Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitism?

Yes!Well, sort-of.  This an issue that as the lone-Jew in an Anthropology class, I’ve run into a little to often for comfort.  After thinking on it for some time, I do think there are legitimate critiques one could make of Israel, or any nation.  However, simply being anti-Zionist out of a feeling of compassion for Palestinians is the form I most often run into on campus.  Now, there’s certainly nothing wrong with compassion for your fellow human-beings, but it does set quite a few people up for massive over-simplification and double-standards of the situation. If, for example, you claim Israel is an apartheid nation then you are absolutely a Jew-hating-bastard. Period.  You may as well go to your nearest Temple, yell KIKE and see what happens.  The fact is, this is not a legitimate criticism.  There are some 1 million Arab Muslims living within Israel, serving within its military, represented in the Knesset, and allowed to freely practice their religion.  Government services are extended to them at the same rate as any Israeli Jew.  Here’s another way to look at it:

Historian Bernard Lewis argues that the new antisemitism represents the third, or ideological, wave of antisemitism, the first two waves being religious and racial antisemitism.^[33]

Lewis defines antisemitism as a special case of prejudice, hatred, or persecution directed against people who are in some way different from the rest. According to Lewis, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of cosmic evil. He writes that what he calls the first wave of antisemitism arose with the advent of Christianity because of the Jews' rejection of Jesus as Messiah. The second wave, racial anti-Semitism, emerged in Spain when large numbers of Jews were forcibly converted, and doubts about the sincerity of the converts led to ideas about the importance of "la limpieza de sangre", purity of blood.^[33]

He associates the third wave with the Arabs, and writes that it arose only in part because of the establishment of the State of Israel. Until the 19th century, Muslims had regarded Jews with what Lewis calls "amused, tolerant superiority" — they were seen as physically weak, cowardly, and unmilitary — and although Jews living in Muslim countries were not treated as equals, they were shown a certain amount of respect. The Western form of antisemitism — what Lewis calls "the cosmic, satanic version of Jew hatred" — arrived in the Middle East in several stages, beginning with Christian missionaries in the 19th century, and continued to grow slowly into the 20th century, up to the establishment of the Third Reich. He writes that it increased because of the humiliation of the Israeli military victories of 1948 and 1967.^[33] (See 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Six Day War.)

Into this mix entered the United Nations. Lewis argues that the United Nations' handling of the 1948 refugee situation convinced the Arab world that discrimination against Jews was acceptable. When the ancient Jewish community in East Jerusalem was evicted and its monuments desecrated or destroyed, they were offered no help. Similarly, when Jewish refugees fled or were driven out of Arab countries, no help was offered, but elaborate arrangements were made for Arabs who fled or were driven out of the area that became Israel. All the Arab governments involved in the conflict announced that they would not admit Israelis of any religion into their territories, and that they would not give visas to Jews, no matter which country they were citizens of. Lewis argues that the failure of the United Nations to protest sent a clear message to the Arab world.

He writes that this third wave of antisemitism has in common with the first wave that Jews are able to be part of it. With religious antisemitism, Jews were able to distance themselves from Judaism, and Lewis writes that some even reached high rank within the church and the Inquisition. With racial antisemitism, this was not possible, but with the new, ideological, antisemitism, Jews are once again able to join the critics. The new antisemitism also allows non-Jews, he argues, to criticize or attack Jews without feeling overshadowed by the crimes of the Nazis.^[33]

Choke on big thick throbbing opinion

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/23/pentagons-dont-ask-survey-soldiers-in-afghanistan-just-not/

Ok, so soldiers are being surveyed about what exactly they think about gays openly serving in the military. Ok, how kind of them to ask. Aren't we forgetting however that this is the MILITARY? I don't recall any surveys prior to desegregating the military, much less a Q&A session.

Is it possible the pentagon has too much funding, to support pointless surveys?

Yes.

I mean at the end of the day if you come across a particularly ignorant jar head that busts the jaw of a queer-o-sexual; wouldn't it make more sense to point the finger of non-unit-cohesion at the jar head rather than the gay? I mean, its fairly doubtful that a Jewish solider would be blamed for destroying unit cohesion simply for being Jewish (unless of course its the German army during that whole you-know-what-ocaust).

While democracy is excellent, as it allows me to dis-empower those who annoy me (ahem), at certain points absolutes have to be set. Equality is a nice absolute to start with. There will always be one group of people that isn't too keen on another group. Now, give them a vote on said group's rights and we've got a quandary. There's an abundance of examples in history...apartheid era South Africa, Rwanda in the 90s, Serbs and Bosnians, the entirety of colonialism. Soo, no, choke on my opinion -- equality for equality's sake, or we can all go back to owning slaves.

Besides, who doesn't like a man in uniform?

TiMER

I'm not usually too keen on movie reviews, but this little known gem struck me. A paranoid society relies on an implanted timer to countdown the moments until you meet your soul-mate. Plus, if you're a fan of Emma Caulfield, this film does her justice as the lead role.

Now, as romantic comedies roll, it does have its sappy parts -- but all the comedy and mindless sex pretty much makes up for it

For the deeper thinkers out there, the movie's main component (ahem, the timer) lends itself to some definite over-analysis. Questions of determinism, fate and free will are all up for grabs

Plus its fun to see who gets boned first.

Enjoy!

And so, after a long hiatus....

I still have more complaining/shmoozing/nonsensical drivel to blather on about, but after a failed relationship, new apartment, and among other things a new laptop, I plan on actually posting....semi-regularly. Enjoy, bloggersphere.
Up coming topics:
boots
tasty foods
dogs
clones
douchebags
starcraft :D
among various other random topics

The religious-right hits a new low: History of the Homo

In a recent web-surfing adventure, I found a hilarious site attempting to give a nice completely biased view of the history of homosexuality. Don't get me wrong, GLBT advocacy sites also worry me a bit in terms of their various interpretations of history, however focusonthefamily.org and it's various mirror site such as the one I'm about to introduce you to, are so very egregious in their interpretation of the facts as to make scholars everywhere spin their collective heads.

