Humor

"If they can't take a joke, fuck 'em" -Tucker Max

War on "War on Christmas"

Pass The Meme Along

This has been passed around the blog-o-sphere, so I thought I'd partake.

What does your music say about you?

Instructions: Open up iTunes to your music library. In the upper right corner, set "Search Music" to "Song." Now type the following words in and record the number of results:

Love- 18 (7 by Stevie Wonder)

Hate- 10

War- 36

Peace- 2 (one of which is "If You Want Peace...Prepare For War" by CoB)

Black- 25

White- 4

Life- 20

Death- 22

Blood- 28

Water- 5

Now type in the letters of the alphabet, separated by spaces (i.e. a b c d...) When only one song is left, write the name of the song (If many songs are eliminated at once, write the first song alphabetically): "Big Bear and the Hour of Chaos" by Unearth (beat out five other songs on "i")

Now do the same thing with the letters of the city and state you live in: "He Was Stretching, And Then He Climbed Up Here" by The Red Chord (made it through "Milwau" with eight other songs)

And once again using the letters of your own name: "Contempt Breeds Contamination" by Trivium (made it all the way through my name with three other songs)

Ugly People Make Good Music

Magic

Santa Claus

32 "uh"s in this one. I've never noticed how often I say that...

Election, Prayer, and Free Will

Remember, remember, the fifth of November
The gunpowder, treason, and plot.
I know of no reason, the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

Hell House XVIII

If you aren't familiar with Hell House, it's a fundamentalist horror house in Texas. Each room has a bunch of actors in it who act out various "sinful acts." The Atheist Community of Austin, producers of The Atheist Experience, decided to take a trip there (as they have in years past).

Hilarity ensues...

(continued)

Poe's Law? I'm Not Sure

1. Go to Google
2. Type in "god's great gift"
3. Click I'm Feeling Lucky
4. Read.

What do you think? Real or fake?

Science Debate 2008...

...won't happen. But here's the next best thing.

For those who don't know, there was a push amongst the scientific community to hold a science-based debate between the two candidates. A petition was started by six people (one of whom, coincidentally, is Charles Darwin's great-grandson) to convince the candidates that the debate was important to a lot of people. 38,000 signatures later (including several Nobel Laureates), the petition was presented to McCain and Obama. And they both refused. It seems they were afraid it would be like a science test, not a discussion of policies.

So to alleviate their fears and get some kind of response from them, a list of 14 questions was sent to each candidate, and they were asked to submit written responses. This time, both candidates replied. You can check out their responses, side-by side, at the Sciencedebate 2008 website:

Sciencedebate 2008

I'll try to look through the responses more thoroughly, but just from skimming through, it seems each candidate's response can be summed up as "more funding." As a taxpayer, that disappoints me. As a scientist/future doctor, it's good to hear. So I'm torn. But check out the site if you're interested in either science or politics.

Yoink!

Again, this is stolen from Sharon's blog, but it's an awesome thread:

Candidate = ???

Once you get the idea of it, check out my contribution to the game:

My Contribution

Something From Nothing

A TV Show That Gets It Right

Shocking, I know. But CBS's new drama The Mentalist had an awesome pilot last Tuesday. I'd give a quick synopsis, but it's much more worth your time to watch the full episode online at http://www.cbs.com/primetime/the_mentalist/

Suffice to say, the show has a strong skeptical bend to it. After watching the scene in the restaurant, I fell in love with the show. And according to someone close to the show who writes on the SGU forums, the writers and producers are sticking to skepticism. No "I guess I was wrong about psychics" moment thus far. New episodes Tuesdays at 9 p.m. Definately made my DVR.

13 Million Little Digits

B.D.I.U.

The Atheist Experience

http://www.atheist-experience.com/

This video clip makes me laugh out loud every time I see it.

Heroes

The other night, me and Sharon had our monthly Atheist Meetup. It's a group of atheists in Milwaukee who met on the internet and decided to have dinner once a month as a group. We don't usually talk much about atheism, it's usually just general science talk. The best part is the age of the members range from 6 years old to well over 80. While I was talking to one of the elderly members, I mentioned that I wear my Scarlet Letter A on my white coat to identify myself as an atheist. What's more, some patients have actually recognized it as an atheist symbol and have asked me about it (so far with only one negative result). After I said this, the woman I was talking to said "What you're doing is very brave, almost heroic. Thank you."

I disagree. I'm not wearing it to be brave, and I certainly don't think I'm a hero. I wear it mostly as a conversation piece. One of the other students actually came out as an atheist and started wearing a pin as well. But to me, hero means so much more.

Travis had a post a while back about heroes, and I commented there, but I thought I'd talk about it on here. I have a good number of heroes. Getting the obvious ones out of the way, James Randi, Penn Jilette, and Mitch Hedberg are personal heroes, in the sense that I want to be more like them. But they've never really done anything "heroic." Maybe James Randi, taking on Uri Gellar, but even that is sort of a stretch. To me, being a hero means taking risks for what you believe in. The obvious choice here (although ficticious) is V from V for Vendetta. But it feels like a cop-out to pick a fictional character (badass as he is).

If I had to pick a real hero, it would have to be George Carlin. He took big risks to speak his mind. If I wear my atheist pin to work, I can't be fired because of it due to freedom of speech laws. I can be despised, but I can't really lost anything. Geroge Carlin risked his career to speak his mind, saying things no one else would say. Up until the day of his funeral, he was hated enough to have protesters and death threats (okay, no death threats at his funeral, but you get the point). He truly was a hero to me and to all the other cynical assholes out there. R.I.P.

Just Watch It

Stolen from Sharon's Blog.

Your first instinct is to laugh. Then shake your head. Then cry.

Love Is Hate

Once again, I'm done early pre-rounding, so I'm typing out a post (it's been a while since I recorded one, actually). I thought I'd jump on the bandwagon of destroying Governor Palin. Everyone knows her unwed teenage daughter is pregnant. I don't think we should make an issue out of the fact that her unwed teenage daughter is pregnant, while at the same time she promotes abstinence-only education policies. Barack Obama said he wouldn't attack her for having an unwed teenage daughter who is pregnant. It would be below me to talk about the fact that her unwed teenage daugher is pregnant. So I won't talk about it.

I don't have time to talk about all things Palin. If you're up for some Googling, try "Palin CNN interview" and learn how McCain can get offended by newsanchors talking about real issues (and for a hilarious video of Palin's spokesperson making an ass of himself). Of course, there's also the arrests that are being made outside St. Paul because protestors have the gall to speak their minds.

But I'll focus on something else. My other blogger friends have already pointed out her "under god" faux pas. In short, when asked if she was offended by the phrase "under god" appearing in the Pledge of Allegiance, she replied "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me." Dennis already blasted her for this historical inaccuracy. I won't talk about why this is so offensive or why "under god" shouldn't be in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm sure I've talked about it before. What really worries me about this is that we have to explain why she's wrong. There's a significant portion of this country who actually think the founding fathers put "under god" in the pledge, or put "in god we trust" on our money, or that they were Christians. This begs the question: if enough people believe it, is it really lying?

I'm sure most of the people reading this blog have also read George Orwell's 1984. I know what you're thinking, I'm a crazy revolutionary who finds Orwell everywhere. Bear with me. For those who haven't read it, one of the central ideas is that the government can change facts. They can make you believe 2+2=5. Most importantly, they can change history. Not in the sense of the old adage "history is written by the winner;" the government can change historical facts just by saying "this is what we now believe." Reading the book, I had thought this was impossible. But it's actually happening. If enough people say the founding fathers were Christians, people start to believe it. People stop asking "is this really true?" We don't need history books anymore. We've changed history. We have new facts. The founding fathers were Christians. The Pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution. We didn't slaughter millions of Native Americans. Christmas was always a national holiday. The United States did not escalate the Cold War, it was always the Soviet Union. Iraq has always had WMDs and there has always been a link between Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. These were always true. No one has ever disputed that these were always true. These are facts, and we have always believed them.

