, October 15, 2016

Debate at 140 Characters

An interesting little fellow, Armando Santiago (Twitter identity @ArmingStJames), has decided to try to school me on the intricacies of the legal system and what constitutes evidence. He states that unless you actually witness someone being abused, they weren't really abused.1

This is, of course, utter crap.

He then asked if someone called me a pedophile, should he believe them?

That is, of course, utter crap. It's a loaded question. It would be like my asking if he still beat his wife.2

But if I'm accused of pedophilia, you shouldn't just dismiss the accuser even if you hate him/her or like me. It shouldn't matter if you have something to gain by either defending or prosecuting me. You should look at the evidence supporting the claim.

The same goes for any accusation.

For example, if a street vendor said that I'd stolen one of his pretzels then a tape was released in which I could be heard bragging that I could take a pretzel from any street vendor simply because I wanted one, that might lend a bit more credence to his claim. And, if you were the sort to investigate this kind of thing, you might want to dig a bit deeper.

You could look at my record (assuming I had one) regarding prior pretzel theft. You might see if someone caught me on camera. You might see if I have large crystals of kosher salt on my clothing. There would be evidence.

If other vendors came forth and said that they'd seen me stealing pretzels from their carts, these larger numbers of claimants would add credence to the first vendor's claim.

That wouldn't actually prove his claim but it would give any investigators adequate cause to to look further into the accusation.

Whenever someone makes a claim, it's only as valid as the evidence that supports it. Once the evidence is gathered, the witnesses questioned and all of it weighed carefully, then we can make a determination.

What Mr. Santiago is trying to do is say that Donald Trump's accusers weren't actually assaulted because nobody else saw it happen.

This is grasping at straws to justify support of Trump. He is outright dismissing the accusations brought forth by the claimants because they haven't produced any witnesses... yet.

Maybe Trump is completely innocent of the accusations being leveled against him. His own words are pretty damning. And large numbers of women are speaking out.3

There is enough here to warrant further and more thorough investigation, to be sure.

But just outright dismissal of the claimants' accusations is to bury one's head in the sand.

And we know where that leaves your butt.


1 Here's the link to his original tweet.
2 I don't know if he's married. I don't care. Frankly, the less I know about him, the better for the both of us.
3 And considering the onslaught of abuse they're receiving from Trump's supporters, it's no wonder they didn't speak out earlier.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Election 2016, Part 1

On Facebook, a friend asked me about the 2016 election and who I thought should (and shouldn't be) president. 

I've voted in every presidential election since I became eligible to vote at the end of 1977. I've voted for candidates. I've voted against candidates.

Now here we are in one of the most hotly contested elections in years. There are a great many who think that Bernie Sanders should have been the Democratic nominee. I'm not here to debate that.

Sanders is out. He ran a good race and raised a lot of important issues. But he isn't and won't be the nominee this year.

The third party candidates? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein? In my experience, these candidates serve only to muddy the waters and spoil the election for otherwise reasonable candidates. It was the Nader supporters who gave us George W. Bush. Oh, they can cry and whine about how the reason Bush was elected was because the Democrats didn't give them a candidate they could support but they couldn't see beyond their own egos long enough to see the writing on the wall.

So, realistically, we have a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

I cannot even fathom voting for Donald Trump and the extreme right-wing, religious zealotry of the Republican platform.

So here's what's at stake in this election.

Social Security
The Republicans have stated with no equivocation that they wish to privatize it or do away with it. 

With the former, they'd turn the money over to their cronies on Wall Street to use as they see fit. If the market is strong (which it seldom is under Republican administrations), we might fare well. But with market speculation being what it is, you can count on a lot of our seniors losing out with no safety net in place. And that's what social security was meant to be.

If our next president serves two terms, by the time that second term ends, I'll be of an age to start collecting from a system I've been paying into for over 40 years.

It's not the government's money. 

It's mine. It's a loan that comes due when I turn 65 and they'd damned well better be able to repay it.

Women's Reproductive Issues
I am not pro-abortion but I am pro-choice. And it's none of my business if a woman chooses to have an abortion. It's hers.

