An email exchange about free speech and altruism

I mentioned recently that I'd like to publish some conversations I've had on email recently. A friend of mine who has political views that differ from mine recently wrote a very long and thoughtful email to a group of our friends summarizing and defending his positions on various interrelated issues that we'd been discussing recently. Tonight I responded to 1 of his 5 sections, and I post it here with his permission.

Date: Oct 30, 2006 9:56 PM

Subject: Re: Presidential Powers discussion

I love it that you wrote all this, and I'd like to respond to all of it, but that's going to take a lot of time. Much respect for the effort it took, and for your desire to make a positive case for your side of important issues. I disagree with some of it, and I'd like to respond to all of it, but that's going to take a lot of time.

Tonight I'm addressing the part that I think is easiest to respond to, your 3rd section called "Trying to bridge the gap to countries/cultures that hate us." As I've put this response together, it turned out that it took a lot longer than I thought it would, but all of my ideas flowed pretty easily as I'd done most of this analysis before. I think I've got a tight case here, but we'll see what you all think.

Your section 3 is fairly short compared to the rest, so I'll reprint it all here:

For my next trick, I would like to speak about trying to win the favor
of countries or cultures who do not like us, or who we piss off.
You've mentioned before that we should be more altruistic to win the
favor of other nations. Especially those who hate us or have
grievances. Well, here I would like to bring into discussion the
recent scandal involving the cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed
in the Danish newspaper. If we (America) were to try and use this
situation to our advantage, then it seems plain as day what we should
have done. We should have publicly spoken very harshly about the
decision to publish such insensitive cartoons. We should have
criticized the Danish newspaper's disregard for Sharia law and
proclaimed our own acceptance of such a proclamation of said law.
Now, I think its pretty obvious my point here centers around pleasing
Muslims around the world while keeping the freedom of the press.
Afterall, I wanted to see the cartoons to see what the fuss was about,
should I have been able to see them? This was/is an affront to
Muslims everywhere. And around the world, there were protests saying
that this was an Isreali and US plot to humiliate Muslims. These
cartoons were clearly an insult to Muslims, and here we are, not
listening to their gripes or making amends. And not only that, many
newspapers here in the States were reprinting those cartoons. How
much more insensitive can you get? We were rubbing salt on the wound.
So now we have angered even more Muslims and reinforced in their
minds that America is anti-Islamic, and all by just practicing one of
our most defining freedoms, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the
Press. What's the long term answer to be found in this situation? I
think it's safe to say there isn't any one solution that will solve
all these cultural differences. Not even with a trillion dollars to
throw at the problem, but that doesn't mean we aren't trying to made
headway in extending our hands. Look at all the money we give to
Egypt, we influenced them to have democratic elections two years ago.
We don't get oil from Egypt, but here we are sending billions of
dollars to them to help stabilize their country and bring democracy to
its people. Why? Probably because they are an influential nation who
doesn't hate us too much, so that we can actually change some opinions
there.

plus:

Also, the whole Egypt thing, here's a link detailing a little about
what we're doing there.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html Yes I know its
from the Christian Science Monitor website, but the facts are still in
there damnit!

My values, America's values, and Danish Cartoons

First I'd just like to voice my own personal opinion about the Danish Mohammad cartoon issue, which leads into how I think the US should respond.

I strongly believe that the right to free speech should be jealously protected and staunchly defended. Voltaire is (falsely I believe) attributed with saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I think that is the attitude a free country should have. People must always been given a safe environment in which to express their opinion, because suppressing the voice of dissent is a powerful tool for tyranny.

But there are situations where "speech" can and should be regulated, the classic example being you can't loudly yell "fire!" in a crowded room. We don't want to endanger lives with what people say, but we do want to allow people to voice their opinions. But it isn't as if the prankster's opinion is that there's a fire and he's being repressed from voicing an opinion.

I think that is what tends to confuse people on the Mohamed cartoon issue, is that peaceful, mildly pro-free-speech, aware people know that printing such a cartoon will lead to violence. But there is a huge difference between yelling "fire" and printing a cartoon, and that difference I think leads to very clearly different appropriate responses to each situation.

Yelling fire causes undue panic, which can result in harm, and it also could lead to a "boy-who-cried-wolf" effect of numbing people to the sound of alarms. Regulating such "speech" is acceptable because while it is a vocal deliverance, there is no actual content to that speech - it is simply a verbal act of violence. There's no opinion, no political commentary, no complaint, nothing. It is just vandalism. Yelling fire in a crowded place is condemnable.

But, drawing a satirical cartoon has a message. There's a political point, a criticism, being made, and violent reaction to it has one logical purpose - to silence that criticism. As a religion, Islam has built into it these mechanisms to silence opposition, calling for the death of anyone who insults their prophet. They might call it pride or honor or religious expression, but its only logical purpose is to stifle dissent. Islam is intolerant and repressive in this regard (as was Christianity in the middle ages, so I'd speculate that it could be possible for a similar liberalization of Islam to happen, where they start to see the more violent parts of the Koran as metaphors or something. Of course you know I think we'd all be better off if all religion was forgotten.)

Consequently, I condemn anyone who calls for violence in response to a peaceful expression of an opinion, including anyone who does it in the name of a religion. And I think that as a nation, one of our defining core values is freedom of speech. And so as a nation, we should uniformly voice our condemnation of violent response to an cartoon.

Similarly, I will never condemn someone for the act of expressing their opinion (except when they're loudly expressing their own opinion to drown out the voice of another - like protesters storming a stage recently at Columbia University. Or when they disrupt a quiet solemn occasion, like when the God Hates Fags people hold up anti-gay hate signs and yell nasty shit at military burials. Both of those groups have the right to express their opinions in some other way, just not in the manor they've chosen - a manor that interupts other people's rights. Muslims who call for violence in response to cartoons offer no opportunity for criticism of Islam. I think there are clear principle differences that make these cases unacceptable while other hurtful speech is acceptable, so if you think I haven't adequately made that case, please tell me why.) even if I find their opinion in poor taste. And I admire the courage of someone who has the courage to express a reasonable message even when they know it might bring unjustified violence in response.


Conflict Resolution

I'm pretty sure you're not saying that the US should have been condemning the Danish newspapers, but what you're saying is that if America is supposed to be out there trying to mend strained relations, than condemning the Danish and sympathizing with the Muslims would have been in line with that intention. Given my stance on free speech, I think the US would be dead wrong to criticize Danish papers for publishing those cartoons.

My general approach to conflict resolution is to find common ground. There is always common ground, and you really can't resolve any differences between people or groups unless you both start from the same place.

So you find a few quotes in the Koran about valuing peace or something, and then you say how Americans also value peace. Then you build a reasonable and logical case why, given the value of peace, violence in response to a cartoon is wrong. Then you say that America values free speech, but that doesn't mean we endorse every view that is allowed to be said, etc.

Reasonable, logical people would respond positively to that message.


Sad Reality

Of course, there's no guarantee that people will be reasonable and logical, but you have to start there. If people refuse to respond reasonably, then they become a problem, and you have to figure out how to deal with them. (And one way you have to deal with them is to understand WHY they aren't being reasonable and logical, which I'll get to shortly.)

There's no guarantee that our message will reach people in its proper form. We''ll probably be quoted out of context and our position would be distorted. We'd say "we support the free expression of Danish papers" and they'd report "Americans hate Mohamed" and "America insults Islam." (But if a sacred tenant of Islam is that you kill people who say bad things about Islam, then the United States is and absolutely should be, against Islam. And we should say that, as should every other free country. And we should also say that if Islam would just drop that one part, we'd be cool again, at least on this issue.)

And yes, there is a reality that voicing a reasonable opinion is likely to make an insane person behave violently. But we can't live in fear of that, and we can't cave in to bullies. We're strong enough to stand up to such bullying. If ragtag colonists can stare down the British Empire, the free countries of the modern world can stare down some insane desert lunatics.

Beyond Common Values

If I read your views right, I think you probably agree with most of what I've said, and probably are agreeable to the part about finding common ground as a key to acceptance between different cultures. But a problem with stating that you share common values is that if what they see of you in the world doesn't fit with your message, they have no reason to believe you.

So, to use your Egypt example, what do Egyptians see of America? (I'm going to start speculating wildly here. If you don't think these speculations are reasonable, please explain why. Keep in mind I'm describing what people see, not necessarily what is real, although I think the people have very legit reasons to see it as reality. Some of these ideas are supported by the link at the end of your message.) They see American corporations working with the few rich Egyptians who own the oil fields to suck as much oil out of the ground as possible. They see that the vast majority of that wealth doesn't benefit the Egyptian people, instead going to a tiny elite class. They see us helping the rich controlling class to set up a sham of a democracy, with rigged elections that make it seem like they rule with the consent of the people, when everyone knows that it was all bullshit to begin with, and that the same people would stay in control. And they see that America is the most prosperous nation in the world, that we're fat and happy and drink a glass of refined oil with all our meals, oil that they break their backs working 12 hours a day to pump out of the ground and get paid only $5 a week.