Here goes:
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t0w32homosexuality.htm

The text of the site appears here in red my response appears in italics.
Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual until 1973 when sodomy advocates and lesbian organizations lobbied for de-listing. Report on other turning points towards the acceptance of homosexuality from ancient to modern times across cultures.

It is true that the APA amended the Diagnositic and Statistical Manual in 1973 removing homosexuality as a mental disorder. "Sodomy advocates" as Nosotro (the author) calls them is hardly an appropriate monkier for civil rights advocates. "Sodomy" after all has several meanings, "masturbation" among them.
It should also be noted that popular right-wing notion that the APA was just responding to partisan politics is, bluntly, wrong. The APA based its majority decision on a general trend occuring at the time, moving away from psycho-analysis's dominance. Not to mention that homosexuality's original inclusion in the DSM was value-laden, and didn't rest on evidence; try as the might, a link between psychopathy and homosexuality could not be established.
One must also make note that given the general attitude of the time, the APA was not bowing to pressure from "sodomy advocates", as the pressure to ignore the lack of evidence and uphold the status-quo was much greater then any "advocate" simply bringing the APA's attention to a flaw in scholarship.

Has homosexual behavior always been wrong or does it depend on culture, time, and place? Many people believe, under the banner of ‘tolerance’, that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry with the same benefits, privileges, and acceptance that straight people receive. In the promotion of homosexuality, advocates imply that the life style has been accepted for centuries before the Puritans. How have homosexuals been accepted throughout history? Is today's Christian mainstream all so different from the stream of world history in the response to homosexuality? Why have past societies been uncomfortable with homosexuality?

One must immediately notice this article's thesis: has homosexuality always been wrong..? Biased and partisan "scholarship" does nothing to advance knowledge, it just reinforces notions of a specific society in a specific time period. In essence, it simply buttresses a position which can't be based purely on fact, most likely because said position is not actually supported by fact. A better thesis, and historical question would be: "How have same-sex interactions been viewed by cultures through the ages?" The last question that rounds out this paragraph is perhaps the most laughable. The author assumes that all past societies, including non-western cultures, have been "uncomfortable" with homosexuality. The author assumes, a very dangerous thing to do in historical research, that his own attitudes, and the societal norms which mold them are the same norms which dictated comfort-level in past societies, regardless of how they defined comfort, or their position on our modern conception of homosexuality.

Modern Jews are seen as accepting of homosexuality, however, their history and their laws, which are kept now only by the devout, show plainly that all historical Jewish cultures forbid homosexuality. During the Renaissance in Europe was when accepted homosexuality began to take root. More so in Italy, but nevertheless throughout the “enlightened” continent people began to preach homosexuality as just another thing that people sometimes do, like painting or traveling to England. This is also the period in which numerous and stringent laws began to be placed on “buggery”, “sodomy”, and other-worded things of that nature. From this point, the controversy over homosexuality ever so slowly gathered momentum until it became what it is today.

Here, the author blatantly states that reform and reconstructionists Jews are not devout (who as movements, have supported gay-rights), nor any jew that does not believe the author's interpretation of Judaism. This is perhaps on the verge of anti-semitism.

In stylistic terms, claiming the non-devoutness of jews as fact, without any support and ignoring context in history, is akin to holocaust denial. The same sort of methods are used. Many a synagogue-going-reform-Jew would vehemently deny any lack of religious devotion. Perhaps a better question the author should be concerning himself with is what has changed in Jewish thought? The author posits that the change in western (and Jewish) thought in regards to homosexuality all began with that insidious Renaissance. Let us remember that the Renaissance is a period when essentially medieval Europeans experienced a return to classicism in the arts, culture, and thinking. Yet, illogically, the author goes on later in his "article" to state that homosexuality was largely either absent or frowned upon by classical western cultures. Apparently, the critical thinker is left to believe that homosexuality's supposedly "warm reception" in the modern world began in the Renaissance, without any continuity of causes...it just "appeared".

The Egyptian Book of the Dead (Papyrus of Ani), in the Negative Confession, equates homosexuality with sin in a sort of Old Testament list of wrongs and sins that the speaker has not committed. A small portion of the list reads, “Hail, Qerrti, who comest forth from Amentet, I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men. Hail, Her-f-ha-f, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have made none to weep.10” The Assyrian Laws of c. 1450-1250 B.C. contain the tidbit, “If a man has lain with his male friend and a charge is brought and proved against him, the same thing shall be done to him and he shall be made a eunuch.11”

In this paragraph, the author attempts to use the Papyrus of Ani as evidence that the ancient Egyptians despised homosexuality with the same amount of scorn the author does. Unfortunately for him, this certainly does not add up. The Papyrus of Ani is filled with hymns to Osiris, Isis and other deities, and with spells to assist the Necromancer and the deceased. The Papyrus of Ani, and other works like it, is a scroll which has been placed in a coffin or burial chamber; in other words, a book of the dead. Unlike the Bible, The Book of the Dead does not set forth religious tenets and was not considered by the ancient Egyptians to be the product of divine revelation, which allowed the content of the book of the dead to change over time. The things mentioned in the "Negative confession" portion of the Papyrus are not sins. In context of the Papyrus, the "Negative Confessions" portion is just where the deceased was to assert his innocence to the gods. It was the completion of this religious procedure that the Papyrus outlines that showed piety to the gods in Egyptian Religion, not that fact that the deceased was or was not honest when "confessing". Interestingly, when one actually reads the Papyrus, they read "..O He Who Sees What Has Been Brought, who comes forth from Panopolis,I have not ejaculated. " Obviously, given the importance of child-rearing in ancient Egypt, both the author and the deceased for whom this Papyrus was produced almost certainly ejaculated at some point. Even more interestingly, "..I have not lain with men" does NOT appear in any modern translation of the text. Apparently, the author must now invent information.