And that really scares me.

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Bill Maher

I'm actually excited about Bill Maher. If you haven't heard about it, Google his new movie Religulous. I've never really liked him, mostly because he buys into a lot of alternative medicine woo, but at least he understands the evolution "controversy:"

You shouldn't teach both sides of a debate when one side is a load of crap [. . .] 'Babies come from storks' is not a competing school of thought. In medical school, we shouldn't teach both. The media should not equate both.

This Couldn't Wait

I just finished pre-rounding on my patients, so I sat down at the computer to check my email, and I saw this news story on the homepage:

Fan Ejected from Yankee Stadium

I'm sorry, but I couldn't wait until I got home to record a video on this one. Apparently the fan was "forcibly escorted" out of the stadium after he got up to use the bathroom during God Bless America. A police officer told him to return to his seat, the man said "I don't care about this song," and the police officer immediately twisted his arm around his back and threw him out of the stadium. After tossing him through the turnstills, the police officer said "'get the hell out of my country if you don't like it." The police claim the man was beligerent and drunk, but all the witnesses have said this isn't true.

This is how it's going to happen. This is how our country will become a theocracy. When the police become autonomous, enforcing their own rules. This is sickening. This story sounds like something out of a futuristic utopia, something like V for Vendetta or 1984. This is too far. Right now, atheists need to stand up for themselves. Being an atheist is not a crime. This country was founded on the fucking right to get up and leave whenever the fuck you want. If this fan wanted to stand up, give the middle finger, and yell "There is no God," HE HAS THAT FUCKING RIGHT. Freedom of speech. But freedom isn't what it used to be. I hope these police officers get taken down. Tell me where to write a letter. I'm pissed.

Edit: George Carlin says it best.

Wear Your 'A' Proudly

Metal By Numbers Lyrics

Dennis' Post

John's Post

Call Me in the Morning

Fascination With Vaccination

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=186#more-186

Really, pass it on to your friends.

How Psychics Work

Check out this site, run by Robert Lancaster.

http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/

For more information, and an interview with Robert Lancaster, listen to The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, Episode #87

Drugs Are Bad, Mmkay?

The Dragon In My Garage

Check out this essay by Carl Sagan, one of the founders of the skeptical movement. I've talked about ideas like this on here before, but I could never express it as elegantly as Dr. Sagan.

The Dragon In My Garage

Do You Believe The Magic Missile Theory?

Was the Death Star attack an inside job?

Courtesy of Episode #90 of The Skeptics' Guide

Anger: It Gets Shit Done

We Have A Dog!

We just got our new dog from the rescue society. She's a Pembroke Welsh Corgi mixed with... something? She's a little tall for a Corgi, but just as spunky. Her name is eV (pronounced "Eevee"). In chemistry and physics, an "eV" is a unit of energy equal to 1.602 x 10^-19 J. So she's a little bundle of energy! And yes, we are nerds.

Moons Over My Hammy

I don't mean to steal everything from Sharon's LiveJournal, but I had to post this. Here's the actual forum topic for background. Basically, some Christians believe that the moon emits its own light (like the sun) rather than reflecting the light from the sun, because it says so in the Bible:

Isaiah 30:26 Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.

That's not enough for you? What about these passages:

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Ezekiel 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.

Mathew: 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.

Mark 13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

Reading this makes me feel like I have a brain freeze...

Psychiatry and Religion: What Is a Hallucination?

Yeah, Yeah, I'm Alive...

A River in Egypt

Is Psychiatry Scientific?- The Infidel Guy

NTLF

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

The Dark Knight

I didn't want to see this movie. I don't like any Batman movies I've seen, I don't like superhero movies in general, and I don't like Christian Bale. But I was drawn into the theater with promises of Claim Jumper afterward. So here's my take on the movie.

Heath Ledger: Awesome
Aaron Eckhart: Fucking awesome (altough his two-face, while anatomically correct, would be unable to pronounce any words correctly)
Christian Bale: WHAT THE FUCK? Seriously, watching him act is just sad. He isn't too bad as Bruce Wayne. Sort of like Keaunu Reeves, you'll let his clueless stare and monotone voice slide once or twice. But when he puts on the bat suit and uses his deep "scary" voice, you can't help but laugh through the whole movie. You, Christian Bale, are an embarrassment to the already embarrassing superhero genre.

Hyperbaric Medicine

That's Right, A Purple Poncho

Purple Poncho

Warning: Science Content

http://www.quackcast.com/spodcasts/page6.html

Fuck the FCC

Nice Guys Finish Last

Tough Day

Fucking Quacks

The Price of a Christian Nation

Well, at least we're beating Turkey.

Seriously though, when did we fall so far behind the rest of the world in science?

Quirkology

Richard Dawkins

Something Smells of BS...

http://milwaukeeheartscan.com/

Stroke Patients (Not That Kind of Stroke...)

Sharon has a couple friends over, so I'm not doing a video post today. I had orientation to the Psych/Neuro rotation the past two days, so I thought I'd update with the details for my rotation. I do two weeks of Neurology followed by four weeks of Psychiatry, with exams and OSCEs to follow. For Neurology, I was placed in the Neurovascular Team at Froedtert. Basically, that means two weeks of strokes and TIAs. We pre-round on all our patients at 7 am, meaning I'm assigned to either a new patient who was received overnight or an old patient who spent the night. I check their progress and lab results, then present the case to my attending at 9 am. Then as a team (attending, residents, and med students) we rotate through all the patients and determine diagnoses and/or plans. That should last until lunch. After lunch, if I don't have lectures, I follow the residents on consults and stroke cases who present to the ER. On days I don't have call, I leave at 5 pm. On days I do have call, I stay doing consults, etc. until midnight. I have weekends off (I do have one Saturday on call) and I get the 4th of July off, which is nice. This is a pretty standard rotation, basically what I can expect from all my rotations this year (with the exceptions of surgery and OB/GYN, where I do overnight call), so it's a good place to start.

Me Fail English? That's Unpossible!

Occam's Razor

I'm sitting at the desk randomly searching through old xkcd comics while Sharon is in the kitchen cooking. She comes into the room and says the following two sentences: "Can you hand me a post-it note or a small piece of paper? I need to make sweet and sour sauce." For the life of me, I cannot make a correlation between those two sentences. I guess I'll never understand cooking.

Acupuncture? I Hardly Know Her!

Sew Age Medicine

Wow, that coin I'm playing with is really annoying, huh?

Oh, Sharon...

Right after the camera cut off, she did run in and hit me with a magazine. She told me to tell you.

Two Posts in an Hour? What Gives?

It's been pointed out that I say at the beginning I want to hear what people think, but at the end I ask people not to comment. I want to hear what you think, but I don't want the comments posted on here because I want people to think about this for themselves without the comments influencing them. That's why I didn't comment myself. I hope that makes sense, because that second sentence is five lines long (and a grammatical nightmare).

Something About This Seems Wrong

rEVOLution (I think I've used this title before)

Ben's Post (Untitled)

Shit Piss Fuck Cunt Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Another Comic

Here's the return of My Life, In Comic Strip Form.

Stupid Cat

(Un)Intelligent Design

I did a good job using my hands to explain the schematics of the human eye, huh? For a better explanation of the route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and its evolution from fish gills, check out the second link, about halfway through.



The Rockefeller University- A Symposium on Evolution

On Friendship

Poe's Law

Item #1
Item #2
Item #3

The Illusion of Control

I know, I overuse the word "hippie." Sue me. (Put down your bong first)

The Perfect Resolution of Nerd and Drunk

Love and Marriage

Step 1 Boards Had Sex With Me (Figuratively Speaking)

My Day Off

Pharyngula- I'm Voting Republican

After recording the video, I read more of the comments on Pharyngula. #116 makes a good comment that's worth pointing out:

"The left of center is stuck with the anti-GMO, anti-irradiated food mentality (and related biotech-phobic baggage) for the foreseeable future just like the right is stuck with Christian fundamentalists."