It's a woman's right to choose when and if she has children. 

The Republican solution is for her to either have children or not have sex. And they seem to think that her employer should be able to make that choice for her as well by not covering contraception as part of medical insurance coverage.

The Republicans have also worked to defund Planned Parenthood under the smoke screen that the government shouldn't fund abortions.

There hasn't been a government funded abortion performed at a Planned Parenthood facility in years. But there have been cancer and STD screenings, basic medical care, sex education (which the Republicans seem to hate) and contraception available at Planned Parenthood clinics which will all disappear if the Republicans get their way.

Climate Change and the Environment
Despite the number of trained climate scientists who are almost universally in agreement that human beings are having a detrimental effect on the Earth's climate, the Republicans stand steadfast in their denial of anthropogenic global warming.

We have already seen the first problems that are arising from climate change. Hurricane Katrina, droughts, bizarre weather patterns and the like are just the beginning of what could bring mankind to its knees. 

The Earth will recover. I've little doubt of that. Whether we're here to see it or not is another issue entirely.

Anti-Science Rhetoric
The band, Third Eye Blind, shouted, "Who believes in science?" in a performance at the Republican National Convention.

They were booed.

While there are some Democrats who are anti-science (or pro-pseudo science), it seems to be hand-in-glove for the Republicans. They treat science like it's the enemy.

Yet they want all the products of science while denying its teachings.

Another recipe for disaster.

Erosion of the Wall of Separation
In a letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson wrote about a "wall of separation" between the church and state.

Some Republicans have said that the wall of separation is a "communist invention."

They fail to realize that this wall protects the church as well as the state.

Historically, every time a government has gotten into the religion business, either its promotion or its suppression, things have gone poorly for the people. The best solution is a secular government that remains neutral in what should be a purely personal decision.

The Republicans would undo something so vital to the success of our country that the founding fathers saw fit to put it in the first amendment.

LGBTQ Rights
The Republicans have made it clear that they think they have a monopoly on the definition of marriage. That the definition doesn't include lesbians and gays. They think it's perfectly acceptable to legislate who we can and cannot love.

Part of their platform includes support for "restorative therapy" in order to "cure" people who are gay. In other words, they see it as a defect that needs to be corrected.

As for the rights of transgender individuals, we need look no further than North Carolina's House Bill 2 (the so-called "Bathroom Bill") that was designed to discriminate against transgendered individuals in the guise of protecting women and children. But we've all seen through that smoke screen for what it is. 

Conclusions
I could go on and on about why I can't support Trump or another Republican candidates. As long as the treatise above is, it's only the beginning of why the Republicans will never get my vote again. I didn't even touch the 1%, "trickle down" economics (which their own former president, George H. W. Bush, called "voodoo economics") and myriad other topics. And I haven't touched on the volatility, thin-skin or narcissism of their nominee. 

Maybe Hillary Clinton isn't the ideal candidate. But she's a damned good one who has come through a great deal and is still standing. So, yeah, she's getting my vote.

Monday, June 06, 2016

Reflections on the Reason Rally (2016)