The author may actually seem to have a point in regards to assyrian law. However Assyrian law was largely an edition of Hammurabi's code, which said nothing pertaining to homosexuality. Additionally, the specific law the author does cite, is a law pertaining to RAPE. That is, it is listed under a section dealing conduct toward married women and rape. It must be remembered that in this part of the world in this time period, women were considered property. To rape another man was akin to making him property. However, sex with a temple-prostitute, male or female, was considered just being neighborly. The author, once again, takes facts out of historical context (this time, ancient near-eastern attitudes towards sex) and not only assumes (again) that they were similar to his own, but does it to push his own agenda. In other words, he's suppressing evidence.

Greece is the example many homosexuals turn to in their search for acceptance in ancient societies, yet their sources are vague, citing things like obscure vase art and a new interpretation of classic stories12.

This is perhaps the best example of what extremes the author will go too to prove his point, without getting into the messy business of actual scholarship. Archaeologists routinely draw information from "obscure" sources like vase art, along with every other physical artifact and remain left behind by cultures. Indeed, the actual written sources, by ancient Greeks themselves, mention what today we would term as "homosexual" (Read the works of Sappho), legitimate historians and anthropologists have written whole library sections on the subject. It is interesting however, how the author side-steps the entire issue of same-sex relations in the ancient Hellenistic world by branding every single primary source which indicates it as false. This is what is known as a "double standard fallacy" in which the author uses the a physical artifact such as the Papyrus of Ani to back up his claim (even though it doesn't) while dismissing the whole body of evidence from the greek-world.

Stick around for Part deux of "The religious-right hits a new low: History of the Homo", where we take a deep look at other claims of the author, and reasons as to what motivates his "research".

Ecolinguistics, continued.

As I do love refuting the diatribe of pseudo-intellectuals, I just had to post this little gem.

Here's a copy of the original article in red italics: (download this article here).

Language & Ecology Online Journal (2004) available from http:// www.ecoling.net/journal.html
[updated version Dec 2006]
Masculinity, health and ecological destruction
by Arran Stibbe
One important way that language is connected to ecology is through the discursive construction of gender. As ecofeminists such as Diamond and Orenstein (1990) and Adams (1993) show, there is a high correlation between patriarchal social structures and ecological destruction, and social structures are created, partially, through language. Discourses which play roles in constructing images of masculinity and femininity are all around, but for this article I will concentrate on one example: an instance of a particular discourse of masculinity which has been called ‘hegemonic masculinity’. In Stibbe (2004), I analysed the construction of hegemonic masculinity in the discourse of Men’s Health magazine, drawing out implications for the emerging concept of health. There other important implications, however, in terms of ecology, and this current article looks at discourse of Men’s Health magazine in terms of its ecological implications.
The covers of the magazine, seen by far more people than those who actually buy it, display a black and white picture of an 'ideal' man, and a series of short statements in various font sizes. The majority of these statements use the conventional syntax of lifestyle magazines to set up various goals for readers, such as being thin or being a great heterosexual lover (Lose your belly! Gold medal sex etc). These are treated as something which is obviously desirable, but they may be implicated more in creating desires than responding to already existing desires. For instance, men may not have realised before that it was desirable to ‘Add 2 inches to your chest!’.
Good health is strongly correlated to ecological sustainability: a diet consisting of local produced, varied, organic fruits and vegetables is as good for biodiversity and the land as it is for health, as is avoiding canned and processed food and walking instead of taking the car. However, rather than goals which simultaneous promote health and ecological sustainability, the main goal that the magazine sets up for readers is the achievement of a huge, muscular body. Clearly this goal is related to images of power and masculinity rather than health. The following are just some of the statements from the cover of the magazine:
l SOLID MUSCLE! l BIGGER BICEPS l BUILD THIS BODY [with arrow pointing at a huge torso] l A HARD BODY l gain muscle l FIND YOUR ABS! l ADD 2 inches to your chest l HARD MUSCLES FAST! l PACK ON MUSCLE! (Men's Health 06/2000 - 09/2001 covers)
Achievement of a huge, muscular body demands the wasteful consumption of large amounts of food, and the magazine recommends one kind of food over all others:
 meat has big advantages over all other foods: It packs muscle-building protein… (Men's Health 2000: December:166)
 Meat is loaded with the protein needed to build new muscle (Men's Health 2000:December:166)
 The muscle stoker [recipe]…eat this meal and you’ll grow your biceps…That’s because the protein in the beef [1lb top London broil] helps to build new muscle tissue (Men's Health 2000:July/August:87)
 make your meat beef and you’ll also get testosterone-boosting amino acids. Testosterone helps you lift more weight and build more muscle. (Men's Health 2000: November, p84)
The cause and effect relationship between been eating meat and growing muscle is clearly expressed in the expression 'muscle-building protein', as if the protein itself will grow muscle without any effort on the part of the person eating it. Likewise, 'protein' is the agent of the verb 'build' in 'protein...helps to build new muscle', rather than the reader. In 'eat this meal and you'll grow your biceps', the reader is the agent of 'grow', but the only activity that the sentence suggests is 'eat this meal'.
Despite the associated risks of heart disease and prostate cancer Men's Health is recommending the consumption of large amounts of red meat, in order to achieve the goal of a muscular body. And meat, when produced in intensive units using chemically treated grains, genetic modification and growth hormones, is one of the most inefficient and ecologically destructive ways of producing food (Turner 1999).
This pattern of connections is repeated in relation to convenience food. In accordance with to the masculinist overtones throughout the magazine, cooking is assigned to women (Fiddes 1991:158). If men must cook, then they should do it the masculine way - with convenience foods. The association of masculinity with convenience food is accomplished through a memorable rhyme:
 A Man, A Plan, A Can: All you need is a can-opener (or a wife) (Men's Health 2000:June:96).
or a simple equation:
 You + a can opener = 12 manly meals (Men's Health June 2000, contents)
or the following imperative:
 Nuke your gut. The TV dinner diet. Three minutes to a leaner waist. These dinners aren’t just easy to make, they’re a fast way to lose weight…low in calories and incredibly tasty. Fill your freezer with these 13 meals… (Men's Health:December:133)
In terms of the environment, of course, convenience foods take a heavy toll in terms of packaging materials, processing, and refrigeration. By encouraging men to grow huge bodies on a diet of meat and convenience food, Men's Health magazine appears to be using language to establish artificial goals which celebrate hegemonic masculinity and male power, and lead to ecologically destructive behaviour. And if men find that a diet of frozen pizza and canned food does not lead to the hugely muscular and lean body of the cover model, then they can always buy one of the huge SUV cars which are heavily advertised in the magazine as a substitute.
The images in the magazine of huge muscular men and the constant implication that this is the ideal shape for a man have the potential to lead to body dissatisfaction. Body dissatisfaction, in turn, could lead to following the dietary recommendations of the magazine to consume large amounts of meat and convenience food, or to compensate for the lack of ideal physique through purchase of the range of luxury consumer items offered by the magazine. In this way, social constructions of gender - masculinity in this case - have the potential to encourage behaviours which damage ecosystems.