They see us sucking up to the people with the oil, and spitting on the peasants. They see us oppressors and vultures and opportunistic greedy bastards.

I think there might be an important reason that the 9/11 hijackers were Egyptians and Saudis, and it is because those governments work with the US to do business that doesn't benefit the people of those countries. If you're in Saudi Arabia, and you're pissed about being poor and you think America is to blame because of all the stuff you see them doing, you probably think your only option to fight America is to join Al Qaeda. A pissed-off poor Iraqi who hates America could always join Saddam's army because they know Saddam hates America too (although pissed-off poor Iraqis are more likely to blame Saddam than America, in the Saddam era of course). So a person whose government doesn't represent him against a perceived oppressor is more likely to go the terrorist route.

[That's the end of my speculation about what's going on in a place like Egypt, an Arab country that we purportedly are "helping" or reaching out to bridge a culture gap, but that you could much more realistically/cynically make a case that all we're doing is trying to prevent the poor from rebelling against the rich and compromising our oil supply.]

I have this general idea that I haven't expressed much in these emails because I don't have it quite worked out yet, but the general idea is that uneven (more specifically uneven which is seen as unfair - you can say "fair" is subjective, but people more readily identify when they've been slighted than they identify when they've slighted others , so there's always going to be a disparity in perception of "fair") distribution of wealth, economic inequality is the main driver of most human tension (with religious ideology being a primary enabler - offering a way for otherwise good people to justify to themselves the bad things that they do - "kill the dirty infidel" is noble because you're defending the honor of god, instead of defending your right to profit from your nation's oil). Countries where anti-American sentiment is highest are probably countries where our "imperialist" international policy is harming local people, somehow perpetuating economic inequality, perhaps without most of America even being aware of it (not to mention that there is a positive relationship between poverty and religiousness).

The trillion dollar idea

Getting back to cultural differences, the reason I sometimes have juxtaposed spending a trillion dollars on a war vs using that money for undeniably humanitarian purposes is that you really can buy friendship in most cases. If you give water to a thirsty man, you become his friend. If you give food to a starving family, they love you. If you heal the sick and clothe the naked, you've got friends for life, assuming you don't proceed to rape their wives and burn down their homes. If you've crossed them in the past, they might refuse your aid, and you should respect that refusal and don't insist. But you help their neighbors if they accept it, and you help everyone else around them. And soon the hold-outs are fewer and farther between and more powerless, and hopefully their grudge doesn't last into the next generation.

There's some saying about how America has never had a war against a country with a McDonald's in it, or something like that. The point being that if you do business with people, you're much less likely to fight them, because fair economic transactions are supposed to create value - both sides win. So to the extent that we're out there internationally doing fair business where both sides win, we're generally going to make friends, or at least avoid making enemies. But if we do unfair business, we don't make those friends, and probably make enemies.

I've never said that we SHOULD have spent a trillion dollars on humanitarian aid, I've simply posed that we'd probably be better off if we spent the money that way than by fighting the war (but I'll address the Iraq war portion of your comments another time, so for the purposes of this discussion I'd ask you not to engage the merits of my comparison.)

So in regards to our cultural differences, the ones where finding common ground would be helpful in resolving, it is a lot easier to establish that common ground if we're conspicuously doing those people some good and aren't conspicuously doing them harm. You're a lot less likely to hate me for saying things you disagree with than to hate some random loudmouth for saying the same things, only because you know me and we have a history of being friends. We've had good times together, so you'll cut me a lot more slack than a stranger, and way way more slack than someone you're already prone to hating, like a fat chick wearing a yankees hat.

Some have pointed out that some forms of aid would be criticized as culturally inappropriate, as trying to advance some agenda, and I agree. You probably can't offer a starving Muslim a BLT and expect gratitude. But there has to be some kind of aid that they'd like. Give them clean water and penicillin and band-aids. Or give them pencils and math textbooks. Do your cultural homework and give aid that won't offend. Teach them how to build bridges or plumbing. And then you work the diplomatic side, offering incentives to government that is fair to its people. You be a good friend to the people of the country.

This isn't to suggest that winning the affections of different cultures is easy, but I think there is a reasonable way to proceed. There will be challenges along the way, and some of them will relate to other aspects of what you've written about. Hopefully my response to some of your other points will address some of these issues (like what if they just don't want anything to do with you and then they seem like they probably have nukes that they want to use.)

I'd conclude with a specific response to the problem you've identified, which I think summarizes this rant of mine. You wrote: "You've mentioned before that we should be more altruistic to win the favor of other nations. Especially those who hate us or have grievances." and then you went on to highlight problems with cultural differences related to free speech. I think we'd agree that sticking to our values in the face of opposition is the right thing to do. And hopefully I've shown that the relationship between altruism and cultural differences is that people are more inclined to peacefully resolve their cultural differences when they have a good relationship, and that altruism is a powerful first step towards establishing good relationships.

Peace.

on shifting views

A thoughtful comment from Dan on my last post raised an issue that I'd like to explore further. In fact I meant to get more into it during that rant, but I guess I lost track of it.

Dan wrote:

On top of that, we can't even rely on our own preferences and views to remain static. I can still remember with astonishing clarity the days when you used to argue with me that religion did more good than bad, fuck the earth because technology will always overcome and what do i care I'll be dead anyway, and that siding with one party of a 2-party system was probably good just because it's probably better than siding with the other party. It's been interesting seeing your viewpoints shift.

Dan wonders, as do I, how much I can be sure that my current perspective will last, given how much it has changed in the last few years. But another question would be are the changes random or are they moving in a certain direction? And I think there's a clear direction to my changes.

I did make the arguments Dan mentions, arguments that are somewhat embarrassing to me now. But I understand why I made them at the time, I understand why I make different arguements now, and I understand why I moved from one to the other. That same understanding makes me think I'm not likely to revert to the previous state, and relates to these career choices.

Recently I went back and reread some of my old blog posts, because I've been aware how much my views have changed on some subjects. This old post was particularly awkward for me to reread. But at the same time, I was somewhat proud of the reasonableness I displayed. The fatal flaw of my argument was that I was using reasonableness to defend an viewpoint I reached from a place of unreasonableness.

In a very general way I was arguing that Bush's warrantless wiretaps weren't so bad, not because I understood the issue, but because I simply made bad assumptions about the issue, and this was I think the basis of all of my argument:

"It seems likely to me that what the President did was not illegal either because it was suffiently in grey area or because it was explicitly legal."

In other words, I had no idea, but I just made an assumption rather than try to erase my own ignorance. I just figured that both sides of the political debate had their own partisan agendas (which they of course do) but I didn't realize that having a partisan agenda doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong.

In spite of my spirited argument from ignorance, I said some things I'm proud to have said, and that in some ways predicted my shift in stance:

• "the reason he cites for his objection is the reasonable idea that if you give someone a power with the understanding they'll use it for good, eventually they'll use it for bad."
• "Hopefully your point in 5 is that we should be wary of granting powers that we can't monitor for misuse. That is a good point. When we quickly grant powers in response to an immediate threat, and those powers might not be able to be monitored, we should weigh the benefits those powers provide against the potential negatives of their misuse, and also factor in that we can develop a way to monitor them while they are already in use."
• This entire list of 14 points, which now I would probably still use as a tool to argue the exact opposite side (actually not the exact opposite, since my argument wasn't really that warantless wiretaps were good. My point then was more like "people arguing warantless wiretaps are bad are just partisan anti-Bush people who'll jump on any cause to go against a Republican.")
• "You sell yourself short, calling it futile, after making a great point that it all boils down to a subjective worth of something."

Walt took most of the aversarial role in that conversation (I love you Walt), and I pounced on some of the less logical things he said, while simply conceding his better points, which had the effect of magnifying his more debateable points since I could devote more time to refuting them. Paradoxically, simply conceding his good points almost had the effect of dismissing them.

Anyway, the point of this whole flashback was to illustrate that many of my old views/ideas that are different than my current views/ideas were different because they were based on ignorance. I had preconcieved notions that I wanted to be true, and I argued fairly persuasively (at least persuasively enough for myself at the time) in favor of those preconceived notions. But somewhere along the way, something happened and I let go of a lot of those preconceived notions.

My progression of views follows a logical structure, when you look at it that way. At least some of my transitions from

math --> finance --> econ --> psychology --> philosophy --> anthropology

also make sense in this way. I started with math because I was good at it and liked it. I liked economics because it was based in math but it was a tool to try to understand how humans behave. Pyschology is a classic discipline devoted to understanding how humans behave, and the evolutionary psychology I was reading helped me to understand myself better. My interest in philosophy was specifically in philosophy of science, because I realized that the scientific method rigorously seeks to eliminate the biases that preconceived notions cause, a powerful idea to me at the time since I had just gone through a process of ridding myself of such biases.