Today is my day of recovery after a five-day trip to Washington, DC. The last full day spent there was at the second Reason Rally. Last night, as I was unwinding from the somewhat grueling drive home, I caught up on social media where I saw a great many pros and cons about the rally.
There were some definite highlights...
  • Meeting Shelly Segal, Lawrence Krauss, Aron Ra and others
  • Running into friends I haven't seen in years
  • Seeing Penn Jillette and others
For some reason, the attendance was much lower than anticipated and only about 1/3 of the first Reason Rally.Why?
I have some ideas that I'd like to share here.
While there is something romantic about holding this in front of the Lincoln Memorial around the reflection pool, it's not actually a great location if you want to get a large number of people together. That big water thing gets in the way. The only people who can actually get a decent view of the stage are the people who can afford the rather expensive VIP seats. This was actually the least of the problems, however.
The guest list was quite the smorgasbord of celebrities (at least one of whom had to cancel). And while seeing them is cool, is that really what the rally was about? When I think of a strong message of atheism, Johnny Depp's name isn't the first one that comes to mind.1 The Beatles cover band, The Fab Four, were good performers but was this really the place for their performance? Maybe at one of the after parties, instead.2
The message got diluted. Yes, it's supposed to be about logic and reason but the last one really focused on atheists and atheist activism. This one, while attempting to be inclusive, watered down the message. While women's rights, LGBTQ rights and good science are all worthwhile, they have their own rallies and their own conventions. The only really firebrand atheist presentation was made by David Silverman who admonished those folks who shy away from calling themselves atheists.
While attempting to be inclusive, a good number of people were excluded. The atheist movement has become severely divided between those who want it to be all about atheism and those who want it to be about atheism and more. This has caused a fracture in the movement that needs to be fixed.
(Hold tight whilst I climb upon my soapbox.)
There is room for all of us under this tent. What we have in common is far greater than our differences. And while we need to recognize and celebrate our differences, those are not what atheism is about. Again, hold your own rallies. Have your own conventions. Organize under those banners on your own. I welcome it. I encourage it. I salute it. But the atheism movement is exactly that: a movement by, of and for atheists... of all stripes.
There are plenty of people out there who would gladly see us disappear completely. Why, then, are we fighting amongst ourselves and doing their work for them?
At this time, like no time in the past, we must unify to demonstrate that we are a force to be reckoned with. We will not be cast aside. We will not be used as political leverage by fundamentalists who see us as an evil annoyance.
Together, we can be one of the largest voting blocs in the country... in the world... but only if we come together as one unified force.
And some of you really, really need to get over yourselves. It's not all about you.
I'll climb off my soapbox now.

1Don't get me wrong. I really like Johnny Depp. But what, if anything, has he done for the atheist movement?
2I was a bit surprised and disappointed by the after party I attended. Shelley Segal was the one bright spot. There was inadequate seating and one would think that with a $25 ticket price, there would at least be bottled water at less than $5 per bottle... and maybe some light snacks.












Wednesday, May 18, 2016

In your Facebook

I will always be astonished by people who seem to think that posting an opinion on something is an invitation to an argument. And, more often than not, the arguments are weak and based on invective and emotion rather than reason and logic. This year's political climate has proven that in spades. The Bernie-Bros, Sandernistas or whatever the hell you want to call them have decided that anything that's said in favor of Hillary Clinton is fodder for bombardment. So, for that reason, I'm taking a Facebook vacation until after the election. Oh, I might change my mind but, at this point, I don't see any reason to.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

The Internet Did NOT Ruin Your Life

I'm an old school computer user from the days of acoustic coupler modems and CompuServe. I even had my own BBS. Eventually, Fidonet came along and we were able to communicate across the world (if you didn't mind waiting a day or two for a reply).

Our local BBS community had a forum for swapping insults. It was called the BBQ. For the most part, it was good natured ribbing but, on occasion, someone would have to be slapped down for taking it too far or too seriously.

When I first started on the Internet, it was all still text based and using the vestiges of the old BitNet and ARPANet. Your browser was Lynx and your search engine was Archie. There wasn't a lot there yet but you could share e-mail, find pictures and access data from NASA (which is why I got access). 

Today, everyone is connected to the Internet and social media has exploded beyond anything we could have imagined back in the days of UUCP. Some folks claim that the Internet has caused them all kinds of problems. There is even a show about it on the Sci Fi* Channel.

Yes, there is a show called "The Internet Ruined My Life."

Got some news for you, Chuckles.

The Internet didn't do it. You did that all on your own. 

Maybe you got in an argument (what was called a flame war in the old days) and you didn't get out of it before it got out of hand. Maybe you posted pictures that were compromising. Maybe you uttered something about your employer that got back to your boss and now you're back living in your parents' house because you got fired. Maybe you aired some of your dirty laundry and it's come back to bite you in the ass.

Regardless of the scenario, the Internet didn't make these things happen.


You did.