Now let’s look at some things wrong with this sadly illogical article, namely, that it simply refuses to acknowledge the bigger picture.

Whether a man is gay or straight, the very reason they read Men’s Health and try to attain a muscled physique and know-how in the bedroom is TO ATTRACT POTENTIAL MATES. There’s a simple logic behind this: the majority of the aforementioned traits are found to be attractive among potential mates, thusly, if one doesn’t posses these traits they may be passed over in favor of someone else. And yes, it’s a two-way street ladies, most straight men don’t find fat women attractive. Indeed, no matter one’s sexual orientation, the vast majority of people don’t find the un-fit attractive due to our collective biological imperative to breed. This is because the physically un-fit are seen as possessing traits which preferably wouldn’t be passed on to offspring (this can also be seen as an inability to care for offspring). Contrary to what radical feminists would have us believe, we are bound by biology in very real ways - our perceptions included.

So, that said, let’s go a bit more indepth with this.

1. How are patriarchal social structures defined? How is environmental destruction defined? Would not an ecofeminist have a bias in linking the two into a positive correlation? Are their research methods really unbiased?
2. Desirable traits, such as big biceps, are actually linked to better health. Admittedly, this link is open, and often culturally defined. However, this feminist assumes, like so many feminist, that what's physically preferable is dictated solely by a "boy's club" of men - and completely ignores the actual interplay that occurs.
3. Maintaining a “well-built” muscular body DOES NOT equal the wasteful consumption of a large amount of food. It requires a careful and varied diet. Maintaining such a physique doesn’t require one to consume a large amount of food, it’s absurd to assume so.
4. While a single article in the 2000 issue of Men’s Health encourages the eating of red meat - the vast majority of its online edition encourages the eating of fish (usually broiled) along with a balanced diet and regular exercise. It really seems as if the author was digging with this one, and the fact that Arran Stibbe didn’t include the information in an honest context means I place the author in same academic category as white supremacists who disregard information outside their worldview and “pick and choose” facts without looking at their outside context. For example, holocaust deniers “pick and choose” the fact that Hitler issued a “no liquidation order”, but completely disregard the historical context.

5. The "easy" food preparation diatribe Stibbe drawls on about doesn't have a root cause in men dominating women, it's root cause is laziness, a trait both genders share. Being able to simply pop something in a microwave rather then break out pots and pans appeals to the lazy side in all of us. Also, I seriously doubt Men's Health recommends chowing down on a frozen pizza, most likely they mean "Lean Cuisine".

If you really want a clean sustainable world where everyone shops at an organic foods store and we treat each other as equals, then stop being such a pompous ass.

You femi-nazi. : )

Ecolinguistics

While I was quietly web-surfing and becoming lost in one of several trains-of-thought, I came across a wikipedia article describing the wonderful field of ecolinguistics.

Have we finally reached a new level of ridiculosity? This sub-field of linguistics frames itself as the earth-friendly version of linguistics.

Here's a sample of what one self-proclaimed ecolinguistic describes the field as:

Ecolinguistics is a new branch of linguistics which investigates the role of language in the development and possible solution of ecological and environmental problems. For this, some ecolinguists use the concept of the eco-system metaphorically for language world systems which they analyse with the help of concepts transferred from biological ecology.
Ecolinguists criticize language on the levels of langue and parole and point out unecological language uses and "anthropocentrisms" which represent nature from the point of view of its usefulness for humans. In a wider understanding, the "growthism", "sexism", "classism" and "anthropocentrism" inherent in many languages and language uses are criticized.
Another important field of ecolinguistics is the research area of the relation between linguistic and biological diversity (two phenomena ecolinguists aim to preserve).
(Emphasis added by me).

This approach to linguistics is ultimately based on Micheal Holliday's research in the early 90's. Which criticized English-speaker's positive attitude towards unmarked terms such as "large", "grow", "tall", etc. and how these terms have a positive aspect, even if they undermine our surrounding environment when used to describe "economic growth".

The laughable things about this approach: these "un-marked terms" don't go without descriptors here in the real-world of syntax. For example, I can say "large amount of pollution" and suddenly "large" in that phrase has a certainly negative aspect.

You don't have to be a linguist to understand that how you frame a concept with language can influence how your readers interpret the information you're trying to convey. We don't need an entire sub-field so narrowly devoted to this subject.

In my own humble opinion, these are tree-huggers who play at being grammarians on the side.

The fact is, every creature on earth uses other creatures and the environment for its own needs. There's nothing wrong with this. This very web of usefulness creates the elegant inter dependencies we observe in the environment.

The very fact that this field of linguistics openly assigns moralistic values to its analysis of language makes this field USELESS.

My ultimate point is: ecolinguistics doesn't treat the cause of materialism, which often drives the destruction of the environment, it only points out the symptoms of materialism.

Beware Conspiracy theorists: Aliens built the Pyramids

This particular theory of faulty thinking has annoyed me for quite some time and will thusly be refered to as: Pyramidiocy.