And my latest focus on anthropology is again touching on my theme of interest in human nature. I also realize that part of my academic interest is in pursuing subjects that will help me understand myself. I also see Anthropology as giving me the freedom to pursue a very wide range of scholarly study of humanity, and also the option of a wide range of enviroments in which to study it. There are anthropologists in university classrooms, in corporate boardrooms, in government institutes, in jungles of South America, in African plains, on beautiful Islands, or in poverty-ravaged third world countries. They work with microscopes, or with fossils, or with chimps, or with college students. They're all studying human nature, but they're all doing it in very different ways, and presumably they gravitate towards locations and lifestyles that they personally enjoy, while trying to find an intellectually satisfying theme to their work.

Thanks to everyone who is responding to this stuff. It means a lot to me. But not enough that I'm going to run the spell checker.

long uneditted brainstorm about school

I'm going to revert to the tried and true blog form of the unedited (mildly edited) rant. I've let a few rants fly in emails this week and it felt pretty good, so let's see if it helps with this.

The topic at hand is my career, or more specifically my lack of career, and hypothetic musings on what kind of career I'd like to have. If you've been following along in this stupid blog of mine, you'll know that I entertain the notion of going back to school for a PhD, and I think of myself as some kind of scholar wannabe. In spite of the idea of school being in my head for years now, I haven't made a lot of progress towards actually getting there. Here's my current situation.

Most PhD programs have application deadlines between December 1 and early January for admission to the following fall semester. If I were to want to apply, I'd need letters of recommendation, which would require me giving a least 1 month notice to anyone who'd be writing on my behalf, meaning I'd need to ask them by November 1st for the early schools or December 1st for the later schools.

In other words, I'd need to know tomorrow that I definitely want to apply for a program that would occupy the next 5~8 years and basically define the rest of my life. I just don't think I can pull that off.

Moving away from the practical side, and back to the theoretical side, my most recent field of interest is Anthropology. When I wondered what my undergrad major would be as I was transitioning from high school to college, I thought I'd maybe do math. But I didn't register as a math major, I just registered as a "letters and sciences" major or something like that, which basically meant I didn't know what I wanted to major in. I took a very hard math class my first semester (real analysis) that I was definitely not prepared for, and it made me think I shouldn't be a math major. So then I was back to having no idea. I took a couple intro-level psychology classes, but they weren't very interesting. I had a friend who was majoring in finance, and he told me that being a finance major meant lots of easy classes and you could still make a lot of money with that degree. I didn't even know what finance was, aside from his description of "it is about how to make money with money, kind of like accounting, stocks and that stuff." So I became a finance major. What a terrible reason to pick a major - because it wouldn't be challenging. Eventually I added an economic degree as well, since I had liked my high school economics class, and there were some economics requirements for finance anyway. So I spent 4 years of college getting a double degree (150 credits) in 2 subjects that I really didn't care too much about, aside from some vague interest from my high school days. But the economics I took, I didn't even really like most of it, except for game theory.

The whole point of this rant was to illustrate that my early career/academic interests were math, psychology and economics, but I made no real effort to develop those interests. I just took the easy way out.

Since college, I've explored other areas of intellectual interest. I remember shortly after I graduated I decided to reread an archaeology textbook from a class that I enjoyed but didn't put a great deal of effort into. I reread some books that were part of a class I took my freshman year called 'Science and Pseudoscience' that was probably my favorite college class - books about skeptical thinking: "Why People Believe Weird Things" (Michael Shermer), "Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions" (James Randi), and "How We Know What Isn't So" (Thomas Gilovich). I read Stephen Hawkings' books (A Brief History of Time, The Universe in a Nutshell) and a few other books on string theory (Brian Green - The Elegant Universe, . I finally read Ayn Rand's masterpieces - "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". Then I stumbled onto a book called "NonZero: The Logic of Human Destiny" by Robert Wright. That turned me on to evolution and evolutionary psychology and I really got hooked. I read his earlier book "The Moral Animal" and then I started reading Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, maybe others I don't remember right now) and Pinker (The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate). I was fascinated by this stuff, and I think that was about when I started blogging. I started reading other people's blogs about that time too, which eventually reopened my eyes to two topics that I'd avoided for a long time: religion and politics.

I finally had the interest and the courage to admit that I'm an atheist - an emotionally charged word that I had avoided for a long time for no good reason. It was quite liberating, and a lot of the world started to make a whole lot more sense once I flipped that switch. I also realized that I'm not politically conservative like I always thought I was, and I've taken more interest in politics and from a much more open-minded perspective. I got a subscription to Skeptic Magazine and read Shermer's "Science Friction," and even went to a meeting of a local skeptic group, though I haven't gone back yet.

I read Jared Diamond (Guns Germs and Steel, The Third Chimp, Collapse) and his books really made me start to see how good science can and should inform responsible modern living. I read very recent politically charged books (Sam Harris - The End of Faith, Chris Mooney - The Republican War on Science, Glen Greenwald - How Would a Patriot Act) and those made me realize how political movements, especially when fueled by religious fundamentalism, can just disregard good science and responsible political values and lead to human tragedy. And that re-opened my interest in understanding people, and making sense of religion. Recent reading included "Stumbling on Happiness" by Dan Gilbert, "Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer, "A Devil's Chaplain" by Richard Dawkins. Continuing to explore politics, especially in light of understanding human nature and how the American system isn't all it seems to be, I read John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" and now I'm reading "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn.

Now that I've gone off and listed a lot of the books I've read in the last few years, I should bring it back to the point I've tried to make. The point of the book list which I may or may not have made obvious as it went was to track my intellectual interests as they've developed. To greatly simplify, if I had to summarize what direction my academic career would have been likely to take at each of a few points in time over the years, here is what it would look like:

math --> finance --> econ --> psychology --> philosophy --> anthropology

And so now here I am, thinking I'd probably like to be a professional academic, thinking that anthropology is most interesting field right now, and seeing application deadlines in the very very near future. But I also see that my interests have changed a lot in the last few years, and it seems reasonable to think they'll change again. But still, I think I feel more confident about anthropology now than I ever felt about economics, even when I was accepted to those programs, so... so... I don't know what that means.

In the next month I'm getting married and I'm turning 26. My life is moving in a direction where I need to start being more responsible, whether I'm ready for it or not. Anthropology tends to take 6~8 years to get a PhD.

So, to get back to practical, what do I do now?

One idea is that I could try to apply to a few anthropology programs that look interesting to me and that have later (Jan 1+) deadlines. That leave me enough time to apply, and gives me a few more months after applying to try to figure out what research are of most interest to me (I have general thoughts on this. Topics of interest: cognition, human evolution, evolution of human behavior, religion, rationality, laziness/productivity, tradition. Models that I think I'm most interested in: modern first world nations, non-human primates, and hunter-gatherer tribes. Over-arching research themes: humans not made for the modern world, persistence of irrational belief and behavior.) and how various programs fit with those interests. If after getting into a few places I realize there are others schools that might be better fits, or even other disciplines that might be more appropriate, I can decline the acceptance and apply next year.

Or I could just accept that I don't have enough time to apply the "right way" if there is such a thing, and spend the next full year really devoted to the mission of figuring this out once and for all. I could either keep doing the job I'm doing (I'm pretty sure they'd hire me full time) or maybe try to get a job teaching high school or middle school for a year. That would give me enough time to get in contact with professors at various programs and get a better feel for how I'd fit in at different places and maybe visit, versus applying now based mainly on the website information and maybe a few email exchanges if I get ambitious.

I'm genuinely not sure the best way to proceed, and I'm also handicapped by my own weaknesses, specifically laziness and introversion. I'm bad at working without imminent deadlines, and I'm shy about reaching out to strangers to express interest in their work. I'm also going to be travelling and not able to devote much if any energy to this from November 7 to 16 (our "honeymoon" in the Philippines) and I feel like that is another looming obstacle to proceeding with these matters (even though I'm very excited about the trip).

Applications are all going to require a personal statement, where I make my case about why they should let me into their program. So in order to write that I'd need to have a good understanding of why I'd want to get in, and why they'd want to have me. And I feel like I'd have to have that statement ready before I ask anyone to write me a letter of recommendation, so those people know why I want to do it. So I'd need to come up with that statement, or a good rough draft, pretty quickly, which is partially what this rant is hoping to get me thinking about. So if nothing else, I've gotten some brain dump out onto this screen and it might have something for me to draw from for such a statement.

Another obstacle is that many applications require a writing sample. I don't have a writing sample. I didn't have to write any respectable papers in college, at least not as the sole author, and my professional work has yet to require any writing that would be appropriate either. I could maybe find a way to turn my work that I'm doing now into a paper, but I'd have to figure that out pretty quickly too. Or maybe I'd just have to write a 10 page paper on some academic subject, which would take a lot of time, but could be fun I guess. Some programs don't require the writing sample though, so maybe that would be another criteria that eliminates schools from consideration for applying this year.

I think this is the end of my rant for tonight, and I think I'll stick with my plan not to go back and edit it. If you actually read this far, I'm impressed, and if you have any advice I'd be grateful.

EDIT 1: I am going to go in and edit parts of this. My first edit is to get all the book titles and authors right, and to include references to some books and other ideas related to skepticism that I forgot to include initially. They roughly correspond to the philosophy part of the timeline, as my specific philosophical interest was the philosophy of science.

