Witches and religion

A great example of the ignorance displayed by religious people can been seen in the witch trials. People got sick with certain common symptoms and since doctors had no explanation they blamed witchcraft. This meant an innocent woman (and usually their family just to be sure) was killed for bewitching someone. So what really happened? Well (as is explained here Secrets of
the Dead . The Witches Curse | PBS) it turns out the case of bewitchment was ergot poisoning. Ergot is a fungus that is also used to make LSD. So basically you has some people eating contaminated flour products and becoming extremely oddly ill (hallucinations, convolutions etc) and then some random accusing and killing. Obviously they didn't have a way to directly test for ergot poisoning, but an astute investigator who would have examined all the linking factors and realized it was from the bread. But in a puritan society you can't have an astute investigator.

Even to day with the facts about illnesses many people simply take the ignorant way out. As we should learn form Salem this is not only unproductive but extremely barbaric to it's victims. This troubles me since I wonder when someone will point the finger at me.

Driving Evolution not contradicting it.

A common misconception about the theory of evolution (usually by creationalists) is that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is a funny thing to say. If something is a law (in the physical sense) it can't be violated, if something is a theory it explains all known data (including the laws of thermodynamics). The main problem is people don't understand the definition of the 2nd law and that it applies to closed systems. For the question of evolution you must apply non-equilibrium thermodynamics (if and organism was at equilibrium it would be dead in the dark vacuum of space). This requires a restatement of the 2nd law given in the last reference.

Organisms try to reduce the gradient keeping them from equilibrium (though they don't want to reach equilibrium) by dissipating entropy. The prime example is "box" filled with liquid, heated from below and cooled on top. As the difference (or gradient) in temperature is increased (moving the system away from equilibrium) the system begins to organize. Once a critical value of the temperature difference is surpassed the liquid will reorganize into "rolls" to dissipate the heat more effectively. This is the system becoming more organized to counter the push from equilibrium (the heating). So organisms on earth are highly organized "rolls" that take the huge push from the sun and dissipates it. Without a constant push away from equilibrium life (or organization) would not be possible and so in effect the 2nd law predicts the formation of complex systems. I guess it also predicts our tendency to mess and blow things up too ;-)

References:EvoWiki
Life From Thermodynamics

Law nonsense

Currently the Ontario government is looking at passing legislation to ban Pitt bulls (Story). On the surface this may seem like a good idea, but this is why not all things can be left to common-sense (common can also mean semi-ignorant).

The main problem is it does nothing to deal with the underlying problem. Some people want a very aggressive dog (usually it is the people who are messed up to begin with), so they buy Pitt bulls that have been abused. Odd huh? They actually sell dogs that where abused for the first few months. The breed of choice is the Pitt bull. But any dog (or animal including a human) will be unstable if they are abused when young. The legislation does not address this at all!

The other problem is the theme of my blog, the definition. What is a Pitt bull? For that matter how do you define a bred dog? If the parents where a bred. That's not very scientific. Since a bred dog is actually an inbreed dog who's parents had traits most similar to the definition of the breed the whole idea behind a bred dog is troubling. The idea that every Pitt bull is dangerous is as absurd as every poorly dressed person is a homeless lunatic! Many other breeds that look like Pitt bulls have also been put on this list even though these are terribly passive breeds.

Well I don't believe someone should just complain so I'll propose a solution. If the dog is above around 50lbs you could have it's adrenal glands tested to see how active they are. The difference between wolves and dog is primarily the levels of adrenalin which cases aggression (that's why you don't pet wolves). It is this change in the chemistry (amount of adrenalin) of the dog that causes it to be so varied as a species.

Only legislation based on science will survive the test of time.

US Election Prediction

Well I've decided to make two predictions. The first is that it will take 3 days before we have a declared winner in the US election. Anyone else?

As for the winner: Kerry by at least 5% of the popular vote (whether he wins the election and seats... that's really up to who counts the ballots :-).

This is despite the Red Blue Chart/poll. Why? The main reason (and the reason I'm writing this) is to show how poor today's polls are! The polls are always used in elections (including Canada's) and I think it influences the vote too much! The more polls are shown to be inaccurate the more chance people will ignore them and think for themselves! But that's probably too hopeful with reality TV and other such TV junk. But my bets on the record. Anyone else?

Debate or Play?

Watching Now I began to see the corruption of the U.S. presidential debate. They had a story that was telling the story behind these debates and the commission that oversees them. It's appalling! The best case was just looking at the old debates and making a comparison. In fact this is the first time the "Memorandum of Understanding" has been made public. The heads of the republican and Democratic parties are the ones who run the commission that sponsors the debates. Needless to say they exclude third parties. But they go further and make it so that it really isn't a debate but a show. How can you have a town hall meeting and not allow the questioner to follow up! There's a damn good reason to follow up: politicians don't give straight answers.

In the past it was the non-partisan League of Woman Voters who sponsored the debates. They made sure it was a debate. Hostile to both candidates positions so that they have to sell their view (not repeat more unchallenged retorick). But there is one, small advantage: idiotic puns like those of Reagan aren't allowed and so people don't decide on their ruler from a joke!! (I don't like Reagan and more so since the Republicans saintified him!).
What do you call it when two people talk about issues, but don't address each other? I call it a simultaneous speech. You?