Pyramidiocy is characterized by having an outlandish, farfetched theory about the origin, nature or purpose of the Egyptian pyramids. The theories of pyramidiots are barely supported by slender threads of evidence. They serve little purpose except to stand as bad examples of speculative thought and fanciful imagination.

Some pyramidiots, such as Erich von Däniken and Zecharia Sitchin, claim that the ancient Egyptians were too backwards to have constructed the pyramids without the help of extraterrestrials. Edgar Cayce (professional bullshit artist, also known as "psychic") claimed that beings from Atlantis helped the Egyptians build the pyramids by showing them how to levitate stones. Charles Berlitz claimed that Atlantis lay beneath the Bermuda Triangle and had a pyramid the same size as the Great Pyramid at Giza. Pyramidiots think Atlantis is the link between the pyramids of Egypt and the pyramids of Mexico.

They are not dissuaded by the fact that the one was primarily funerary while the other was primarily used for ceremonies, including some which involved human sacrifice. Arguments demonstrating that the ancient Egyptians or Mexicans were intelligent and resourceful enough to build pyramids are to no avail. This is a particularly frustrating aspect of this fanciful thinking, as it assumes our collective ancestors were as dumb as the proponents of this theory.

Other pyramidiots ascribe super technological or paranormal powers to the ancient Egyptians. Traditional explanations in terms of religion, tombs for pharaohs and their families, belief in immortality, or paid workers, slipways, canals, slaves (new evidence indicates that slaves were not directly used in the construction of the pyramids) , etc. are rejected by pyramidiots in favor of theories claiming that the pyramids were power stations or water pumps. They don't seem to realize there was little use for a power station in ancient Egypt (they didn't have light-bulbs, or anything that requires AC or DC current); plus like all ancient societies it's labor was drawn from slaves and paid-workers - not machines. Not to mention the lack of plumbing beneath the pyramids.

Some pyramidiots claim that the pyramids were built according to some sort of mystical numerology to contain coded messages. Some believe that the Great Pyramid at Giza is at the center of the world (The fact that the Earth is spherical escapes them). Some think the pyramids are a map of the sky. To put it shortly, numerological beliefs about the pyramids are like a horn-of-plenty. Some believe only God could have designed such a numerical mystery. That almost anything in the universe can be found to have interesting mathematical proportions or be related to several interesting mathematical formulae is of little interest to pyramidiots.
That there is no evidence for such beliefs seems to cheer rather than dishearten pyramidiots.

I can't quite figure out why, but then they don't seem to be the most logical bunch.

Beware Conspiracy theorists: Holocaust Denial

While I don't want my humble blog to become the vanguard against zany conspiracy "theories" - the fact is, given the sizable multitude of the simply weird things people believe, I feel it's unfortunately necessary.

That said, let's start with a particularly damaging and ugly conspiracy theory: Holocaust denial.

The mass extermination of the Jews and other “undesirables” at the hands of the Nazis during World War II is referred to as the Holocaust. It has become a symbol of evil in our time. Like many symbols, the Holocaust has become sacrosanct. To many people, both Jews and non-Jews, the Holocaust symbolizes the horror of genocide against the Jews, Romani, Homosexuals, and the disabled. Some modern anti-Semites (that includes persons on the extreme political right, and left) have found that attacking the Holocaust causes as much suffering to some Jews as attacking Jews themselves. “Holocaust denial” refers to attacking the accuracy of any aspect of the symbology or history of the Holocaust.

Holocaust denial seems to be the main motivation of the Institute for Historical Review and its Journal of Historical Review. Since 1980 this journal has been publishing articles attacking the accuracy of various claims about the Holocaust. There is clearly an agenda when a journal is devoted almost exclusively to the single issue of making the Holocaust seem like an exaggeration of biased historians. Indeed, I personally consider the entire "Institute" an affront to academic scholarship. If truth and historical accuracy were the only goals of this group, it would be praised rather than despised. However, it seems that its promoters are more concerned with hatred than with truth.

Thus, even the inaccuracies that they correctly identify are met with scorn and derision. For they never once deal with the central question of the Holocaust. They deal with details and technical issues: Were there six million or four million Jews who died or were killed? Could this particular shower have been used as a gas chamber? Were these deaths due to natural causes or not? Did Hitler issue a Final Solution order or not? If so, where is it? These are legitimate historical issues. However, the Holocaust deniers do not deal with the questions of racial laws that led to the arrest and imprisonment of millions of Jews in several countries for the “crime” of race. They do not concern themselves with the policy of herding people like animals and transporting them to “camps” where millions died of disease or malnutrition, or were murdered. They don’t address the moral issues of medical experimentation on humans or of persecution of homosexuals and the infirm. Why not? In other words, they only concern themselves with questions that are convenient to them.

Michael Shermer devotes two chapters of Why People Believe Weird Things (1997) to the arguments of the Holocaust deniers. One of the favorite appeals of the Holocaust deniers is to demand some proof that Hitler gave the order for the extermination of the Jews (or the mentally retarded, mentally ill, and physically handicapped). Holocaust deniers point to Himmler’s telephone notes of November 30, 1941, as proof that there was to be no liquidation of the Jews. The actual note says: “Jewish transport from Berlin. No liquidation.” Whatever the note meant, it did not mean that Hitler did not want the Jews liquidated. The transport in question, by the way, was liquidated that evening. In any case, if Hitler ordered no liquidation of the Berlin transport, then liquidation was going on and he knew about it. Hitler’s intentions were made public in his earliest speeches. Even as his regime was being destroyed, Hitler proclaimed: “Against the Jews I fought open-eyed and in view of the whole world. . . . I made it plain that they, this parasitic vermin in Europe, will be finally exterminated.” Hitler at one time compared the Jews to the tuberculosis bacilli that had infected Europe. It was not cruel to shoot them if they would not or could not work. He said: “This is not cruel if one remembers that even innocent creatures of nature, such as hares and deer when infected, have to be killed so that they cannot damage others. Why should the beasts who wanted to bring Bolshevism be spared more than these innocents?”