Atheist Blogroll

I joined the

links adspar likes 8 (biological edition)

Here is the 8th installment of a recurring feature, creatively titled links adspar likes. These should keep you busy with good reading material while you're bored at work, and it makes me feel productive because most of the links are educational and/or thought-provoking.

This is the biological edition of links adspar likes.



How Global Warming Disrupts Biological Communities - a Chronobiological Perspective
by A Blog Around the Clock

adspar's quick summary:
Several examples of animals, mostly birds, whose behavior patterns have been altered by global warming.

why you should read it:
The Pizzlie: polar bear/grizzlie hybrid. Wow.


The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online
by Chucky D

adspar's quick summary:
pretty self-explanitory

why you should read it:
Dude, Darwin!


Elephants Gone Wild
by Jonah Lehrer

adspar's quick summary:
This is mostly just a link to a NYTimes piece about how elephants are going crazy and killing and raping rhinoceroses. Yes, you read that right.

why you should read it:
Stress makes animals do weird things.


That's all for links adspar likes 8 (biological edition). Just a quicky to get some links off my massively growing list of links to blog about. Links here. Preview of future links here.

gambling ban stuff

A pair of articles about the internet gambling ban fiasco

George Will, Newsweek

Radley Balko, FoxNews

Also, check out this protest from Downsize DC.

UPDATE: another one

another must-read

From Dispatches:

Writes Jerry Taylor, who initially supported the war in Iraq, at the Cato blog, "This is jaw dropping stuff. If I were a Congressman and this information had crossed my desk back in 2003, I would have submitted articles of impeachment of President Bush right then and there. This is criminal negligence and incompetence so amazing that words can't do the matter justice." I couldn't agree more.

email and politics

I've been having a lot of political discussions over email with friends and family lately. I've somewhat neglected my blog in the meantime, and I'm hoping to find a way to post a lot of the political thoughts I've expressed in that private correspondence in this public forum.

The last post about the airline pilot was an easy example of how to do it since it was just a forwarded message. For more my responses in more personalized discussions, I do want to respect the privacy of my friend who have expressed their views to me over email, so I'm planning to edit what I've written in such a way as to respond to "a friend who argues this" as opposed to directly quoting them.

War thoughts of an airline pilot

I received the following in a forwarded email tonight. My response is included below.

- adspar

email forward:

Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 4:38 PM

Subject: Captain's Blog

Subject:
Pilot's blog
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:31:32 +0000

This is from a retired Delta pilot in response to questions about whether he was planning to see "United 93."

I haven't seen the movie, yet, but I intend to when I get the chance. Retirement has made me busier than ever, and I haven't had the chance to see many movies lately.

As a Delta B-767 captain myself at the time of the attacks on 9/11 I was in crew rest in Orlando that morning. I had just turned on the TV in my hotel room only to see the World Trade Center tower on fire, and then saw the second airplane hit the other tower. My immediate reaction was "Terrorists...we're at war", followed by the realization that we airline crew-members had all dodged a bullet; it could have been any one of us flying those planes. As soon as the news stations flashed the first pictures of the terrorists I knew just how close and personal the bullet I dodged was. There, on the screen for all to see, was a man who had sat in my jump seat the previous July. His name was Mohammad Atta, the leader of the terrorist hijackers.

Atta had boarded my flight from Baltimore to Atlanta on July 26, 2001 wearing an American Airlines first officer uniform. He had the corresponding AA company ID identifying him as a pilot, not to mention the required FAA pilot license and medical certificate that he was required to show me as proof of his aircrew status for access to my jumpseat.

An airline pilot riding a cockpit jumpseat is a long established protocol among the airlines of the world, a courtesy extended by the management and captains of one airline to pilots and flight attendants of other airlines in recognition of their aircrew status. My admission of Mohammad Atta to my cockpit jumpseat that day was merely a routine exercise of this protocol.

Something seemed a bit different about this jumpseat rider, though, because in my usual course of conversation with him as we reached cruise altitude he avoided all my questions about his personal life and focused very intently upon the cockpit instruments and our operation of the aircraft. I asked him what he flew at American and he said, "These", but he asked incessant questions about how we did this or why we did that. I said, "This is a 767. They all operate the same way." But he said, "No, we operate them differently at American." That seemed very strange, because I knew better. I asked him about his background, and he admitted he was from Saudi Arabia. I asked him when he came over to this country and he said "A couple of years ago." to which I asked, "Are you a US citizen?" He said no. I also found that very strange because I know that in order to have an Airline Transport Pilot rating, the rating required to be an airline captain, one has to be a US citizen, and knowing the US airlines and their hiring processes as I do, I found it hard to believe that American Airlines would hire a non-US citizen who couldn't upgrade to captain when the time came. He said, "The rules have changed." which I also knew to be untrue. Besides, he was just, shall I say, "Creepy"? My copilot and I were both glad to get rid of this guy when we got to Atlanta.

There was nothing to indicate, though, that he was anything other than who or what he said he was, because he had the documentation to prove who he was. In retrospect, we now know his uniform was stolen and his documents were forged. Information later came to light as to how this was done.

It seems that Mohammad Atta and his cronies had possibly stolen pilot uniforms and credentials from hotel rooms during the previous year. We had many security alerts at the airline to watch out for our personal items in hotel rooms because these were mysteriously disappearing, but nobody knew why. Atta and his men used these to make dry runs prior to their actual hijackings on 9/11. How do I know? I called the FBI as soon as I saw his face on the TV that day, and the agent on the other end of the line took my information and told me I'd hear back from them when all the dust settled. A few weeks later I got a letter from the Bureau saying that my call was one of at least half a dozen calls that day from other pilots who had had the same experience. Flights were being selected at random to make test runs for accessing the cockpit. It seems we had all dodged bullets.

Over the years my attitude towards the War Against Terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been known to be on the red neck, warmongering, rah-rah-shoot-em-up side of things. I've been known to lose my patience with those who say the war in Iraq or anywhere else in the Muslim world is wrong, or who say we shouldn't become involved in that area of the world for political correctness reasons. Maybe it's because I dodged the bullet so closely back in 2001 that I feel this way. I have very little patience for political rhetoric or debate against this war because for a couple of hours back in July 2001, when I was engaged in conversation with a major perpetrator in this war, I came so close to being one of its victims that I can think in no other terms.

I don't mind admitting that one of the reasons I retired early from Delta last May, other than to protect my disappearing company retirement, was because it became harder and harder for me to go to work every day knowing that the war wasn't being taken seriously by the general public. The worst offenders were the Liberal detractors to the present administration, and right or wrong, this administration is at least taking the bull by the horns and fighting our enemies, which is something concrete that I can appreciate. Nobody was taking this war seriously, and it seems everyone found fault with the US government rather than with those who attacked us. I found that incomprehensible.

I also found myself being scrutinized by TSA screeners more and more every day when I went to work, and suffered the humiliating indignity of being identified about half the time for body searches in front of the general flying public who looked at the entire process as being ludicrous. "They don't even trust their own pilots!" accompanied by an unbelieving snicker was the usual response. Here I was, a retired USAF officer who had been entrusted to fly nuclear weapons around the world, who had been granted a Top Secret clearance and had been on missions over the course of 21 years in the military that I still can't talk about without fear of prosecution by the DoD, who was being scanned by a flunky TSA screener looking for any sign of a pen knife or nail file on my person.

It wasn't until six months after my retirement when my wife and I flew to Key West, FL last November that I was finally able to rid myself of the visage of Mohammad Atta sitting behind me on my jumpseat, watching my every action in the cockpit and willing to slit my throat at the slightest provocation. I missed being a headline by a mere 47 days, and could very well have been among the aircrew casualties on 9/11 had one of my flights on my monthly schedule been a transcontinental flight from Boston or New York to the west coast on the 11th of September. Very few people know that, while only four airliners crashed that day, four more were targeted, and two of them were Delta flights. The only reason these four weren't involved is because they either had minor maintenance problems which delayed them at the gate or they were scheduled to depart after the FAA decided to ground all flights. Theirs are the pilots and flight attendants who REALLY dodged the bullet that day, and my faith in a higher power is restored as a result.

I will see United 93 when I get the chance, and I will probably enjoy the movie for its realness and historical significance, but forgive me if I do not embrace the Muslim world for the rest of my life. The Islamic world is no friend of the West, and although we may be able to get along with their governments in the future, the stated goal of Islam is world conquest through Jihad and it is the extremist Jihadists, backed and funded by "friendly" Muslim governments, whom we have to fear the most. We must have a presence in the Middle East, and we must have friends in the Middle East, even if we have to fight wars to get them. Only someone who has dodged a bullet can fully appreciate that fact.