Perfectly valid analogy.

You Don't Mess With The Sharon

I'm going to get yelled at again tonight, aren't I?

EDIT: Once again, a great picture. Next time, I'll make sure to sneeze.

Moral Oral

Link to Travis's Post

The Nicest Thing I've Ever Said About a Socialist

Link to Obama Video

Video to a Christian Nation

Really, John McCain? Really?

Let's Give It A Shot

EDIT: It sure chose a good screenshot of me to use as the preview. I swear, I'm not drunk...

Videoness

I haven't been updating very regularly, but for good reasons. One because I'm studying for boards, and two because we moved into a new apartment. I will continue to study, but here's a short video I made touring our new apartment (apparently we have a video camera).

Guys, I'm Super Serial...

The Skeptic's Guide this week had a segment on "What are you least skeptical about?" I haven't gotten through the whole thing yet (I listen to it while I jog), but I thought I'd chime in with what I'm least skeptical about.

I diverge from the "scientific consensus" on a few issues. I maintain my skepticism regarding the obesity epidemic. I don't think weight gain is as simple as "calories in, calories out," and I subscribe to the "fat but healthy" mindset. But that's mostly because I have fat friends, and I support their right to be fat. That's not what I'm least skeptical about. I don't think I've opened this can of worms on my blog before, but I'll go ahead and say it. I am skeptical about the human contributions to global warming.

I will grant you that global temperatures are rising. I'll go the extra mile and say there is *some* human contribution. But I disagree very much with Chicken Little (that's you, Al Gore). If there is human contribution (there's that if), it will not destroy the planet by 2025 like Chicken Little wants you to believe. We shouldn't revert back to living in caves just because Chicken Little says so. I do support alternative fuel technologies, mostly because decreasing our dependence on oil will help get us out of global politics. And in man's history, technology has always fixed it's own problems. It's just a matter of time.

So why am I least skeptical about this? Because the science as of right now is inconclusive. There are several things which must be proven for Chicken Little to be right. First, that temperatures are rising. Second, that it is man's fault. Third, that it is changing at a rate that would be detrimental to the planet. Fourth, that it can be reversed. Fifth, that it's not too late. One (maybe two) of these have been proven. I can see the other ones being true, but the science doesn't support that conclusion yet. The science will come in time. There isn't a ten-year ticking time bomb that can't wait until the science is there. Cutting back in 2008 versus 2010 will not impact the age of the Earth, but will impact the economy if we cut back too hastily.

John Oliver Strikes Again

If you haven't already checked it out, you should download the weekly podcast by John Oliver (of The Daily Show fame) and Andy Zaltzman (of "I know John Oliver" fame). It's called The Bugle, and makes fun of current events in both Britain and America. There was a good quote in the last episode (I don't remember which of them said it), regarding religious protests of government approval of stem cell research:

"They're saying the government is trying to be God, which I guess means it's 2000 years out of date and 10% of the population doesn't believe in it anymore."

I'm in that 10%!

The Mighty Titans

As some of you know, I'm a big Titans fan. I have no real reason to cheer for them, I've never lived in Tennessee. I liked them when they were the Oilers and the league underdogs, so I just stuck with them (who else am I going to cheer for? The Chargers?). I was reading an article about Vince Young, the Titan's quarterback, where he talked about how he almost quit the NFL after his first year. He had a lot of off-field problems, but, as he says,

"I really thought long and hard about it. There was so much going on with my family. It was crazy being an NFL quarterback. It wasn't fun anymore. All of the fun was out of it. All of the excitement was gone. All I was doing was worrying about things. . . My teammates helped lift me out of it. I prayed really hard. And I began to focus on God's calling for me. Play football. Be a role model."

I guess now would be the wrong time to link to these photos. Hey, he's my role model. He can handle his Jack.

rEVOLution

I happened to catch the Libertarian Party Convention on CSPAN today. The candidate I was pulling for, Dr. Mary Ruwart, finished second behind former Congressman Bob Barr. Of the possible candidates, I liked Barr the least. He's a fairly recent ex-Republican who voted for the Patriot Act and also voted to uphold the ban on gay marriage, though he says he has switched his position on both issues. Dr. Ruwart is a scientist who worked as a pharmaceutical researcher for almost twenty years, and has a fairly strong stance against the war on drugs. She has been in the party longer, but hasn't held a major office like former Congressman Barr. He kind of strikes me as a douchebag (or at best, a politician), but at least I agree with him in some aspects. He's better than McCain or Obama, and Clinton was never an option to begin with.

Some highlights from the convention include Penn Jillette receiving three votes in the first round and Steven Colbert receiving votes into the second round. I also liked when the Utah delegate introduced his state as "the place where separation of church and state is three city blocks." But I have to say my favorite part was seeing delegates form Arizona wearing Guy Fawkes masks. Awesome.

There, I Fixed It

I couldn't post a Weezer music video without posting a metal video.



Order has been restored to the universe. Bonus points if you can name the band/song without cheating.

Even If They Did Rip It Off South Park...

Weezer sucks. Or I should say, their music sucks. The band went up a couple notches with their new music video. I still reccommend muting it...

Don't Forget Your Grain of Salt

A link from Pharyngula. PZ Meyers organizes a lot of poll crashing (scroll through his blog, you'll see a lot of them). This one is a site dedicated to the question "Do you believe in God?" Honestly, I don't see the point in crashing the poll. Polls by nature are fallible. Half of polls are biased in the wording of the question (i.e. "Do you believe God plays an active role in our lives?"). Every poll I've seen shows the U.S. as around 10% atheist, but this website shows it as 52%, largely thanks to PZ's cult-like following, I'm sure. I could care less if it says that 0.001% of the country is atheist. Anyone who gets their beliefs from a poll isn't smart enough to vote anyways. By the way, Canada is listed as 67% atheist. Now, I'm no fan of Canada (or Socialism in general), but high five, eh?

This Is What Hanging Around With Dead People Does To You

I called the Medical Examiner this morning (see previous posts) to see if I could shadow him on an autopsy. He said there were no good cases today, but that Tuesday would be better (after Memorial Day weekend). I talked to him for awhile about studying for boards, and he offered up this gem: "Studying for boards is like being raped. You can fight all you want, but it's going to happen, so you might as well sit back and try to enjoy it." I laughed, and that makes me a bad person.

We're Number 2! We're Number 2!

You've probably seen polls showing atheists as the "most despised group" in America. They usually ask questions like "Would you allow your daughter to marry a ____?" or "Would you vote for an otherwise qualified presidential candidate if he were a ____?" Most polls show atheist below 50%, behind African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, and even homosexuals. But a new poll specific to religion seems to show that atheists are no longer the most hated people in America. Any guesses who is?

::Sigh::

I got my Pharmacology final back today. Let's just say this sound was playing in my head.

You Want More? I've Got 'Em

Indiana Jones hits wide-release today, so I thought it would be appropriate to post about it. Here's a list of reasons I will NOT see this movie.

1. George Lucas

Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption, The Mist) wrote a screenplay for the movie two years ago. Steven Spielberg loved the script, but George Lucas didn't. What does George Lucas know about scripts? Hey, remember that George Lucas script that everyone loved? Oh, right, that was thirty years ago. Well, he had a good run.

2. I liked the originals

I made the mistake of having The Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean ruined for me, I'm not going to do the same with Indiana Jones.

3. Harrison Ford

This reason deserves it's own subcategory...

(a) He hasn't made a movie in two years, and hasn't made a good movie in fifteen years. Everyone talks about him like he's FSM's gift to acting. He's only ever been nominated for one Oscar. One. Over twenty years ago. Pass.