It should be noted that white supremacists aren't the only ones denying the holocaust, though it is funny to see that whitey's story of what happened is far from consistent; such as when members of neo-nazi groups don shirts that proclaim that Hitler didn't go far enough. Guess they didn't get the memo. Quite a few Iranian, Palestinian, Lebanese, and Saudi leaders have, you guessed it, denied the Holocaust. These are often the same forked tongue leaders that cry for peace with Israel in front of the world, but cry there will be peace when Israel is in pieces to their followers.

As just a side note, the image for this blog was found at an affiliate site of IHR, heretical.com (their "scholarship" just has to be true with that kind of bias!)

Creationism vs Evolution (Part 2)

There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for the theory of gravity. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you should read Essential Cell Biology or browse NCBI or Talk Origins before you claim that it's "more or less consistent with the evidence". The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. In fact, since evolution is now used as the basis of algorithms denying evolution is exactly analogous to using "F=mv". Want to find a protein similar to the one you've just purified and sequenced? Try doing it without resorting to the mathematics of molecular evolution. The difference between ID and evolution is the difference between gene splices that work and splices that don't.
Intelligent design, unlike evolution, is by definition not falsifiable. Therefore it is not "provable". It is only "consistent" with the evidence if one accepts the same explanation for every piece of evidence. Lest it be thought that biologists commit the same mistake with the theory of evolution, it should be pointed out that there are many biological phenomena that are explained by molecular biological mechanisms that are unrelated to the classical Darwinian model of selection via random walks on DNA sequences. Here are a few examples - I can come up with many more for those interested.

1. The jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. There is a lot of evidence (based on sequence identity between mitochondrial DNA and prokaryotic DNA) to indicate that prokaryotes were absorbed by primitive eukaryotes and formed a symbiotic relationship that's reflected in the mitochondria and chloroplasts of modern cells. This was not a sequence level perturbation, but it was a fitness perturbation that resulted in a selective advantage.
2. The SOS response. When certain bacteria are starved, the rate of mutation itself is altered by environmental factors. This produces variation when it's most needed, when the cell is desperate. Again, this is non-classical Darwinism.
3. Horizontal gene transfer in bacterial cells. Bacteria exchange genes back and forth by all kinds of methods, much more frequently than higher organisms. Again, this is non-classical Darwinian evolution because the fitness perturbation is from gene transfer rather than sequence perturbation.

The point is that biologists can and do accept explanations other than classical Darwinian evolution when such explanations are in accord with observations. It's not as if biologists are unable to look at alternate plausible theories that are compatible with our knowledge of molecular biology when they also fit the data. ID proponents do not, because ID is nothing more than the "God of the Gaps". Every time a biochemical scenario is validated for one pathway's origin (say, by tracing it through hundreds of species) then ID proponents fix attention on the holes in another pathway. It is impossible to satisfy them because every pathway that has not (yet) been exhaustively characterized becomes the work of a divine hand.

Is ID a cover for Christian creation theories? Absolutely, and while I'm no lawyer it seems the Establishment Clause forbids the teaching of ID on these grounds. Remember, ID presumes an intelligent being responsible for our creation. Usually the rationale afforded is that we are too complex to have arisen from abiogenesis. Of course, such an argument sets up an infinite recursion, which we can see as follows:

1. Let us call our "complexity" C1. By assumption, anything with complexity at least C1 cannot have arisen from abiogenesis.
   
2. Let us call the complexity of our putative creators C2. C2 must be greater than or equal to C1. Otherwise a less complex being could have created us.
   
3. By assumption 1, anything with complexity C1 (or greater) cannot have abiotically arisen. Thus there must be a creator for C2. This creator must have complexity C3 greater than or equal to C2.

It's clear that this recursion doesn't terminate. In other words, the creator, of the creator, of the creator. If it isn't logical, as ID assumes, to assume that abiogenesis (aka, that we emerged) doesn't explain our existence, then how could it be logical to explain Gods existence?

ID is not science. At best, ID is a theological position - and a shaky one at that.

Creationism vs Evolution (Part I)

The Creationist Periodic Table of Elements. There's no doubt, creationism, or intelligent design (ID) is reaching new levels of popularity (and hilarity) in today's world. In fact, just last week I recieved an unwanted snail-mailed publication called "Last Generation" which has a substaintial creationist bent.

Even fellow bloggers have went to bat in support for this "alternative theory". Such as Volokh.

In any case, many supporters of "ID" claim that: "it posits something that may or may not be true (organisms "look like they were designed because they were designed," to quote one proponent of the intelligent design school, UC Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson) -- and that is in fact more plausible to many people than evolution is."

Now, however tempted I am to go on a diatribe pointing out this is a law professor, not a professor in the sciences, I won't. I'll just leave it at that.

Should we decide whether to teach things because they're "plausible" to people? Of course not. Most people think it's plausible that "F=mv", (That is, Force=motion * velocity) because they need to exert a constant force to keep a body in motion on a frictional surface. We disabuse them of this notion because we've learned by hard experience that, actually, "F=ma", (That is, Force=motion * acceleration) and that "F=mv" only seems to explain the case of a block on a frictional surface. The difference between "F=ma" and "F=mv" is the difference between a bridge that collapses and a bridge that stands.

Evolution, like physics and all other sciences has mathematics at its core. As we all know mathematics is based on a system of axioms that are (in principle) independent of the outside world, while ID is a statement about the outside world.

ID is analogous to this same misconception that produced "F=mv". Like "F=mv", it is manifestly false because it provides no explanatory value. What does the "theory" of ID predict? NOTHING - it simply provides a post facto rationalization for some of the processes observed in biology. Just like "F=mv" vs. "F=ma", ID chokes on those cases that are explained elegantly by the theory of evolution. ID's "answer" is always the same:

1. Observe overwhelming sequence similarity at the molecular scale? The designer put it there.
2. Observe a convoluted molecular mechanism that seems to waste energy? The designer put it there.
3. Observe the same process implemented in hundreds of different ways? The designer put it there.