Best to all,
Pat Gilmore

Editor's Note: For some reason which is beyond me, some people do not want to believe this. Perhaps they do not want to believe that Jihadist terrorism actually exists, because if someone doesn't believe it yet, they never will. Capt. Gilmore himself posted this comment, in our comments below, but I will put it here for all to see:

I assure you this letter is true. As to the fact that I wrote that a holder of an Airline Transport Pilot rating (ATP) must be a US citizen, I admit that I was mistaken here. I had always assumed so, because that's what I had heard, so I looked up the requirements for an ATP just now. There is nothing that says that US citizenship is required. Okay, I'll bite the bullet on that one. I received my ATP back in 1975 and now that I think of it I do not remember having to prove my citizenship. However, the rest of the story is true. As for my airline career, I worked for Western Airlines (who merged with Delta in 1987), Jet America Airlines (who was bought by Alaska Airlines in 1988), and Delta Airlines, as well as a few "fly by night" cargo airlines during my furlough period from Western from 1981 - 1985. I also flew in Vietnam as a transport pilot and retired from the USAF Reserve in 1991 after the Gulf War. I have 21,500+ flight hours in T-41, T-37, T-38, C-141/L-300, CE-500, CV-440, MD-80/82, B-727, B-737, B-757, and B-767 aircraft, all logged between 1970 and 2005 when I retired from Delta.

Trust me, folks, this was real. I must admit I am quite surprised that my letter made it this far on the internet. The letter was nothing more than an innocent reply to a group of friends, one of whom sent me a similar letter from another Delta pilot who had been flying the morning of 9/11 and who had experienced the flying that day for himself. His letter had detailed his thoughts as he viewed the movie "United 93", and he also told in detail how he had been diverted to Knoxville when the FAA shut down the airspace. My friend had asked me if I had known of any other similar experiences, so I wrote him what I had encountered myself a few months before. This was my letter to him.

Another retired Delta captain contacted me yesterday after reading this blog and related an experience his wife had on a flight from Portland, OR to Atlanta in August 2001, just a week or so after my experience with Atta. She was riding on a company pass and seated in First Class. A person of "Middle Eastern" descent had sought permission to sit on the cockpit jump seat, but was denied access by the captain because he did not have an FAA Medical certificate. She said he ranted and raved because he couldn't ride the cockpit jump seat, even though there were three empty seats in First Class, which the captain offered him. What pilot in his right mind would refuse a First Class seat over a cramped cockpit jump seat? He stormed off the aircraft and they left him at the gate. You see, mine wasn't the only experience leading up to 9/11.

Delta Airlines Corporate Security even contacted me a few days ago to ask if I had, indeed written this letter. I wrote them back that I had. They were worried that someone was using my name without my knowledge. I assured them I was the author.

Keep the faith, and don't let the bastards get you down.
Pat Gilmore

adspar response:

I had never heard about the 9/11 hijackers doing these kinds of dry runs. Interesting stuff, thanks for forwarding it!

I want to respond though to the political points this pilot discusses. This was an emotional story even just for me reading it, so I can't even begin to imagine the emotion the pilot must feel about the situation he's been through, and terrorism in general. He has his feelings and his opinions, and he's entitled to them.

But I can't help but notice that nothing in what he writes is actually an evidence-based argument in favor of the Iraq war as the most appropriate strategy for combating terrorism. The pilot simply writes that because of his traumatic experience, he has taken a "rah-rah-shoot-em-up" approach and that he appreciates that the "administration is at least taking the bull by the horns and fighting our enemies, which is something concrete that I can appreciate." He even acknowledges that maybe its because of how he dodged a bullet that he has no tolerance for debate of the issues.

In other words, he says that he's angry about how he could have been the one killed, angry at having to be humiliated, and he wants to hit someone back. I certainly understand that emotion, and I think we all can understand it.

But hopefully we also understand that reasonable foreign policy shouldn't be formulated by someone in a state of anger wishing to hit back. Making decisions about how to use our military, how to risk the lives of our soldiers, shouldn't be made in a state of anger, in a thirst for revenge. Calm, rational minds are needed to make difficult decisions.

Interestingly, the pilot even writes "right or wrong, this administration is at least taking the bull by the horns and fighting our enemies." Right or wrong? He seems to be saying that even if what they're doing is wrong, he's just happy they're doing something concrete. While I respect the man for what he's been through, I can't respect an attitude that doing something wrong is preferable to doing nothing at all.

He makes the point that "political correctness" is no reason to oppose a war, and I strongly agree. But there are many other reasons to oppose the war, and there aren't any serious politicians, pundits, or other commentators who would genuinely argue that a reason not to be at war is because we should respect Islam or because we shouldn't unfairly target Middle Eastern people, or any of those kinds of sensitivities we usually call political correctness. I don't know if this pilot thinks that political correctness is the only reason people oppose war, but if he does, he's wrong. And those other reasons for opposing war need to be strongly considered, not just dismissed because we're (understandably) angry about what happened.

Please note that nothing I've said here is voicing support for, or opposition to, the Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter) war. I'm simply pointing out that ____'s email is simply an interesting story about one man's experience. It is in no way is a reasoned argument in favor of war, nor is it a reasoned rebuttal of any serious anti-war arguments.

Olbermann on Bush - Oct 18

read this link

I found this piece so good that I had to post it in advance of my tribute to Glenn Greenwald as the next in my "favorite blogs" series.

O'Reilly + Couric = 0

If you took the time to dig through the history of this blog, which would make you a weird stalker, you'd find that my opinion of Bill O'Reilly has gradually declined after I initially liked him. The following situation continues that trend.

I saw this O'Reilly opinion column. It references a controversial Katie Couric CBS Evening News segment where they let some nutjob named Rohrbaugh on the air (a father who tragically lost his son in the Columbine school shootings) and he said some really ignorant shit about how teaching evolution leads to violence, echoing the moronic thoughts of disgraced criminal former congressman Tom DeLay. Rohrbaugh also made some anti-abortion comments.

Katie Couric was criticized for letting this guy on her show to spew nonsense, and she responded on her blog that she was aware some people would find Rohrbaugh's views repugnant. O'Reilly rants about how it is ridiculous that someone like Couric would call a pro-life view "repugnant." Katie's blog then posted this spineless retort that gave a forum for more anti-evolution bullshit.

Katie Couric and Bill O'Reilly are giants in the media, and they're both pathetic here. What is repugnant about this guy's statement is his anti-evolution ignorance. There is no evidence that widespread acceptance of evolution is harmful to a society, and in fact there is significant support for the idea that rejection of evolution and widespread belief in God is harmful to society****. How does this not get mentioned? I thought that responsible reporters, especially those who claim "no spin," are supposed to give you the relevant facts. "Fair and balanced" means that where there is a reasonable debate, you present both sides, not that you just give air time to insane people who hold views with no basis in reality. Couric might as well give 90 seconds for someone to tell us all that the Earth is flat and that 2+2=7.

Of course the reason they avoid stating the simple truth that evolution is as much a fact as gravity is that they don't want to offend the millions of zealot fundamentalists who refuse to accept reality. Those ignorant masses are a significant base of their viewers (or in O'Reilly's case, the vast majority) and they must be appeased.

**** - update: Mario points out that the study I linked to is complete bullshit. Rather than delete the mention of it, I'll leave it linked as a testament to my own shame. Also, shame on Skeptic Magazine.

another update: I was of course being over-the-top reactionary in my first update. The study has some merit, the problem is if you use it to support conclusions it doesn't actually support. It definitely offers some evidence to refute the absurd assertion that teaching evolution leads to societal ills. It doesn't, as I initially suggested, offer much support for the idea that "rejection of evolution and widespread belief in God is harmful to society." A fine but important distinction that might have gotten lost in my "complete bullshit" dismisal. Also I'm doing this update in a hurry, so I might have gotten something wrong here too.

sleep break

As I sit here at 12:33 unable to go to bed, I figure it is a good time to link to some information about sleep patterns. If you wake up in the middle of the night for 45 minutes, you might be naturaler than me, cause once I fall asleep it takes a lot of loud noise to wake me up within the next 9 hours.

Gay man employed!!!

More excellent stuff from Dispatches:

Not only did they give a gay man a job, but they treated his partner and his family as though they were normal human beings. You don't have to be Paul Cameron to see where that sort of thing leads. One day you're being nice to a gay man's mother and the next thing you know we've got forced sodomy as an activity in elementary school gym class. We've got to nip this in the....well, it clearly needs to be stopped. Bill Frist will now attach a bill requiring everyone to be rude and impertinent to all gay people and their mothers to an omnibus appropriations bill.

BLOG BLOG BLOG all night long

I'm rolling with linkblogging here, and I don't feel like reverting back to links adspar likes format yet. I know this is going to be a bit traumatic for some of you, my dear readers, but that's the way life is sometimes. I'm unpredictable. Deal with it. Stare down your fears and know victory. Actually you might want to avert your gaze. Yeah, cast your eyes slightly away and know victory.

Check this story out. Some homeschool kid has made $35,000 by being really good at some video game and selling the weapons he builds in the video game to other players. WTF?? That sounds way better than poker.

On the subject of homeschooling, UC Berkeley has a bunch of videos of lectures on Google Video. That is free learning that you can watch from home and get smart and use your new smartness to play video games and make $35,000.

The dark side of video games is that someone has to be the worst. Top notch funny shit.

Last link for tonight is this Bloggasm study of the blogosphere, which included responses from adspar.