(b) He refuses to make movies unless he's the star. Think about it. When was the last time he was in a supporting role? Direct quote: "I'm like a fireman. When I go out on a call, I want to put out a big fire, I don't want to put out a fire in a dumpster." Yes, allow me to crap on the faces of all the lesser-known actors out there. Douchebag.

(c) Politics. Now I know what you're thinking. He's perfectly qualified to talk about politics. I mean, he did go to college for two years before dropping out (apparently the course load at Ripon College was too rigorous for him). Forget the people who study politics for a living. They're not as qualified to talk about the Iraq War as this douchebag. I'm sure I object to the war just as much as he does. I just don't pretend to be an expert on it. If you've got an opinion on something, just get a blog like everyone else.

(d) Seriously, fuck this guy.

4. There are no new ideas in Hollywood

This movie is 100% about making profit. How do I know? They're already planning a sequel! Yeah, I'm sure they put effort into the storyline (see 1. above). All they're doing now is taking things that were popular twenty years ago and redoing them. Transformers, Batman, the upcoming G.I. Joe movie. Forget it. If Indiana Jones had a storyline that needed a sequel, it would have come out twenty years ago.

5. The title

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? WTF?


EDIT: After I posted this, I saw this post on Pharyngula. Once again, P.Z. Meyers and I are in agreement (except for the fact that he wasted his $9).

Wait, Sex Doesn't Start With...Ohhh...

One of the books I'm studying with, First Aid for Boards, has a bunch of mnemonics for things we need to know. I'm studying neuroanatomy today, and I came across this entry:

"The limbic system can be remembered as the 5 F's: Feeding, Fighting, Feeling, Fleeing, and sex."

How many twelve-year-olds do they think are studying for the Boards? Anyone who understands the fifth F probably wouldn't be offended by actually seeing the word. To quote Yahtzee, "It's okay, you can swear [. . .], your mum probably isn't going to read it. I know because she's too busy being fucked by me."

Myself Included

I thought this was pretty funny...

Here is proof that 1% of the population is composed of smart asses.

My Life, In Comic Strip Form III

This is why I haven't been updating that much...

The Sad Truth

The End, The Beginning

I've been meaning to update all day, but I had to wait until I was a little bit drunk. I got a little bit drunk, and then I had another Brooklyn Eagle and a B-52, so pardon the typos and syntactical errors.

Today was a big day for me. I took my Pathology final. It was my final final. Ever. As of right now, I am a Junior Medical Student. Which means I have to be responsible. I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, this is the end of my life as a student. Starting July 1st, I will be doing rotations in the hospital. I will be responsible for patients, taking histories, developing differential diagnoses, and administering medications. On the other hand, I will never stop being a student. In the words of Michaelangelo (the painter, not the Ninja Turtle), Ancora Imparo; I am still learning. This isn't even the end of my test-taking career. I have the boards coming up on June 14th, and I'll have shelf exams after most of my rotations. Then I take Step II of the boards, then certification boards, then recertification, et cetera.

But there's something different about today. One year of preschool, five years of elementary school, three years of middle school, four years of high school, four years of undergraduate, and two years of basic medical science. That's nineteen years of school. And it all ended today. A lot of the other medical students updated their Facebook status to say "halfway to M.D." I don't see it that way. My status says I'm 23/25ths of the way to my M.D. I didn't start becoming a doctor two years ago. I've been preparing for this my whole life. I'm ready to be Dr. Brillo.

So why am I so scared of July 1st?

I'll Be Funny On Saturday, I Promise

It's finals week, and after having my skull crushed by pharmacology, I just don't have it in me for a real post this week. So here are some news stories to fill your time.

The Pope says it's okay to believe in aliens. I didn't even know that was a problem for them.

People are protesting an Atlanta bar for selling this shirt. When asked, the bar owner said "I don't see the big deal. I really don't." Really, American South? Really?

And finally, a post from The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forum. Even if you're religious, it will insult your intelligence. Read the comments, they are quite amusing.

My Life, In Comic Strip Form II

Back by popular demand...

Damn Cats

Climbing A Slippery Slope

I hate to keep bringing up the evolution vs. ID "debate," but with the recent release of Ben Stein's movie, I feel the need to keep bringing it up. I was just arguing with a friend about the teaching of ID in school. We weren't arguing the truth or evidence of the claims, just whether or not it should be taught in schools. What he didn't expect me to say is that I believe it should be taught in schools. Just not in science class. I've talked before about the Philosophy of Science and why ID is not science. It doesn't belong in the science class, but it does belong in history or English classes. In fact, I believe the Bible should be required reading for high school English. It is a great piece of literature. It presents themes and stories that are alluded to in other literary works. In order for these stories to make sense, people need a background with the Bible. Can you imagine reading Hamlet without understanding the concept of a "Christ figure?" Or The Sound and the Fury without the knowledge of original sin? But the main reason I think the Bible should be taught is that it puts it in better context. If people read the Bible alongside Homer's Iliad and The Grapes of Wrath, they would see it more as a work of fiction. I understand that a lot of atheists disagree with me. It does open the door for religion to force itself into schools, if not by the teachers, then by the students. I just think that placing it in the fictional realm takes away the stigma of "The Good Book" and makes it more "Just another book I'll buy the Cliff Notes for." Besides, we need more atheists. And I'll tell you from personal experience, nothing will make you an atheist faster than reading the Bible cover to cover.

My Life, In Comic Strip Form

Just trying it out. We'll see if I do any more of these.

Rude Awakening

I Just Hope I Don't Go Bald

Our pathology course is nearing an end, and the last five lectures have been a review of the year-long course. The guy giving the lectures is entertaining, but check this out:

-His name is Brian Peterson (B. Peterson)
-He went to medical school at MCW (as am I)
-He's a forensic pathologist (the specialty I'm focusing on)
-He served in the Navy for eight years (as will I)
-He worked as a Medical Examiner in San Diego County (where I went to high school), Yolo County (where I went to college), and Waukesha County (near where I go to medical school)
-He's an atheist ("I've done 9,000 autopsies, and have never found a soul")
-He's a skeptic ("There is no evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer. I can tell you that everyone who has ever eaten a pickle will die, but that doesn't mean pickles kill you.")
-He has a sick sense of humor ("You know what they say about necrophilia. Any philia is better than nothing.")

I think my future is giving me lectures...

The Falsifiability of Science, Part II: The Resciencing

This problem was the subject of my final paper for my PHI 030 class. When I wrote my essay, I coincidentally touched upon a number of topics I would revisit in later courses (apparently I hadn't come up with anything new). So here's my resolution of the problem.

Adams and Leverrier were, indeed, scientists. The illusion here is that the orbit of Uranus directly contradicted Newton's theory of gravity. Instead, you could say that the orbit of Uranus was consistent with Newton's theory, but inconsistent with the hypothesis "Our solar system has seven planets." Between these two theories, Newton's theory is stronger, because it applies to every object everywhere. The seven-planet theory has a much more limited scope. But these aren't the only two hypotheses that were tested. They tested the theory of mathematics in their calculations, the theory of a functioning telescope, the theory of their eyes being capable of detecting light reflected off an undiscovered planet, etc. The idea that you can't test a single theory actually turns out to be a big problem for philosophers of science.

More importantly, at no point in their work did they violate the criterion of falsifiability. Their new hypothesis "Our solar system has eight planets" was still falsifiable. If Neptune hadn't been exactly where they said it was, their hypothesis would be thrown out.

But suppose that was the case, that there was no eighth planet. Would that then disprove Newton's theory? The answer is... yes! In fact, the exact same scenario led indirectly to Einstein disproving Newton's theory! Leverrier, in addition to his observations of the orbit of Uranus, also observed inconsistencies in the orbit of Mercury. He hypothesized that there was a planet closer to the sun, which he dubbed "Vulcan" (Trekkies, don't get ahead of yourselves). Astronomers searched for decades to find Vulcan, but no one ever did. In 1915, Einstein introduced his theory of relativity, which explained the orbit of Mercury in addition to explaining everything covered by Newton. Thus, Newton's theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein's theory of relativity.

