Stand Strong Berkeley... PLEASE!

In a Wall Street Journal article it was talking about a court case of some parents vs the school board for implementing some religious rhetoric before teaching evolution and I found out about another court challenge I hadn't been aware of. Here's the blurb:
"The University of California at Berkeley faces a lawsuit from students at Christian private schools who say they can't go to the prestigious campus because the science courses they took -- based on anti-evolution textbooks -- don't fulfill its admission requirements."
This, I think is a very dangerous case (but luckily it's in California). Ruining the US's high schools by parading mythology as science is one thing, but letting in unqualified students who never really learned science would be disastrous. It's a good think the US's great universities are in the educated states (NY,NJ,California and Mass)!

It's when things like this happen I'm glad for the sham of a democracy the US has since the important people rich/corporations will want science well taught, not religion. An what the corporations want Congress does :-)

Judicial Activism

From the title I bet you are thinking of gay marriage or abortion in the US court, but I'm not. I'm talking about this article about the Supreme court of Canada's ruling about private medical coverage. A clip:
"He [Morris Barer of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research] compared claims about the wonders of private health insurance are like zombies - impossible to kill even though disproven by research. He called the four judges who wrote the majority decision "servants of the zombie masters."

I recall a Harvard study that found Canada's system compared to the US was more effective. I have to say that to me the public seems like the best way to go. Firstly in talking about this I will say neither way is perfect both are flawed. So 'better' to me means most people benefit. If you were in a completely private system everyone would have to pay (since everyone needs medical insurance) but could be in various amounts and so the rich will have the best coverage the poor won't. As it stands with a public system no one is stopping anyone from paying for the operation out of their pocket (as Martin does) or traveling to somewhere else and paying. The only one who loses out in the public one is the middle class who could afford the insurance but not entire cost of the care. But that middle class family doesn't have to worry about losing their jobs and winding up with no medical coverage as in the US. So the lose a bit of freedom for some security and don't decrease the coverage of the poor (no one cares about the impact on the rich).

I am for increasing personal freedom, but just not at the expense of the publics freedom. Granting someone the right to defecate anywhere increases his personal rights at the expense of the publics' freedom to have sanitary public space (note the analogy with corporate pollution).

This leads to (at least) two main debates: the problem with changing the nomination process to the supreme court in Canada (which could lend to abortion, gay issue that the religious want to fight) and the private vs public debate. For simplicity of the latter lets say take it for granted that neither system encourages or discourages personal health.

Joke for the Libertarian physicist in all of us

Got this forwarded to me and enjoyed it, hope you do to.

A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the
heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named
"Governmentium." Governmentium has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75
deputy neutrons, and 11 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass
of 312.

These particles are held together by forces called morons, which are
surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since
Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, as
it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount
of Governmentium causes 1 reaction to take over 4 days to complete, when it
would normally take less than a second.


GOVERNMENTIUM has a normal 1/2-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but
instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant
neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass
will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more
morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that
Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in
concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical
Morass."

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium - an element
which radiates just as much energy, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice
as many morons.

Bush's speeches

This is really funny and worth checking out... but you may cry when you realize he is still president!

American non-Christian Christians

This article says almost nothing I didn't already know about the way the very Christian US nation acts completely unchristian-like. But this made me laugh and I must share:
"Twelve percent [of American Christians] believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife."
LOL!! That's hilarious! It's one thing to think the bible preaches: "god helps those who help themselves" (which it doesn't) that just poor reading skills. But Joan of Arc, ahhh that's soo funny!

Proud to be Ontarian!

It's not often government does something I agree with, but the recent decision by McGuinty to ban all religious arbitration. Although in general I am for more freedom, I don't think freedom from the law-of-the-land is correct. The law must be the same for all citizens. People should not be allowed to choose a different set of laws. Especially when the laws they would use are ambiguous, sexist and unchanging... but that's besides the point.

Changing Brain

It really wasn't surprising to find out that the human brain was changing. What was surprising is the patent and how everyone else was surprised! Did people really think that the difference in intelligence was completely cultural? Did people really think that pre-industrial Russian, German, French and English societies where similar and so spawned great mathematicians!

unfortunately (to me) it seems like the elephant in the room has been pointed out. Now we have a genetic reason religion is nonsense (since most religious people live in the places these genes are rare). This is a bit troubling since religious people are already alienated by our ideas and ways of thinking (logically). I wouldn't care about their opinions except for the fact that they are violent and have weapons! In fact if they could reason things they'd know that history will wipe them out and so they may try and make a stand (or maybe this Islamic terrorist thingy is the some what related). But then again they don't believe in evolution so maybe they will just ignore this as more infidel talk... until it's too late!

The war in Iraq

Well I wasn't against the war to begin with. I never thought of political borders as a shelter from crimes against humanity (that includes Sudan and Rwanda). The world does need a police, but unfortunately the security council is improperly designed to function as one.

My problem with the war in Iraq was the leadership and then (obviously) the execution. The "Bush rational" (lol) was wrong and flawed. The very notion of spreading democracy is idiotic. It's a great sound-bite but it's nonsense. You can only alleviate (severe) oppression and replace it with a lighter (non-fatal) oppression that has room to change to democracy by a popular movement. In talking about the war three things are critical: I think the original sin was not over-thowing Saddam in the first gulf war, the war was completely improperly executed and there was a failure in the international community o come up with a solution.

The discussion about this issue are often for-the-war vs against-the-war. The matter is far more complex than that. Currently the U.S. is at war and so there are two separate discussion: should we have gone in and what do we do now. The anti-war movement is nuts to be talking about stopping the war and similarly the Bush guys are equally myoptic to say stay the course. The current course is not winning fast enough (as was foretold by the generals who were dismissed before the war) and so you must redouble your efforts not stay the course! If your police department is being out gunned do you tell them to pack it in and forget about it? Nonsense!

As for the rational, crimes against humanity should be enough. Granted the world is not a nice place and there would probably be more war with this rational but it's still logical. The problem is it must be done with world resolve. The anti-war movement must come to realize was is sometimes necessary and if Saddam crimes weren't enough then I think the bar is too high.

Some neat stuff: Hitchens on C-Span and Cindy Sheehan's Jewish Conspiracy