My favorite blogs 1

Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars is one of my favorite blogs. I noticed I had a growing list of links from there that I've saved to write about. Here are a bunch of them.

• New Anti-Evolution Tactic? - Here Ed shreds a terrible argument that evolution is a religious belief.
• Wiccan Soldier Gets Symbol On Grave - Ed reports that the state of Nevada allowed a Wiccan symbol on the grave of a soldier. I noted this post for the comment thread, which includes a pretty sweet quote from Bush.
• Conservatives Against Republicans - Highlighting how in our 2-party system, it seems like the best we can ever hope for is a gridlocked government incapable of doing anything.
• Why Gay Marriage Matters - A genuinely moving story. I don't know how a human could read this and still oppose gay marriage.
• Anti-Drug Ads Increase Drug Use - The title says it all, but you have to read the rest of this just to see how pathetic our government's 'war on drugs' really is.
• Religious Right Loves Gambling Ban - Ed says that the assholes who seek to ban online gaming claiming that 'we must protect people from the addictions of gambling' are themselves addicted to controlling other people's lives.
• More Bush Signing Statements - President Bush is so fucking ridiculous. He signs a bill into law, then the same day says that he can just ignore it. "Bush is on a zealous mission to destroy any and all limitations on his unbridled authority. It's time for impeachment. Like now."
• And just to demonstrate that he takes positions that I'd probably never take, consider reading this post and the slew of comments, where Ed criticizes my hero, Richard Dawkins, for irresponsible scholarship in his most recent book, The God Delusion. This is just excellent stuff from Mr. Brayton.

Chumped

I'm not sure how to feel about this.

The synopsis is that a guy who was the #2 in Bush's office of faith-based initiatives wrote a book detailing how the administration played the evangelical christian groups for suckers, saying and doing anything to get their votes while mocking them behind their backs and breaking their promises.

~7 minutes each.

Olbermann Part 1

Olbermann Part 2

To lighten the mood but still leave you pissed off, here's a YouTube.

The Office (NBC)

I liked this show a lot for the first 2 seasons.

But they seem to have self-destructed by separating Jim from the rest of the Scranton gang. Why did they feel like they had to have him confess his love to Pam? Could they not see that the tension between them was such a rich source of viewer attraction to the show? They could have stretched that out for at least another 2 seasons before finally confronting the issue.

Now to resolve the sloppy aftermath of the Jim-Pam kiss and rejection, they put Jim in some other office with a hotter but less interesting romantic interest, and a much less entertaining office rival. Most importantly this has revealed how important Jim was as a straight-man foil to Dwight's antics. Dwight has been totally castrated by this move.

Season 3 just isn't nearly as funny so far. I hope they find some way to bring Jim back home ASAP, perhaps in some kind of office merger like they did in the British version.

more

Bill Frist is an asshole, Poker is gone

Ode to Billy Frist (to the tune of Kenny Rogers' "The Gambler")


On a cold Autumn evening,
On an Amtrak bound for Vegas,
I met a politician
He said his name was Billy Frist.

Said he knew life's biggest secrets,
And he'd trade them for my bourbon.
So I handed him my bottle,
And he told me what I'd missed.

He said, "Son, I've made a life
Out of thumping this here Bible.
Knowing how to get your vote
And all that right-wing cash.

I can see by your eyes
You don't like preachin' politicians,
But Christian rich will vote for me
As sure as poor white trash.

(Chorus)
You gotta know how to preach 'em,
Know how to reach 'em.
Know when to scare the rubes,
And when to terrify.
You never count your votes up
'Til you've convinced the suckers
That you're on the same side
As the Big Guy in the sky.

Now every preacher knows
That on any given Sunday
Some reasonable people
Won't believe this rhetoric

Just label them as gamblers,
Perverts, gays, and liberals.
The public won't care what they say
Because they must be sick."

(Chorus)

And when he'd finished speaking,
He guzzled down the bourbon,
Then checked his lottery tickets
And slapped me on the thigh.

"You know, son," he whispered to me,
"You'd have made a fine House pageboy.
Let's head back to the bathroom,
And I can show you why."

(Chorus)
You gotta know how to preach 'em,
Know how to reach 'em.
Know when to scare the rubes,
And when to terrify.
You never count your votes up
'Til you've convinced the suckers
That you're on the same side
As the Big Guy in the sky.

links adspar likes 7

I'm getting more and more pissed off everyday. Here are a few things that piss me off. I'm not bothering with my standard introduction or wrap-up any more because I'm too pissed off.


Legislating Violations of the Constitution
by Erwin Chemerinsky
(link might require registration after a few days, bust just use BugMeNot.com)

adspar's quick summary:
The House of Representatives quietly passed legislation that wouldn't allow plaintiffs who successfully sue for Church/State violations to recover attorney's fees, effectively making it far more difficult to legally challenge something like prayer in schools.

why you should read it:
The author argues that since the Republican majority knows they can't amend the Constitution, the sole intention of this legislation is to make it harder to enforce the establishment clause. I'd like to hear any other possible explanation for this passing, because I can't think of one.


They Cry, Pray to Bush and Wash out the Devil - Welcome to Jesus Camp
by Dan Glaister

adspar's quick summary:
A new documentary follows kids through Jesus camp.

why you should read it:
You've probably heard of this by now. It should be a crime to brainwash kids like this.


How would ID have contributed?
by PZ Myers

adspar's quick summary:
I'm posting this mostly because I liked the comment by Qrazy Qat, about half a dozen comments down the page. The rest of the discussion, about breakthroughs in using genetic studies to understand human evolution and the distortion of that science by ID clowns, is interesting too if you follow the links and read them and their links.

why you should read it:
The comment I like makes the simple point that it takes longer to refute a nonsense claim than to generate one, something that bullshit artists have known since the beginning of time. In fact this cuts to the very core of what science is all about. It is much easier to generate a plausible-sounding hypothesis that it is to rigorously test it. This is why it takes a lot of education and training to really understand basic science ideas, and decades of education to master a tiny area of expertise. Our brains are really good at coming up with simple theories that might explain things, but going through the pain of proving something is decidedly un-natural. If people woke up and realized that, lots of good things would happen, like good science would be respected again.


Ann Coulter on Newsnight (youtube video)

adspar's quick summary:
Speaking of bullshit artists, Ann Coulter is interviewed by A BBC anchor, and she says things that are so ridiculous that he stops bothering to challenge them.

why you should read it:
The British are way more sensible than Americans. His whole attitude from the introduction seemed to say "how can you possibly sell books?"


"... So Help Me God"
by The Republican Party of Texas

adspar's quick summary:
Anti-atheist bigotry is explicitly part of the Texas GOP's platform.

why you should read it:
Because it is so hard and yet so easy to believe this shit. These are actual politicians running for actual public positions. Fuck these ignorant assholes.


Intelligent Design is Scientific
from the Detroit Free Press

adspar's quick summary:
Let's keep rolling with the ignorant assholes. In the midst of a heated Michigan election that includes a debate over teaching ID in public school, here is a flood of ignorance in the 'letters to the editor' section.

why you should read it:
Presumably these people write in to the paper because they are politically active, which means these are the people that are voting. My favorite is towards the end:

My 4-year-old son said, regarding evolution: "Momma, that is the funniest thing I have ever heard."

Out of the mouths of babes.

Alice Benbow

Rochester Hills

Alice Benbow writes to the editor and votes in Rochester Hills, and not only is she ignorant, she is militantly ignorant. And her son is most likely going to grow up to be ignorant too, thanks to her terrible ignorant parenting. Do these people expect that all scientific phenomena are going to be able to be understood by a 4 year old? Do they themselves ever get beyond a 4-year old level of thinking? NOT EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE EASY! SOME IDEAS ARE GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN 3 SENTENCES TO EXPRESS! TURN OFF YOUR FUCKING SOAP OPERAS, PUT DOWN YOUR BAG OF BITE SIZE SNICKERS BARS AND READ A BOOK, ALICE BENBOW OF ROCHESTER HILLS! And please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop reproducing.

books, no blog

I haven't been doing much blogging lately. My small but dedicated group of readers at MBB are starting to mourn. Working cuts into my blogging time, plus I've been having a lot of political conversations on email lately, so that occupies a lot of my desire to write.

I've been reading a lot too. Recent titles include:

assholes

I'm still furious beyond my ability to articulate about this shameful bullshit that Congress let happen Friday. One of many thoughts about this is that I agree with Ed Brayton that we need to pass the Read the Bills Act.

still so mad

George Bush is going to torture you if you play online poker because that's what Jesus would do.

What the fuck is wrong with our country

America is a fucking joke right now

Every day I'm more embarrassed to be an American.

They slipped online gambling into this bill, the Safe Port Act of 2006. It seems to say that financial transactions to fund a gambling account are now illegal and will be blocked.


I don't even know what to say. This is a disgrace.

If I go back to school

9/27:

I need to update this. I've put a lot of thought and effort into this subject, especially over the last few weeks. Writing about it all should be good to help get my head together and also to get advice from people. The very short story is that I'm leaning away from Economics and towards Anthropology, and considering trying to get an application together in the next few months to start in fall 2007.