To be fair, it wasn't just Mercury's orbit which led to the downfall of Newton's theory. Among other things, Newton's theory failed to accurately predict the gravitational deflection of light. The process of abandoning a fundamental theory such as Newton's is covered in a specific realm of PoS: the Philosophy of Scientific Revolutions. But that's another topic for another time.

On a side note, to respond to what Travis said, "accomplishments shouldn't be confused with intentions," you're absolutely right (although I don't think it applies here). That school of thought was maintained by the logical positivists in the early 20th century, who argued that "discovery" is independent of science. The best example of this is the discovery of the structure of benzene. The empiric formula C6H6 was known for centuries, but no one could explain the structure. In the late 19th century, Friedrich Kekule discovered the ring shape when he had a dream about a snake eating it's own tail. Regardless of how he discovered it, his claim was still falsifiable and stood up to every test, and thus the hypothesis is considered scientific.

The Falsifiability of Science

Today I thought instead of a political rant, I'd do a more intellectual exercise. I studied Philosophy of Science as an undergraduate. In fact, I took enough classes to qualify for a minor, but didn't realize there was a minor offered until after I graduated. I was reading through one of my old texts, when I came across this question.

The basis of all science, as any high school graduate knows, is the scientific method. Form a hypothesis, obtain data, modify your hypothesis to match the data. This is counter to the pseudoscientific method: form a hypothesis, obtain data, modify the data to match your original hypothesis. That's an oversimplification, but the main difference between science and pseudoscience is falsifiability. It may sound paradoxical, but the ability to be wrong is what makes science so powerful. I've already talked about the pseudoscientific claims of creationism and intelligent design. Creationists can interpret any set of data and observations to match their hypothesis. Their hypothesis can't be falsified. For example, the fossil record runs counter to creationist claims that the Earth was created in seven days. Rather than accepting the disproof of their hypothesis, creationists can claim that the fossils were put there by God to test our faith. Modifying the data, not the hypothesis.

The problem with this definition of pseudoscience is that real scientists do this all the time. In the 19th century, it was discovered that the orbit of Uranus did not follow Newton's theory of gravity. According to the scientific method, Newton's theory should have been discarded. Instead, two scientists, Adams and Leverrier, changed the data to match the hypothesis. They concluded that Newtonian physics is a true hypothesis, but an undiscovered planet was messing with the orbit of Uranus. Lo and behold, they discovered Neptune. The question I have for you is this: were Adams and Leverrier esteemed scientists who discovered a new planet, or pseudoscientists who irrationally clung to a bad hypothesis? I'll post my interpretation in the next couple days.

References:

1. Okasha, Samir. The Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press: 2002. 13-17

Don't Blog Angry...

In our Health Policy class on Tuesday (I just listened to the lecture today), an emergency medicine doctor came in to discuss the physician's role in legislation. I disagreed with a lot of what he said, but it was an interesting lecture. Near the end, he put forth a case scenario: a Vietnam-veteran, pack-a-day smoker, who lives in a van (down by the river). He asked students for ideas about what we can do as physicians to help him. Most of the suggestions were acceptable. Offer our services for free at soup kitchens, help him get a job, use money from the cigarette tax to fund educational programs, etc.

But one student suggested, and I quote, "I know it sounds heartless, but throw him in jail. He'll get three hots and a cot, he'll get medical attention, he'll also get job training too." That student is damn lucky I don't attend lectures, because he would be a bloody spot on the wall. It's for his own good. The ends justify the means. Holy fucking horseshit. Let's ignore the burden this would put on the taxpayers, throwing him in an already overcrowded jail system. The human rights violations alone are enough to make smoke come out of my ears. So being poor is a crime now? Fuck it, let's just accuse him of being a terrorist and send him to Guantanamo Bay. Free health care! The ends justify the means! Why don't we just kill him?! It's for his own good! FUCK, why wasn't I in lecture that day?

You Knew This Post Was Coming...

One thing that's amazing to me is how one-dimensional some people can be. Because they feel a certain way personally, they have to feel that way politically. Which brings me to abortion. I've had heated debates with many of my friends, and I always end up agreeing with them in one way and disagreeing with them in other ways. What people don't understand is how I can be opposed to abortion personally and still support pro-choice in the political realm. As a person, I probably wouldn't chose to have an abortion (and not because I'm a man, har har, you know what I mean). As a (potential) doctor, I would support my patient's right to decide what is the best choice for them. I can only give them health advice, I can't give them personal advice. Politically, I'm pro-choice, because let's face it, I'm pro-choice on everything.

(Side note: Although I am pro-choice, I also think Roe v. Wade should be repealed, because it sets a dangerous precedent of letting the federal government decide health matters. If they can decide a health procedure is legal, they maintain the right to decide which ones are illegal. I believe those issues should be left to the states.)

I could write another five pages on my views on abortion laws, but it pretty much boils down to this: I don't understand why someone feels they have to be pro-life politically just because they're pro-life personally. I'm not gay, but I still support the rights of homosexuals. I don't own a gun, but I support the rights of others to own them. I always wear my seatbelt, but I don't support seat belt laws. Why can't people distance themselves from...well...themselves?

Enough Said

Letter From Home

Close The Window

It almost goes without saying, but I feel the need to post it anyways. I am against a mandatory draft. Rumors of reinstating the draft have been floating around Bush's presidency since he invaded Iraq, and McCain has hinted at the same if he gets elected. Little known fact, but the Libertarian party has it's origins in the 70's on the basis of opposing the mandatory draft.

The implication of a mandatory draft is this: the government owns you. Until you pay your debt to your country, the government owns your life and can send you into battle if it chooses. I just don't think that's what this country is all about. As an officer in the Navy, I am told that I am fighting for freedom. As a volunteer, I am fighting for the freedom of all civilians (taxpayers, to be specific). But in a mandatory draft, people are really fighting for their own freedom. Earning it, if you will. Isn't this country is built on the idea that you are born free?

Don't get me wrong, the military has been good to me and my family. The military paid for my undergraduate education and is paying for medical school. And I do believe that people owe three years to their country. I think this country would be a much better place if everyone spent three years in the military. But it has to be voluntary. I don't want to force anyone into the military any more than I want to force anyone into college. If there were a real threat to the country, people would sign up. Just look at what happened after September 11. I personally know three people who joined the Marines for specifically that reason, ready to fight in Afghanistan. But they got pulled into a war they didn't want.

Why I'm Not A Teacher

Drew Carey, fellow Libertarian, has a series of videos at reason.tv called The Drew Carey Project. I don't agree with him on every point (yes, even Libertarians can disagree), but I encourage everyone to watch the videos, because he covers a lot of points that don't get much air time (organ transplant, traffic, gambling, etc.). I was catching up on his videos yesterday when I came across this one that made me sick to my stomach. I'll pause here while you watch the video...




::Intermission::





And THAT, my friends, is why I hate the government. And unions. And public schools (see government). Thank FSM this ultimately had a happy ending. One of the hardest Libertarian points I have to defend is the elimination of public schools. Ron Paul faced similar criticisms when he ran for president. This video pretty much sums it up. You have a school district and a teacher's union that don't give a damn about students. They just care about themselves. As Penn Says, "It's better to be uneducated than educated by your government."

"For Their Own Good"

I chose to go to college. I chose to go to medical school. I chose to join the Navy. I choose to jog regularly. I choose to lift weights. I choose to eat healthy. I choose to drink alcohol. I choose not to smoke tobacco. I choose not to smoke marijuana. These are all conscious decisions I made based on how I want to live my life. And I can understand why someone wouldn't make the same decisions as me. I don't look down on anyone who doesn't live their life the way I do. I have reasons for making my choices, and I'm sure they have reasons for making theirs.