Contrast these to the explanations offered by biology:

1. Observe overwhelming sequence similarity at the molecular scale? Molecular Phylogenetics.
2. Observe a convoluted molecular mechanism that seems to waste energy? Explantion of photorespiration.
3. Observe the same process implemented in hundreds of different ways? Convergent Evolution.

Even supporters of ID must admit that the only reason it is clung to like a dog on a milkbone is to keep from sinking into a sense of nihilism when they realize that God may very well not be in control - and indeed regulated to the level of superstition.

A New Look

Well, I've decided to revamp the look of this humble blogging-project.

If you don't like it; then too bad, because I do. ; )

Minor Freakout

Take a long, hard look at that image.

Yes.

I know.

It's nasty.

But that's the result what I have to look foward to with my upcoming tonsillectomy. That's of course, after the the scabs fall out - and apparently all blood drains from ones mouth.

Why am I getting the vague feeling that this whole tonsillectomy venture may not be worth it?

Don't get me wrong, I'll still do it, I'll man up, and won't even ask for directions to the hospital.

Which brings us to todays topic: manliness.

What defines it in todays shifting culture?

Well, according to Harvey Mansfeld, the appropriately named author of the book "Mannliness" essentially defines manliness as confidence in the face of risk. He also makes the assersation that feminism has hijacked this very essence. "Men are still free to be manly; but there's no justification for it, no welcome for it, no respect for it."

He may be right. Yet, at the very core of feminism isn't an anti-masculine approach, its simply working from a hypothesis of gender-equality. Thus, the shrinkage of manhood may not be due to the ideals of feminism, but the practices. Which, by and large, are based on rejecting "traditional" feminine roles in favor of more masculine ones - from occupations to the family.

Of course, I'm not suggesting women be turned away from high positions in business or elsewhere. However, one must ask themselves why adopting the traits of say, a more powerful "group A" over a less powerful"group B" empowers that "group B". Is it so much of a "man's-world" that women must, at least in some form, become men? Is it, alternately, so much of a "straight's-world" that gay couples must marry?

I would say, in an ideal world, all groups and individuals could simply affirm their equality and move on. Yet, that's hardly, if ever, the case. Can "Group A" so overpower a culture's practices that there seems no other way besides their way? Could the overwhelming desire to adopt a more powerful groups practices stem from a need to "legitimize" oneself, or does it just stem from a lack of creativity?

Just some stream-of-consciousness thoughts for you. :)

Modern Philosophers

Most people wouldn't see modern day rock-bands as philosophers. But most people have bad taste. How else do you explain the success of boy-bands? -- But the moronic total control prepubescent girls weild over our culture is a topic for another post.

Anywho, Rammstein, a somewhat controversial band aus Deutschland, who have somehow managed to be branded both homosexual and fascist almost simoutaneously (figure that one out) have managed to convince me of one of their less spoken of talents: philosophical insight.

Take their song Engel, (query youtube for it). Here are some interpretations of the songs various meanings:

• The song Engel is about not wanting to aim at perfection all the time because oftentimes, something that seems perfect and pleasurable is in fact elusive. What one would think as a blissful existence is actually fearful and lonely: when the angels in the chorus sing: wir haben Angst und sind allein (we are afraid and alone).
• The song can also be interpreted as doubting the existence of God and angels: Den Blick gen Himmel fragst du dann warum man sie nicht sehen kann (you look to the sky and ask why can't you see them).
• Yet a third interpretation can be sexual in nature. Angel (Engel) can be a slang term for a lifelong virgin, that is, a person that dies without ever having sex, and so the song could be seen as the thoughts of someone who doesn't want to die without experiencing at least some really swell oral sex; which by the way I personally consider a chief tenant of stress relief: Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein (God knows i don't want to be an angel). Some other lyrics also support this interpretation: sie müssen sich an Sterne krallen (ganz fest) damit sie nicht vom Himmel fallen (They must cling onto the stars, very tight, so they won't fall from heaven) could be seen as a metaphor for masturbation. Which is also a chief tenant of stress relief. Also, the video made for this song seems to imply through imagery of the main character being teased by a stripper holding a snake (possibly an image of Eve and "Satan" from the Christian Bible) that the man is a virgin fighting off the temptation of lust. Two children also appear in cages dressed as cherubs with black eyes, probably representing the innocence of youth. The woman then turns into the same that was watching her with black around the eyes, possibly representing that his inner sexual urges were leading him astray. He is then trapped in a prison, perhaps of his own design either by succumbing to temptation or by resisting.
• The Fact that a group of who appear to be the main character's friends leading him into a strip club is also reminiscent of a bachelor party thrown by a man's friends before a wedding and this could in fact lead to a fourth interpretation. Perhaps, that of a man who will be getting married in the near future and his friends convince him (perhaps unknowingly) to call it off by bringing the man to a strip club where he decides he'd rather remain single instead of being metaphorically imprisoned by marriage. In either case this seems to work with the Sehnsucht album's theme of Longing (for sex and/or freedom). These are most likely not the true meaning behind the lyrics, but may be deliberate as Rammstein is well-known for their use of puns and double-meanings.

(German Lyrics)

Wer zu Lebzeit gut auf Erden
wird nach dem Tod ein Engel werden
den Blick gen Himmel fragst du dann
warum man sie nicht sehen kann

Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehn
kann man uns am Himmel sehen
wir haben Angst und sind allein

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein

Sie leben hinterm Sonnenschein
getrennt von uns unendlich weit
sie müssen sich an Sterne krallen (ganz fest)
damit sie nicht vom Himmel fallen

Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehn
kann man uns am Himmel sehn
wir haben Angst und sind allein

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein

Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehnkann
man uns am Himmel sehn
wir haben Angst und sind allein

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein

(English Lyrics)

Who in their lifetime is good on Earth
will become an angel after death
you look to the sky and ask
why can't you see them

Only once the clouds have gone to sleep
can you see us in the sky
we are afraid and alone

God knows I don't want to be an angel

They live behind the sunshine
separated from us, infinitely far
they must cling to the stars (very tightly)
so they don't fall from the sky

Only once the clouds have gone to sleep
can you see us in the sky
we are afraid and alone

God knows I don't want to be an angel

Only once the clouds have gone to sleep
can you see us in the sky
we are afraid and alone

God knows I don't want to be an angel


Poetic, eh?