---

update April 15: leaving for Vegas in about 12 hours, but wanted to get a few ideas down. I'll fit them into the rest of this later.

• One thought that has occurred to me over the last month or so is that I've never been a "motivated self-starter," which is mentioned somewhere below as important for a career in academia. How much does it matter that I never have been? Could I be? What happens if I can't be? On the other hand, when I was working and I had stretches where I was really busy for a while, I started to feel antsy when I finally didn't have much to do. So maybe once I got used to being busy all the time, I'd keep up that inertia?
  
• A PhD in psychology or economics seems more widely marketable outside the academic world than philosophy or anthropology, at least in areas that interest me or that I have some experience with. I think it would also be easier for me to get into an economics or psychology program than something else.
• The comment conversation that developed in this post was very interesting I thought. Thanks to steak for his input. The idea I came up with at the end intrigues me, and seems like the kind of idea I could take and make a thesis out of. That would probably fit best into an economics program, but I could probably make it work somewhere else as well.
• I still don't really know what I'm talking about, because all these ideas are mostly just in my head. I don't have much idea how anything works. If I want to make something happen it is going to require me breaking out of the protective cocoon I've built around myself over the last year. I'll need to actually talk to people. I don't really like talking to people. I hate picking up a phone and calling anyone. This is a hurdle I'll have to get over.
  

---

I don't expect that I could indefinitely make a living playing poker, which is convenient because I don't want to. I'm considering going back to school to pursue a Ph.D.

I'm going to use this entry to keep track of my thoughts on the matter. I'll keep updating it as I think about and research things.. I'd much appreciate any comments on any of it - ideas for how I should approach the decisions, questions I should ask, reasons why this is a terrible idea, programs I should consider, etc.

So you want to do a PhD? (funny)

What can I get from a Ph.D.?

I got this from here.

The Ph.D experience is about much more than learning to do deep work in some technical area. Here are some of the more general things I expect you to get.

You should get a sense of confidence in the power of rational thought and the range of its applicability. Everything in life is a problem of some sort of the other. How often do we think about it that way, and approach methodically the job of solving it? After a Ph.D you should have the inclination and ability to research anything, whether it be mortgages, biology, cooking or Toyota engines, and the expectation that you will understand it.

You should get the confidence and inclination to question all that is around you and seek out new ways of doing it or seeing it. You should be more likely to ask why things are done a certain why, and how it could be made better.

A Ph. D should give you the confidence that you can jump into a new area, pick it up quickly, and have something interesting to say about it, even if other people have looked at this area for a long time. More than depth in any one area it should give you the courage to jump from area to area.

You might increase your appreciation for creativity, in other people and in all areas of life. You might view art differently, or think differently about music you hear, more appreciative of what it took to do this and how it departed from the previous works. You should learn to value creativity and seek it out.

It will install a sense of taste and a critical sense. It should make you unwilling to accept the common standards and norms, and to put them to the test of your own intellect and opinions. You should naturally find yourself questioning things. You should be willing to contradict conventional widsom. That doesn't mean being a rebel just for the sake of it; you are too mature for that. It just means being constructively critical.

Sounds pretty good, right?


What do I do with a Ph.D.?

The most obvious career path is being a professor.

• On Being a Professor
• Teaching, Scholarly activity, Service
  
• Career Profile: Professor -
  
• "a professor’s time is largely spent on research, preparing class material, meeting with students, or however else she chooses"
• "this profession is thus best suited for motivated self-starters"
• "The most difficult years of being a professor are the early ones, when there is great pressure to publish a significant body of work to establish the credentials that lead to tenure."
• "the profession offers intellectual stimulation and freedom to all its members."

Other options? I imagine they depend on the type of study...

What should I study?

Ok so I think I'm more likely to enjoy an academic career than any of the careers I've tried so far, and I believe in the power of rational thought, questioning and creativity. Now I need to figure out what to study. And I'm not sure how.

I know I want something scientific and focussed on people. I think I want interdisciplinary freedom. I want a central goal of my career to be encouraging people to think and act rationally - probably not just through teaching but through the research I do as well..

I have a broad idea of the kinds of programs that interest me - anthropology, psychology, philosophy, economics...

I know some slightly more specific topics that interest me - evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, consciousness, belief, science education, game theory...

I don't really know very what very specific topics interest me enough to do my doctoral thesis, but I don't imagine I have to figure that out yet.


Where should I study?

It will depend on what I want to study probably. How much does a prestigeous name matter? Where would I like to be geographically?

How does this fit in with the reality of my life?

My girlfriend? Money? Relocation?

Mark Cuban feels FANTASTIC

Maybe I need an entire section of this blog dedicated to Mark Cuban.

Procrustes and Eden 2

Eden

My list of distractions included things like video games, junk food, fantasy sports, and alcohol. They keep me away from my priorities. Last time I wrote about how the only reason my list of priorities looks like it does is because we've made so much progress that our lives have changed into something we aren't built to handle. We make all of our technological and cultural advances and for what?

XBox. Text messaging. Terrell Owens. CSI: Miami: Brazil: Round Brown Asses. Cheetos. MTV. High Fructose Corn Syrup. Lazy Boy. Coors Light. McDonalds. Marlboro Reds. Prison Break. Pro Wrestling. Soap Operas. Girls Gone Wild. Las Vegas. Diet Coke.

Cheap thrills. Empty enjoyment. Artificial stimulation.

Our minds and bodies evolved pleasure mechanisms to reward behaviors that increased our chances of survival and reproduction, the prime example being the orgasm, the ultimate physical pleasure payoff moment, so pleasurable that men spend all of their waking (and many of their sleeping) hours trying to get to their next payoff. But nature made that payoff so strong that we found a way to trick our bodies into giving us that pleasure payoff without earning it by successfully finding a reproduction opportunity.

All of our distractions are various forms of masturbation. We evolved a taste for sweet and fatty foods because such foods were rare enough that they were nutritious for us in the quantities that we were likely to encounter them. Now we can pick up a Big Mac on every street corner and take 12 days off our life expectancy. We enjoy exchanging tidbits of news about the personal lives of the people around us because that information was valuable to our decisions about who to trust or be wary of in trade, battle, or sexual situations. Now we have tabloids and The Real World. We use drugs and video games and online chat rooms to stimulate some pleasure center in some way that is easier to achieve than nature intended.

Eden is of course a reference to the biblical garden of Eden, specifically the story of the 'apple' and the fall of man. The story more or less goes that God creates the first people - Adam and Eve - and gives them a wonderful place to live where they'll be quite happy. He specifically tells them not to eat fruit from one tree, a simple instruction that Adam and Eve ignore. Once they eat it, all hell breaks loose and God kicks them out of paradise and dooms them and all their descendents to a life of pain and inevitable death. All because of a stupid apple. And the thing is, Adam and Eve were perfectly happy before they tried that stupid fruit and realized how much else they were missing.

I've never smoked, but that's the best example of a behavior that gives people pleasure while inflicting damage upon them. And the weirdest thing is that smokers never knew they liked or needed cigarettes until they tried them. They could have gone their whole lives never needing a cigarette if they just didn't have that first one. Adam and Eve could have gone their whole lives happy as pigs in shit if they never tried the damn apple.

And the real beauty of the Eden myth is that the tree they got the fruit from was the "tree of knowledge." It opened their eyes and showed them that there was more to the world than their little garden, but that also opened up pain and suffering and poisonous snakes. I've written before about how freedom to choose isn't always such a good thing. Often times people are a lot happier if they don't have choices.

But I can't let go of the simple economic concept that options have value. Choices are supposed to be good! Where is the disconnect? I think it is that people don't usually understand the full meaning of the choices in front of them. If I've got the option to read a book that would educate me on the legal system or to sit in front of my TV and watch 4 straight Law & Order reruns, I reach for the remote control. TV is more entertaining. It is easier.

But what if I didn't have that choice? What if my options were to read the book or to stare at my wall? Now the book looks like a lot more fun. Plus I'd learn a lot more and be better for it. But when I'm confronted with the choice of how to spend my time, my stupid stone-age brain chooses the TV. Our fucking genius space-age technology is built for the specific purpose of tricking our minds into making us completely worthless.

We as a society are so damn good at producing highly effective entertainment. We make booze and reality TV and video games. They all push our pleasure buttons more effectively than the stimuli by which our pleasure buttons were made to be pushed, except we don't get the same rewards. Pretty much everything on my personal list of distractions is man-made, fake pleasure, cheap thrill, Garden of Eden fruit, masturbatory emptiness.

So my hope is that by realizing and openly acknowledging the problems these distractions cause, it will help me to be at least somewhat less distracted by them. By fully calculating the costs and benefits of my decisions, I'll be able to happily chose the more valuable option, even if it isn't as immediately gratifying. So that is my hope.

But my concern is that those calculations in the rational part of my brain won't be enough to override the other pleasure mechanisms already in place. That ends up sounding a lot like addiction, which is why I've cross posted this entry to my laziness addiction support group.

quote

"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not real, he becomes furious when they are disputed."