But some people don't agree with that. Some people feel the need to impose their lifestyle decisions on others. Maybe they don't go that far. Maybe they just think that people who don't life their life a certain way are stupid, and we need to force them to change their life for their own good.

This rant comes from a conversation I had with a friend of mine. He said that if he ran the country, "no one would be allowed to weigh over 200 lbs." At that point, my Libertarian half jumped out of my body and kicked him in the crotch. But let's say for the sake of argument he has a point: "We need to protect them from themselves." Now, I do believe that obesity is a choice. With the exception of the 5% of people with a medical condition (Cushing's Disease, hypothyroidism, etc.), obese people choose to be obese. They choose not to jog, not to eat healthy, etc. I'm sure they know it's unhealthy. They know they'll live a shorter life. But they choose to live that life without jogging. With cake instead of lettuce. With television instead of dumbbells. It's their choice, and we have no right to tell them it's wrong. Hell, if I wasn't in the military, I could be a fat guy.

But the argument that we need to "fix" them doesn't go away. In every class I've taken in medical school, I'm told that obesity is an epidemic. We are told to force people to lose weight if we have to. It's for their own good. The same goes for smokers, but that's an entirely different conversation. Why do we need to save them? Let them live their lives. If an obese person makes a conscious decision to lose weight, then I will do everything within my power as a doctor to help them. Losing weight is simple; jog more, eat less. It's simple, but I know it isn't easy. They have to make the choice to change their life; I will not force it on them.

When I was arguing with my friend, the only argument he really had was that obese people are a drain on healthcare. Oh, it's an economical concern. But this may not actually be true. A recent study out of Denmark showed that obesity will cost the healthcare system less in the long run because obese people don't live as long. If we're really worried about the economy, we should be forcing people to be unhealthy. Smoke 'em if you've got 'em!

There is no reason to tell people how to live their life. Extend to them the same right to choose that you have. That is the cornerstone of Libertarianism: you have the freedom to do whatever you want, as long as you don't take that same freedom from your neighbor. "For their own good" are the four most repulsive words I can think of.

References:

1. van Baal PHM, Polder JJ, de Wit GA, Hoogenveen RT, Feenstra TL, et al. "Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure" PLoS Medicine 2008 5(2):29

A Moment of Recognition

I've got an idea for a post, but I want a little more time with it to get everything straight before I post it. So this is what you call a filler post. I was listening to "Red Light In My Eyes Part II" by Children of Bodom (off Something Wild), when I heard a theme I recognized. The entire song is a variation on the theme, and it is a familiar theme, but I couldn't remember where I had heard it. Then all of a sudden, it hit me. I won't give it away, see if you can recognize it:

Red Light In My Eyes Part II

Here's the answer in code (typed one row off on the keyboard):

,pxstyd trwior, gtp, s,sfrid

WT*? LM*O!

I haven't had a good Libertarian post, so it's about time I spit out some crazy politics. The survey I took yesterday got me thinking, particularly #5. I wasn't being cute with my answer, that's really how I feel. I don't believe in curses, and I don't believe in curse words. The idea that words like fuck, shit, asshole, damn, bitch, and cocksucker are somehow "bad" words is ridiculous. I can be just as vulgar and derogatory without using any of those words. They're like little summaries of what I'm actually thinking. I swear a lot (I am a sailor after all). But I know that there's a time and a place for it. I don't say "fuck" around my patients for the same reason I don't tell dead baby jokes around them. It's unprofessional, regardless of whether I use one of the seven dirty words or not.

And that type of self-censorship is fine. But I will never agree with government censorship of any kind. The FCC can go have sex with itself (to use a polite euphemism). Television is violent, vulgar, and crude. Jack Bauer can be tortured on screen, then grab a gun and shoot nine people, but he can't use these seven words. If you don't want to hear those words, if they make you cry, then by all means, change the channel. You can live in a hole with the lights off for all I care. That is the role of the person, not the government. It's the first amendment, like it or not.

I was arguing this point with a very conservative friend of mine, when he said that "freedom of speech implies freedom of listening." I think what he was trying to say is that he believes he has a right to not have to hear something if he doesn't want to. This claim is also used to stop gay marriage ("I don't want to have to see that...") or evolution ("I don't want my children learning that..."). Political groups use arguments like that to push their agendas and take the freedom of speech and expression away from people they disagree with. There couldn't be a more obvious abuse of government than that. That is exactly why we have the first amendment.

While the Profanity episode of Bullshit is great (the entire episode can be found on YouTube), I found this clip from the College episode (you can cut it out after 2:01, the rest is in the context of the whole episode). He nails it. Censorship is the job of the individual, not the government. "We don't have a fucking right NOT to be offended."

On a related note, new episodes of Bullshit start in June. I can't wait.

Survey Says...!

I had a 4-hour practice boards exam today, so I don't feel like updating with anything that requires too much thinking. Instead, I decided to take James Lipton's famous ten-question survey. Read my answers, then take it yourself, either in my comments or in your own blog.

1. What is your favorite word?

Pheochromocytoma. It's a type of adrenal gland tumor that secretes epinephrine (adrenaline). I just think it's fun to say.

2. What is your least favorite word?

Fa**ot or Ni**er

3. What turns you on?

Coffee.

4. What turns you off?

Prejudice. Racial, religious, or political. Oh, and cheap beer.

5. What is your favorite curse word?

I don't believe in curses. So I'll just say mee krob.

6. What sound or noise do you love?

This

7. What sound or noise do you hate?

The sound of Bono opening his mouth.

8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?

Stand-up comedian.

9. What profession would you not like to attempt?

Politics. I like my soul where it is.

10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?

You were wrong. But you led a good life. Here's a whiskey sour, see you at the orgy.

John Oliver, I Want to Have Your British Children

I watched John Oliver's stand-up special, "Terrifying Times," last night. If you don't know, John Oliver is the British correspondent from The Daily Show. Now, I've been restricting my religious posts lately, but this quote was just too perfect to pass up.

"I started looking into these groups in America, campaign groups, who wanted to put stickers on the front of all school sciecne textbooks explaining that evolution is only one possible theory of life on Earth. Now while this seems like a stupid idea at first, second, and thirty-ninth glance, look at it once more. Give it that fortieth view. Because it's brilliant. Let's have stickers on the front of all books. Slap one on the Bible saying Of course, this could all be bullshit. Maybe he never died. Perhaps he opened a donkey factory. He had a clear bond with donkeys. Or slap one on the front of the theory of gravity: Look it's just one man's opinion. Maybe we can all fly! R Kelley believed it so. Why would he lie to us? What does he possibly stand to gain?"

Nothing To Sneeze At

The other day, I was studying with one of my friends, when I had one of those sneezes that dangles on the tip of your nose. You know the feeling, where you have to sneeze, but you can't get it out. When I told this to my friend, he immediately said "Look at a bright light, it will make you sneeze." Well, instead of looking at a bright light, I looked at him like he had worms crawling out his ears. What the hell is he talking about? This guy is a med student, he couldn't have just said something that ridiculous. "No, it works, trust me, try it." Even though I'm convinced that my friend is insane, I indulge him and put my face right up next to a light bulb. And guess what? Not a damn thing happened.

Then yesterday, as Sharon and I were walking out of a store and into the sun, she suddenly sneezes three times in a row. I ask if she's okay, and she replies"Yeah, that happens when you suddenly walk into a bright light." Okay, I married a crazy person. I didn't sneeze, and I saw the same light she did. But as we walk towards the car, I hear another person behind me sneeze. Is the whole world insane? When I get home, I do a PubMed search for "sneeze light." And guess what? It's a real thing. It's called the Photic Sneeze Reflex. There is no known mechanism for the reflex, but it is an actual reflex. I read other articles and find that it is genetic, following autosomal dominant inheritance. That explains why staring into the light had no effect on me, but forced Sharon to sneeze.