Why I blog

I was doing some self-reflection, and considering why I even continue to do this:

Because I can?
Well, yes.

Plus I find that my near-dyslexic, quasi-ADHD brain tends to go in odd directions; and I may as well document it. AND, I hereby promise that when my schedule is less hectic I'll resume posting my brilliant insights at a more constant rate.






Just kidding!!
They won't be brilliant.

Russia goes nuts (yet again).

President Vladimir Putin chose a little-known government official to become Russia's new prime minister Wednesday (effectively dissolving the government), a surprise move that set off fevered speculation over whether loyal technocrat Viktor Zubkov was being groomed to replace Putin next spring.
The move came a few hours after Putin dissolved the Cabinet of his long-serving prime minister, Mikhail Fradkov, saying he needed to appoint a government better suited to the election campaign and to "prepare the country" for life after the elections.
The nomination of Zubkov, who has overseen investigations into suspicious financial transactions, caught much of the political elite off guard, which appeared to be Putin's intention.
Most observers said they did not see Zubkov as Putin's successor, but rather as a caretaker prime minister, perhaps to be replaced closer to the March presidential vote. Others said they considered his appointment a signal of Putin's intention to retain control after he leaves the presidency.
In promoting Zubkov, whose nomination could be approved by the lower house of parliament as soon as Friday, Putin showed he is still calling the shots.
The plucking of Zubkov from relative obscurity reminded many Russians of Putin's own ascension to power, which began when former President Boris Yeltsin suddenly named him prime minister in August 1999. After the Kremlin secured control over the lower house of parliament in elections the following December, Yeltsin again shocked the nation by stepping down on the last night of the year and naming Putin acting president.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/12/russia.parliament.ap/index.html

,,Die Augen sind die Seelefenster"

That's a nifty little german phrase, its english-approximate being "Eyes are the window of the soul." And as it turns out, it may just be true. Anthropologists have uncovered some interesting findings about our eyes and how others percieve us.
Of course, how we "read" people determines an essential aspect of choosing your future partner. As it turns out, the iris of the eye has two physical traits that have been linked to personality differences. The number of "crypts" or pits in the iris signal how likely you are to be warm, tender and trusting. And the number of "furrows," or curving lines along the outer edge of the iris, signal the degree to which you are likely to be neurotic, impulsive and willing to assuage your cravings. In both cases, the more crypts or furrows, the more likely you are to be, respectively, tender hearted or spontaneous. These traits develop in the womb. In short, we have evolved a remarkable and subtle biological strategy to signal who we are.
In an evolutionary sense, this is a very efficient strategy of helping determine potential mates -- afterall, anything that saves time (instead of spending several months or even years trying to figure out if someone is really loyal, or just manipulative) is inheriently energy saving. Thus, you save resources; and have a better chance of survival. In a wider sense; finding loyal mates that will stick around and support offspring, and yourself, is in terms of survival: excellent.
This also leads to some interesting aspects of culture and history. Nearly every culture throughout history has accentuated the eyes to some extent. Ancient near-eastern peoples would use makeups. For Egyptians specifically, both men and women would use mascara to draw attention to the eyes (plus, the darker paints around the eyes reduce sun-glare -- similar to the way modern day football players stripe their faces before a game.) Not to mention cultural rules on maintaining eye-contact.

Source: http://www.helenfisher.typepad.com/

Acting as a shining example

*sigh

We really do.

What makes a Citizen?

In honor of the b-day of America, I think I'll tackle the concept of who is, and isn't a citizen. Of course, it may seem clear-cut, however, citizenship throughout history has always been pretty abstract.

So, what makes a citizen? Even more then that, what makes a GOOD citizen? Most imporantly, given the immigration debate, who SHOULD be a citizen?

I think too many people have a Prussian-type of attitude toward citizenship. One had to serve in the military to be counted as a citizen in Prussia. Ancient Rome had this as well. Some conservatives, have even posited a required military-service. Some have an economic outlook, that taxpayers are citizens. And while voluntary military service is excellent, and paying taxes (even with government waste) is generally a service to the public good, both of these come from a view that one has to sacrifice something in order to be counted.

Should an immigrant that serves in the military be granted full-citizenship? Yes, and no. While military service shows commitment, not every new arrival should be expected to serve; much less required service for all able-bodied persons. The reason? Not all can serve in the military. Plus, I'm positive I wouldn't want to be apart of a nation that would fight for freedom, yet doesn't have the vaguest idea of what the word means. Not that american soliders fall into this mindset at all, however Roman, and Prussian soliders did - fighting for the prestige and guaranteed rights that came with citizenship; not because of an understanding of what they were protecting.

As for taxes, even visitors to the US pay into the tax system vis-a-vis sales tax, but no one would consider them "American" for doing so. Both legal and non-legal immigrants have a portion of their checks given to the government vis-a-vis income tax (unless of course they're paid "under the table"). But a tax-payer does not a citizen-make. This is because a) not everyone can contribute lump-sums equally, and b) everyone recieves the benefits of taxes whether they are a citizen or not, think transporation systems, etc.

So...sacrifice doesn't make a citizen, per-se, but it does show a commitment. Perhaps a citizen is someone who doesn't just sacrifice, but creates as well. One who has an understanding of government, a respect for law, and, for americans, a geuine love of freedom. These are concepts, and actions, that can only grow from an understanding of civics and histroy education. This is why felons don't get a vote, as they've demonstrated they don't care - and why people who choose to become citizens are first tested on american history.

This is partially the reason why, at least on some level, immigrants (legal and non-legal), throughout American history are viewed with a bit of suspicion - their level of "American-ness" is in question. Until they're assimilated into American culture, it will probably remain that way.