- Bertrand Russell, "Human Society in Ethics and Politics"

Gays in the Military

Eden part 2 is almost ready, but until then, enjoy this.

H.L. Mencken

Wow this is an awesome Baltimorean.

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind--that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious. . .

I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.

I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech . . .

I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.

I believe in the reality of progress.

But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.

-- Mencken's Creed, cited by George Seldes in Great Thoughts

I found this at GifS.

PZ about science and religion. Read it!

He's baaaaack!

The legendary commenter of badassdom, NostalgiaDrag@gmail.com, is back commenting on my badass movie thread, and living up to his reputation. Check it out. Feel free to chime in the discussion.

Procrustes and Eden 1

Lists

In an effort to organize my life and make some changes for the better, I just sat down with a pen and paper and made some lists. The first list was of my priorities, and the second was a list of my distractions. After thinking about those two lists I made a third list of comments and observations about the first two, and the last items on that third list were "Procrustes" and "Eden." I want to write about those. It will take at least 2 entries. Here is the first.

Procrustes

My list of priorities broke down into 5 major categories. In no particular order they were: Making a living, relationships, health, enjoyment, and education. Each had several subpoints, for example health broke down to include sleep, diet, and exercise. Looking at my list of priorities reminded me of my favorite word: procrustean.

Procrustes was a bandit in Greek mythology who invited travelers into his roadside house, offering to let them use a bed that he claimed would precisely accommodate anyone regardless of their size. His invitation didn't mention that Procrustes guaranteed the bed's perfect fit by mutilating his guests - chopping off legs if they were too long, or stretching his short visitors on the rack. In modern English, "procrustean" is an adjective defined here as "producing or designed to produce strict conformity by ruthless or arbitrary means."

For the overwhelming majority of human history, defining one's priorities like I did (making a living, relationships, health, education, exercise) would have been preposterous, because they all were so interwoven that separating them would be silly. People made a living by doing whatever their parents did, usually hunting and gathering, in recent history farming, and very recently by specialized trades. They worked with the small tribe of family and friends that they spend their entire lives with, and they got their exercise from the work they did to put food in their bellies. Almost everything they learned was from watching and listening to elders and observing the world around them as they lived. Maybe if they were lucky they had some free time to sing songs or carve some wood, which was probably great fun they wished they could have more often.

Our world is bizarre compared to that. We can choose from almost unlimited ways to make a living. We can spend our lives with anyone we want (who will agree to it) and not necessarily anywhere near the family and friends we grew up with. Most of our career options won't involve much physical labor, so we'll have to get exercise another way if we want to stay in good health. An astonishing diversity of food is widely available for relatively little cost. The education that is emphasized is highly formalized, the education that is most valuable is ridiculed, and entertainment is at our fingertips any time and fully customizable to our every whim.

My point making this contrast isn't to romanticize and glorify my imagined version of primitive life, though I am tempted to do so. I know enough to realize that the vast majority of human existence is a violent, cruel and painful story and I wouldn't want to give up my place for that. Nor is my (main) intent to criticize our world, though I certainly tend to do that as well. And it would also be terrible to overlook that fact that most of the people alive today are struggling just to survive, and that the silly problems I'm writing about are nothing compared to their struggle.

My point is that we were built for the primitive world, not the First World, and that's why it is so easy to lose track of our priorities. In the primitive world, all of those priorities were mashed together in a daily struggle for survival, so it wasn't important for evolution to weave into our minds a specialty to prioritize our lives the way I did with that list. In modern times we've made so much progress in so many real ways that daily survival isn't a struggle, but an inadvertent cost of that progress is that we're confronted with problems we aren't good at solving. Those problems aren't as bad as Procrustes cutting off my feet, but I still feel like I'm being forced to fit where I don't quite belong.

Religion Explained and the crazy pills

Most of the world is obsessed with superstitions about imaginary invisible friends and enemies. Watching people, friends and loved ones, contort their minds around inane delusions can sometimes be enough to make me feel like I'm on the same drug as Mugatu:

Who cares about Derek Zoolander anyway? The man has only one look for Christ's sake! Blue Steel? Ferrari? Le Tigra? They're the same face! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

To answer the question of why religion is such a part of humanity, I just finished Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained, an examination of religious beliefs through the lens of evolutionary psychology. I can't recommend it strongly enough. This is exactly the kind of work people need to be doing, and the kind of book you should be reading.

Denver

I was in Denver from Sept 10-13. Denver is like a ghost town. There is nobody anywhere. I don't get it.

Highlights:

• Tour of the Flying Dog brewery and the Stranahan's Colorado Whiskey distillery next door. Including Kira and myself, there were 3 people on the tour. We learned a lot about making booze, and they were generous with free samples. I'd highly recommend checking out this tour if you ever get a chance.
• The Dave Matthews Band setlist that included Last Stop. I've seen this band probably 20 times now and The Last Stop had been #1 on my list of songs I've never seen them play that I want to hear. Now I just need to see Halloween.
  
• Tigers at the Denver Aquarium. I like tigers.
• 16th street is pretty cool.
• Being awoken at 7am by a Mexican construction worker perched outside our open 2nd story window yelling something to his buddy. That was awesome.
  

Dave wearing Robert Randolph's hat during All Along the Watchtower

Boyd and Dave dancing

Nice picture of the full stage.
Rashawn Ross is the biggest man in the world.

I think this looks pretty realistic

Where is everyone? This was like 12:30 on a Tuesday.
Denver is a weird ghost town.

Mile-high adspar on the steps
of the state capitol

I just like this picture Kira took
of the sweating beer taps

Dave Matthews Band
Pepsi Center, Denver, CO

One Sweet World
Proudest Monkey ...>
Satellite
Dreamgirl
Big Eyed Fish ...>
Grey Street
The Idea Of You
Loving Wings
Crash Into Me
The Last Stop
Can't Stop
Dancing Nancies
Warehouse
You Might Die Trying
Hunger for the Great Light
All Along The Watchtower

Encore:
Sister
So Right
Ants Marching

just now

me: I'm lovable
her: No, you're barely tolerable

So much for school

It seems like I haven't been posting my own thoughts on here very much the last few months. I kind of feel like for any thoughts I have, there's always somebody who has already said it better, so I just link to them. Bleh.

I decided to drop my class. Success in that course depends on a comfort level with math that I just don't have right now. To illustrate consider this excerpt from some class notes:




I can understand that, but just barely. It takes me a long time to read it and make any sense of it, but in class they fly through it in less than half the time it would take for me to understand it. (By the way, if you're actually trying to understand it, there's some information missing that was on another page of notes, so don't go crazy.)

It's kind of like a foreign language that I used to speak reasonably well, but it has been years since I've used it. And I could probably pick it up again fairly quickly in the right setting. But instead of being in the right setting, I'm thrust into some French government meeting and asked to report on the proceedings. It is just too much to try to relearn the French language while using it to try to understand other advanced concepts.

I decided to sign up for it in the first place for two reasons. One, to get a flavor for what the first year in an Economics PhD program would be like and see if I'd want to do that. And two, by getting an A in this class I'd greatly improve my application to such a program. But after a couple lectures it was obvious to me that getting an A would be probably the most daunting academic challenge of my life, and I'm just not willing to pay $1500 on such a gamble, especially on the first class I've taken in over 4 years. And to the first point, I'm not positive that I'd want to do this anyway.

To get an A in this class I think I'd need a refresher on calculus, linear algebra, and statistics. Then I'd need to probably learn a lot more about multivariate calculus and real analysis than I ever learned. I suppose it might have been possible for me to try to struggle through this class, study the math on my own and try to apply it as I go. I really hated dropping it. It wounds my pride. I liked being in a class, if only for a week. I'm hoping I can find a way to take some other class that won't be so overwhelming.

I start my new job tomorrow. I'm going to have to somehow wake up at like 7:30am, which won't be fun.

Yup

Ed Brayton:

Our government has arrested yet another executive from an online gaming company, this time Peter Dicks, chairman of the board of Sportingbet, a British company. Jacob Sullum, writing at Reason.com, captured this whole situation perfectly a few weeks ago:

If an executive of a U.S. media company were arrested in Beijing for violating a Chinese law against "subversive" online speech, or in Tehran for creating "indecent" Web content viewed by Iranians, Americans would ask what right these countries have to impose their illiberal policies on us. Sadly, our government is giving people in other countries good cause to wonder the same thing about the United States.

This whole thing is becoming insane. I've reached the point where, for the first time in my life, I'm ready to vote for one of the major parties. I'm thinking seriously about voting Democratic this fall and in 2008, regardless of who is actually running, simply because the constituent groups that the Democrats have to please are less frightening to me than the constituent groups the Republicans have to please.

sad

Steve "Crocodile Hunter" Irwin's death makes me sad.

And this asshole pisses me off. "Make sure to use this evolutionist's death as an opportunity to spread creationist lies!!"

wow

impressive



edit: since there's been some discussion about this topic, here's 2 more relevant links. The text of Rumsfeld's speech. The text of Olbermann's commentary on the Rumsfeld speech.

god damn jopke

Poker player busted for gambling. I hate the world.