So why am I writing about this? Because this is what it means to be a skeptic. I hear something which seems like bullshit. Then an independent source confirms the bullshit. Then I do a search of the literature and find information that both supports the claim and accounts for my lack of personal experience. I then modify my original position of "my wife and friend are insane" to "my wife and friend have defective gene pools." This is how I approach life. When I hear about medical benefits of echinacea or statistics on health care spouted by politicians, I research it and learn the truth. The idea that someone would take at face value claims made by SCAMers and politicians is completely foreign to me. But I guess that's how these people get their power.

References:

1. Beckman L, Nordenson I. "Individual differences with respect to the sneezing reflex: an inherited physiological trait in man?" Hum Hered. 1983, 33(6):390-1
2. Peroutka SJ, Peroutka LA. "Autosomal dominant transmission of the 'photic sneeze reflex.'" N Engl J Med. Mar 1 1984, 310(9):599-600
3. "Solar Sneeze Reflex." W J Med. 1987, 146(5):20

This Blog Does Not Support Animal Cruelty

The other day, I was in caffeine-deprivation mode on my way to school, so I stopped by one of the local coffee shops to fill up. This place, Stone Creek Coffee, is like Starbucks, but more local. They have really good coffee at *relatively* decent prices, and give out free samples of whole-bean blends, so I give them my support over Starbucks. As I was drinking their coffee, I noticed that printed on their cups, is a message saying that Stone Creek Coffee is "Socially Responsible Coffee." What kind of hippie bullshit is that? They say that they are "100% certified socially responsible" because they get their coffee from "fair trade wholesalers." I think I just won buzzword bingo. I can't believe all those people who only buy 87% certified socially responsible coffee. Is there really a certification board for social responsibility? Now, I'm not saying I prefer coffee that was made in a sweatshop. I support fair trade for the same reasons I support feminists. It should be the standard, not something they need to advertise on their cups. They're patting themselves on the head for doing something they should be doing to begin with. I don't see McDonald's printing "We don't discriminate against homosexuals" on their cups. Once you start advertising your "social responsibility," you make it clear that you are doing so for selfish reasons. Besides, how socially responsible can they be when they support my drug addiction?

But I Know They Love Me...

Last year's September implosion, losing to the Cardinals in the playoffs the two years prior, losing every World Series game I've ever seen them play. Not to mention the year we had the worst record in the league. Then last night's six and a half hour marathon lost on two throwing errors in the 22nd inning. To the Rockies, of all teams. Goddamn it Padres. I don't want to make light of domestic abuse, but that's what it feels like sometimes. Because I'll stay loyal to them. No matter how many disappointments and close losses and blown saves the Padres give me, I still keep coming back. Today I'm wearing my worn-out freebie Padres cap, waiting until tonight when I can stay up until midnight again watching them play the Diamondbacks. Great pitching, and no run support, I'm sure. They abuse me, but I'll always love them.




Except for Kouzmanoff. Fuck that guy.

The Homeopathy Dilution (no, wait, make that Delusion)

Some supplemental, complementary and alternative medicines, or SCAMs for short, are based on observational science. Examples of this include gingko or ginseng. Observations were made based on people who used these natural products, and medical benefits were inferred. These observations don't always hold up in experimental science, but at least they're trying. Deep, deep down there may be some grain of science. Unfortunately, that usually isn't the case. Today, I'm talking about the dumbest of the dumb: homeopathy.

Homeopathy has a larger following in Europe than America, but is still a fairly popular SCAM. They believe that you can cure a disease by giving a drug that simulates the symptoms of that disease. If someone is suffering from, say, insomnia, they should be treated with caffeine. I won't even begin to say what's wrong with that. But here's where things start to get really crazy. Instead of giving them the drug straight, they believe a small amount of drug should be dissolved in, say, a liter of water. Then, one drop of that solution should be diluted with another liter of water. Then one drop of that solution mixed into another liter of water. This process should be repeated several times. Now, science and mathematics say that after 15 such dilutions (a standard homeopathy serial dilution), it is almost impossible to have any of the original drug actually left in the solution. You have a better chance of winning the lottery three times in a row than having just one molecule of drug in the final solution (I'll leave the mathematics to you). You essentially have pure water. However, homeopathy proponents believe that the water retains the memory, or "essence," of the drug (no, really), provided the solution is properly shaken and you are wearing the right glove (really, look it up). They also believe that this "essence" can be transported over the phone to another glass of water (I'm not kidding, that's what they believe). Needless to say, there is no science to support this claim. In fact, science pretty much proves it is impossible. This is just another newage SCAM. But, on the other hand, homeopathy cures are very good at curing one condition: dehydration.

Losing My Marbles

I know a lot of my posts lately have had (anti-)religious tones, so I'm going to make a conscious effort to break away from that. Today, I focus on evolution. I know what you're thinking. Many people see evolution as an anti-religious idea. But it really isn't, and I won't portray it as such (for religious people interested in evolution, I recommend Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller, which discusses the resolution between evolution and religion). I'll leave a full discussion of evolution to the experts (see links below), but I want to highlight one issue in the evolution/intelligent design "debate" that often gets overlooked.

There is no evidence for intelligent design. Wait, let me restate that, with emphasis. There is no evidence for intelligent design. Let me elaborate exactly what I mean. The tactics of many proponents of intelligent design involve disproving the Darwinian theory of evolution. The idea is that if evolution is wrong, intelligent design is correct. But this is a false dichotomy. Is it not possible that both are wrong? Imagine a bag with a marble in it. Side A believes that the marble is blue, and Side B argues that the marble is red. Side B has come up with encyclopedias of evidence that the marble is red. Meanwhile, Side A has spent it's time trying to definitively prove that the marble cannot be red. But this tactic will never prove the marble is blue. It can still be yellow, green, etc. Side B, in arguing FOR red, is also arguing AGAINST yellow and green. Side A has no evidence FOR blue (take your time and think about this). This is how the evo/ID debate plays out. There has never been evidence put forth FOR intelligent design (blue), or AGAINST the null hypothesis (yellow or green). On the other hand, all the evidence used by evolutionary biologists is FOR evolution (red), and AGAINST the null hypothesis (yellow, green, and blue). Even if Darwinian evolution is definitively disproven, that does not, in turn, prove ID.

Evolution 101 A review of evolutionary theory and evidence intended for laypeople (podcast)
Expelled Exposed A response to Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Pharyngula A science blog by evolutionary biologist PZ Myers

King Me!

I just got an email from last week's lecturer responding to my post. In his response, he denied all his previous logical fallacies, and instead gave me two "arguments from personal incredulity," one "moving the goalpost," a "slippery slope," a "false dichotomy," and several factual inaccuracies. He actually argued that the second law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible (CLOSED SYSTEM! The entropy of a CLOSED SYSTEM increases! ΔG=ΔH-TΔS!). But that's not what this post is about.

Is there any point to arguing with someone who doesn't agree with you? I know I'm not going to change this guy's mind. And it's a one-on-one email debate right now, so no one else is listening. If I argue him, I waste my time. Hell, any reply I give now will just be a list of logical fallacies. I'm not going to win, he's not going to lose. But if I don't reply, he could see it as a sign of submission. It's like I'm arguing with a three-year-old about where clouds come from. What do you think? Is it worth it to argue?

Like "The Passion" Was All That Great...

A couple weeks ago, one of the local theaters had a sale of all their movie posters. Sharon went and bought the ones for Sweeney Todd and The Golden Compass. I was looking at The Golden Compass poster this morning, and got to thinking about the movie. His Dark Materials is one of the few (read: only) fantasy series I liked. I was so excited for the movie to come out, but I hated the way it was sabotaged by religious groups. Just because the author was an atheist and the book was critical of religion. Bill Donahue, the head of the Catholic League, called it "the most anti-Christmas movie imaginable." (although, to be fair, many religious figures vocally supported the movie) I have no idea why they picked this specific movie to sabotage. By their argument, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy should have been boycotted as well. It was written by an atheist, and talk about a book that slaps religion in the face. Or what about the Star Trek franchise? Created by an atheist, critical of religion. The Golden Compass was a great movie with Oscar-winning graphics, and even though it did well overseas, I highly doubt the sequels will get made (especially since New Line Cinema folded). That's too bad, I would've liked to see the rest.