Granted, before the Internet, when you made some kind of social blunder, it tended to stay local. You might be a pariah in your small community. 

However, today, that community is worldwide and reaches billions of people.

That means you have to be more careful in what you say and what you reveal about yourself. Yeah, you're responsible for what goes out there.

And you're entering a world where people hide behind the anonymity of the computer screen to say nearly anything. So if you're going to put yourself out there, you'd better develop a thick skin and be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Ultimately, what happens to you on the Internet is your own responsibility. So take responsibility. 

Don't blame the Internet. It didn't ruin your life.

You did.




*I refuse to use that non-name some marketing genius concocted.

Saturday, January 02, 2016

Another Thought Experiment

Einstein came up with some of his most brilliant ideas by performing "thought experiments" in which he imagined situations and their potential outcomes. I try to do this from time to time to sharpen my debate skills and to keep myself intellectually honest.

Today, I find myself in a debate with a Christian and, in the forum in which we're conducting our discussion, there isn't space to fully examine the question.

I will do my very best to avoid straw man arguments and present the situation as realistically as possible while remaining true to the experiment.

First we establish the setting.

You find yourself standing on a wide, grassy plain. There are half a dozen other people there. Each seems to be from a different part of the world yet you find that language is no barrier and you can all understand one another.

Each of you, in turn, tells the others where you live and about the god (or gods) you worship.

One says he's from northern Europe and he worships Odin. The next is from ancient Egypt and he prays to Ra. Another is from modern day New Delhi and he prays to Ganesha. The fourth is from the central plains of North America and he worships the Manitou. Another is from the United States and worships the god of the Bible and his son, Jesus Christ. The next is from ancient Mexico and his god is Quetzalcoatl. The last is from Mali and he worships the Nommu twins.

Next, we think about the question.

Because all of you believe different things, you can't all be correct. Even if you look at the similarities of your belief systems, there are enough differences to demonstrate that there is fundamentally flawed in some of these systems of thought.

Now, how do you demonstrate to the others that yours is the correct belief system? Remember that each of the others believes as strongly and as adamantly as you do.

If the others are all wrong and believe that you are wrong, what guarantee do you have that you are right?

Once you've given that thought, remember that there are more than 3000 deities that people worship in the world today. If you take history into account, that number goes up by at least a factor of five.

Now, tell me... do you really think that you are the one who got it right?

Tuesday, September 08, 2015

What I Mean When I Say That I am Pro-Choice

A friend of mine posted this little gem on his Facebook page today.


The original poster said something about the "pro-abortion" people.

Let's get something nice and sparkling clear here, kids. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.

I'm pro-choice but I'm not pro-abortion. In fact, I'm not in favor of abortion at all.

However, it's not my decision. I'm not the person who has to make the determination if carrying an embryo to term is in mine or anyone else's best interest.

It's none of my damned business.

As to the picture itself, nobody on either side of the debate has ever said that something with a prenatal heartbeat isn't alive. The question arises as to whether or not that little bundle of cells is a human being.

If you are "pro-life," then you had damned well better be vegetarian (eating a cow stops a beating heart, y'know) and in favor of comprehensive and accurate sex education.

As for the latter, I can bring that pretty close to home. My grandmother had 10 kids. Among them, they had 28 kids.

Of my grandmother's kids, one was a pretty vocal fundamentalist. You know the type: tries to get books banned from schools, thinks that evolution is a myth, and thinks that the best way to protect her children from the evils of the outside world and the flesh is to provide them as little information as possible.

Of my 26 cousins, can you guess who was the mother of the only one to give birth out of wedlock? And can you guess who was the mother of the only one to be killed in an alcohol related traffic accident?

I don't know much about what happened with the young man who was killed but his sister and I spoke about her child and pregnancy. Apparently, at the age of 17, she had never been told where babies come from. Her mother had so effectively shielded her from this vital piece of information that, when she and her boyfriend had sex, she didn't know what it was they were actually doing nor any of the potential consequences such as STDs and pregnancy. This wasn't all that long ago but in the 1990s (this cousin is about 10 years younger than I am).