Financial Terrorism

In this week's NOW with Bill Moyers, Kevin Phillips talks about his worry that foreign investors are owning more and more of the U.S. debt. This is a bigger national security threat than anything else since it could collapse the U.S. economy! This gives non-American's leverage over the U.S. standard of living. Imagine if a (non-violent) terrorist group bought as much of the U.S. debt as possible. Then in a few years, after significant investment, started pulling out money. The value of the U.S. dollar would have to fall and others will start to pull out. This would be catastrophic (now you know why Saudi Arabia isn't afraid of the U.S.).

So what does Bush do, well to quote MOYERS: A hundred and thirty-seven billion dollars in tax cuts this week from Congress to the largest corporations in the country. He could have given $500 to every American (children too)! Who do you think the government works for?

Understanding makes me happy, then sad

After learning about The Saudi Question | PBS I must say I am personally relieved. I know much about the ethos and foundings of Islam but as to its modern form I knew little. It had worried me that its numbers where growing (as I'd worry about any religion or cult), but I am relieved to learn that there are many different secs of Islam. Best of all the radicals believe all non-radicals are "evil," on the same footing as non-Islamic. This means that Islam will fight amongst itself as a kind of growing pain. Though, as a humanist, I wish it was a discussion and not by violent bloodshed we all know how religions work. Too bad. I just hope the number that die in the name of Mohammed don't surpass the number of people killed in the name of jesus, it's too much for no reason.

After learning about Saudi Arabia I'm convinced they are doomed! Their numbers and their population's conditioning spell disaster. They really could have had an Eden with all the oil profits, too late now! Their terrorists won't stop terrorizing them, the public will be divided and then ... puff. I give them about 5 years (+/- 1) before the chaos is really bad (hopefully the blog will still be up so we can see how my prediction goes). For all those in the country I hope I'm wrong.

Debate 3, U.S. Election

Kerry won again. Bush seems like he was pretty desperate since he mainly just denied or contradicted Kerry's attacks. Bush did do better. But I don't think he won the undecided voter. I think Kerry may have even turned some Medicare dependent republicans.

Here there is a funny quote by Paul Begala:
"Schieffer just asked Bush what role his faith plays in his life. What a softball. Why didn't he just ask, "Tell us how wonderful you are, sir?" Bush then referred to his faith-based initiative, by which I think he means Star Wars, his faith-based missile defense."
LOL!!

Worse than I first thought

When I heard about the Bushy deficit I was stunned, but I figured old people knew what they where doing since they've been hearing budgets for years. As usual this is quite wrong. Old people have poor attention spans just like their children. Pete Peterson on Now blames it on the lack of political will due to the view of the public that they should be able to have everything and more. He thinks that there is no way to pry things away from the American people as if they are children asked to share a favorite toy. I agree but I think the main thing is that the rich probably figure they can pick up and leave the country.

So how bad is the economy? Well take a stunning look at this: Debating the Deficit. Not scary enough? Take a look at the first few figures of this.
Should we start taking bets on the year the US will fall?

Better, but not good

Cheney did worse than I had expected. Edwards clearly won the showmanship part and I believe dazzled the audience more. In that sense he won. But on the issues aside from Iraq Cheney had some good arguments but very poor delivery. It didn't help that he kept blocking and muffling his mic. But I think Cheney did mostly what was needed, keep the Republican's base. He gave a strong, unflinching image. The attack that Edwards had were very well designed because they shows the administration was making wrong choices right from the start. He didn't attack Cheney directly since he looked stronger but he subtly attacked the whole administration and Bush as the wrong decision makers. So when the Cheney looked strong it was the administration that was dumb, but when Cheney made an attack Cheney's strong was torn to bits into secretive and untrustworthy. Edwards really knew how to play the game.

The "coup de resistance" was the question on same-sex marriage. Edwards magnificently complimented Cheney and showed that this is a trick by the administration to divert attention to real issues. Cheney's response, "Thank you for the kind words for me and my family." That's it! It's a known fact, but a hidden one that Cheney does not support Bush at all on this. You can't make a strong team if you show divisions. Depending on how much airtime that clip gets it could completely destroy the Bush campaign... if the democrat's exploit the difference and the contradiction it brings to a strong leadership team!
Others are saying

Freedom vs Security

At the Toronto Zoo the ape's keeper said, in response to my criticism that the area they had was small, they are perfectly content with a space that size, and it was bigger than usually suggested for apes. Now I'm in no way saying I agree or disagree with captive animals, but there is an important question of freedom vs security. We have some idea of what an ape is feeling and so I will take the zoo keepers word at face value for the sake of this argument.

From what I know and what the zoo keeper told me it seems most special will do what is necessary to get the best chance of survival. In an evolutionary perspective they seem (mostly) willing to sacrifice freedom for security. Many animals now live in pack, colonies etc due to the increase chances of survival. So it seems to me to be a tendency for animals and therefore us to sacrifice freedom for security (or at least a false sense of). This seems to be the way things are going and have been going. If you scare the population they will give up some liberties to feel safer. This isn't a new idea, but what I'm suggesting is it is "built-in." We are the ancestors of humans who grouped together, the free independent ones where eaten. When we grouped we sacrificed some of our liberty to live in a group. As the groups get bigger the liberties shrink. So where will it end? Fascist world-wide regime (though some would say the U.S. is nearly there)? The breaking of large countries to small Libertarian groups with some loose ties to each other? They say history repeats itself, are we going to go back to city-states (form countries)? I'll get back to you on it :-)