On a related note, Sharon and I have decided to name our first daughter Lyra.

What's in a name?

Since the last post was so dense, I'm just doing a quick post today. Actually, I'm hoping that most posts will be about this long, because the long posts take too much time to research and type. If I want to update regularly, it's going to be this type of post; just a random thought that pops into my head when I'm at my laptop.

Someone asked what the title of my blog means, so I'll just give a quick background. The name is taken from a song by Strapping Young Lad called Wrong Side. The full line is "Woke up, screaming, on the wrong side of the Zen." It is a reference to a common theme in Strapping Young Lad's work, which is prominent in their earlier album Alien. I wrote a term paper on this album in my History of Rock class a few years ago, but the major theme is that of a conflict between sanity and psychosis (Devin Townsend, the band's front man, has bipolar disorder). If you have the time, listen to Alien straight through, following along with the lyrics. Their handling of internal struggle is apparent not only in the lyrics, but in the music as well. So why did I choose that line as the title of my blog? Maybe because this blog will serve as a place for me to vent my frustration with stupid people. But really, I just think it's cool.

Does Medicine Need God?

That was the name of the lecture I went to yesterday. I went in thinking it would be a discussion on the ethics of abortion or stem-cell research or end-of-life issues. It turns out it was a more general discussion about the origin of ethics. The lecturer, a first-year med student who studied Christian apologetics (the crossover of theology and philosophy), was discussing "Do ethics (or morals) require God (or religion)?" He presented the following "proof" of God, which he said was "very convincing."

1. Objective morals exist.
2. Objective morals can not exist without the presence of God.
3. God exists.

This argument is called the Transcendental Arument of God (or TAG) and was first developed by Immanuel Kant in 1763. It is logically sound, by which I mean "If 1 and 2 are true, 3 follows." The lecture focused on proving 1 and 2 are true. Unfortunately, he did not offer a single persuasive argument for 1 or 2, so I will here argue that neither 1 nor 2 is true.

Do objective morals exist? First, the lecturer did not discuss what was meant by "objective morals." He simply used the argument that "child abuse is wrong, therefore objective morals exist." (Note: This may be an oversimplification of his position, and I may be straw manning his argument, but it is for the sake of space that I do not repeat his lecture verbatim) I agree that child abuse is wrong, but this makes all of ethics seem black and white. Defining a set of objective morals means there are two categories: right and wrong. In order for objective morals to exist, all people must agree that everything on one side is right and everything on the other side is wrong. I don't believe this is true. Ethics is full of gray areas. Imagine a train full of people is headed directly for a brick wall. Now imagine you are standing by a rail switcher which will change the course of the train and save the lives of everyone on board. Unfortunately, on this side course, a man is stuck, and if the course is changed he will be killed. Do you make the switch? People generally agree that yes, they would. Saving the train full of people is justified by the loss of one life. But now imagine the man trapped on the tracks is your son. Do you still make the switch? Imagine the train is full of 100-year olds and a pregnant woman is trapped on the side track. Or that it is a prison train, filled with rapists and murderers. Or imagine that there are five people on the train and four people trapped on the side rail. Do four deaths justify five lives?

My point is that if you ask one hundred people these questions, even one hundred of the most religious people, you will not get the same answers from everyone. Objective morals do not exist as it is defined here.

Which brings us to point 2. Here, we have two topics to discuss. First, do our morals require the existence of God? This point was discussed by the lecturer simply by cherry-picking quotes from his favorite philosophers. He then went on to attack the "atheist outlook." First of all, atheism does not profess to answer any ethical questions. Atheism is simply the answer to the question "is there a God?" The ethical set of beliefs that usually accompanies atheism is called humanism, or the belief that morals come from humans, not from a God (more on this later). He presented the typical argument that because atheists do not believe they are being judged, they can rationalize anything. He presented examples of Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin, and Hitler as atheists who rationalized their ethics (as a side note, it is generally accepted that Hitler was not an atheist, and remained a Christian up until his death). But consider this: atheists make up 10% of the U.S. population, but less than 0.1% of the prison population (though there may be confounders, such as higher education). If you define your ethics by your religion, then you say that you only believe what you do so you can get into heaven. If it were proven that God does not exist, does this mean religious people would suddenly believe murder and rape are accepted? Furthermore, I have read the Bible. It says that murder, theft, adultery, and homosexuality are unethical. It also says that eating shrimp (Leviticus 11:9-12) and wearing felt (Leviticus 19:19, Dueteronomy 22:11) are unethical. And rape can be justified, provided they are virgins and prisoners of war (Numbers 31:15-18). Is this really the basis for our ethics?

So if ethics do not come from religion, where do they come from? Simple: evolution. My favorite lecturer commented on the evolutionary argument for ethics, but it was clear that he had a rudimentary knowledge of evolution, at best. He, like many Christians, believes that evolution is a random process (for the last time, evolution is the OPPOSITE of random), and that no ethics can come from a random process. In "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins discusses the proposed evolutionary basis for ethics:

"We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other. First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in 'anticipation' of payback. Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth [. . .] there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising." (Dawkins, 219)

Basically, ethics developed as a way of preserving our genes, or the genes of those related to us. So why, then, do we extend these good deeds to complete strangers? The answer lies in sex. The feelings associated with sex developed as a positive reinforcement for passing on our genes through reproduction. However, when I wear a condom, I am well aware that I am not going to pass my genes on, yet I feel the same positive reinforcement associated with sex. The same goes for ethics. When I help a complete stranger, I know I am not preserving my genes, and yet I feel good inside. When confronting this concept, the lecturer said he "can not believe this could be true." Therefore it's wrong, right? Or is that the argument from personal incredulity?

In conclusion, I do not believe that the existence of God is required for ethics. Many people think they get their ethics from their religion, but I believe their intuition for ethics runs deeper than their religion. It may even be the case that religion derived it's basis for ethics from this humane intuition. It's the chicken and the egg. Regardless, I don't believe that I, as an atheist, am compromised in my morals. I don't need to justify my actions by being judged by a higher power.

For more, information, visit your local library.

Bibliography

1. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin: New York. 2006
2. Hauser, M. Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. Ecco: New York. 2006
3. Humanism- Wikipedia
4. Skeptics Annotated Bible
5. Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God- Wikipedia

Blogosphere, Take 2

I'm following in my brother's footsteps and creating a blog. I used to have a Livejournal account, but my updates were far and few between. And that's probably how this will turn out. I had put off starting a new blog for a long time, but something happened today that forced me to create somewhere to vent. I can't even write about it now because I'm still angry. So for now, just an introduction.

This blog will be random musings. Anything from philosophy to religion to why the Dodgers suck. To get a taste of where I'm coming from, check out the following links:

The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe

This is a weekly podcast put on by the New England Skeptical Society. It covers everything from creationism to alien abductions and is one of my favorite podcasts. I'm slowly working backwards through all 141 episodes, and I highly, HIGHLY recommend it.

Penn Says

This is a video blog put on by Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller fame. He is my idol. If you have Netflix or Youtube, look for episodes of P&T's Bullshit!. These are a prerequisite for arguing with me.

Quackwatch

Similar to The Skeptic's Guide, this is your one-stop shop for all things pseudoscience. It, too, is a prerequisite for arguing with me.

Last.fm

This is a site which keeps track of your music. Download their player and it will automatically update your profile every time you listen to a song on iTunes or WMP. It then makes recommendations, with several free music downloads.

Cectic

A skeptical comic strip. Excellent satire.

That's all for now. I'll try to update more regularly, but until then, check out the links above. Feel free to comment. It lets me know that people are listening.